photolandscape Posted June 27, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've had my M8 for about six months now. For the most part, I love the images I'm getting from it. I've worked through the IR sensitivity issue, a chronically dirty sensor, a rangefinder adjustment, new firmware, and more. But one issue continues--auto white balance. I haven't had the time to really explore why, when I take a dozen shots let's say of the same object or person or place, I get such wild variation in terms of color balance. A few shots look great, then the color balance on the next one(s) turns to a ghastly yellow/green. It seems to be most noticeable on jpegs. But I see it happening on .dng files as well. The last thing I want from my M8 are shots that look like they were taken with a odd-colored filter. If I wanted that sort of coloration, I could apply it in Photoshop or use a conventional filter. Is this something that we can expect some resolution on with the next firmware update, and if so, when might that take place? I have a big trip planned to Peru and Easter Island starting in six weeks, and would really like to resolve it before then. If this sounds like something that would require sending the camera back to Solms (oh no, not again), I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on that. But I'm hoping it's a soon-to-be resolved firmware issue. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 Hi photolandscape, Take a look here Auto White Balance and the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Frank Sprow Posted June 27, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 27, 2007 I hope so too, but in the interim I just shoot in "Cloudy" unless under artificial indoor lighting, and then tune up the white balance as needed in Lightroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punktum Posted June 27, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 27, 2007 Well, my auto white balance is called Daylight. It´s like shooting with slides. Everything else will be done in the postproduction C1. And to be honest, pretty often, there is not so much to be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted June 27, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 27, 2007 Unless one shoots raw, there are real problems with AWB. I don't see that any one setting is better than the other. One has to shoot raw and then correct it later. DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibogost Posted June 27, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 27, 2007 I don't use AWB at all. I just set it to something arbitrary so I get the same WB in all my shots and I do the rest in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGeoJO Posted June 27, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 27, 2007 Unless one shoots raw, there are real problems with AWB. I don't see that any one setting is better than the other. One has to shoot raw and then correct it later. DR That's it! I always shoot RAW/DNG and in some cases, when I need to trasfer/store files on my Epson P-2000, I add the small JPG, because the Epson still doesn't recognize DNG yet. Although the DNG files are there without the jpg but seeing the jpg files make me feel comfortable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sps Posted June 27, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unless one shoots raw, there are real problems with AWB. I don't see that any one setting is better than the other. One has to shoot raw and then correct it later. DR I'm not sure I agree. I see a difference between the settings in the in-camera Jpegs. I leave mine set to "Daylight" all the time now and find the colors to be very natural. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted June 27, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 27, 2007 I leave mine set to "Daylight" all the time now and find the colors to be very natural. Except, I assume, when you are in tungsten or fluorescent light conditions. I never use AWB, but I try to get the camera setting as close as possible to the temperature of the light source I'm using. To fine tune, I always carry a WhiBal card and shoot a frame of it at arms length, then do a one-click white balance adjustment in the RAW converter. It works quite nicely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordfanjpn Posted June 27, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 27, 2007 I have an Expodisc I use sometimes. Seems to do a credible job of getting you in the ballpark. AWB is very erratic and unpredictable, but I've always been able to fix it in the raw converter. Although I don't consider this a fatal flaw, it would be nice if they could at least get it to be more consistent. I had a Nikon D40 for a while that had uncannily accurate AWB. Much better than the D200. I wonder why it is that the cheap cameras seem to have better AWB than the expensive ones. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sps Posted June 27, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 27, 2007 Except, I assume, when you are in tungsten or fluorescent light conditions. I never use AWB, but I try to get the camera setting as close as possible to the temperature of the light source I'm using. To fine tune, I always carry a WhiBal card and shoot a frame of it at arms length, then do a one-click white balance adjustment in the RAW converter. It works quite nicely. You're correct. In flourescent I set the manual WB by shooting a white subject then do final adjustments to the DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted June 27, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 27, 2007 You're in good company, Steve. I took the images on this sheet within minutes of each other under the same light (diffuse morning daylight) using the M8's auto white balance. The M8's auto white balance is certifiably primitive and perhaps the camera's most significant imaging weakness today. Coupled with some of its other color quirks it can make color photography challenging. Like "sps" I've found that using a preset, such as "Daylight", makes it a bit easier to adjust RAW images during post-processing. Hopefully Leica will be able to license some basic contemporary auto white balance code from a more technologically-oriented company such as Panasonic. But, frankly, I don't have high hopes for seeing it in the M8's firmware any time soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted June 27, 2007 Hopefully Leica will be able to license some basic contemporary auto white balance code from a more technologically-oriented company such as Panasonic. But, frankly, I don't have high hopes for seeing it in the M8's firmware any time soon. Thanks, and now I remember your posting from a few weeks back. Your photographs display exactly what I am experiencing. I have to wonder how difficult it could be to correct this AWB issue through a firmware fix? I just can't imagine it would be terribly difficult, but then again, I would have no idea how it is done. Hopefully they'll address--it drives me nuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted June 27, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 27, 2007 ......in the interim I just shoot in "Cloudy" unless under artificial indoor lighting.......... Indeed - That works for me too Frank. ................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk60 Posted June 27, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 27, 2007 Except, I assume, when you are in tungsten or fluorescent light conditions. I never use AWB, but I try to get the camera setting as close as possible to the temperature of the light source I'm using. To fine tune, I always carry a WhiBal card and shoot a frame of it at arms length, then do a one-click white balance adjustment in the RAW converter. It works quite nicely. ditto. here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 28, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 28, 2007 Hopefully Leica will be able to license some basic contemporary auto white balance code from a more technologically-oriented company such as Panasonic. But, frankly, I don't have high hopes for seeing it in the M8's firmware any time soon. Thanks, and now I remember your posting from a few weeks back. Your photographs display exactly what I am experiencing. I have to wonder how difficult it could be to correct this AWB issue through a firmware fix? I just can't imagine it would be terribly difficult, but then again, I would have no idea how it is done. Hopefully they'll address--it drives me nuts. It is a firmware fix and leica is working on it and will be here very soon. Also not as easy as one thinks. As i was told not a easy task Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted June 28, 2007 Guy, was hoping you might have the scoop on AWB. I'll sit tight and see what the next firmware release brings. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 28, 2007 Share #17 Posted June 28, 2007 Another vote for manual WB here. I was using my Leicagoodies SFILL soft box as a neutral target but now I have splashed out on an Expodisc, which is much easier and more accurate. You can also use the camera plus Expodisc as an incident light meter, which is useful. I think it was either Guy or Sean who said to get a 77mm one - good advice. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holgerf Posted June 28, 2007 Share #18 Posted June 28, 2007 Guy, was hoping you might have the scoop on AWB. I'll sit tight and see what the next firmware release brings. Thanks. Guy already reported that there will be an AWB update with soon firmware update: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/291888-post241.html Best Holger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted June 29, 2007 Share #19 Posted June 29, 2007 With the M8 I shoot DNG and adjust color in postprocessing. The M8 has forced me to become an involved digital photographer and maybe that will make for an improvement. Maybe the mostly-perfect AWB and JPEGS I got with my D200 were contributing to me being lazy. Yeah, that's it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted June 29, 2007 Share #20 Posted June 29, 2007 Tummydoc is right.You become involved in using the raw DNG whether you want to or not. Processing is the only to get the WB accurate ,( or at leaast, as you like it). DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.