jaapv Posted November 30, 2013 Share #101 Posted November 30, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) All true. But, LAB is a lot of extra steps. We talked around this a year or two ago. I have used LAB very little over the last 2 years. I have found I can get what I want most of the time from LR with the exception of per pixel adjustment that need PS. My example is for LR. It doesn't hold completely for LAB. I was trying to point out that you can access a curves-like module in LR rather than going into PS if, you don't have to. I only used 3 steps as you can see in the LR history. Elegant, no? Sure. I only pointed it out to enhance my reputation as a pedantic bloke . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2013 Posted November 30, 2013 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted November 30, 2013 Share #102 Posted November 30, 2013 Is there an echo-echo-echo in here-here-here … ? Pete. PS: Jaap if you remove your repeated post please remove this post or it won't make sense at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 30, 2013 Share #103 Posted November 30, 2013 I'll leave it Pete as proof of my jittery index finger on Weekend mornings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 30, 2013 Share #104 Posted November 30, 2013 I'll leave it Pete as proof of my jittery index finger on Weekend mornings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted November 30, 2013 Share #105 Posted November 30, 2013 :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 30, 2013 Share #106 Posted November 30, 2013 On viewing page 1 of the International New York Times, I was about to lambast the colour balance of the skin tones wondering if it was taken using the M240, when I realised it was Silvio Berlusconi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share #107 Posted December 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) On viewing page 1 of the International New York Times, I was about to lambast the colour balance of the skin tones wondering if it was taken using the M240, when I realised it was Silvio Berlusconi No, actually it was Fred Smith's work in the NYT press room. CMYK color space and high speed press runs are not conducive to accurate color from any original source. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #108 Posted December 1, 2013 Few posts above I posted samples from an iPhone and Leica's wrong AWB. Again, even when I corrected the AWB, some colors were not even close to the real scene, and some were perfect though. Obviously, Leica firmware team didn't do the job well. I truly hope Leica will be able to sort the colors out, and I hope it will happen soon. I don't care about the bracketing bug, or AutoISO bug or any other bug as long as the colors are not well corrected. Recently I also found out about the IR issue. Well, it's not as bad as on M8, still, it is there. The red, and black are obvious, but it certanly appears in other colors too. For example, in this shoot look at the red hoody color, and one of the sleaves and shoulders. The second photo is first one cropped.The black logo is also not black. I said to myself, ok, I will take the advice given here and buy UV/IR cut fiters. I wrote lots of bad words for this post, but I remembered things don't move so fast here so I deleted them before I posted. However, it's been more than a year since the camera was released, the firmware development is in Leica's hands, and what we have... What can I say... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/217200-m240-color-test-oh-oh/?do=findComment&comment=2477414'>More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2013 Share #109 Posted December 1, 2013 Which raw converter did you use if i may ask? ACR or Lightroom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #110 Posted December 1, 2013 I use Lightroom 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2013 Share #111 Posted December 1, 2013 Thank you. Looks like LR5 suffers from the same red oversaturation as LR4 that i tested when i received my body. Nothing to worry about. A mere reduction of red lightness by 5% should suffice. As for IR contamination yes there remains a bit of it from time to time, reason why i've kept the UV/IR filters i'm using with my M8.2 for the M240. Its the price to pay for having weak filters over the sensor. Now should Leica change anything in the colours of the M240, i don't think so. When they tested the last firmware, most if not all beta testers did find that Leica did a good job here and i still think so personally. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #112 Posted December 1, 2013 Thanks for the reply. I am not fully convinced with the colors as red was not the only color I found to be wrong in my photos, but as I don't have a calibrated monitor I won't complain anymore. ...for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2013 Share #113 Posted December 1, 2013 If you want the best results direct out of the camera or the raw converter you will never be happy i'm afraid. There's always a bit of PP to do but the game's worth the candle imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share #114 Posted December 1, 2013 Sorry ... I, for one, do not think "the game is worth the candle". I've worked with the camera for 5 straight days now documenting our family Holiday in an environment I am very familiar with, in all sorts of lighting conditions from nice daylight, to low ambient light. Lots of people images ... people I've photographed hundreds of times in past, so I know their skin tones. Installed latest firmware, read many shooting and processing suggestions and tips, shot with and without Leica IR filters, used AWB and Custom WB, studied a ton of images, processed and reprocessed images to explore different approaches, corresponded with M240 users whom I respect, etc. ect., etc. Most of all I was prepared to like the M240, because I have used a M for 40 years ... every single model. This is NOT my first Leica M Rodeo. Plus, I do not think the M240 demo I have was ever used, and I could get it at a relative bargain price ... so anticipation was positive,. especially when you get the M240 in hand ... it is simply a industrial work of art. Although I did not like what I was seeing from this camera from day one, and still didn't even after the new firmware ... I thought I could tame it to my aesthetic ... a look and feel I was relatively able to achieve with the M9, S2, and even to some degree a few other cameras I could use M lenses on. It turns out it was arrogant of me to think any result could be coaxed from any camera ... at least not without a Herculean effort on almost every shot. In the end I was able to match what I was seeing from other folks who like what they are getting. The very image presence or image qualities I did not find appealing from the beginning. I've felt the M240 color was off, and the lack of initial contrast to be fighting with the contrast of the M lenses: resulting in an odd over-all tonal softness that some may like, but I am not one of them. Suggestions to increase contrast, tweak the blacks, or other such notions just produced a cascading effect on other image aspects, including color. The M240 shooting experience is unique, the new controls and functional aspects are unique and quite pleasing ... unfortunately, to my eye, the image qualities are not. I could soldier on, but what is the point? Either you like something or you do not. Either the images have a unique look and feel to one's eye, or they don't. From that perspective, those that kept their M9 have the image qualities what they want, and those who do like the M240 need not justify anything to anyone. It is what it is. In my case, it is not. It's boxed up and ready to ship back ... I figured why put more shots on a demo that is essentially a new camera ... leave it for the buyer of this beautiful camera. For that unique RF experience I guess it is my excellent M Monochrome for the foreseeable future. I have other options for color work. Thanks to all those with excellent suggestions. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2013 Share #115 Posted December 1, 2013 Did you try Capture One? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 1, 2013 Share #116 Posted December 1, 2013 The M (Typ 240) colours right out of the box are just terrible, even after the latest firmware update. Making a custom camera profile for Camera Raw/Lightroom using an X-Rite ColorChecker and Adobe DNG Profile Editor is mandatory. For the in-camera JPEGS, it helps to dial contrast and saturation down in the camera menu. Once you have a good profile (took me several attempts to get the ColorChecker shots right), the M colours are very nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 1, 2013 Share #117 Posted December 1, 2013 The M (Typ 240) colours right out of the box are just terrible, even after the latest firmware update. Making a custom camera profile for Camera Raw/Lightroom using an X-Rite ColorChecker and Adobe DNG Profile Editor is mandatory. For the in-camera JPEGS, it helps to dial contrast and saturation down in the camera menu. Once you have a good profile (took me several attempts to get the ColorChecker shots right), the M colours are very nice. 01af - are you using the same camera as me? Processing in Lightroom I find that even AWB gives good results. MUCH less need for work in post than I have to do with my Canons. Odd... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share #118 Posted December 1, 2013 Why is that odd Chris? Different people are going to have different sets of expectations, needs and tastes don't you think? That is why I mentioned that "it is what it is" ... as seen by different people. What one person may not like takes nothing away from someone who is delighted with their M240 results. 0iaf, yes I was in touch with a M240 user that also suggested building XRite profiles, and was also of the opinion that it was mandatory ... however, with deeper discussion, he didn't think it would solve my over-all opinion of aggregate image characteristics, nor fit with my workflow needs due to a number of factors ... not the least of which is photographing weddings with synthetic black all over the place shot in very low kelvin temps ... complicating each situation with IR filter or no IR filter and what profile for each of those in a wide range of lighting situations. Basically, it was an honest discussion ... yet I was still willing to give it a try. lct, no I did not try C1 ... while I have had the program for a long time and used it for MFD work in past, (in the same manner I used Hasselblad's Phocus for their cameras), I've zeroed in on trying to master LR for some time now for a number of reasons, and have no real interest in running multiple programs for each camera I use or my assistants use. Others like Jono swear by Aperture, and so on. I can't change my work flow for one camera, when all the others are fine in LR. Let me be more clear ... the images are NOT bad in any sense of the word, I just find them different from what I got with a M9 and my S2 in terms of over-all image characteristics ... and not different enough from other cameras I use to warrant the expense or the effort. I fully grasp that I lose the unique shooting experience of a rangefinder by using a different type camera for color work ... Yet, unlike many other M users, I probably do less color M work than I do B&W with the M Monochrome. So, while it would've been ideal if this M240 fit my needs so I could use the full array of M optics, it isn't as critical, and other choices can, and do, produce color work quite well ... giving up something, gain something else. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 1, 2013 Share #119 Posted December 1, 2013 Why is that odd Chris? Different people are going to have different sets of expectations, needs and tastes don't you think? That is why I mentioned that "it is what it is" ... as seen by different people. What one person may not like takes nothing away from someone who is delighted with their M240 results. Spot on. I can appreciate there are those who have issues with the colour and the 'look' from the M240, it is different from the M9. My M9 files are very seductive with a particular look, but the problem is I don't always want that 'pre-processed' look. I find the M240 files with the increased DR to be more robust and flexible with PP work. The joy is I'm not shackled by having to match files between cameras and can have both looks as well as having the benefits of liveview and the EVF. And, it's perhaps worth mentioning, that without those benefits I would never have bought into the M system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #120 Posted December 1, 2013 Once you have a good profile (took me several attempts to get the ColorChecker shots right), the M colours are very nice. Would it be inconvenient for you to share those profiles and put a word or two on your PP work? Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.