BerndReini Posted March 6, 2015 Share #201 Posted March 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) But negative film does handle over exposure differently as it builds density up to DMax. Exactly. I know we are talking subtleties, but these sometimes matter. The problem is that usually the better someone's post-production skills, the better their eye for subtleties. Sometimes, I just like to shoot film so I don't have to agonize over minute differences in post. My favorite lab just moved so I have to ship my color film now, but it is still worthwhile. Anyways, I didn't want to derail this into a film vs. digital debate. I'm excited to see what the next generation M brings because it is truly amazing how far digital capture has matured in the last decade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Hi BerndReini, Take a look here CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
piblondin Posted March 6, 2015 Share #202 Posted March 6, 2015 This is the way I'm starting to look at it too. Any digital camera is like ONE film stock. One that can be pushed around a bit to look like different things, but still with its own strengths and weaknesses. I shot a test once where I took the same photograph with a few different films, some slide, some negative, on 4x5. I scanned them and tried to make them look similar. Tedious work. If you want a completely different look, change film stocks, or digital cameras. Or if you are so inclined, waste hours in post-production to end up with a middle-of-the-road compromise. Agreed. I don't understand the desire people have for digital to render a neutral look that's most flexible in post. I want character out of the camera as I would get with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted March 6, 2015 Share #203 Posted March 6, 2015 I have both these lenses and I did pay attention carefully (while deciding to switch). I had both M9 and 240 for a month and I have real life photographs from both these lenses on both these cameras and ]there is no difference (apart from the usual diff between M240 and M9 sensor output). I get the same sharpness across the frame with 28 on 240 as I got with M9. Maybe you are referring to Tim Ashley's test of 28cron on M240. My experience differs from him. Sometimes you have to test and decide for yourself. I agree that sharpness across the frame is comparable. As said above, it's like film stock. I have every respect for those who like their 240s, but for me there is no lust. People can insult me and tell me I'm wrong. But I've seen alot of images from both. I know what I like. Of course, once you start heavily editing, all bets are off. God knows which will get you more cleanly to one "look" or the other. What I'm after is a machine that gives what I feel is a wonderful look with minimal or even no editing. Others like editing, which is fine unless they think everyone should LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 6, 2015 Share #204 Posted March 6, 2015 Agreed. I don't understand the desire people have for digital to render a neutral look that's most flexible in post. I want character out of the camera as I would get with film. Digital cameras have all kinds of jpeg options for in camera processing... color balance, saturation, contrast , etc. It isn't as if you have nearly that many options with film nor are you likely to be able to select the film you need for each photo. Plus these setting can go directly to the raw processor to avoid a neutral look if you wish. Heck there aren't even type B color films now or any made for long exposures. I rarely felt that color shifts from reciprocity failure was a desirable characteristic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted March 6, 2015 Share #205 Posted March 6, 2015 see 146 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/241543-ccd-vs-cmos-can-you-tell-which-is-whichmerged/?do=findComment&comment=2775952'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 6, 2015 Share #206 Posted March 6, 2015 see 146 Reminds me why it's much better if the camera has a good starting point. Some tending towards green, others heavily desaturated. Depends what you are looking for, but if it's accuracy we are I suspect a long way off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 6, 2015 Share #207 Posted March 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I actually think that digital is too accurate. What I mean by that is that the image is so close to reality that it bothers us. We tend to like the built in abstraction film provides and don't feel as much need to make it look "right." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ricard Posted March 6, 2015 Share #208 Posted March 6, 2015 Jaap, thanks for the effort, but that file still looks horrendous, except now it's desaturated bad colour. It was this sort of thing that drove me out of the M cameras. Peter P. has spent a tremendous amount of time reaching proficiency is post-processing decent skin tones, first out of the M9 and now the M240. It seems that there is no shortcut. Colour under daylight is great, but mixed-lighting skintones remain a nightmare. Absolutely agree. The skin tone is better in the "fixed" version, but it is still terrible. My iPhone woukd have captured the skin tone in a more pleasing and accurate manner. And that is coming from an M9 and M240 owner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 7, 2015 Share #209 Posted March 7, 2015 Also note that this early M9 image taken in 2009 is DNG-8, a compressed file. I wonder if the M9 in the same mixed-lighting would handle it properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 7, 2015 Share #210 Posted March 7, 2015 Also note that this early M9 image taken in 2009 is DNG-8, a compressed file. I wonder if the M9 in the same mixed-lighting would handle it properly. DNG-8 files have the same color accuracy as uncompressed or lossless-compressed DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 7, 2015 Share #211 Posted March 7, 2015 The DNG-8 is processed differently and can lose color information more than you might think. It does with the M8. With an early camera- hard to know what was going on in the firmware. The image was made on Sep 9, 2009, V1.002. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ricard Posted March 7, 2015 Share #212 Posted March 7, 2015 Also note that this early M9 image taken in 2009 is DNG-8, a compressed file. I wonder if the M9 in the same mixed-lighting would handle it properly. Why the denail of a well documented problem with the M9. It often produces red/blotchy skin in almost any lighitng situation. We know this. Anyone who owns an M9 can show hundreds of samples of this. Doesn't matter what compression setting the camera is on, what card you're using, what lens, whether or not you're using an IV filter. The M9 has a problem in this area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 7, 2015 Share #213 Posted March 7, 2015 I've owned the M9 for over 4 years and have never had a problem as bad as the example shown. That, and the second release of firmware states that it corrects magenta cast for certain lenses. At least that is what is in the "Wiki" here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 7, 2015 Share #214 Posted March 7, 2015 the second release of firmware states that it corrects magenta cast for certain lenses. At least that is what is in the "Wiki" here. Just red edge correction for 18 to 28mm wides if memory serves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 7, 2015 Share #215 Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks- my M9 came with 1.138. The Wiki did not list lenses. IR bleed is not the problem with the image, mixed lighting is. Mixed lighting is a problem for all digital cameras and film alike. I've looked at the manufacturer's data sheets for spectral response and IR filtering. I took my own measurements to verify the IR numbers given for the S8612 as there was doubt that Leica chose to use this particular glass.The firmware can easily misread the white balance, and as shown by other forum members- that can be corrected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 7, 2015 Share #216 Posted March 7, 2015 The DNG-8 is processed differently and can lose color information more than you might think. It does with the M8. With an early camera- hard to know what was going on in the firmware. The image was made on Sep 9, 2009, V1.002. The DNG-8 is just a trivial logarithmic quantization of linear sensor values. Therefore it cannot be the cause of the issue. If you are worried about DNG-8, then you should freak out when JPEG sRGB is used (like in the posted examples), as JPEG performs both log-quantization and sRGB conversion. The latter is a horribly lossy colorspace conversion that dramatically alters several color hues. But most people won't notice because they are still using sRGB displays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 7, 2015 Share #217 Posted March 7, 2015 IR bleed is not the problem with the image, mixed lighting is. Mixed lighting is a problem for all digital cameras and film alike. Mixed lighting is certainly a problem, but I don't get ridiculous magenta casts like that with any other camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 7, 2015 Share #218 Posted March 7, 2015 I'd be interested in seeing other examples with the M9 magenta cast when uncompressed DNG is used. With the M8, the DNG-8 compression is responsible for much of the color noise in High-ISO shots, especially in the red channel. As stated before, many of the M240 complaints that I have read here remind me of the D2H. http://www.lonestardigital.com/D2H_skin_tones.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 7, 2015 Share #219 Posted March 7, 2015 Shitty light gives you shitty photographs, no matter what camera you use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 7, 2015 Share #220 Posted March 7, 2015 Shitty light gives you shitty photographs, no matter what camera you use. True but with post processing skills many can be made to be mediocre or better. I have to do this all of the time on interiors made under energy efficient lights and mixed lights. Some lights are so lacking in color that I may have to paint in the colors of furniture and other items to satisfy my interior designer clients. I try to control lighting and use electronic flash as much as possible. Some of my clients have tried other photographers who could not get things right. My clients rely on my skills at this even though they don't understand the problem. Digital photography makes things easier in some ways but raises the bar in others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.