tom0511 Posted September 1, 2014 Share #161 Posted September 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the beginning I was somewhat concerned with M color and even rebought a used M9p. 1 year later, running several unscientific comparisons and then just using the new M more often I am quite happy with M color and I am ready to sell my M9p because I just don't use it. I don't know how much is improvement from firmware, how much maybe improvement from the colorprofiles in LR (and/or C1), and how much I got used to it. I have a colorchecker passport but my experience in the past was not so great with those self-made-profiles. They looked good for one thing but not so good for other things. Anyway-just wanted to state that I am quite happy with the color I get from the M. For me its better than what I achieve with the 5dIII (where I allways switch between different profiles depending on the subject). So far I did not run into any IR-caused problems, even though I do not doubt Marcs observations regarding IR-sensivity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Hi tom0511, Take a look here M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanJW Posted September 1, 2014 Share #162 Posted September 1, 2014 In my very humble opinion it is important to consider the following re color coming from a camera because the variables are many: Color is subjective. One person's accuracy is another person's inaccuracy. And it is dependent on how your own eyes function. I have a friend who does some printing for me. His eye is highly discerning, finding cyan shifts for example where I see none. One thing for sure is that M240 files are quite easy to work with. Color is dependent on the sensor and its way of interpreting but is also dependent on the raw convertor and the rest of the processing routine. Some people here swear by Capture One. I find the files from ACR excellent, especially with a Colorchecker profile, but also "straight" using Adobe "Standard" or "Embedded". The convertor gets you only to your computer monitor . If you don't calibrate your monitor it is kind of silly to talk about color from a camera. If you are printing, the printer introduces yet another variable. If you are looking at prints but don't use paper and/or printer profiles, it is also silly to talk about color from a camera. There is an interesting article on color by Michael Hussman in the latest LFI. Worth reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 1, 2014 Share #163 Posted September 1, 2014 If you really want to learn about colour and correction there is this book to read: Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction (5th Edition): Dan Margulis: 9780321440174: Amazon.com: Books More simple: http://www.amazon.com/The-Digital-Print-Preparing-Lightroom/dp/0321908457 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 1, 2014 Share #164 Posted September 1, 2014 If you really want to learn about colour and correction there is this book to read: <snipped> I totally agree. Dan Margulis is the man for colour. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 1, 2014 Share #165 Posted September 1, 2014 I like the colour from the M - better than that from the M9 I'm actually rather fussy about it, but I think that in general terms it's better to take what you get. Trying to apply profiles to it always seem to work for one scene and not another. Marc dislikes the colour from the M (fair enough). I dislike the colour from (for instance) Nikon cameras and so I stopped using them. Simple. I shoot Daylight WB in the daylight, take a manual WB in consistent artificial lighting and shoot tungsten if it's inconsistent . I don't believe in the concept of AWB in mixed lighting (just a wild guess). In natural lighting it's even worse. I am a simpleton (but at least I'm happy and I don't spend hours fiddling with colour ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted September 1, 2014 Share #166 Posted September 1, 2014 I must admit after struggling a lot with the M color I eventually got used to it, and like it quite a bit now. I gave up making the custom profiles, and started to use the Adobe's provided profile again. It was simply more consistent than custom profiles I made. Of course, I had to tweak the HSL sliders a bit to get what I want. Red, and magenta are really bad in my opinion with LR and it's default settings. Among other colors which I had only slightly adjusted, the magenta hue had to go +78, saturation and luminance had to go some -15. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share #167 Posted September 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the colour from the M - better than that from the M9I'm actually rather fussy about it, but I think that in general terms it's better to take what you get. Trying to apply profiles to it always seem to work for one scene and not another. Marc dislikes the colour from the M (fair enough). I dislike the colour from (for instance) Nikon cameras and so I stopped using them. Simple. I shoot Daylight WB in the daylight, take a manual WB in consistent artificial lighting and shoot tungsten if it's inconsistent . I don't believe in the concept of AWB in mixed lighting (just a wild guess). In natural lighting it's even worse. I am a simpleton (but at least I'm happy and I don't spend hours fiddling with colour ) It is more than my disliking just the color from the M240 Jono. The over-all general rendering now feels closer into other CMOS equipped cameras without an AA filter, therefore less unique. A product of acquired tastes for one look over the other that is totally subjective and most certainly not indicative of anyone else's take on the subject. I'm not even remotely interested in convincing anyone otherwise. I only expressed my feeling on the M240 to understand how others approached the files, and to see if it could help me achieve something I felt could work for my aesthetic tastes. So far it didn't. I also believe as you do that AWB in mixed light is a futile exercise, be it with the M8, M9 or M240. I took to carrying a pocket sized WB card when shooting weddings … or I'd set the custom WB off the Bride's dress if it was basic white. A little practice makes doing this quite fast and not terribly interruptive. The savings realized in post is well worth it. I had initially experienced a similar off-putting relationship with the Leica S2's overly red color tendency, and waited until firmware and software sorted out the issue before buying into the system … and have been happy ever since. In the end, I may have to knuckle under because my drive is less about technical or aesthetic minutia, and more about "What Will My Verse Be" (to steal a line from Apple's marketing efforts). In that regard the whole gestalt of a Leica rangefinder of any flavor is a tool of paramount importance to me personally. I'll soldier on with the MM and wait with patience to see if Leica further develops the look of the color M, or if I break down and just get one … which ever comes first. One thing is for certain, I will now be spending half my year in a tropical location in totally different lighting conditions than I'm used to … so I'd want to live with a M240 for a while to see how it fares in that light. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2014 Share #168 Posted September 2, 2014 Take your IR filters, Mark - from experience... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.