CL vs Medium Format

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's still dark in the OP's time zone.  I have never detected a consistent meaning to "3D" as an adjective, but I think "pop" is likely to be quantifiable as the contrast at relatively high spatial frequencies in an image consisting of largely midtones.  This supports the color contrast that we expect to see in natural surfaces and fabrics.  Capturing a yellow taxi in front of a blue storefront is easy.  But when a fabric with contrasting thread colors or animal fur with multiple colors stands out, that's what I would call "pop".

i do not think this definition can hold, as this kind of colour contrast can easily be brought out in Photoshop using LAB.

[Advertisement]

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

[paulsydaus]

Do you own a color checker?

If so, can you repeat the test using a profiled image?

Unfortunately I don’t think Leica’s embedded profiles are very good and you may find that profiling the CL image will improve color and gradients significantly.

Look up what Sonder Creative has posted to YouTube on the topic.

Otherwise, can’t fault your methods but personally don’t understand why you would bother focus stacking an image like this.

 

 

I don't think for a second this is a fair comparison, so please don't point that out to me. I fully understand that the CL has completely different uses than a slow, medium format camera. Since I recently purchased a Hasselblad X1D, though, I was curious to see just how big the gap is in pure image quality between a 50 megapixel medium format camera with a good lens and a 24 megapixel APS-C camera with a good lens. I a set of pictures in my back garden. Here is the background:

 

- Static subject with essentially no motion

- Tripod mounted with self timer to reduce vibration

- Mechanical rather than electronic shutter (shouldn't pose an issue for either given the solid tripod and short focal length lens)

- Dynamic range was well within the capabilities of either camera, so no advantage to the Hasselblad there

- Base ISO

- Optimum aperture for each camera/lens combo (f/4 for the 23mm and CL, f/8 for the 45mm and X1D)

- Equivalent (approximately) depth of field for each camera/lens combo

- Focus stacking to gain the desired depth of field for the image (from foreground leaves to the important areas of the subject, but enough blur to minimize the distraction of the background)

- X1D cropped very slightly due to the different focal lengths that resulted from focus stacking (47 megapixels vs. 51)

- CL cropped much more significantly to get to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the larger camera

- Both cameras had very good lenses, but not the best that either system can offer. I used the 45mm XCD on the Hasselblad and the 23mm TL on the Leica. Both give similar fields of view (35mm equivalent)

 

I processed the X1D images to my own taste and to the best of my ability. Raw files were imported into Lightroom. White balance was set manually. Small adjustments to exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, and black point. A bit of local contrast through the clarity slider to make the details in the rust "pop" a bit. No adjustments to individual colors. Embedded color profile. Embedded lens profile for vignetting and distortion (though distortion is a non-issue on this type of shot). I took three separate exposures for each final image for focus stacking. The first image used the eye of the pig as the focus point. The second image used the bucket (slightly foreground) as the focus point. The third image used foreground leaves in the bottom left as the focus point. These three images were then merged in Photoshop to provide a depth off field that covered foreground to about the pig's shoulders (depending on your personal standards for "sharp"). I originally had a fourth shot for background leaves, but found that this made the wall in the back a little too distracting due to surface texture. I left that out. Sharpening was applied in Lightroom after the Photoshop focus stacking.

 

The CL image was processed in essentially the same manner. Manual white balance, ordinary adjustments to tone, etc. I had to bump up the saturation significantly to get the output from the CL to roughly match that from the X1D. It's not a perfect match, but it's pretty close. The X1D definitely produces more vibrant colors than the CL. Both cameras are quite accurate in terms of hue, but the X1D by default is more saturated. That could be good or bad, depending on your taste, and it's easy to adjust either to match the other. So the CL got a saturation bump. It also needed a bit of a curves adjustment to get the same contrast as the X1D without significantly clipping shadows. To keep the image from the CL from looking a bit washed out compared to the Hasselblad I had to slightly darken the deepest shadows, so that's one difference between the images. Finally, the CL is a much lower megapixel camera, so I cropped it to match in terms of aspect ratio and up-sampled it to the same 47 megapixels as the X1D image just so it would be easy to compare the two images. Not fair to the CL, I know, but it's the only way to do the comparison. If I had down-sampled the X1D image I would have been throwing out details.

 

I'm providing three images for each... An overall image sized for the web, a crop from the central portion of the image, and a crop from the lower left corner. I was actually really pleased with how the CL performed. While I would never use it for this type of photography given the other cameras I own, it's nice to see just what sort of differences one gets as the megapixel count climbs. The CL did just fine in my view, despite the 23mm not being its strongest lens.

 

Here is the overall shot from the CL...

 

Piggy_CL.jpg

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

Leica’s embedded profile is a lot closer to a decent CC profile than Adobe’s one although the greens are too violent.

[paulsydaus]

My research suggests the opposite. How do you come to your conclusion? Please discuss your methods for evaluation.

 

Leica’s embedded profile is a lot closer to a decent CC profile than Adobe’s one although the greens are too violent.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

By making the profile and evaluating the results . This is hardly a subject for scientific rigour. Colour in a photograph is subjective, except for disciplines like art reproduction etc.

The colour starting point I get is best for me with a Cc profile, followed by CL embedded and Adobe last for many subjects. But not for all.

[Jared]

Do you own a color checker?

If so, can you repeat the test using a profiled image?

Unfortunately I don’t think Leica’s embedded profiles are very good and you may find that profiling the CL image will improve color and gradients significantly.

Look up what Sonder Creative has posted to YouTube on the topic.

Otherwise, can’t fault your methods but personally don’t understand why you would bother focus stacking an image like this.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t own a color checker, so I can’t profile the two cameras, sorry. As far as the focus stacking, it was just so I could evaluate corner sharpness without resorting to “brick wall” type photographs. The subject distance was under one meter, so depth of field was fairly narrow. The foreground leaves in the corner would have been quite fuzzy at these apertures, and I didn’t want to stop down to the point that diffraction was having an effect.