CL -- Second chance

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A few weeks ago I started a thread about the CL and my frustrations with it (New CL -- Images look awful).

I have recently purchased another to give it a second chance, this time using mostly native TL lenses and just briefly trying out the M adapted lenses.

 

Here are some thoughts and I wonder if any of you who use the CL can comment...

 

1 - Focus peaking using adapted M lenses is next to useless. Taking the time to magnify the image and focus that way is much more accurate.

2 - Once focused properly, the M lenses actually do a very good job and while they may not look quite as good as on an M body, they are fairly close.

3 - Out of camera CL JPGs and DNG files, somewhat lack vibrance compared to M or Q bodies. I find that I have to do a lot more post processing with files from the CL than normal, but once I do, the images can be made to look very good. I do see a difference between them and full frame images but the difference is fairly subtle and much better than I had seen the first time I tried the camera.

4 - I purchased the 55-135 and the 11-23. Both are very good, but I am actually finding the 55-135 to be a bit more impressive. I am not sure  though that I have enough experience with the 11-23.

5 - Colors, especially reds, are very impressive (as they seem to be with most of the Leicas nowadays).

 

My biggest gripe or concern now is how the out of camera files look prior to processing. They are dull and seem to have something of a haze over them. Hard to explain. But with processing they can be made to look very very good. I almost wonder if Leica had decided to do this purposely, in order to leave more of the processing to be done by the user rather than the camera. Many (including myself) find that in-camera processing doesn't do quite as well. Maybe Leica agrees (any comments?).

 

So again, any of you with experience can you comment on what I have said here. Can anyone concur, deny, or otherwise to help me gain a bit more incite into how this camera works? I am finding this time around a lot to like about it and want to know how to make the most out of it.

 

Thanks

Edited June 22, 2018 by jay968

[wda]

My out-of-camera raw files are imported into Lightroom before I see them. My personal profile is applied during importation with the result that I have perfectly good files to edit. Unprocessed RAW files are thus bypassed. Why would you want to view them unprocessed?

[Advertisement]

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

[JTLeica]

A few weeks ago I started a thread about the CL and my frustrations with it (New CL -- Images look awful).

I have recently purchased another to give it a second chance, this time using mostly native TL lenses and just briefly trying out the M adapted lenses.

 

Here are some thoughts and I wonder if any of you who use the CL can comment...

 

1 - Focus peaking using adapted M lenses is next to useless. Taking the time to magnify the image and focus that way is much more accurate.

2 - Once focused properly, the M lenses actually do a very good job and while they may not look quite as good as on an M body, they are fairly close.

3 - Out of camera CL JPGs and DNG files, somewhat lack vibrance compared to M or Q bodies. I find that I have to do a lot more post processing with files from the CL than normal, but once I do, the images can be made to look very good. I do see a difference between them and full frame images but the difference is fairly subtle and much better than I had seen the first time I tried the camera.

4 - I purchased the 55-135 and the 11-23. Both are very good, but I am actually finding the 55-135 to be a bit more impressive. I am not sure  though that I have enough experience with the 11-23.

5 - Colors, especially reds, are very impressive (as they seem to be with most of the Leicas nowadays).

 

My biggest gripe or concern now is how the out of camera files look prior to processing. They are dull and seem to have something of a haze over them. Hard to explain. But with processing they can be made to look very very good. I almost wonder if Leica had decided to do this purposely, in order to leave more of the processing to be done by the user rather than the camera. Many (including myself) find that in-camera processing doesn't do quite as well. Maybe Leica agrees (any comments?).

 

So again, any of you with experience can you comment on what I have said here. Can anyone concur, deny, or otherwise to help me gain a bit more incite into how this camera works? I am finding this time around a lot to like about it and want to know how to make the most out of it.

 

Thanks

 

Think of it another way... If the DNG file came out bright, sharp and vibrant straight from the camera, you would have very little room for your own processing and style.

You need a relatively low contract, muted DNG with all the information to give you the flexibility.

 

You seem to be merely judging on colours and image look, rather than technical qualities of the lenses... So maybe its what you are shooting that you are not so inspired by? Are you liking the 55-135 more due to it giving you some shallow DoF? Unless your subject is good, a 11-23 lens is going to look a little flat, right?

 

Focus peaking sucks all round, not just on CL camera but all cameras. Use the magnification.

 

In short... You have a very expensive camera setup... I would say that you need to take control of your photos and spend a little time on the processing. Maybe look on youtube for some tutorials on how to get the most out of your editing etc... If bright and colourful is what you want with very little effort, Fuji might be the way to go.

[lct]

Not sure what you mean by out of camera DNG files. Do you mean DNG files converted directly by your computer? If so, you may consider that Apple's Preview shows more saturated colors when it opens DNG (1st pic) instead of OoC JPG (2nd pic) files for example. The laters are a bit dull for sure but this is intentional i guess since there are various jpeg settings in the camera. What would we say if Leica sold bodies with cartoon-like default colors? There are a lot of soccer moms cameras for that  .

 

 

[jay968]

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate it.

 

The photos of the red chairs -- No matter whether I open a JPG using Apple's preview or open a DNG in ACR, images look flat as in the second photo above. I have to do an awful lot of processing in ACR in order to get the images to look decent. What I mean by a lot of processing is using clarity (between +20 and +30), vibrance (between +7 and +10), I usually have to open the shadows considerably, and also tone down the highlights and whites. I also find that with the CL, I have to add about +2 or +3 dehaze, something which I had never had to do before (did it even exist in ACR before recently?) as the CL files tend to have something of a weird haze over the entire image....hard to explain just what I mean by that but I have seen some reviews refer to it. BTW, the shadow areas in the chair photos above are a good example of what I see a lot. To my taste, these shadow areas are way too lacking in detail. I would have worked with the shadow sliders to get something out of them.

 

When shooting with either the M10 or the Q, I find that a slight exposure adjustment along with a much smaller amount of clarity and vibrance, and little or no shadow and highlight adjustments at all is all I usually need.

I HAVE found that using Adobe standard rather than Adobe color in ACR helps with shadow areas but only slightly. I have tried the embedded profile in ACR but I don't really like the colors that it produces. BTW, I never work on JPG files in Photoshop, only DNG files.

 

 

>>>Think of it another way... If the DNG file came out bright, sharp and vibrant straight from the camera, you would have very little room for your own processing and style.

You need a relatively low contract, muted DNG with all the information to give you the flexibility<<<

 

Yes, I know, but isn't this what in camera JPGs are supposed to do? They look just as dull as the DNGs.

 

 

If you go the dpreview's sample files from the CL   https://www.dpreview.com/samples/2910218710/leica-cl-first-sample-images you will see that along with several of the images, they have put pre processed images as a comparison. These illustrate EXACTLY what I am referring to. While I don't look very often at dpreview sample photos, I have never seen them do a comparison like this before, showing both pre and post processed images n their samples. It's almost as if they are showing what I am talking about...that the pre processed images just don't look very good at all. Again, I know they are not SUPPOSED to look as good, but it just seems that with the CL they are not even close...or as close as the M10 or Q files are.

 

Of course I am making generalizations with all of my comments and not all files need the same amounts or processing, but hopefully you get the idea of what I am talking about...I find that the CL files need more extremes than either M10 or Q files. I just wonder why. Has Leica just chosen to let most of the CL processing be done in post?

 

As far as the lenses are concerned. No, it has nothing to do with how a telephoto zoom compares to a wide angle zoom and my expectations of their capabilities. I have been shooting with telephotos and wide angles for almost 60 years and know what to expect. What I am talking about is that in all the reviews I have seen, as far as TL lenses are concerned, aside from maybe the 35 and 60 macro, the 11-23 is usually considered the best of them with the 55-135 running right up there or maybe a close second. Admittedly I need more time with the 11-23 as it is a new purchase, but so far, I am a bit disappointed in it. The 55-135 has produced some images for me which upon opening them (and processing them) have really impressed me. It sometimes has a real wow factor if I may use that term. The 11-23 just hasn't done so (not yet anyway). I guess I just need to give it some more time.

Edited June 22, 2018 by jay968

[lct]

If you prefer the 1st pic above, LR should allow you to get there more or less easily i guess. But all this is a matter of tastes actually. What i see in the first pic for instance is oversaturated greens and reds personally. You wouldn't like the way i've processed my own pic below i suspect. De gustibus... .

 

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes I understand what you mean about the top photo and agree. But to me, the second just seems lacking. Maybe I might prefer something in between.

 

I suppose the bottom line for me is that I have seen a lot of real good looking images posted online from this camera and I suppose I just wonder given my own experience with it, whether the images I see are the result of a lot of post processing. I don't  mind doing the processing, I just want to know if the amount that I have to do is normal.

[jaapv]

Another thing: The higher the usable dynamic range of a camera, the flatter the unprocessed files will look. The CL is clearly superior to the 240 in that respect, and even exceeds the SL and M10 at base ISO. That would explain your findings.

I would advise you to make your own camera profile and to save your preferences as a preset. That will save you tons of time. On a side-note - I find that a correct profile for the CL is more vibrant than "Adobe Color" - and slightly less so than "Adobe Vivid"

[wda]

Even after creating my own preset, I decided to reduce the Green channel saturation and save a new preset noting the difference. Presets can accommodate individual preferences and save much time.

[jay968]

Japp, this goes against everything I have ever seen. Last year I was shooting with a Hasselblad X1D which has enormous dynamic range, probably as good as it gets. No way the out of camera files looked flatter than the CL files. Same goes for Nikon D810 files and Sony A7Rii files (though the Sony OOC files did look flatter than either the Hassy or Nikon files I have worked with).

 

On the other hand, making my own profiles is good advice. I may do just that.

[Peter_S]

While I do not have a CL or TL2, it may be worthwhile to trial Capture One Pro, and see if the default rendering is more to your liking. It is for me for T & M9 images. Just an idea.

[jaapv]

Japp, this goes against everything I have ever seen. Last year I was shooting with a Hasselblad X1D which has enormous dynamic range, probably as good as it gets. No way the out of camera files looked flatter than the CL files. Same goes for Nikon D810 files and Sony A7Rii files (though the Sony OOC files did look flatter than either the Hassy or Nikon files I have worked with).

 

On the other hand, making my own profiles is good advice. I may do just that.

Still, it is true. It is the reason that the MM1 was accused of producing "flat" files before people learnt to post-process.

However, this is all rather subjective. Basically there is no such thing as an "OOC" file, at any rate no way to view it. It will always have to go through processing before it can be displayed on your screen, so you are only seeing the programmer's interpretation. As for Hasselblad vs CL, I think that is a bit too much of a size jump to render a valid comparison.

[jay968]

While I do not have a CL or TL2, it may be worthwhile to trial Capture One Pro, and see if the default rendering is more to your liking. It is for me for T & M9 images. Just an idea.

Yeah good idea. I used to use and preferred Capture One until I started using the Hasselblad (not supported).

[jonatdonuts]

In good light to ok light I found the CL rendition and overall image quality to be remarkably similar to the Leica M10. Take the same picture with different cameras, edit them the same way, and print them out to relatively large sizes and I wouldn't be able to tell which photo was shot with which camera. 

 

Only with very contrasty scenes or extreme low light do you really notice the difference. 

 

I remember my first digital camera in 2004...We are really spoilt when it comes to image quality these days. 

 

Only gripe with the CL was it's operation. Those multi-functioning, unmarked top dials just didn't gel with me. Hoping the next generation will have the X1's philosophy. 

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!

Edited June 22, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[jaapv]

As for postprocessing, let's see what my 90-second workflow can do.

 

OOC CL JPG:

 

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!

 

 

[jaapv]

OK:

 

DNG --> ACR

Profile : CL General

Hit "Auto"

slightly more contrast

Slightly more saturation

 

Open in PSCC2018

Straighten, perspective and crop

Curves--> linear contrast

Sharpen with High-pass layer 1,9

Hit "save for web" action and add copyright brush.

 

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!

[jaapv]

And, just for comparison, same processing, same shoot, different colour palette in in the subject:

 

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!

 

 

[Jeff S]

Still, it is true. It is the reason that the MM1 was accused of producing "flat" files before people learnt to post-process.

However, this is all rather subjective. Basically there is no such thing as an "OOC" file, at any rate no way to view it. It will always have to go through processing before it can be displayed on your screen, so you are only seeing the programmer's interpretation. As for Hasselblad vs CL, I think that is a bit too much of a size jump to render a valid comparison.

+1

 

LR also has many profile presets (now moved to the top of the control panel) if one doesn’t want to create custom profile(s).

 

Jeff

Edited June 22, 2018 by Jeff S

[jay968]

In good light to ok light I found the CL rendition and overall image quality to be remarkably similar to the Leica M10. Take the same picture with different cameras, edit them the same way, and print them out to relatively large sizes and I wouldn't be able to tell which photo was shot with which camera. 

 

Only with very contrasty scenes or extreme low light do you really notice the difference. 

 

I remember my first digital camera in 2004...We are really spoilt when it comes to image quality these days. 

 

Only gripe with the CL was it's operation. Those multi-functioning, unmarked top dials just didn't gel with me. Hoping the next generation will have the X1's philosophy. 

Not talking about the sunset silhouette, but do you find the shadow detail in the one of the kids acceptable? Or the sharpness?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jay968]

OK:

 

DNG --> ACR

Profile : CL General

Hit "Auto"

slightly more contrast

Slightly more saturation

 

Open in PSCC2018

Straighten, perspective and crop

Curves--> linear contrast

Sharpen with High-pass layer 1,9

Hit "save for web" action and add copyright brush.

 

ams3.jpg

Good job. What lens was this shot with?

I'm honestly not sure why, but my OOC M10 and Q shots have more vibrance, contrast and saturation than your first (or any of my CL) shot. Do you use a Mac or Windows machine? I use a Mac and maybe Apple's Preview just gives me a more vibrant looking image. My CL OOC files look like yours.  I can get them to look better like you did, but as far as the M10 and Q files go, my only really gripe about OOC shots is they (especially the JPGs) lack resolution, even with my best Leica lens (50 lux). Once I put them through ACR they look wonderful though as do the CL images. I just have to stretch things in ACR with the CL more than the M10 or Q.

 

Btw, what is CL General? Is that a profile you created?

Edited June 22, 2018 by jay968