Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ken_tanaka

The M8's Wacky Cyan Wide Edges

Recommended Posts

I can confirm that Guy, the 24 does rather well with B&W with no obvious problems. I cannot compare it with the Leica filter obviously, but let's put it this way: it is that it is a free filter that I will be getting at some point of time, but I would not spend one dollar to buy it over the B&W one, the way it looks now.

 

Agree, I will be getting a Leica 55mm filter "SOMEDAY". But the B+W works just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken

I've been reading this with interest. Now I'm going to say my piece again.

For events and under tungsten light there isn't much alternative to using the filters. For natural light and outdoor shots, I've come to the conclusion that no filter and lens detection on is the right response. I've yet to come across IR contamination which I can't deal with using tint and a yellow hue adjustment, and there is no problem with cyan pollution. there's a little PP work required, and you can't make a preset/profile for all circumstances (which is why Jamie's excellent profiles don't really cover the situation). But it only takes a few minutes to make a preset for a given lighting situation, and then you can paste it over a whole shoot.

 

I know many disagree, but to me it makes life soooo much simpler - a little pp work and i don't have to worry about flare, internal reflections, cyan drift, getting the firmware setting right etc. etc.

 

I've got the filters, they stay firmly in my bag until I find someone with poor enough taste to wear black plastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with Jono, remove the B+W and switch detection on, no IR. Go out and shoot and enjoy life. Deal with any issues in post until the 55mm leica filters are available (next week is ETA week 21).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd have to agree with Jono, remove the B+W and switch detection on, no IR. Go out and shoot and enjoy life. Deal with any issues in post until the 55mm leica filters are available (next week is ETA week 21).

Hi Eoin

Actually IMHO ditch the things completely (unless you want to shoot events/portraits) they only cause trouble.

 

Could this be because we are the last people on the planet still using Aperture with the M8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw! it's those Leica matrix values in the DNG's that are at fault, they cause "pinkouts" in every other raw decoder. LOL.

 

You and me know where true colour lies, and it ain't with IR/Cuts, C1Pro or Lightroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Ah man do I have my wadders on here. It's getting thick. ROTFLMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Eoin

Actually IMHO ditch the things completely (unless you want to shoot events/portraits) they only cause trouble.

 

Could this be because we are the last people on the planet still using Aperture with the M8?

 

I disagree with you to the point I have not used my 75 Cron as much as I would like to because I don't have a filter for it yet, will have it by the end of the week.

If you like doing everything in post that's fine, I don't.

I'll keep using filters on all my M glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anyone on whether Leica will have a 72mm cut filter?

 

Victor,

 

If it is not on their list, it is going to be some considerable time. I asked if they were going to be doing a black 43mm (they currently only have a silver). The reply I got from Leica was that they had no plans in the foreseeable future, to extend the range of filters, except for any new lenses they might bring out. To some extent, it is a similar issue to not having manual lens selection on the menu. Leica have not taken on board that M lenses have become an open standard and they could actually make money and garner customers, by being more flexible on this point. If they produced filters for all the Carl Zeiss and Cosina Voigtlander lenses in production, where there is currently not a suitable Leica UV/IR cut filter, a considerable proportion of the many people using them on M8s would buy.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naw! it's those Leica matrix values in the DNG's that are at fault, they cause "pinkouts" in every other raw decoder. LOL.

 

You and me know where true colour lies, and it ain't with IR/Cuts, C1Pro or Lightroom.

LOL - absolutely - every time I see ANOTHER shot with cyan corners . . . . . . .

Actually, the last straw for me was using filters on several lenses, with IR-on, then changing to the WATE (for which I didn't have a filter) without thinking . . . . and having to spend ages getting rid of pink corners!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If they produced filters for all the Carl Zeiss and Cosina Voigtlander lenses in production, where there is currently not a suitable Leica UV/IR cut filter, a considerable proportion of the many people using them on M8s would buy."

 

Dear Wilson

 

Yes I agree. I actually want for the zeiss 15mm 2.8 a fantastic lens. More important would be an open statndard that would allow some of our resident experts (and they ARE) to design profiles etc for other M and SM lenses.

 

I dont think it is in the cards though so I only hope a 72 mm B+W works.

regrads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL - absolutely - every time I see ANOTHER shot with cyan corners . . . . . . .

Actually, the last straw for me was using filters on several lenses, with IR-on, then changing to the WATE (for which I didn't have a filter) without thinking . . . . and having to spend ages getting rid of pink corners!

 

I think the minimum Leica could do is incorporate the cyan drift adjustment into the raw converter so that it can be set or re-set at that stage. This would give users a fallback position if they set it incorrectly at the camera or just wanted to fine tune it. I know Leica doesn't make the software, but is this really so hard to get added on? (Especially considering that C-1 already has color compensation features that only work with Phase One backs.)

 

The Kodak 14n - SLR/n, SLRc, series of cameras had a similar lens optimization on the camera and also in the Kodak raw conversion software.

 

Maybe if enough users requested it, some other software company can add it to help distinguish its software.disting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan

I think the minimum Leica could do is incorporate the cyan drift adjustment into the raw converter so that it can be set or re-set at that stage. This would give users a fallback position if they set it incorrectly at the camera or just wanted to fine tune it. I know Leica doesn't make the software, but is this really so hard to get added on? (Especially considering that C-1 already has color compensation features that only work with Phase One backs.)

 

I quite agree, but like many others I have no intention of going back to the workflow 'dark ages' of convert/photoshop/catalogue, and I can't see them persuading Adobe or Apple to incorporate this into Lightroom or Aperture.

On the other hand I really do think this information should go into the exif information - then, at least one would know what had happened (and whether the camera had done what it was told).

 

The Kodak 14n - SLR/n, SLRc, series of cameras had a similar lens optimization on the camera and also in the Kodak raw conversion software.

 

This is one of the reasons I have resolved to 'do without' filters for natural light and landscape work. I had an SLR/n for two years, and very much liked it. I also did some work with the lens optimization table with Rochester - the cyan / magenta problem was from a different source than the Leica one, but it was pretty nasty.

Kodak had the advantage of knowing the aperture at which the shot was taken - and the table also allowed for differences in the effect between different samples of the same lens. Even with these advantages (which just aren't available to Leica) they STILL never managed to fully sort the problem.

Fortunately, the cyan problem doesn't exist with the Leica if you don't use the filters!

Sorting the IR effect on Ken's original shots would have been trivial, but not the cyan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a part of the problem is that Leica is still catching up with all the things that they hoped to do perfectly in their firmware and the bits and pieces don't all fit together. Plus it took some time and caused some confusion as they decided to create a never-before-seen IR filter and get it manufactured with releases stretched out over the April to July timeframe. let's assume filters are available for all the coded lenses, and perhaps second sources appear (if they aren't too miffed at LeicaCamera AG) with 485.5 filters so that's not a problem.

 

Then I want to see a little rationalization in the firmware routines. Wouldn't it be nice to make the following choices:

 

lens detection ON/OFF (or maybe always ON) so we get the EXIF right when it is possible.

 

overall vignetting corrections ON/OFF (essentially todays ON routines, with a slight red vignetting correction for the filter that is over the sensor) -- these need some tuning, as they are too weak at times, and too strong for the longer lenses, as Sean Reid's review of the 50's shows clearly.

 

and finally, independently, choose UV/IR filter corrections ON/OFF if you are using a Leica filter to prevent IR contamination for color work.

 

That's four combinations, and today we have three: OFF, vignetting without IR filter correction, and IR filter correction without the overall vignetting correction.

 

Does this make sense to others?

 

scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tummydoc
I think it is fair to say that most of knew that any 486 filters we bought or borrowed, were in the nature of a stop gap until the real article was delivered.

 

I think it's fair to say the exact opposite. As recently as Mr. Reid received the prototype Leica IR filters that said "MRC" (B+W's trademark designation) we all thought the Leica filter glass would be supplied by B+W as has been the case with Leica's other filters for eons. Only when Leica released their official statement concerning the upcoming firmware was there mention made of the necessity of Leica's branded IR filters to the cyan correction in the firmware. My surmisal is either the new filter supplier dictated the use of different specs from B+W and Leica had no choice but to write the firmware with those specifications in mind, or Leica mandated proprietary filter specs in their self-interest (nothing unethical about that BTW). Personally I found the B+W IR coating very easily damaged, and the filters very prone to reflections and flare, so I prefer the Heliopans despite the need for some post-processing intervention on my part.

 

Personally, when a camera demands more attention than my photography I know it's time to make a change.

 

That would make a terrific marketing slogan...just not for the M8

 

It's time to for me put the M8 away and refocus my energies on photography.

 

Being a Leica collector I want/need a Leica body to use my Leica lenses digitally. So the M8 (this one, or another one if this one dies like the 2 that predeceased it) is in my kit to stay. However for my "important" photography, it's my D200 that accompanies me. I find it exhausting and a source of focal anxiety dealing with the additional "concerns" surrounding the use of an M8, which is exactly what I do not want from a leisure-time pursuit. Picking up a camera should not trigger the same physiological responses as picking up a scalpel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a part of the problem is that Leica is still catching up with all the things that they hoped to do perfectly in their firmware and the bits and pieces don't all fit together. Plus it took some time and caused some confusion as they decided to create a never-before-seen IR filter and get it manufactured with releases stretched out over the April to July timeframe. let's assume filters are available for all the coded lenses, and perhaps second sources appear (if they aren't too miffed at LeicaCamera AG) with 485.5 filters so that's not a problem.

 

Then I want to see a little rationalization in the firmware routines. Wouldn't it be nice to make the following choices:

 

lens detection ON/OFF (or maybe always ON) so we get the EXIF right when it is possible.

 

overall vignetting corrections ON/OFF (essentially todays ON routines, with a slight red vignetting correction for the filter that is over the sensor) -- these need some tuning, as they are too weak at times, and too strong for the longer lenses, as Sean Reid's review of the 50's shows clearly.

 

and finally, independently, choose UV/IR filter corrections ON/OFF if you are using a Leica filter to prevent IR contamination for color work.

 

That's four combinations, and today we have three: OFF, vignetting without IR filter correction, and IR filter correction without the overall vignetting correction.

 

Does this make sense to others?

 

scott

 

Scott,

 

All seems very logical to me - consider yourself an honorary Vulcan.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
I think it's fair to say the exact opposite. As recently as Mr. Reid received the prototype Leica IR filters that said "MRC" (B+W's trademark designation) we all thought the Leica filter glass would be supplied by B+W as has been the case with Leica's other filters for eons. Only when Leica released their official statement concerning the upcoming firmware was there mention made of the necessity of Leica's branded IR filters to the cyan correction in the firmware. My surmisal is either the new filter supplier dictated the use of different specs from B+W and Leica had no choice but to write the firmware with those specifications in mind, or Leica mandated proprietary filter specs in their self-interest (nothing unethical about that BTW). Personally I found the B+W IR coating very easily damaged, and the filters very prone to reflections and flare, so I prefer the Heliopans despite the need for some post-processing intervention on my part.

 

 

Neither are true. I would not call it self -interest as far as profits but more likely design and supply decisions. There is more than one vendor making these

 

But Sean nor myself knew of this until the 11th hour, so we can't look at him. that is what was sent and a change was made after the fact. I discovered it with my WATE and conversations with leica. apparently there was a design decision because the B+W on extreme wide angles the IR blocking was to strong and needed to be weaker. So yes many of us bought B+W based on what we initial thought. We have to remember there is already a IR blocking filter on the sensor although weak as it is , with the B+W the IR blocking value may have been to high and reason leica had to go with a weaker one to get the proper value i think that is 750 something.

 

What should be repeated here is IR affects all colors of the spectrum not just synthetic blacks. Go out and shoot a Color chart with IR filters on and IR filters off , you will see a difference and that is in any type of light , some lighting like tungsten is worse than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a part of the problem is that Leica is still catching up with all the things that they hoped to do perfectly in their firmware and the bits and pieces don't all fit together. Plus it took some time and caused some confusion as they decided to create a never-before-seen IR filter and get it manufactured with releases stretched out over the April to July timeframe. let's assume filters are available for all the coded lenses, and perhaps second sources appear (if they aren't too miffed at LeicaCamera AG) with 485.5 filters so that's not a problem.

 

Then I want to see a little rationalization in the firmware routines. Wouldn't it be nice to make the following choices:

 

lens detection ON/OFF (or maybe always ON) so we get the EXIF right when it is possible.

 

overall vignetting corrections ON/OFF (essentially todays ON routines, with a slight red vignetting correction for the filter that is over the sensor) -- these need some tuning, as they are too weak at times, and too strong for the longer lenses, as Sean Reid's review of the 50's shows clearly.

 

and finally, independently, choose UV/IR filter corrections ON/OFF if you are using a Leica filter to prevent IR contamination for color work.

 

That's four combinations, and today we have three: OFF, vignetting without IR filter correction, and IR filter correction without the overall vignetting correction.

 

Does this make sense to others?

 

scott

 

@Wilson: "Honorary Vulcan." Bwahaha!

 

@Scott: Leica has, in some respects, a much more difficult firmware path with the M8 than contemporary dslr camera manufacturers have. In particular, the camera's knowledge of, and control over, the camera's lens is severely limited. (Perhaps the M12 will feature a tiny camera that takes a picture of the lens barrel when the shutter is pressed to determine the focus and aperture.) So this leaves more onus on the photographer to inform the camera in the form of potential camera status settings; that is, settings that the user must make to inform the camera of its status. (This is quite distinct from the preference settings of todays cameras, which inform the camera of the user's status.)

 

That said, the core design concept of an M has always been quickness and simplicity. Nothing is more contrary to this concept than implementing status settings. For example the whole "lens detection" setting, buried in a menu, is simply dreadful and confusing. Add a few more such virtual switch settings and you'll turn the M8 into a studio-only camera.

 

The M8's color programming just needs to get much more savvy, versatile, and sophisticated. Hopefully Leica will also feel the need for software refinement and will be able to implement it within the current M8's facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Alan

 

I quite agree, but like many others I have no intention of going back to the work flow 'dark ages' of convert/photoshop/catalogue, and I can't see them persuading Adobe or Apple to incorporate this into Lightroom or Aperture.

On the other hand I really do think this information should go into the exif information - then, at least one would know what had happened (and whether the camera had done what it was told).

 

 

Does Lightroom or Aperture allow you to retouch the raw files and save the changes in some way other than converting? I retouch the majority of my images, save them as tiffs and almost never go back to the original raw files. I think as you described it, the Lightroom and Aperture work flows seem fine (I've never tried them). And if they provide the solution you need then that is great.

 

But in my experience, although I try to stay committed to specific software products, new ones come out with improvements that appeal to me. For instance I really liked C-1 and I still use it for my tethered shooting, sorting, and for some conversions (mostly for skin tones.) But I use DxO for the majority of my conversions after I make my selections in C-1. And if I want the best noise reduction, I probably have to use a product specifically designed for that.

 

In any case, at least if the M8 had ANY software that would allow adjustment of the Cyan drift, one could use it in an emergency.

 

I've got to say that I've been following this M8 dialog closely because I originally had considered buying one. The people on this forum have presented some of the most detailed analysis and suggestions that I could imagine. It has been somewhat fascinating to me even from an academic perspective. But I don't need the M8 for my work, didn't have any lenses, and had no interest in being an early adopter. I have to say that I'd really like to see a number of these issues resolved before I could reconsider. I want a camera that I can just set to raw, pick up and use regardless of the lens, filter, etc. I may be an expert, but I don't like trying to remember a lot of this stuff while shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does Lightroom or Aperture allow you to retouch the raw files and save the changes in some way other than converting? I retouch the majority of my images, save them as tiffs and almost never go back to the original raw files. I think as you described it, the Lightroom and Aperture work flows seem fine (I've never tried them). And if they provide the solution you need then that is great.

 

 

Hi there - well, colour changes, white balance, exposure, contrast, highlight and shadow recovery, sharpening changes, and dust spotting can be done within the program - the changes are saved in a data structure, not by converting the image, so that each time you look at the raw file your selected changes are applied. You can then make versions - either 'virtual' versions, which are simply different database entries and take up no more space (you might, for example, have a colour and a black and white version). Or 'real' versions - here you shell out to the photo editor of your choice, and the file is saved as a tiff or psd file - and you can, in turn, make versions of these. It sounds complicated, but it's actually very simple, it saves lots of space, and makes it fantastically easy to create web output etc.

 

 

But in my experience, although I try to stay committed to specific software products, new ones come out with improvements that appeal to me. For instance I really liked C-1 and I still use it for my tethered shooting, sorting, and for some conversions (mostly for skin tones.) But I use DxO for the majority of my conversions after I make my selections in C-1. And if I want the best noise reduction, I probably have to use a product specifically designed for that.

 

This allows you to use the core product - which you then use for your cataloguing needs as well, and then you can use whatever you like for extra work. (I guess you could use DxO in conjunction, but I haven't tried).

 

 

 

I've got to say that I've been following this M8 dialog closely because I originally had considered buying one. The people on this forum have presented some of the most detailed analysis and suggestions that I could imagine. It has been somewhat fascinating to me even from an academic perspective. But I don't need the M8 for my work, didn't have any lenses, and had no interest in being an early adopter. I have to say that I'd really like to see a number of these issues resolved before I could reconsider. I want a camera that I can just set to raw, pick up and use regardless of the lens, filter, etc. I may be an expert, but I don't like trying to remember a lot of this stuff while shooting.

 

Well, that's one of the reasons why I'm no longer using filters for my work - it leaves so much scope for forgetting and getting it wrong - without filters the changes required for landscape and travel are quick and trivial, and it allows me to leave lens detection to 'On' (no IR) and simply forget about it.

 

I quite agree, having to fiddle about remembering things is irritating when shooting - but it's not strictly necessary with the M8.

 

And then, the files are so beautiful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...