M262 Yellow bias

[jhluxton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was out and about in Wales earlier this week and have become aware of a strong yellow bias taken on my 10 month old M262.

 

The problem appears to manifest itself when a photograph includes a large area of brightly sunlit grass.

 

Below is an example JPG file generated by Lightroom from the DNG file taken from the camera with just some auto tone adjustment:

 

 

Further experimenting with the DNG file has revealed that applying a +71 Green Primary in Lightroom appears to bring greens to a more realistic level.

 

Googling and looking around on here has revealed suggestions of a yellow bias on M262 cameras but no major discussion of the issue.

 

I was wondering what others do to work around this issue? Just tweak in Lightroom as necessary or is there something else I can do?

 

I have not really noticed this issue before looking back through previous photos.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Thanks

 

John 

[adan]

Which base calibration profile are you using - Adobe's "Standard" or Leica's "Embedded"? Or have you made your own custom profile?

 

How are you white-balancing the image? "As Shot," or "Auto," or a preset (e.g. "Daylight"), or a "Custom" WB via the eyedropper on something gray, or a "Custom" WB set manually via the sliders?

 

Don't count on Lightroom/Adobe (or Leica) to give you good colors (or colors you prefer) automatically. "You push the button - we do the rest" was a Kodak slogan, and doesn't apply to getting high-end results from digital raw files.

 

You have to think about where LightRoom's name came from (a darkroom), and expect to do at least some of the same work you'd do if you took a color negative into a real darkroom and made prints - i.e exercise some thought and control over the process. Which you did with your "Green +71" - although that may or may not be the "best" technique.

 

That will depend on your answers to the questions above.

[Advertisement]

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

[david strachan]

I haven't seen any posts about the reds being too orange.

That's what most of them look to me.

 

...

John's picture just looks too green.

Edited August 11, 2017 by david strachan

[250swb]

John, on my calibrated monitor the green seems to be way off, too bright even for a sunny Spring day after an overnight shower of grass invigorating rain. So first things first, is your monitor calibrated?

 

Taking the liberty to put the image into Photoshop I notice that you are losing a lot of subtlety in the sky because it is too bright, knock the brightness down and the grass then becomes far more natural, then add 'Auto Colour' for a final balance. So your monitor may not need to be balanced for colour, rather it is not bright enough and you are over compensating by making the image too bright? Try cross checking your image by looking at the forum posting on an iPad just to see if there is a difference.

Edited August 11, 2017 by 250swb

[jhluxton]

Thanks for the replies I think I have opened a bit of a can of worms for myself here, perhaps more so when it comes to the monitor rather than Lightoom?

 

It would appears that when processing the files Lightroom was set to Adobe standard rather than embedded. Toggling between the two I can see some differences the yellow bias does reduce in those photos that appear to be particularly effected, or at least in my perception are.

 

WB settings for most photos are "as shot" (camera set to auto WB). I have played around with the Lightroom white balance at times generally leaving it "as shot" this has in the past tended to produce the colour balance I prefer.

 

Selecting Auto warms things up more than I particularly like in most shots and daylight in sun results are somewhere between the two.

 

The monitor issue set me thinking - yes the monitor was calibrated spring 2016 year when I bought a new PC - however - the monitor itself (Dell ST 2210) dates from my previous PC (2010).

 

When I went through the calibration settings again after reading the previous post I noticed that both display and contrast settings were currently both set to 100%. I think as time has gone one I have adjusted settings and forgotten about the calibration.

 

Having now run through the procedure again I now find the images as displayed in Lightroom rather dark.

 

As for comparing the image on the forum with it viewed on the iPad I can't really see much difference.

 

 

John

Edited August 11, 2017 by jhluxton

[jhluxton]

I have had another run through recalibrating the monitor and I now appear to have settings that are producing the desired result and have removed the green primary correction from the image

 

I am not sure how I managed to forget about checking the monitor calibration but that certainly had something to do with the problem! But then I suppose it is one of those things one does initially and forgets about it.

 

Here is a new JPG created from the DNG file:

 

 

Thanks for the suggestions

 

John

Edited August 11, 2017 by jhluxton

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Viewed on my phone, I say that's a pretty good improvement. I have often wondered about the Adobe standard and embedded profiles. I'm one who thinks accuracy is not the issue but preference is and I don't have a preference for one profile over the other which is the same for all pictures so I always take Adobe standard as my starting point.

[jaapv]

IR contamination! Use a 486 filter.

[jhluxton]

IR contamination! Use a 486 filter.

 

I thought filters were only needed on the early digital M's? 

 

However, I had been thinking of getting a filter for each of my lenses for protection so perhaps it won't do any harm?

 

John

Edited August 11, 2017 by jhluxton

[LocalHero1953]

I don't have the M262, but on the M240 I use the Adobe standard profile, but find that for landscapes the greens are just too bright and yellowy. I now have a LR preset that reduces yellow saturation quite a lot and green a bit. I derived it by using the HSL adjustments and the 'dropper': plonk it on the horrible yellow grass and drag until it looks right . Then use that as a preset. You can use it as an import default if you wish, but I prefer to use it only when necessary. 

[jaapv]

I thought filters were only needed on the early digital M's? 

 

However, I had been thinking of getting a filter for each of my lenses for protection so perhaps it won't do any harm?

 

John

The M8 had an IR filtering that was 50% effective (with the well-known result [ ] ), the M9 was 80% effective which is acceptable in normal circumstances and I suspect that the M240 series is around 70%, which means a filter is needed from time to time. I had serious IR trouble with shots in the tropics around noon on my M240, the yellow cast was horrendous.It is easy to verify these values by using an IR pass filter like B&W 092 and comparing EV values between the cameras.

[adan]

Well, I think Leica's post-M8 IR filtering was a little stronger than that. I needed 16x the exposure to get a classic "white-foliage" infrared shot out of the M9 with an IR-pass filter, compared to the M8.

 

But - as we know, foliage/chlorophyll is a huge IR reflector, so it will be a "worst-case" subject for revealing any remaining IR sensitivity.

 

I notice the M10 still throws out the occasional "purplish" black cloth - in my current magazine issue, the female car racer's "dusty-black" Nomex suit goes a bit purple (or even very purple under halogen light), compared to other black items of clothing. (But then, Nomex is supposed to strongly reflect radiant heat - i.e. IR wavelengths). See pp. 30-31.