Keith (M) Posted November 8, 2013 Share #21 Posted November 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Perhaps it is because the OP says that he's had the M240 for only a week - I had the same impression during the first week before I learned to work a bit harder on post processing and then concluded that I was as happy with the M240 files as I was with the M9 files, and perhaps even happier. I hope I will reach the same conclusion at the end of next week. Mine arrives Tuesday... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here a week with the M240 and pretty disillusioned. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted November 8, 2013 Share #22 Posted November 8, 2013 Perhaps it is because the OP says that he's had the M240 for only a week - I had the same impression during the first week before I learned to work a bit harder on post processing and then concluded that I was as happy with the M240 files as I was with the M9 files, and perhaps even happier. Never got this impression with Capture One so far. I had just to do a little colour profile before the last firmware update but i don't need it any more. For those interested, i just use the light version ("Express") of C1 v7 with an old CS3 and the combo works like a charm with both my M8.2 and M240. Same with CS2 that can be downloaded for free on the Adobe site. Now for the best results, i'd suggest to use the "linear response" curve of C1v7 and to adjust in P'shop afterwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 8, 2013 Share #23 Posted November 8, 2013 People made similar comments initially about MM files, i.e., that they were disappointingly flat. Now many of those same people are excited by the 'malleability' of those files, allowing them to create the look they desire. Glass half empty or half full, to start? Give it time to decide if it's time to empty or fill the glass. Mine was filled in short order. YMMV. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted November 8, 2013 Share #24 Posted November 8, 2013 If you get a chance........try Lightroom. Photoshop and Lightroom both use the same raw processor ... ACR. .... H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 9, 2013 Share #25 Posted November 9, 2013 Photoshop and Lightroom both use the same raw processor ... ACR. .... H Lightroom is less convoluted for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photojazz Posted November 9, 2013 Share #26 Posted November 9, 2013 The best way to process as a Photoshop fan that wants to both speed up his general processing, and take advantage of lightroom's strengths, will use Lightroom as a catalog for his work, and do an edit with Photoshop after performing basic edits and crops in Lightroom, going into Photoshop for final edits. (Simply right click on an image inside lightroom, and go to "Edit With" and choose your version of Photoshop. Follow the panels and select copy or original, etc... and open the file in Photoshop. Do your CS mods, then save. Then when you save, it will do a save as Tiff, and import it back into the catalog automatically. Then you have Raw files, and can have Tiff files of any post edited images, including going to NIK if you like for further edits and framing. My 2 cents... Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 9, 2013 Share #27 Posted November 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yawn = sqrt((FS/2)^2 + 1^2) x [PS/ARC + LR/ARC]/[ logCCD + 1/logCMOS + 1] x dynamic range of your mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 9, 2013 Share #28 Posted November 9, 2013 I have had my m240 for a week now and i have to admit i seriously regret selling my M9 to fund this camera. while the built quality is nice, after shooting for a week i have not found one image that impressed m IQ wise. they all have a very generic look:( DNG or JPG ??? as has been pointed out above ..... a DNG is akin to a negative in Digital Land .... what you do with it is up to you. Get a copy of DxO Optics Pro and you can emulate the look of any camera you fancy..... Memory is fickle, and you CANNOT compare unless you take an identical picture with M and M9 keeping all the variables the same. I did ....... and there is bu**er all difference. This comes up time and time again ...... look at these : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/303117-m240-vs-m9-colour-rendition-2.html#post2521897 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted November 9, 2013 Share #29 Posted November 9, 2013 I like big prints too. What size is normal for you and what size becomes really big? 16x20 is the norm. They are used to display people in village life and schools (now working in the Hindu Kush in northern Pakistan) when I am seeking financial support for the work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted November 9, 2013 Share #30 Posted November 9, 2013 16x20 is the norm. They are used to display people in village life and schools (now working in the Hindu Kush in northern Pakistan) when I am seeking financial support for the work. I just got back a mural (4 feet by six feet) taken with the M240. Stunning and crisp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsaxe Posted November 9, 2013 Share #31 Posted November 9, 2013 Since when is a camera responsible for good photographs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 9, 2013 Share #32 Posted November 9, 2013 DNG or JPG ??? as has been pointed out above ..... a DNG is akin to a negative in Digital Land .... what you do with it is up to you. Get a copy of DxO Optics Pro and you can emulate the look of any camera you fancy..... Memory is fickle, and you CANNOT compare unless you take an identical picture with M and M9 keeping all the variables the same. I did ....... and there is bu**er all difference. This comes up time and time again ...... look at these : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/303117-m240-vs-m9-colour-rendition-2.html#post2521897 I suppose we have disagreed before on this and shall disagree again: no there is a difference in color rendition between cameras, as there was with film. While it's obviously best to be able to try a camera oneself, as was pointed out to me today, anyone can look at the M9 and M240 color pictures starting on this page and going on for a few more pages — and can get a very quick and clear indication of the obvious differences in color rendition between the two cameras. (Also, keep in mind that the M240 pictures are probably substantially more belabored in the post-processing than the M9 ones). —Mitch/Bangkok Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 9, 2013 Share #33 Posted November 9, 2013 Since when is a camera responsible for good photographs? From the moment you pick it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jjbru Posted November 9, 2013 Share #34 Posted November 9, 2013 you should try Lightroom and not shoot Jpegs, otherwise you will be disappointed. My D 700 is too heavy, noisy, you are not discrete when you use it. I have used it one in 6 months since I got the M240... Raw is a step you must make. In 4 weeks you will have changed your mind. I have tried a M9 before buying my M240 for 2 weeks, its more loud when you take pictures, , after 1000 ASA you are limited. But jpegs were may be more beautiful... interested to here from you in a couple of weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted November 9, 2013 Share #35 Posted November 9, 2013 If you're shooting RAW and tweaking in Lightroom, then you've got the baseline down. If not, then there's no sense going further. But you mentioned you're doing that already, so good. Try using the camera in low light. I was blow away by using that camera with the 50mm CV 1.4. Take a lens line that and shoot some photos of exteriors lit only by exterior lighting and they'll come out. No way I could do that with my M9. The ISO is that much better. Get an Oly EVF-2 and try focussing on a distant subject with a 135mm lens such as a Leica R 75-210. Again, you can do things you could never do with the M9. The camera takes a little getting used to, but it's far superior to the M9 in the right hands and in the right conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 10, 2013 Share #36 Posted November 10, 2013 anyone can look at the M9 and M240 color pictures starting on this page and going on for a few more pages — and can get a very quick and clear indication of the obvious differences in color rendition between the two cameras. (Also, keep in mind that the M240 pictures are probably substantially more belabored in the post-processing than the M9 ones). —Mitch/Bangkok Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Sorry Mitch, but all I can see is a lot of different pictures taken under completely different circumstances that all look ... errr ........ different. I can see no consistency in 'look'. I still contend ...... having done loads of side by side comparisons ...... that when WB and exposure are the same the colour rendition is for all practical purposes identical. Almost all the differences I have seen are down to WB and over-exposure. If the M has any fault .... it is the latter..... and for a lot of lens usage I have -0.3 or -0.7 permanently dialled in .... which then gives typical nicely saturated 'M9' images..... I do very little PP now the firmware has corrected the WB/Skin tones apart from sharpening and NR in LR ...... although Capture One does this by default in an exemplary fashion, just a shame I find the interface a bit clunky. I think we all need to chip in and buy you an M ...... otherwise you will never be convinced Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 10, 2013 Share #37 Posted November 10, 2013 The most illustrative is the series in a post by Andrew Gough, just a few posts below the one Mitch’ link takes us to. He has four shots of a fort taken close together in time - on each the colour rendering is different and I haven’t been able to figure out which colour the fort is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 10, 2013 Share #38 Posted November 10, 2013 Sorry Mitch, but all I can see is a lot of different pictures taken under completely different circumstances that all look ... errr ........ different. :roll eyes: ...I can see no consistency in 'look'....] I think we all need to chip in and buy you an M ...... otherwise you will never be convinced Yikes, now you've really scared me! —Mitch/Bangkok Looking for Baudelaire [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bab Posted November 12, 2013 Share #39 Posted November 12, 2013 Hey guys I am using Thorsten's original Preset settings for importing into LR and with the few changes suggested by OP in the recent post on this site. I find two things still bother me. 1. Thorsten's Preset is great for some outdoors shots depending on which direction the light is and what lens, basically if your shooting into the light the preset is out of whack, its much more accurate if the sun is between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. The further you move from that angle of lighting the more aggressive you need to be adjusting the Preset. In addition the Preset has a moderate to strong Highlight recovery set which is very helpful if you have a good amount of very light areas in the frame. (ex. a white hat or white or light pink lace dress) 2.The Preset also is way too over saturated for light skin tones you need to fiddle with that in a portrait image also but, I cant find the solution to get rid of the orange-pink skin even with the newer firmware. Not any surprise but the images from my H5D are perfect for skin tones to the point that I wonder do I need to do more PP, no they are that good, not so for the Leica files. Where the Preset shines is cloudy, or strong overhead lighting things just fall into place and the images are slightly warm if you color balanced correctly but I find them to be Leica-esque. To the point of the original post ---the manual WhiBal doesn't nail the color balance if you change shooting directions from the light source or if your subject is in the shadows because you would have to re WhiBal. As I mentioned in a previous post if your shooting in vertical orientation (portrait) vs horizontal (landscape) you get different results. I'm also convinced that occasionally when shooting a burst of images shot the same direction and with the same lighting one or more images will be differently exposed. The question I have is why cant the M shoot SKIN equal to the S(2) I understand the saturated look but whats up with the orange-pink and does anybody for heavens sake have a preset to get rid of it? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 12, 2013 Share #40 Posted November 12, 2013 The new M's files are 'flatter' out of camera than those from the M9/M9P/M8 etc... because of the higher dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.