lct Posted June 8, 2014 Share #141 Posted June 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you really rely on AWB as a pro photographer? Never did this with any camera but it's just me i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Hi lct, Take a look here New Firmware on May 24th. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mirekti Posted June 8, 2014 Share #142 Posted June 8, 2014 Do you really rely on AWB as a pro photographer?Never did this with any camera but it's just me i guess. I agree, but sometimes it is so off that this part of software would at least need a revision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 8, 2014 Share #143 Posted June 8, 2014 I did use a personal profile at the launch of the camera due to some red and magenta oversaturation but i don't need one any more since FU 2.0.0.11. I just develop my raw files with C1 (in linear response mode) and adjust WB and contrast with CS3. No problem at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 8, 2014 Share #144 Posted June 8, 2014 I agree, but sometimes it is so off that this part of software would at least need a revision. Frankly i don't think so. The last revision has been implemented in October 2013 (FU 2.0.0.11) and most of the beta testers then were satisfied with the results, including yours truly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted June 8, 2014 Share #145 Posted June 8, 2014 Fixing WB in post is easy, but I get embarrassed when asked to see my photo on the LCD screen and the brides white dress is green or blue on the screen. FU 2.0.0.12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 8, 2014 Share #146 Posted June 8, 2014 Do you really rely on AWB as a pro photographer?Never did this with any camera but it's just me i guess. yes, some of us do. Its not 1960 any longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted June 8, 2014 Share #147 Posted June 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I do AWB all the time. I'm not a pro, but I just go the route of shooting color checker charts and correcting after the fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 8, 2014 Share #148 Posted June 8, 2014 Odd - this is the reverse of my experience working with the M under variable stage lighting. I find it consistently better in auto WB than the M9 and have to spend much less getting things right in post. I agree with this, especially after the last FW revision. I shoot in AWB almost all the time, with a dual illuminant profile in ACR. I rarely have to adjust WB to any significant degree. Now, I am not shooting white wedding dresses against different light temperatures, but the only time I find myself fiddling is tungsten or flourescent light. I have never been satisfied with any camera's tungsten performance without tweaking, and flourescent, especially compact flourescents are extremely difficult for any camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted June 9, 2014 Share #149 Posted June 9, 2014 I understand that certain lighting situations can be difficult, but do I really need to do a manual WB with every shot, to get good in-camera WB? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 9, 2014 Share #150 Posted June 9, 2014 I understand that certain lighting situations can be difficult, but do I really need to do a manual WB with every shot, to get good in-camera WB? No, not at all. I think what some of us have been trying to say is AWB on the M(240) works better than it did on the M9. Obviously, you're experiencing something different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 9, 2014 Share #151 Posted June 9, 2014 As mentioned by others, my opinion is that if you shoot raw, it doesn't really matter how good is the AWB. I keep my camera on AWB because I like to use this setting as a starting point for my PP, and compare it to ACR AWB and daylight settings. The M240 is definitely more accurate than the AWB of the M9. If for some reason, shooting JPG is required, the AWB is definitely to be avoided with any camera of any brand. In this case custom WB is compulsory. Ask any videographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted June 9, 2014 Share #152 Posted June 9, 2014 I spend more time correcting color in M240 files than in any other file I've worked with. Part of that is because I find the AWB at anything beyond daylight to be horrendous, and part of that is that I find the color coming out of the camera to be quite bad in general. What I have seen of how people use dual illuminant profiles I'm not impressed with that way either. I shoot grey cards once in a while but usually that's too slow to work in an environment with many different light sources. An AWB and a general color (can we finally get rid of the magenta silliness?) update would be very much appreciated by me, more so than any other update in the firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 9, 2014 Share #153 Posted June 9, 2014 Have you been using ACR or Lightroom? If so, i would create a personal profile or i would try another raw converter. Capture One, including the more affordable "Express" version, can be downloaded for free. The interface is not perfect but it gives good results IQ wise IMHO. I would avoid the film modes though as i feel them too yellow. The "Linear response" mode is worth a try if you don't mind adjusting WB and contrast manually or with another application. FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
don daniel Posted June 9, 2014 Share #154 Posted June 9, 2014 Fixing WB in post is easy, but I get embarrassed when asked to see my photo on the LCD screen and the brides white dress is green or blue on the screen. FU 2.0.0.12 So probably you have never used a M9 to shoot a wedding because with a M9 set on AWB the bride's dress is nearly always blue. And if it wasn't, could you show a photo on the LCD screen of a M9 WITHOUT getting embarrassed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted June 9, 2014 Share #155 Posted June 9, 2014 So probably you have never used a M9 to shoot a wedding because with a M9 set on AWB the bride's dress is nearly always blue. And if it wasn't, could you show a photo on the LCD screen of a M9 WITHOUT getting embarrassed? Sorry to disappoint you, but I have shot many weddings with a M9, and one in this same room about a year ago. I don't get embarrassed by the small screen, as long as the color is correct, and the color was almost always correct on the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
don daniel Posted June 9, 2014 Share #156 Posted June 9, 2014 Sorry to disappoint you, but I have shot many weddings with a M9, and one in this same room about a year ago. I don't get embarrassed by the small screen, as long as the color is correct, and the color was almost always correct on the M9. This is what you can get from a M9 indoors (ISO 160, no artificial light): DNG opened in LR5, absolutely no colour shown here is correct nor is AWB. I need to correct WB in almost every picture from M9 and have to use a profile to get good colours in LR. In Aperture I only have to correct WB and reduce saturation a little bit, but I don't need a profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 9, 2014 Share #157 Posted June 9, 2014 I understand that certain lighting situations can be difficult, but do I really need to do a manual WB with every shot, to get good in-camera WB? Not for every shot, but AWB is mainly for daylight. It is not designed to be used with tungsten or fluorescent lighting; that’s what the presets are for (and why would any camera vendor go to the trouble of offering these presets if AWB could deal with it just as well?). With mixed lighting AWB might still be your best bet but in general one shouldn’t use it for artificial lighting. And that applies to all cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 9, 2014 Share #158 Posted June 9, 2014 I spend more time correcting color in M240 files than in any other file I've worked with. Part of that is because I find the AWB at anything beyond daylight to be horrendous, and part of that is that I find the color coming out of the camera to be quite bad in general.What I have seen of how people use dual illuminant profiles I'm not impressed with that way either. I shoot grey cards once in a while but usually that's too slow to work in an environment with many different light sources. An AWB and a general color (can we finally get rid of the magenta silliness?) update would be very much appreciated by me, more so than any other update in the firmware. I find setting a grey card WB and (for artificial light) warming it up a bit works pretty good. Varying light can be handled in the customary manner from a decent starting point. I often think how spoiled we have become. Looking back on my old slides the colour balance was often horrendous to modern eyes yet nobody complained. Not to mention the nightmare of printing colour negative film. Yes, I had a dichroitic colour head, colorimeter and the Kodak filter preview set.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted June 9, 2014 Share #159 Posted June 9, 2014 I don't think the problem is white balance. I think it's color balance. M9 files are kind of cool with maybe a slight cyan bias and M240 files are a bit warm, with orange or yellow bias. To my eyes, the cooler cast of the M9 is more aesthetic and less digital looking, though I prefer the M240 in other respects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 10, 2014 Share #160 Posted June 10, 2014 All of this confusion goes back to a misunderstanding about a date that was being provided by some Leica source. Someone read: 5.24.2014 as "the twenty-fourth day of the fifth month of 2014" instead of understanding it in EU format, in which 5.24.2014 means "the fifth day of the twenty-fourth month of 2014." Hence, there is some waiting to do. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.