genefama Posted February 6, 2014 Share #21 Posted February 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The skin tones look washed-out and pale in black and white too because the M240 doesn't get them right in the color exposure. It's the biggest problem with the camera. I hope Leica fixes it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Hi genefama, Take a look here M240 + APO Telyt 135mm Skin Tones . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
StephenPatterson Posted February 6, 2014 Share #22 Posted February 6, 2014 The skin tones look washed-out and pale in black and white too because the M240 doesn't get them right in the color exposure. It's the biggest problem with the camera. I hope Leica fixes it. What? You're going to blame the camera for the exposure? Granted it was shot in Aperture Priority, center weighted average metering with no exposure comp. but we have no idea where the photographer metered the scene, or if this high key look was what he intended. Blaming the camera's color rendition seems foolish indeed. Nothing to fix... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted February 6, 2014 The skin tones look washed-out and pale in black and white too because the M240 doesn't get them right in the color exposure. It's the biggest problem with the camera. I hope Leica fixes it. Only due to me choosing to use a fairly hi-key conversion in SEfexPro2. In a straight b&w conversion there is plenty of tonal gradation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john t Posted February 6, 2014 Share #24 Posted February 6, 2014 I looked at your image on a Mac Pro screen add thought that the skin tone was a tad red . but I then opened it on my EIZO Pro calibrated screen which i use for processing all of my photographic work and I would consider that the skin tones i spot on, also the blacks are superb and the background is grey with no colour casts. If you are uncertain about how to judge colour I would suggest you get your screen calibrated professionally John T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Clennan Posted February 6, 2014 Share #25 Posted February 6, 2014 The skin tones look washed-out and pale in black and white too because the M240 doesn't get them right in the color exposure. It's the biggest problem with the camera. I hope Leica fixes it. It is fixed. Do you own the camera and have you installed the latest FW? Colors are superb now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 6, 2014 Share #26 Posted February 6, 2014 What? You're going to blame the camera for the exposure? Granted it was shot in Aperture Priority, center weighted average metering with no exposure comp. but we have no idea where the photographer metered the scene, or if this high key look was what he intended. Blaming the camera's color rendition seems foolish indeed. Nothing to fix... Ordinarily I'd agree, and he says he used a high-key setting in Silver Efex, so in this case it's probably not the camera. But I know from my own experience with the M240 that the pinkish skin tones don't convert to rich b&w tones without a lot of manipulation. They look a lot like this shot. I've seen plenty of conversions where this is the case, particularly from in-camera jpgs shot simultaneously with RAW files. And it happens when there is no intention of high key and the shot is properly exposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 6, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ordinarily I'd agree, and he says he used a high-key setting in Silver Efex, so in this case it's probably not the camera. But I know from my own experience with the M240 that the pinkish skin tones don't convert to rich b&w tones without a lot of manipulation. They look a lot like this shot. I've seen plenty of conversions where this is the case, particularly from in-camera jpgs shot simultaneously with RAW files. And it happens when there is no intention of high key and the shot is properly exposed. Perhaps where we are differing is in your statement that "…the pinkish skin tones don't convert to rich b&w tones without a lot of manipulation". I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "a lot of manipulation" but I process all my b&w work in post and never rely on in camera processing. I never shoot anything except DNG files. I do find that the increased dynamic range of the M240 does require a different b&w conversion technique in post compared to my M9 files, but certainly I find the end results most satisfactory. I also don't feel that the work required is excessive or difficult. The OOC files from the Monochrom also don't produce the "richest" b&w tones, and often need work in post to add contrast and bring out the best in images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 6, 2014 Share #28 Posted February 6, 2014 Thanks Stephen, I've been able to get good black and white conversions but it takes a little more effort because they're not as good right out of the gate with the default LR auto settings as some other cameras I've had (never tried a Monochrom). By "manipulation" I meant adjusting the B&W Mix sliders in LR. I guess I agree with Overgaard that the black and white jpg sidecar file produced in unison with the RAW from the M9 was hard to beat by converting the RAW file in Lightroom. I found this to be true even with my D-lux 4: Leica's in-camera black and white files have always had a kind of film-like quality I found difficult to replicate in post. More precisely, there wasn't always a reason to convert them because the jpgs were so good. This hasn't been true for the M240. The black and white jpg in dual shooting mode doesn't have that unique Leica "look" of the M9 and other cameras. I guess I attribute this to my finding that the M240, though a great camera with a nice "look" of its own, doesn't deliver what I usually think of as the "Leica glow"—even in its RAW files. More specifically, the skin tones aren't as rich or light tan in color, which leads to less rich tones in the BW files and conversions. I sometimes have to compensate for this by working with the sliders more. It depends a lot on the original lighting in the shot. Anyway, I know these are all really subjective and ethereal concepts, but if people on a Leica forum don't know what I mean I guess nobody will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 7, 2014 Share #29 Posted February 7, 2014 Anyway, I know these are all really subjective and ethereal concepts, but if people on a Leica forum don't know what I mean I guess nobody will. Cheers Gene and thanks for sharing your observations. We could spend years discussing the "Leica Look" but I wonder if what you are struggling with is just the increased dynamic range of the M? My experience is that many people prefer more contrast and more shadows, even at the loss of information. I really think Leica has got the skin tones and colors dialed in with the M now. Sure they struggled at first, but that was also the case with the S2 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 7, 2014 Share #30 Posted February 7, 2014 Stephen, You've given me something to mull over. There's just a certain "completeness" or "rightness" to the M9 files that I haven't seen in the same abundance with the M240. It's not simply a matter of contrast or micro-contrast because adding a curve or clarity adjustment doesn't fix it. It just makes things look more contrasty within the flatter space of the M240 files—stronger but not deeper. The camera of mine that the files look most like so far is not the M9 but the Sony RX-100 (not in terms of sophistication but visual character). They're more analytical and less painterly than I'm used to from Leica, if that makes sense, but nice files nonetheless. I have an easy time believing increased dynamic range could cause this flatter impression and also some of the tougher-to-correct skin tones. It's almost as if the camera resolves the difference in magenta between the drinker's nose and the morning sun reflecting on the side of his face in such a way that is sometimes explicit, unflattering, and definitely hard to correct in one fell swoop. A simple WB correction sometimes seems to emphasize this instead of making it come together. Anyway, I'm whining. You're definitely right about the original M9 output having funky issues. Today I looked at my shots from 2009 and was shocked at the orange-pinky thing going on in the faces. Thanks for your insights. Gene Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted February 7, 2014 Share #31 Posted February 7, 2014 Gene, it may help to try creating a set of X-Rite color profiles using a ColorChecker Passport. Very easy to do with outstanding results and much less post processing. I liked the color of your 135 shot but with an Internet JPEG it's always hard to say. My 135 APO shots come out great with my M but they're mostly landscape. In any event why not give the ColorChecker a try? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 7, 2014 Share #32 Posted February 7, 2014 I liked the color of your 135 shot but with an Internet JPEG it's always hard to say. My 135 APO shots come out great with my M but they're mostly landscape. In any event why not give the ColorChecker a try? Thanks Bob. I don't have a 135 so I'm not sure which shot you're referring to. I haven't posted any M240 shots yet. I've made several ColorChecker profiles for the camera and lenses. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but this hasn't fixed the skin tones. Toggling from Adobe Standard to the custom profiler while looking at the shot of the ColorChecker, the blues and reds "pop" the way they usually do, but the skin tone/tan patch remains unchanged and is pinker in hue than it is in real life. What I'm striving for is elusive and hard to describe. Shots from the M9 and 5D Mark III have much more depth to the skin tones, where you can even kinda tell how thick a person's skin is. It's much more palpable and believable, while the M240 skin tones almost look like they're printed on a cereal box with too much magenta in the ink press. Am I the only one observing this? Anyone else using any LR recipes that work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted February 7, 2014 Share #33 Posted February 7, 2014 My apologies -- I confused you with the OP. Skin tones seem to be very subjective. It might be worth trying another color profile. I use several, outdoor noon sun, outdoor noon shade, dual illuminant, flash and indoor lighting. I find the differences can be significant. My Nikon and Sony shots aren't perfect right out of the box, either, although the Nikon can be pretty darn close. Just a thought, and best of luck with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 7, 2014 Share #34 Posted February 7, 2014 What profile did you use to get the skin colour in your avatar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 7, 2014 Share #35 Posted February 7, 2014 Gene Even though we all process images differently, I too find the M240 files superb when converting in LR and manipulating in SEFEX Pro. In fact I recently submitted only B&W images for a local photo contest where 52 pros judged portfolios and they mostly preferred my M240 images. All were manipulated in SFEX Pro from the M240, MM and RX-1. They picked one from the MM, one from the RX-1 and 5 from the M240. This surprised me so much that I was considering the Monochrom redundant. But then, on a Leica shoot over two days I submitted an image taken with the MM and won a Leica C camera with the one image. Different judges, but a free Leica is just fine with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted February 7, 2014 Share #36 Posted February 7, 2014 Never mind the skin tone worries, the models expressions begs a "Guess what she's thinking" caption. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 7, 2014 Share #37 Posted February 7, 2014 Gene Even though we all process images differently, I too find the M240 files superb when converting in LR and manipulating in SEFEX Pro. In fact I recently submitted only B&W images for a local photo contest where 52 pros judged portfolios and they mostly preferred my M240 images. All were manipulated in SFEX Pro from the M240, MM and RX-1. They picked one from the MM, one from the RX-1 and 5 from the M240. This surprised me so much that I was considering the Monochrom redundant. But then, on a Leica shoot over two days I submitted an image taken with the MM and won a Leica C camera with the one image. Different judges, but a free Leica is just fine with me. Thanks Al, Sounds like they were awarding the photographer and not the camera. I'd actually retired my copy of SEP2 because with my other cameras the B&W Mix function in Lightroom (and out-of-camera black and white in the M9's case) were yielding equal or better results than SEP with more control of the underlying color mix (you get an orange slider, which I wish every conversion software had). Plus I like not adding a separate file for black and white. Now with the M240 I'm finding the best results are coming from SEP (though I'm not sure why) so back in the workflow it goes. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with getting used to the new "look" and figuring out how to make the most of it. Best, Gene Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 14, 2014 Share #38 Posted February 14, 2014 Ok guys. Cut out the personal interchange and concentrat on the camera please Edit: Disregard please, see post below. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 14, 2014 Share #39 Posted February 14, 2014 Ok guys. Cut out the personal interchange and concentrat on the camera please Well I'm confused. We've been discussing skin tones, an extremely subjective topic open to much interpretation, which involves not only the camera but in many cases also the post processing techniques of the photographer. How can we cut out personal interchange and have a meaningful discussion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 14, 2014 Share #40 Posted February 14, 2014 Ok guys. Cut out the personal interchange and concentrat on the camera please It's a bit like being back at school. I'm assuming that some recent posts have been deleted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.