M10 colors oversaturated? -Merged thread-

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Full agreement with Andy - it's all down to you.  Personally, I love the M10 files and find them exceptionally flexible.  My other camera's a Canon 5D3.

Examples of recent work would seem to indicate that lighting conditions and the author's design are central.  Not camera defaults...

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!

[Chaemono]

I agree with Andy, pgh, and Chris. The M10 has just a better sensor. It has more dynamic range, it captures the tones better, it protects the highlights (ISO 200). It gets closer in this respect to the Sony a7r II but is still lagging a bit behind. Below two shots from today with the Noctilux at f/5.6 and ISO 200, both using the Adobe Standard profile. The first is with the SL shot at 1/400, just opened in LR and not touched (WB as shot). The second is with the M10 at 1/350, Exposure and WB adjusted a bit to try to match. And, yes, I couldn't get the purplish/magenta out and I'm not sure I want to completely. The M10 just captures the colors better this way and skin tones are fine.

 

Link to full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-qgvgsW/ 

(there are two more in the link that I had posted earlier. Both at the exact same settings. The SL shot is not touched except auto adjust for WB. For the M10 one, WB and Exposure adjusted, Vibrance +13, Saturation +5 to try to match).

 

SL+Noctilux ISO 200, 1/400, f/5.6

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!

 

M10+Noctilux ISO 200, 1/350, f/5.6

Edited September 10, 2017 by Chaemono

[adli]

Full agreement with Andy - it's all down to you.  Personally, I love the M10 files and find them exceptionally flexible.  My other camera's a Canon 5D3.

Examples of recent work would seem to indicate that lighting conditions and the author's design are central.  Not camera defaults...

 

Hi Chris,

 

A couple of fascinating pictures there.  Some years ago you were kind enough to share with us what your standard import settings for the M240 where. I think they were contrast 25, blacks 15, clarity10 and vibrance around 17. Obviously, these settings do not wok on the M10 which has a much higher contrast by default  both with Adobes and Leicas profile. Do you have any default settings for you M10 you use and you can share with us?

 

Kind regards,

Arne

Edited September 10, 2017 by adli

[pgh]

As I'm fairly new to this camera I'm still working through files in different situations. Generally, I find these raws in lightroom to be quite contrasty compared to what I'm used to. Overly contrasty files can give the appearance of over saturated files. I am finding myself pulling back highlights and opening up the blacks, as well as turning down the contrast -10 to -20 or so - moreso than messing with saturation, which I hold normally at 0 to -10.

 

I generally am shooting in good light in contrasty situations so far, ISO 100 with directional or dappled light etc. I'm finding that parts of the image appear to fall to black (if exposing for highlights - but you can recover to a reasonable degree) or get blown (but somewhat recoverable) more than what I'm used to with Sony/Nikon. I generally prefer a look that is probably closest to a slightly contrasty negative film - maybe like a 1 stop pushed portra 160 or something. The Leica files have to be dialed back in contrast (and sometimes saturation) to achieve what I'm going for. The standard raw conversions to me are pretty punchy, too punchy, for my preferences. 

[adan]

@pgh - sounds familiar.

 

As discussed at length in another M10 thread, the M10 ISO 100 is a "pull" - an overexposure of the sensor, with mathematical processing in-camera to bring tones back into line as much as possible. The true sensor ISO is about 135-ish. So, yes, it is prone to blowing highlights - after 6 months with the M10, I tend to avoid ISO 100 except on special occasions and with extra-careful study of the scene's brightness pattern.

 

The "classic" M metering using the optical viewfinder is virtually a spot-meter, covering only about 20% of the center of the picture. So it can be easily fooled by something extra-dark or extra-bright in the center of the frame. But that's been Leica's approach to metering with the compact Ms going back to the M6 (1985) or even the M5 (1972), so long-time M users understand its behavior. But it is NOT like the multi-field full-picture meters in SLRs, or off-the-sensor metering in mirrorless cameras. The metering when using the M10's EVF/live-view is probably more like what you are used to (I wouldn't know, I don't use the electronic viewing myself).

 

As to the default contrast curve (which, of course, is just a mathematical overlay on the sensor data, not the sensor data itself) - as I mentioned earlier, I think Leica applies this intentionally, because of the negative response by some to the flatter, less saturated default look of the M240. Especially from those coming from the CCD/Kodak-color-filtered M9. Or from Kodachrome or Velvia film rather than Portra.

 

While it doesn't change the actual data, and as both you and I have found, there are tons of 14/16-bit shadow detail hidden beneath that default curve to be recovered - I do think, now, after 6 months, that Leica overdid it a little. And in a future firmware version may - probably should - dial it back a bit. With a high-bit-count .dng, I have no problem cranking the shadow recovery up to +60 or +90 in terms of image quality - but it's irritating having to do it as a default or standard approach to a majority of images.

 

An in-between approach, where the M9/Velvia users can add contrast and the Portra/other cameras users can reduce contrast - a little for either - would probably be a better balance.

[lanetomlane]

I don't find the M10 colours to be over saturated at all. I reduce the saturation on images coming from the SL and sometimes had to do the same with the M240, depending on the subject. I find I don't have to 'play' with the saturation at all with the M10's output.

[mdemeyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know we have veered around a lot on this discussion, so just restating the original point was not the M10 per-se but rather the M10 DNG files when processed in Lightroom with the standard M10 profile. Many people have correctly pointed out that you can (and need to, as a general statement) adjust to taste and the needs of the image the output of any digital camera.

The (my) original question related to whether people felt a general need - meaning on the majority of images - to reduce Saturation with some strategy when using the standard M10 Lightroom profile.

Wasn't trying to start a range war or be critical of the camera or sensor (both of which I like very, very much). Just trying to see how my experience related to others...

Edited September 11, 2017 by mdemeyer

[chris_tribble]

Hi Chris,

 

A couple of fascinating pictures there.  Some years ago you were kind enough to share with us what your standard import settings for the M240 where. I think they were contrast 25, blacks 15, clarity10 and vibrance around 17. Obviously, these settings do not wok on the M10 which has a much higher contrast by default  both with Adobes and Leicas profile. Do you have any default settings for you M10 you use and you can share with us?

 

Kind regards,

Arne

Oddly enough I've kept these default settings for years (following some advice from Jeff Schewe), My current defaults with LR CC 2015 (subscription latest update) are:

Blacks: +10

Clarity: +10

Vibrance: +17

Tone curve: medium contrast

Sharpening: zero

NOISE REDUCTION

Luminance: zero

Color: 25

Detail: 50

Smoothness: 50

Profile corrections: Enabled

Process: 2012 (current)

Profile: Adobe Standard

 

Works for me

[willeica]

I know we have veered around a lot on this discussion, so just restating the original point was not the M10 per-se but rather the M10 DNG files when processed in Lightroom with the standard M10 profile. Many people have correctly pointed out that you can (and need to, as a general statement) adjust to taste and the needs of the image the output of any digital camera.

 

The (my) original question related to whether people felt a general need - meaning on the majority of images - to reduce Saturation with some strategy when using the standard M10 Lightroom profile.

 

Wasn't trying to start a range war or be critical of the camera or sensor (both of which I like very, very much). Just trying to see how my experience related to others...

 

I generally 'boil to taste' my images rather than use presets. My own preference is for quite saturated images with modern cameras, even though I also like the desaturated images available with older non coated lens. My preference for saturation probably comes from using Kodachrome and Velvia in the 1980s. Fujifilm offers quite a nice range of its old film looks for Fujifilm digital cameras within the profiles section of Lightroom. We are lucky to have so much adjustment available to us nowadays. I realise, however, that professionals have a need to process a lot of images quickly with a similar output look and I would have thought that most professionals would use presets to achieve that end.

 

For what its worth, I like the output from the M10 and it 'boils up' quite nicely in Lightroom and Photoshop to give the kind of saturated slide film look I like. The main reason I prefer the M10 to my M240 is, however, the fact that I find it a much nicer camera to handle and use. I got my M9 back this morning from Wetzlar with its replaced sensor and I have tested it with 50 and 35 Summilux lenses. I find that the output from the new sensor is quite like that from the M10, if somewhat less detailed. 

 

William

Edited September 11, 2017 by willeica

[evikne]

Maybe I'm a bit lazy, but with other cameras and raw converters I'm used to that when the white balance is correct, the colors mostly fall into place by themselves. I could probably make a preset in Lightroom to correct the color tint that I don't like in the Leica M10 profile, but it is much easier to switch to another profile (Adobe Standard) that I am mostly happy with.

 

Of course the exposure, contrast etc. always need individual adjustments, but I think that when this and the white balance is correct, the color profile should make it unnecessary to touch the color sliders in most cases.

[mdemeyer]

I don't see it as "presets" which suggests (to me) one step to the final result. I'm not expecting a final result for any photo from any settings. But every process begins with some starting point. So it's a question of the starting point that helps you get to your final result efficiently.

[willeica]

For me it varies, but typically with my M10 clarity would start with +10 and vibrancy would be about 10 more than clarity. Saturation ( remember I'm a fan of that) would be whatever it needs, but usually in the range + 4 to +6 . I am not rigid and much would depend on the nature of the original image and exposure. With Fujifilm cameras the + figures would be very low as they cannot take much abuse in Lightroom, but you can add the punch later with the film profiles.

 

There is nothing absolutely correct in any of this. In the film days we had to largely accept what was presented by Kodak, Agfa and Fuji etc. Nowadays when Leica or other manufacturers present us with a sensor, we have the ability to modify the output in processing software very quickly. Photographers in those days would have loved to have had what we have now. They would also have been bemused by today's photographers who want manufacturers to do it their way when individual tastes vary widely.

 

William

[erl]

I tend to set WB at Daylight or Cloudy. Sometimes switch specifically for artificial light, but only if I may need to chimp.

All my images, regardless of quantity end up getting individual corrections, after maybe a global fix based on one at random. Because of the way I shoot and where I shoot, any attempt at standardization is a bit futile.

 

I have become skilled (IMO) at getting through large volumes and colour correcting, which only happens when I travel these days. I use C1. I am not a fan of Lightroom.

 

C1 does frustrate me marginally becaue Phase One don't yet have profiles for the M10, which does not bother me too much, but the thumbnails on the SD card take foreeever to load in the drop down menu. If there is only one day's shoot on the card, I just select all and download to my selected folder. After that they display fine.

[Overgaard]

I tend to set WB at Daylight or Cloudy. Sometimes switch specifically for artificial light, but only if I may need to chimp.

All my images, regardless of quantity end up getting individual corrections, after maybe a global fix based on one at random. Because of the way I shoot and where I shoot, any attempt at standardization is a bit futile.

 

I have become skilled (IMO) at getting through large volumes and colour correcting, which only happens when I travel these days. I use C1. I am not a fan of Lightroom.

 

C1 does frustrate me marginally becaue Phase One don't yet have profiles for the M10, which does not bother me too much, but the thumbnails on the SD card take foreeever to load in the drop down menu. If there is only one day's shoot on the card, I just select all and download to my selected folder. After that they display fine.

 

 

Yes, the profile missing is not a big issue. Hopefully it's there very soon.

 

I didn't get what you mean with the drop-down menu? Don' you just copy all the images into the Capture folder, or do you try to select first?

[erl]

Yes, I do try to select first, as sometimes shots on the same card are destined for different folders on my PC. Being able to easily and quickly identify them is a bit of an issue currently. I do have a (clutsy) workaround.

[Chaemono]

Ennh - I slide my saturation control about 10 points PLUS with the Leica digitals (15-20 PLUS with Canon SLRs). Since my pix have won a few national awards (and they look and print just right to me), I'm happy with that.

 

But de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum. In any event, it isn't a camera issue, just a taste issue. The M10 can suit any taste.

I went out with the M-E (Typ 220), the M10, and two lenses yesterday. I have lots more but just the first two here. The first one numbered L is with the M9 using the embedded profile. Then follow the M10 with the Adobe Standard and with the embedded profiles. Just opened in LR and exposure adjusted a bit. Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vLdCpt/

 

 

M9 embedded profile

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!

 

M10 Adobe Standard profile

 

M10 embedded profile

[mdemeyer]

How are these white balanced?

 

I went out with the M-E (Typ 220), the M10, and two lenses yesterday. I have lots more but just the first two here. The first one numbered L is with the M9 using the embedded profile. Then follow the M10 with the Adobe Standard and with the embedded profiles. Just opened in LR and exposure adjusted a bit. Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vLdCpt/

 

 

M9 embedded profile

L1002573_lufv_embedded.jpg

 

M10 Adobe Standard profile

M1004202_lufv_Adobe.jpg

 

M10 embedded profile

M1004202_lufv_enbedded.jpg

[Chaemono]

Sorry, forgot to mention, WB as shoot for all of them.

[mdemeyer]

Auto white balance by the camera, then?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chaemono]

Yes, AWB.