SL 24-90 digital corrections

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1) I think what zlatkob said can be a point occasionally (even though I personally dont see it as a problem on the 24-90 so far)

2) if the option was there we could avoid threads like this one

Edited February 13, 2017 by tom0511

[thighslapper]

Just like in the other thread about this you are all farting in the wind  ..........

 

Leica have shown repeatedly that they have very fixed ideas about optimum image quality and are pretty inflexible in ensuring what gets on the SD card is what THEY expect ......

 

For example ....... the very conservative apertures of the zooms on all their cameras ....... compulsory dark frame noise reduction and limited maximum exposure times, limited sensor resolution and maximum ISO by modern standards.

 

Frankly, all the lenses and bodies are over-engineered to conform with brand perception and the same goes for eschewing the extremes of user flexibility that the competitors employ. 

 

Leica is what it is ...... and has survived as a low volume camera producer by a rather dogged adherence to the 'Leica Philosophy' as a result of it. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[IkarusJohn]

1) I think what zlatkob said can be a point occasionally (even though I personally dont see it as a problem on the 24-90 so far)

2) if the option was there we could avoid threads like this one

But you can. Just use Iridient Developer.

 

Still waiting for Zlatkob to produce a photograph ...

[zlatkob]

Just like in the other thread about this you are all farting in the wind  ..........

 

Leica have shown repeatedly that they have very fixed ideas about optimum image quality and are pretty inflexible in ensuring what gets on the SD card is what THEY expect ......

 

For example ....... the very conservative apertures of the zooms on all their cameras ....... compulsory dark frame noise reduction and limited maximum exposure times, limited sensor resolution and maximum ISO by modern standards.

 

Frankly, all the lenses and bodies are over-engineered to conform with brand perception and the same goes for eschewing the extremes of user flexibility that the competitors employ. 

 

Leica is what it is ...... and has survived as a low volume camera producer by a rather dogged adherence to the 'Leica Philosophy' as a result of it. 

M lenses don't have forced digital corrections.  That's been the Leica Philosophy.  The SL represents a change, not adherence to anything in the past.  Think about this:  massive lenses that require digital corrections are now the "Leica Philosophy"?

 

But you can. Just use Iridient Developer.

 

Still waiting for Zlatkob to produce a photograph ...

I already told you I don't have the camera, so you can "wait" all you want.  I answered your question about the perfect squares, but you don't accept the answer.  Please just go on assuming that 3-dimensional objects photograph the same as flat planes.

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by zlatkob

[Jeff S]

As an aside, I thought this article on zooms vs primes was interesting.....and typically refreshing writing from Roger....   https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

 

At least it might help explain why digital corrections may be welcome for many zooms.  Personally, it's the end result that matters to me, and that always includes my own PP/print adjustments.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

You do accept that there is stretching of heads inherent in wide angle photos.  But you don't seem to accept that digital correction of barrel distortion worsens the stretching of heads near the edges of the frame.  Add barrel distortion and it improves — people near the edges look better (at the cost of bending straight lines).  Remove barrel distortion and it worsens — people near the edges look worse.  It's a simple thing that anyone with Lightroom can test by moving a slider on an appropriate image.

 

About my tone in the previous post — it's a direct response to the condescension I've received.  I've objected to forced digital corrections because I feel that photographers should have the option to turn them on and off based on how they want to express a particular image.  That's a very a defensible photographer-centered position, one that I would think photographers would support.  And Sean Reid expressed the same point of view for the exact same reason (people near the edges of the frame).  But for this I've been treated like some know-nothing in other threads.  

 

 

Geometric distortions exist, yes. Corrections do not make them worse unless the corrections are not actually corrections. Digital corrections that make geometric distortions look exactly the same as optical corrections in the lens itself are neither better nor worse. 

 

If you don't want digital corrections, don't buy lenses that are designed to be used with them or use software that supports applying them. 

 

BTW, if it's that easy to get what you want to demonstrate by moving the distortion slider in Lightroom, it's just as easy to add in a little bit of barrel distortion to "correct" the stretched head thing you are complaining about using the same mechanism. Some consumer cameras have that built into their rendering engine, a "thinning" function. To me, they make the photographs look distorted. 

 

You shouldn't be shooting photos of groups of people with a 24-35mm lens at close range if you want to avoid distortion. My photographer's option is to make photos that do not exacerbate natural geometric distortions in the first place. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I already told you I don't have the camera, so you can "wait" all you want. I answered your question about the perfect squares, but you don't accept the answer. Please just go on assuming that 3-dimensional objects photograph the same as flat planes.

 

That assumption is yours, not mine.

 

I really don't get why you're making such a crusade over this. Sean may have identified something which bothers him which is largely irrelevant - it wouldn't be the first time. What I would like to see is proof of the theory, and it is a theory. You don't need to take the picture, you don't need to buy the camera, but you do need to provide more than strongly expressed opinion. There are lots of SL images out there - find one which supports your point.

 

If the point is real, then the evidence will be there for all to see.

 

Conversely, if you want access to the uncorrected DNG, that is easily done as well. For myself, I havbe great faith in Leica - a lot more faith than anything posted here, or any philosophical preferences Sean might have. So far, Leica has pretty much exceeded my expectations.

 

If you actually have a point, now would be a good time to prove it.

Edited February 13, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Joshua Lowe]

As an aside, I thought this article on zooms vs primes was interesting.....and typically refreshing writing from Roger....   https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

 

At least it might help explain why digital corrections may be welcome for many zooms.  Personally, it's the end result that matters to me, and that always includes my own PP/print adjustments.

 

Jeff

 

I think sample images from the corresponding lenses would also clarify just how significant these differences are.  

 

I have shot with several different 24-90s.  1 at a Leica store, 2 rentals, and one I purchased.  I swear that the one I purchased isn't as good as the last one I rented (from Lensrentals, ironically) but the truth is that the differences are probably entirely in my head.  

Edited February 13, 2017 by Joshua Lowe

[Jeff S]

I think sample images from the corresponding lenses would also clarify just how significant these differences are.  

 

I have shot with several different 24-90s.  1 at a Leica store, 2 rentals, and one I purchased.  I swear that the one I purchased isn't as good as the last one I rented (from Lensrentals, ironically) but the truth is that the differences are probably entirely in my head.  

 

Roger has written extensively (many articles) on lens sample variation...  https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation/

 

And this is variation apart from user introduced variables (inconsistent technique, etc).

 

More here...  https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?s=lens+variation

 

Jeff

Edited February 13, 2017 by Jeff S

[tom0511]

Geometric distortions exist, yes. Corrections do not make them worse unless the corrections are not actually corrections. Digital corrections that make geometric distortions look exactly the same as optical corrections in the lens itself are neither better nor worse. 

 

If you don't want digital corrections, don't buy lenses that are designed to be used with them or use software that supports applying them. 

 

BTW, if it's that easy to get what you want to demonstrate by moving the distortion slider in Lightroom, it's just as easy to add in a little bit of barrel distortion to "correct" the stretched head thing you are complaining about using the same mechanism. Some consumer cameras have that built into their rendering engine, a "thinning" function. To me, they make the photographs look distorted. 

 

You shouldn't be shooting photos of groups of people with a 24-35mm lens at close range if you want to avoid distortion. My photographer's option is to make photos that do not exacerbate natural geometric distortions in the first place. 

 

I dont understand why these discussions are so black or white.

Even though I dont have any problem with the fact that Leica does lock the option to uncheck digital correction for some cameras/lenses while they leave the choice open in case of R and M and S lenses on the M/S cameras - why can we not accept that some people would like to have the option for all lenses?

[zlatkob]

That assumption is yours, not mine.

 

I really don't get why you're making such a crusade over this. Sean may have identified something which bothers him which is largely irrelevant - it wouldn't be the first time. What I would like to see is proof of the theory, and it is a theory. You don't need to take the picture, you don't need to buy the camera, but you do need to provide more than strongly expressed opinion. There are lots of SL images out there - find one which supports your point.

 

If the point is real, then the evidence will be there for all to see.

 

Conversely, if you want access to the uncorrected DNG, that is easily done as well. For myself, I havbe great faith in Leica - a lot more faith than anything posted here, or any philosophical preferences Sean might have. So far, Leica has pretty much exceeded my expectations.

 

If you actually have a point, now would be a good time to prove it.

 

It's not a "crusade".  It's just a point about good camera design.

 

I haven't seen "lots of SL images out there".  It would need to be DNG with a group of people filling the frame.  It's a type of street photo that Sean Reid makes (hence his interest in the topic), but photos on his web site are not DNGs and I can't borrow images from his web site anyway.  It's also a type of photo that I make at events, where I often don't have a choice about the number of people in the photo or how far to back up, — but photos from other cameras won't satisfy anyone as proof anyway.

[01af]

You do accept that there is stretching of heads inherent in wide-angle photos.

Yes, sure.

 

 

But you don't seem to accept that digital correction of barrel distortion worsens the stretching of heads near the edges of the frame. Add barrel distortion and it improves — people near the edges look better (at the cost of bending straight lines). Remove barrel distortion and it worsens — people near the edges look worse.

Everyone accepts this. But it has nothing to do with electronic correction of distortion. With a wide-angle lens that renders straight lines straight (no geometric distortion), you'll get projective distortion (stretched heads)—no matter if straight lines are straight due to optical or due to electronic correction of geometry.

 

If you want to reduce projective distortion at the expense of curved rendition of straight lines then you can always manually add some barrel-shaped geometric distortion in post-processing.

 

 

I've objected to forced digital corrections because I feel that photographers should have the option to turn them on and off based on how they want to express a particular image. [...] For my photos of people, I don't want forced digital corrections from any camera.

What's your problem? You can always undo the forced distortion correction. You can do it the quick and easy way, by adding barrel-shaped distortion to the electronically corrected image. In theory, this will cost a little image quality, but in real life you'd be hard-pressed to notice.

 

Or you can do it by removing the electronically applied corrections prior to post-processing. For Adobe users, this method is slightly more cumbersome because neither Lightroom's nor Camera Raw's GUI offer any controls for this (unlike some other raw converters). But you can use Phil Harvey's ExifTool to remove the opcodes which carry the corrections. Use the following command line:

exiftool -OpcodeList3= image1.dng image2.dng ...

Notice the blank after the equals sign. But beware! After that, the opcodes cannot be restored, so you better work on a copy of your original image files.

[ramarren]

I dont understand why these discussions are so black or white.

Even though I dont have any problem with the fact that Leica does lock the option to uncheck digital correction for some cameras/lenses while they leave the choice open in case of R and M and S lenses on the M/S cameras - why can we not accept that some people would like to have the option for all lenses?

Wanting a processing option is fine by me ... Send an enhancement request to Adobe for Lightroom, mention it on your favorite forum, etc. Then move on. I do that frequently, and about half of my requests/suggestions have been implemented in updates to the software within a year or two.

 

Making insinuations like "the lenses don't perform well" or "all digital corrections are ugly" or "without this it's a 'deal killer' (whatever that's supposed to mean)" is the absurdity that I find annoying, as well as yammering on that you and some guy who reviews cameras for a living thought the same as you did so you must be right and everyone else must be too dense to understand ...

 

I think most of the photographers on this forum understand what geometric distortions are and would love to see lenses with fewer of them when possible. Saying that leaving in barrel distortion reduces "stretched heads" and that this is "better", or a consequence of digital correction, is a bit of a leap if not actually false.

 

Leica R, M, and S lenses were not designed to be used with a digital correction algorithm as a part of the lens design. The lens profiles that Leica produces for them and that are optional in use are intended to allow the lens to perform the same way it did on film or in its original uncorrected digital medium. Leica SL lenses are designed to be used with specific digital corrections to produce images that appear the way Leica intends. Because they are a part of the lens design, the corrections are not optional. That's the logic, anyway. Is it right or wrong is a question for the philosophers.

 

Of course, you can choose not to use the corrections even with Lightroom but it takes a little work. Anyone passionate about using the lens' natural, uncorrected rendering can dig into the DNG file and remove the correction matrix. It's not going to render the way Leica intended at that point, but hey! It's your lens and your photo, do what you damn please with it.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Guys,

 

STOP

 

FEEDING

 

THE

 

TROLL

 

He doesn't own the lens. He has NO real world personal experience with the SL system by his own admission. Therefore his only interest in this lens can only be to stir up people who actually do own and use it. He is making incorrect assertations that optical corrections of distortion will give better results than digital ones. He's playing with you. Wish him well with his Canikony or whatever and let's just ignore him and move on.

 

You can't win with this guy. He's made his mind up and that's it. Let him dwell on this very first world problem while we go out and take photos.

 

Gordon

[zlatkob]

Wanting a processing option is fine by me ... Send an enhancement request to Adobe for Lightroom, mention it on your favorite forum, etc. Then move on. I do that frequently, and about half of my requests/suggestions have been implemented in updates to the software within a year or two.

 

Making insinuations like "the lenses don't perform well" or "all digital corrections are ugly" or "without this it's a 'deal killer' (whatever that's supposed to mean)" is the absurdity that I find annoying, as well as yammering on that you and some guy who reviews cameras for a living thought the same as you did so you must be right and everyone else must be too dense to understand ...

 

I think most of the photographers on this forum understand what geometric distortions are and would love to see lenses with fewer of them when possible. Saying that leaving in barrel distortion reduces "stretched heads" and that this is "better", or a consequence of digital correction, is a bit of a leap if not actually false.

 

Leica R, M, and S lenses were not designed to be used with a digital correction algorithm as a part of the lens design. The lens profiles that Leica produces for them and that are optional in use are intended to allow the lens to perform the same way it did on film or in its original uncorrected digital medium. Leica SL lenses are designed to be used with specific digital corrections to produce images that appear the way Leica intends. Because they are a part of the lens design, the corrections are not optional. That's the logic, anyway. Is it right or wrong is a question for the philosophers.

 

Of course, you can choose not to use the corrections even with Lightroom but it takes a little work. Anyone passionate about using the lens' natural, uncorrected rendering can dig into the DNG file and remove the correction matrix. It's not going to render the way Leica intended at that point, but hey! It's your lens and your photo, do what you damn please with it.

 

Those alleged "insinuations" reflect a total misunderstanding of what I've written.  I neither wrote them nor insinuated them.  So this is where you create a straw man to knock down.  Sean Reid does not review cameras "for a living".  He does photography for a living.  Do you?

[zlatkob]

Yes, sure.

 

 

Everyone accepts this. But it has nothing to do with electronic correction of distortion. With a wide-angle lens that renders straight lines straight (no geometric distortion), you'll get projective distortion (stretched heads)—no matter if straight lines are straight due to optical or due to electronic correction of geometry.

 

If you want to reduce projective distortion at the expense of curved rendition of straight lines then you can always manually add some barrel-shaped geometric distortion in post-processing.

 

 

What's your problem? You can always undo the forced distortion correction. You can do it the quick and easy way, by adding barrel-shaped distortion to the electronically corrected image. In theory, this will cost a little image quality, but in real life you'd be hard-pressed to notice.

 

Or you can do it by removing the electronically applied corrections prior to post-processing. For Adobe users, this method is slightly more cumbersome because neither Lightroom's nor Camera Raw's GUI offer any controls for this (unlike some other raw converters). But you can use Phil Harvey's ExifTool to remove the opcodes which carry the corrections. Use the following command line:

exiftool -OpcodeList3= image1.dng image2.dng ...

Notice the blank after the equals sign. But beware! After that, the opcodes cannot be restored, so you better work on a copy of your original image files.

I'm familiar with the ways of getting around this problem.  They are all workarounds and they work, but they introduce their own issues, from tightening the composition to reducing IQ (slightly) to adopting a different software/workflow.  Not forcing workarounds on photographers would be the better way.

[ramarren]

Guys,

 

STOP

 

FEEDING

 

THE

 

TROLL

 

He doesn't own the lens. He has NO real world personal experience with the SL system by his own admission. Therefore his only interest in this lens can only be to stir up people who actually do own and use it. He is making incorrect assertations that optical corrections of distortion will give better results than digital ones. He's playing with you. Wish him well with his Canikony or whatever and let's just ignore him and move on.

 

You can't win with this guy. He's made his mind up and that's it. Let him dwell on this very first world problem while we go out and take photos.

 

Gordon

 

 

Sounds like a plan, Gordon. 

 

I just completed some photos made with the SL and the SL24-90 for a new range of cards I'm producing. It performed beautifully. 

Now I think I'll go get lunch. 

[IkarusJohn]

Guys,

 

STOP

 

FEEDING

 

THE

 

TROLL

 

He doesn't own the lens. He has NO real world personal experience with the SL system by his own admission. Therefore his only interest in this lens can only be to stir up people who actually do own and use it. He is making incorrect assertations that optical corrections of distortion will give better results than digital ones. He's playing with you. Wish him well with his Canikony or whatever and let's just ignore him and move on.

 

You can't win with this guy. He's made his mind up and that's it. Let him dwell on this very first world problem while we go out and take photos.

 

Gordon

 

 

I was thinking Norwegian as well, but I was interested in the point (if the is one) - I guess I was going about it the wrong way, or was, as usual, being overly optimistic.  Clearly the point was as I thought ...

 

Thanks Olaf for your clarification - nice to have you posting again.

 

Cheers

John

[zlatkob]

Guys,

 

STOP

 

FEEDING

 

THE

 

TROLL

 

He doesn't own the lens. He has NO real world personal experience with the SL system by his own admission. Therefore his only interest in this lens can only be to stir up people who actually do own and use it. He is making incorrect assertations that optical corrections of distortion will give better results than digital ones. He's playing with you. Wish him well with his Canikony or whatever and let's just ignore him and move on.

 

You can't win with this guy. He's made his mind up and that's it. Let him dwell on this very first world problem while we go out and take photos.

 

Gordon

First, I don't appreciate the name-calling or the utter disrespect.  Second, I'm not making the "assertion that optical corrections will give better results than digital ones" — you've misread that.  Rather, I (and a few others) have stated that the photographer should have the option to turn off digital corrections in Lightroom.  This would be a benefit for some photographers.  You're fighting against that it seems.  Third, I don't have to own the camera to comment. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

Those alleged "insinuations" reflect a total misunderstanding of what I've written.  I neither wrote them nor insinuated them.  So this is where you create a straw man to knock down.  Sean Reid does not review cameras "for a living".  He does photography for a living.  Do you?

 

I've not seen any of his photos so I can't comment on him as a photographer. All I've see are his articles on LuLa and a few from his website, which he claims is "100% subscriber supported." That does suggest he's garnering something of his income from his reviews. Whether he also does photography I don't doubt. 

 

And yes.