M10 color rendition

[Bundestrainer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those of you who already own a M10, what are your thoughts on the color rendition of the M10?

I've had the camera for almost a month and I really like how it handles. It's perfect in this regard.

However, as far as its color rendition is concerned I'm not sure I really like it. Compared to my trusty M9 the tones are rather on the cool side. Of course, I could make the image warmer by adjusting the white balance. I find that by doing that the colors do not represent what I was seeing when I took the photo though. I guess I wish the tones would in general be a tad warmer under correct white balance settings. Shifting the white balance to add more yellow makes the image appear unnatural and unpleasing to my eyes.

Another thing I'm not really happy with are the darker tones. I'm aware the M10 files offer a great latitude to lift the shadows but I find that the darker tones are rather difficult to lift while simultaneously keeping the overall brightness correct and in the mid range.

Having used the M9 for almost 7 years I might need to adapt to the "new" colors of the M10. It might take time to find a way to post-process the files in a way I like. Furthermore, maybe I'm so used to the M9 look that adapting to the new look (for me CMOS for the first time) needs some more time. Hopefully, it's not the M10's color rendition per se that I don't like because I really, really want to love this camera.

[jaapv]

Start by making your own colour profile for the camera. I do that for any camera I buy.

[UliWer]

I tried a comparison between the colors of the M9 and the M10 here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268602-erste-erfahrungen-m10/?p=3243617

 

The first examples are unchanged, especially white balance not adjusted. This led to harsh comments, that the files look "dirty": white not white, but greyed, grey not grey but muddy. I don't think those comments are unjustified. Most of this impression comes from surrounding lights - which reflect no clinical test surroundings but a "natural" situation. 

 

What surprised me was that the M10 needed a lot more light exposure than the M9 (+3 EV) to achieve similar results - but still darker. Second surprise was, that the colors from the M9 look a lot more "clear", contrasty - though perhaps more artificial. I find them "cooler" than the M10-colours, which look more subdued, perhaps "dirtier", less contrasty - but warmer. Third surprise: the Kelvin numbers for the M9-files were a lot "warmer" than for the M10-files.

 

With white balance and light exposure adjusted automatically by Lightroom the differences perhaps became a little bit smaller - though even when the M10-files seemed to change more, the numbers indicate that changements for the M9 were somewhat higher. Still the Kelvin numbers for the M9-files were considerably higher than for the M10.

 

My first conclusion: the M10 files are more "lame", no "drama queens" like the M9-files. Though with very subtle adjustments you can achieve a lot more than for the M9 files, which have a tendency to overreact. 

Edited March 30, 2017 by UliWer

[01af]

Those of you who already own a M10, what are your thoughts on the color rendition of the M10?

 

The colours of the M9, M (Typ 240), and M10 are off. They all go into the same direction—reds too blueish, blues too reddish, both too saturated—but at decreasing degrees. So while there is an improvement compared to the previous models, the colours still are not acceptable. As always, you need to roll your own colour profiles.

[olgierdc]

As mentioned above, first you need your own profile, second using AWB is in not good idea, third much depends on what is your darkroom (Lightroom, C1, Iridient).

If I take photo outside, I use mainly dual illluminant profile (sun & shadows) as both are derived from sunlight. For inside photos I use separate profile especially for: fluorescent light, LED, etc, because they all have no continuous spectrum of light.

By studying the temperature of colors by colormeter, you can be surprised what Kelvin temperature is at the moment.

The best way is to use a white balance card with dedicated light profile.

[fotofool]

Staart by making your own colour profile for the camera. I do that for any camera I buy.

 

 

 

Not just for the camera but for every lens/camera combination.  Lenses skew colors too.  I shoot with a Leica, a Canon, a Panasonic m4/3 and a pocketable Ricoh GR.  After applying the camera/lens color profiles in Lightroom I can't tell which was shot with with camera just by the "look" of the picture.  Then I edit them all consistently so they have MY "look."

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I am too lazy for that, the PS sliders will have to do . Anyhow, I will shoot aprofile shot for changing light if the images are important enough to me.

[Bundestrainer]

Thank you for the broad feedback. It means a lot to me.

 

I did a profile today and after evaluating the results I'll report back.

[Bundestrainer]

After using a profile for the M10 some colors have shifted a bit but overall my findings remain the same. However, having used the camera in good light in the last two days I'm much more convinced I like its color rendition. Of course, the M10 profile could and needs to be refined by Leica.

[nico1974]

Having had the M240 previously the colours of the M10 are better and mid tone contrast is fantastic as the sensor seems to have higher dynamic range. I use my own custom colour profile which probably helps in that regard - the inbuilt M10 profile that you get if you have not upgraded Lightroom to the latest version is awful - particularly the yellows are way off.

 

The latitude of the M10 files is far superior and you will have to add contrast and make some tone adjustments to get similar pop to the M9 but it is always a lot easier to add contrast rather than to remove it.

 

A few images from the M10 below and more can be found on my flickr page - https://www.flickr.com/photos/nico1974

 

 

Gold? by Nicholas T, on Flickr

 

Yellow Splash by Nicholas T, on Flickr

 

Yellow, Red and Blue by Nicholas T, on Flickr

Edited April 2, 2017 by nico1974

[MikeMyers]

I have gotten involved in two programs for evaluating and editing my photos, Fast Raw Viewer and DxO's PhotoLab 4.  In the forum discussion, I was asked what color space I am shooting in.  Apparently the choice is likely to be sRGB or Adobe RGB.

I don't remember being asked to select this during the setup procedure.  Did I miss something, or does the M10 allow you to pick one or the other?

 

Second question, as I read the above responses, my first impression was that the older M cameras were more accurate, and the M10 less so.  Then I got the impression that the older M cameras were exaggerating colors, and the M10 is much more accurate.  I own a M8.2 and the M10, and the "tone" of my images does seem different, but the sensor is very different.

As part of those other programs, I learned to ignore the embedded JPG image, and to configure my software to only show the color information from the raw 'dng' images.  FastRawViewer can display a ton of information from evaluating the raw files.  PhotoLab 4 can do the same, once you learn how to do so.

I was asked in the forum what color space my M10 is working in.  Looking at the M10 menu, I don't see an obvious place to select this.  If I am able to do so, how would I get to that setting?  If I'm not able to change the setting, then what setting is the camera using by default?

 

If I mis-worded my questions, I apologize in advance.  I don't yet understand this well enough word my questions properly.  Oh, and for what it's worth, the photos I have been taking seem very accurate to my eyes, compared to what I remember.

Finally, White Balance apparently is very important.  It was suggested that I select 5500 which is not possible as far as I can tell.  I can then use 5600, or just select "daylight".  The people in the other forums felt very strongly that I do NOT use an "auto" setting.  How do all of you select white balance?  Is it just from your previous experience as to what works for you?

Edited December 10, 2020 by MikeMyers

[mujk]

On 4/1/2017 at 10:38 PM, Bundestrainer said:

After using a profile for the M10 some colors have shifted a bit but overall my findings remain the same. However, having used the camera in good light in the last two days I'm much more convinced I like its color rendition. Of course, the M10 profile could and needs to be refined by Leica.

I assume that you shoot DNG. In that case it's good to remember that there is one profile embedded in the DNG and, reflecing how Leica thinks the colors should look like. Then you can usually have alternative profiles in the software you use. Lightroom usually comes with one for each camera model, reflecting the Adobe view of how colors should be rendered. And you can make your own profiles using e.g. a profile editor.

With the M9 I actually liked the Adobe profile more, but when moving to the M10 I didn't have one available (using older version of LR). So I have experimented a bit with the free Adobe DNG profile editor, including converting an M9 profile for use with the M10. The sensors are completely different so the result is of course not the same, but it may provide a basis for further tweaking.

[evikne]

In natural light, I think the embedded Leica M10 color profile provides the most natural colors. It also brings out more details in the shadows compared to the Adobe color profile. My starting point with this profile in LR is simply everything set to zero in the Basic panel, and often the only thing I need to do, is to add some clarity, especially on older, less contrasty lenses. 

Indoors in artificial light, however, the M10 color profile is way too orange for some reason. I either have to tone down the orange saturation, or choose an Adobe profile or something else.

[adan]

11 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I have gotten involved in two programs for evaluating and editing my photos, Fast Raw Viewer and DxO's PhotoLab 4.  In the forum discussion, I was asked what color space I am shooting in.  Apparently the choice is likely to be sRGB or Adobe RGB.

I don't remember being asked to select this during the setup procedure.  Did I miss something, or does the M10 allow you to pick one or the other?

The color space you shoot in only matters for .jpg pictures.

Raw/.DNG pictures have no native color space of their own. And never will. When you import .DNG data into your computer software, then, and only then, does that "copy" of the data become a picture with a color space. Which will be whatever "working space" you have chosen to use in your software settings. For example, I work in Adobe RGB 1998 - and when I open a .DNG in Adobe Camera Raw, the resulting picture is translated from the raw data into the Adobe RGB 1998 color space. But I can change that with one click of a Camera Raw preference.

Thus there is no setting on or in the M10 (or any other digital camera) to choose a color space for a raw picture - it is an "undefined" value, like dividing by zero. No such animal.

It is also important not to confuse the "color space" with the "camera profile." They are not the same thing at all. A color space is like a room - in which a camera profile will arrange the furniture (colors) here or there (e.g. move the position of the "red" chair to be a bit more towards magenta or towards orange, or a bit more or less saturated (towards or away from the room walls).

They use some similar terminology and specifications that are common to all color management, just as a room and furniture may both be measured in feet or meters - but the furniture is never the room, nor vice-versa.

As rooms go, sRGB is a somewhat smaller "room" tham the Adobe RGB 1998 "room". sRGB (from 1996) has always been tuned for screen/video viewing, and the limitations of computer/video screens, and has a more limited gamut or size. Into which some colors (intense blues and greens, mostly) do not fit. Thus Adobe 1998 is the more preferred color space for serious photography (prints or publications).

There are color spaces some consider even "better" than Adobe 1998, such as ProPhoto RGB. But they have not caught on for wide-spread use.

This diagram (linked from wikimedia) shows the horseshoe of the CIE 1931 xy chromaticity map of "all hues the human eye can detect." With the "rooms" of several practical color spaces used in color reproduction. The size or area of each "room" is its gamut.

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!

[adan]

As a followup to the above, here are sample pix I made with the M9 and my new M10 in 2017. Both are processed identically, with the default "embedded" (i.e. from Leica) color profiles.

To go back to my color-space "room" and color profile "moving the furniture" analogies:

The M9 profile "moved" the car's oranges towards red (inaccurately), while moving the foliage and house greens towards yellow.

Or conversely, the M10 profile "moved" the  greens towards cyan/blue a bit. While capturing the car's orange color perfectly.

The M9 has more contrast and saturation, the M10 opens up the shadows under the porch and trellis just a bit (but that lower contrast desaturates most of the colors).

The M9 has a slightly yellower native "white point."

The differences are not large though. Playing with the Camera Calibration sliders for hue, and the Basic sliders for contrast and saturation (in the post-processing software - LR, ACR, etc.), could make either picture look like the other. That constitutes the photographer going into the "room" and "moving the furniture" him/herself. Which moves can be saved as a new custom camera profile, to be applied to any picture in the future..

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!

[dkmoore]

6 hours ago, adan said:

As a followup to the above, here are sample pix I made with the M9 and my new M10 in 2017. Both are processed identically, with the default "embedded" (i.e. from Leica) color profiles.

To go back to my color-space "room" and color profile "moving the furniture" analogies:

The M9 profile "moved" the car's oranges towards red (inaccurately), while moving the foliage and house greens towards yellow.

Or conversely, the M10 profile "moved" the  greens towards cyan/blue a bit. While capturing the car's orange color perfectly.

The M9 has more contrast and saturation, the M10 opens up the shadows under the porch and trellis just a bit (but that lower contrast desaturates most of the colors).

The M9 has a slightly yellower native "white point."

The differences are not large though. Playing with the Camera Calibration sliders for hue, and the Basic sliders for contrast and saturation (in the post-processing software - LR, ACR, etc.), could make either picture look like the other. That constitutes the photographer going into the "room" and "moving the furniture" him/herself. Which moves can be saved as a new custom camera profile, to be applied to any picture in the future..

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!

I must be ever so slightly color blind because it is very difficult for me to distinguish the green house and the hues. To test this, I showed my wife without telling her and she was able to pick out the hues instantly, barely having to look. Thanks for the posted examples.

 

[MikeMyers]

Triple wow!!!!   I eventually got to see what you mean, but I couldn't get my eyes off your MGA!!!!!!   I used to own a 1960 MGA, and now I essentially own the same car but without needing a mechanic in my back pocket, a 2012 Mazda MX-5.

About your photos - from what I read, the M10 is very close, and the M9 has issues.  Is this fixable in-camera?  I doubt it, as if you're shooting raw, the data on the sensor doesn't know anything about color, it just records the sensor data.

[MikeMyers]

11 hours ago, adan said:

.......When you import .DNG data into your computer software, then, and only then, does that "copy" of the data become a picture with a color space.....

All this time I though the raw image contains an embedded jpg image.  If so, what you wrote doesn't seem to apply ??

[jdlaing]

24 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

All this time I though the raw image contains an embedded jpg image.  If so, what you wrote doesn't seem to apply ??

As far as I know there is an embedded thumbnail jpeg in the .dng file. Leica doesn’t use a proprietary raw file. They use .dng for the “raw” file.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

The MG(A?) isn't mine - just a nice pure color I happened to spot while walking around looking for "testable" colors.

It would take a book (or books) to fully explore the history of color reproduction. Heck, the artists painting the caves in Lascaux 17000 years ago probably argued over which ochre mud was the "right" ochre!

Sandstone pigments from the Calhan Paint Mines, Calhan CO - Leica M9, 75 Summilux, heavy crop.

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!

Let's just say that almost anything used in reproducing color introduces errors. Film dyes, light bulbs or time of day, lenses, inks (press or inkjet), papers, Bayer dyes, firmware, and on and on.

50 years ago, it was primarily a problem for "the wizards" - the chemists at Kodak and Agfa and Fuji - and even Ilford, since B&W films also have variations in how they reproduce color: orthochromatic, panchromatic, etc. Or other color professionals like motion-picture "color timers," lab operators, and printing-press operators, whose very livelihood depended on getting color exactly right. The original MacBeth (now X-Rite) ColorChecker dates to 1976.

But for the most part, we just took what came in the box and put it in the camera and got it back from the lab - and got "Kodachrome" color or "Agfachrome" color or "Fuji" color - and lived with it. With maybe a "sledgehammer" adjustment using an 81A or Skylight filter over the lens when shooting.

Now we have been allowed into the wizards' secret grotto, and can "color profile" all our devices and materials - if we choose. The manufacturers (Leica, Epson, Canon, Adobe, Apple, etc. etc.) provide canned profiles - but we can check them and "roll our own."

A "color profile" is essentially a correction for the defects in the raw materials, which can be measured and recorded. A known red is reproduced, and the reproduction is compared with the know original (either by a colorimeter device, or by matching the RGB values numerically). If that known red is coming out too orange or too magenta, the profile will shift that color in the correct direction. Whether it is the data coming from the camera (a "camera profile") or a scanner (a "scanner profile") or going to our screen (a "monitor profile") or to a printer (a "printer profile," often massaged with a specific "paper profile").

For example, the primary red patch on a ColorChecker is supposed to have 8-bit RGB values of 155 red, 52 green, and 59 blue in the sRGB color space.

If that is not what your camera, screen or printer is showing, a profile is supposed to shift the red until it matches that particular "red." On your screen, or in a print. You have "managed" the color so that it stays the correct color through all the possible steps to the end result.

It should be noted that a profile does not make the picture "pretty." It just makes it "accurate" (theoretically). The photographer can then play with that accurate baseline color to get something prettier, if they want.