CL -- Second chance

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The editors of the airline magazines I occasionally contribute to, want  the processed TIFF together with the original RAW/DNG image, so that they can check for dubious manipulation. Talking to them, they said they have had shots of hotel vistas, where the background has been totally pasted in, hiding building sites, factories, ore quarries, sewage works and so on. 

 

Wilson

[jay968]

Something escapes me here with respect. Why do you need to process jpeg files while you could do much better with raws? It would not take you longer with a decent raw converter. As far as i'm concerned i may need to provide jpeg files for my job (legal photos) but i don't process them then and i don't use Leica cameras for that. 

With other cameras that I have owned, I had very rarely if ever, had to do anything to the jpg files out of camera if I wanted to send them off to family members especially. My exposures are usually very good and the ooc jpgs have always been good enough. It was always very convenient, easy to email, and very easy for people to view jpgs even if they weren't perfect.

Now that I am shooting with the CL, it's not as simple as that anymore. I have to do more processing even with the jpgs, and again all I wanted really from this thread was to know whether or not this is normal with this camera?

I am not ragging the camera at all and perhaps I should have done a better job explaining myself from the beginning but I have found myself on the defensive ever since the thread began.

I also wanted someone to confer with me as to whether they find the 55-135 as good as if not better than the 11-23. All I see are reviews stating that the 11-23 is the best of the 3 zooms, but so far, while I do like it, I would not say it is better overall than the 55-135...possibly the opposite. Or more likely I just need some more time with it. In asking this, once again I am not trying to rag on anything, but perhaps get some incite into whether or not just maybe my copy of that lens isn't up to snuff). Same with the camera which I kind've doubt at this point...now having seen some other pre processed images here.

 

BTW, YES...with the extra processing I am seeing that I need to do, doing it with the raw files and then just saving them as jpgs probably DOES make more sense. It's all a learning experience and this is why I ask the questions that I do

Edited June 24, 2018 by jay968

[Advertisement]

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

[jay968]

The editors of the airline magazines I occasionally contribute to, want  the processed TIFF together with the original RAW/DNG image, so that they can check for dubious manipulation. Talking to them, they said they have had shots of hotel vistas, where the background has been totally pasted in, hiding building sites, factories, ore quarries, sewage works and so on. 

 

Wilson

I work with some clients who just want to see everything that I have shot so that they can decide which particular angle or whatever they prefer. I don't have a crystal ball.

[youngjohn]

I think the problem is that your posts come over as a bit demeaning towards the other contributors to this thread. The way I read it, most of your posts imply that your standards are much higher than the rest of us and I’m afraid that’s not going to win you many friends.

 

I’ve been working as a professional photographer for thirty years and I’m happy to give, and take advice, but not to be lectured that I don’t know the difference between good and bad files.

 

Why not download a free trial of Capture One, import the CL DNG’s, press Auto and see how near that gets you. It takes about a second an image.

[jay968]

I think the problem is that your posts come over as a bit demeaning towards the other contributors to this thread. The way I read it, most of your posts imply that your standards are much higher than the rest of us and I’m afraid that’s not going to win you many friends.

 

I’ve been working as a professional photographer for thirty years and I’m happy to give, and take advice, but not to be lectured that I don’t know the difference between good and bad files.

 

Why not download a free trial of Capture One, import the CL DNG’s, press Auto and see how near that gets you. It takes about a second an image.

Thanks and please understand that what you say is not my intent.

[ramarren]

If it's OOC JPEGs you want to distribute, work the in-camera controls for the JPEGs to get as close to what you want as possible and call it done. I've had to do that for every camera from which I needed OOC JPEGs. Some I couldn't get what I wanted from in OOC JPEGs. On those cameras, I turned off JPEGs in-camera and use Lightroom (or whatever) to output JPEGs from the raw files, once I've defined a good preset that sets them up for me. 

 

Again, "how much processing is needed" ... it's a matter of a couple of minutes to get what you want out of a raw converter, set it up to do the job every time, and then just roll the raw files through it. I couldn't tell you whether the two minutes to verify or adjust my JPEGs before sending them off is less or more time than with any other camera. The amount of time required is miniscule, in the noise. 

 

I agree with @youngjohn: your posts come off as saying, "I know what I'm doing and it's not right. Doesn't anyone else see this? Are you all stupid?" I assure you, "we" are not. Whether this was your intent or not does not change the fact that this is how your expressions and questions read. When I read your first post, it sounded incredibly judgmental and prejudiced from the start.

 

A more objective tack to ask a question, like: "I find I have to adjust my camera's JPEGs before I'm satisfied with them. Anyone else see this? How do you handle it?", would go a long way to avoid long deliberations of whether what you're saying is just a way of saying "I find this bad" instead of "I'm looking for some information." 

 

Off-topic: I'm so glad my M-D typ 262 cannot produce anything but raw files and has no image adjustments in-camera at all. It simplifies the whole mess of using a digital camera beautifully...

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

>>>If it's OOC JPEGs you want to distribute, work the in-camera controls for the JPEGs to get as close to what you want as possible and call it done. I've had to do that for every camera from which I needed OOC JPEGs. Some I couldn't get what I wanted from in OOC JPEGs. On those cameras, I turned off JPEGs in-camera and use Lightroom (or whatever) to output JPEGs from the raw files, once I've defined a good preset that sets them up for me. <<<

 

Yes, good advice but yes I know this. The problem with this thread is that I have been woefully bad at articulating. As I have said, I am NOT complaining I am just asking if more adjustment is normal with this camera.

I DO work with ooc JPGs as you suggest. But with the CL, the quick adjustments seem to need far more correction than with other cameras (at least mine does). Is this normal and to be expected?

 

>>> I couldn't tell you whether the two minutes to verify or adjust my JPEGs before sending them off is less or more time than with any other camera. The amount of time required is miniscule, in the noise. <<<

 

But see? Here is the problem. By your own admission, you can't tell me whether the adjustments are more or less than with other cameras. But you still (and I DO appreciate it for its intent) gave advice that I wasn't asking for otherwise and thus further made it seem like I had a complaint about the camera or about people here trying to help me.. And I suppose my frustration may have gotten the best of me and I said things that I should have thought about before saying.

BTW in regards to corrections, I am not talking about how long it takes to correct, but rather the amount of adjustment in the sliders that it sometimes takes. I very often have to push shadows up about 75% or more to get the image from not totally blocking up shadow detail. And in the same image, maybe bring the highlights down ALL THE WAY to tone them down. That's a pretty huge contrast range and if I do the same exact shot with the M10, I may not even have to make HALF those adjustments. Is this normal? I am also seeing that I need to set the CL to -2/3 stop to prevent the highlights from blocking up and even after doing that I must STILL slide the exposure in ACR down quite a bit. Is THIS normal and to be expected with the CL? If it is fine. If not, something may be defective someplace in either the camera or my workflow with it. BTW, I have found that if I use Adobe Standard rather than Adobe Color, this helps with the shadow detail. Thing is, Adobe Color has worked for me with the M10 and other cameras...so again I just ask whether these things are normal and to be expected with the CL. That's all. I have also created a profile for the CL so that as soon as an image is opened, most of the work is already done for me.

 

>>>I agree with @youngjohn: your posts come off as saying, "I know what I'm doing and it's not right. Doesn't anyone else see this? Are you all stupid?" I assure you, "we" are not. Whether this was your intent or not does not change the fact that this is how your expressions and questions read. When I read your first post, it sounded incredibly judgmental and prejudiced from the start.<<<

 

OK I hear you and appreciate your saying it. I apologize.

 

>>>A more objective tack to ask a question, like: "I find I have to adjust my camera's JPEGs before I'm satisfied with them. Anyone else see this? How do you handle it?", would go a long way to avoid long deliberations of whether what you're saying is just a way of saying "I find this bad" instead of "I'm looking for some information." <<<

 

You're right

 

>>>Off-topic: I'm so glad my M-D typ 262 cannot produce anything but raw files and has no image adjustments in-camera at all. It simplifies the whole mess of using a digital camera beautifully... <<<

 

So how do the raw files look before any processing is done?  I use an M10. Straight out of camera, the JPGs lack resolution. The raws look better but still not great. I do still have to work on the raws in acr and photoshop to get the most of out them but that said, out of camera with the CL, not only do both the JPGs and raws lack resolution, but contrast is low, highlights are blown, shadows really lack detail and color is off. This may also happen to a lesser extent with some of my M10 files but it just seems as though much less adjustment is needed to get the images to look great. Again, please believe me when I say I am not complaining about this, I just want to know if this is the same thing others using the camera are experiencing. It's not a matter of I can do this or do that to fix it, I know I can. I just want to know if the camera is defective.

Edited June 25, 2018 by jay968

[youngjohn]

To partially answer your question, the raw files of the CL need no more adjustments than the SL or M10 for me. Can’t speak about jpegs as I don’t edit them. I don’t think anyone here will be able to be more specific as I doubt you’ll find many people (if any) who edit jpegs.

 

It’s highly unlikely that you would have two defective CL’s with the same fault. I would honestly advise that if for some reason you don’t want to try saving jpegs from the DNG’s and you’re not happy with the results you should throw the towel in (again) and get a different camera.

[lct]

Or try another raw converter. CL files are so easy to process that i mostly use the modest Silkypix with it. 

[jaapv]

With other cameras that I have owned, I had very rarely if ever, had to do anything to the jpg files out of camera if I wanted to send them off to family members especially. My exposures are usually very good and the ooc jpgs have always been good enough. It was always very convenient, easy to email, and very easy for people to view jpgs even if they weren't perfect.

Now that I am shooting with the CL, it's not as simple as that anymore. I have to do more processing even with the jpgs, and again all I wanted really from this thread was to know whether or not this is normal with this camera?

I am not ragging the camera at all and perhaps I should have done a better job explaining myself from the beginning but I have found myself on the defensive ever since the thread began.

I also wanted someone to confer with me as to whether they find the 55-135 as good as if not better than the 11-23. All I see are reviews stating that the 11-23 is the best of the 3 zooms, but so far, while I do like it, I would not say it is better overall than the 55-135...possibly the opposite. Or more likely I just need some more time with it. In asking this, once again I am not trying to rag on anything, but perhaps get some incite into whether or not just maybe my copy of that lens isn't up to snuff). Same with the camera which I kind've doubt at this point...now having seen some other pre processed images here.

 

BTW, YES...with the extra processing I am seeing that I need to do, doing it with the raw files and then just saving them as jpgs probably DOES make more sense. It's all a learning experience and this is why I ask the questions that I do

Reading this I think the only thing you need to do is to adjust the default settings for this camera.

All it takes is to take one average shot, adjust it to your liking and save it as a default. 

In LR Classic or ACR make sure that you have the "make settings specific to camera serial number" box ticked and the "make settings specific to ISO" box unticked. In LRCC, save it as a preset. 

 

After that it will open the DNG much more the way you like it.

[ramarren]

Jay968:

 

First off, do be aware that I don't yet have the CL so haven't worked with its files directly at this point in time. On the other hand, it's just another digital camera and it's files will behave precisely the same as any other RGB Bayer matrix raw files will, given that it has a known good sensor.

 

Based on your description of the problems you are seeing, and presuming you're talking about editing the raw files, not the JPEG files, it sounds to me like you're using a the wrong camera calibration profile for the CL. With exposure correct, and with a good camera calibration profile for the Leica CL used in the raw conversion process, you should not require such large corrections to get a normal tonal scale and accurate color. 

 

BTW: When it comes to color correction and raw processing, you can never assume that the solution you use for one camera is going to be correct for the next one. It only rarely works out that way. You have to check and be sure that you are using the correct version of the image processing tools that are intended to support the specific model camera you are working with, and then experiment with what options are available to see what returns the results you want. While sometimes a bit of a PITA, this is the reality of the image processing situation.

 

What software are you using? Is it Lightroom or Photoshop using the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in? What version? 

 

According to the list at https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html, the Leica CL DNG files require at minimum Camera Raw v10.1 plug-in, Lightroom CC v1.1, Lightroom Classic CC v7.1, or Lightroom v6.14 (perpetual version) to obtain the correct camera calibration profile. 

 

(Note that any version of Lightroom will open and convert the DNG file, and any version of ACR later than the version for Photoshop CS2 will also, but only the LR or ACR versions which include the correct camera calibration profile will render the DNG file's color accurately without a lot of adjustments. Also, from the listing on the same page, the correct versions of ACR, LRCC, LRCC Classic, and LR6 for the M10 are v9.8, v1.0, v2015.8, and v6.8—so just because you might have the correct version of ACR or Lightroom for your M10 doesn't necessarily mean that you have the correct version of these tools for the CL.)

 

Check these things first off the bat. You cannot make a good evaluation of the CL raw files without the correct camera calibration profile for your camera. In the event that you do not have the correct version of the tools you are using, you have two options: 

 

- Update your software to the minimum required version.

- Use a tool like the Xrite Colorchecker Passport to custom-make a camera calibration profile specific for the Leica CL. 

 

It is generally easier to use the latest software tools rather than making custom CCPs, but both options can work. 

 

—

Regards the CL JPEG files, I have no information to offer as to their fidelity or color accuracy, or the adjustments available. If they're as far off as you suggest, well, I'd turn off JPEG in-camera rendering just as I did with the M9 and work exclusively with the raw files. 

 

Summarizing: I strongly doubt that there's anything wrong with the either of the CL bodies you have worked with or with their raw files. The problem lies elsewhere. I've debugged this sort of issue many times for clients who hired me to fix their image processing systems, and the above version incompatibility with the tools (as well as misunderstanding how to use these tools correctly...) is almost always the source of their problems.

 

—

Regarding the M-D typ 262: 

 

So how do the raw files look before any processing is done? ...

 

Of course, you cannot see a raw file without processing ... it is not an RGB file that you can display without conversion. Any raw file must be processed to an RGB file for display.

 

I process my M-D files at present with Lightroom v6.12. (The M-D typ 262 was first supported in Lightroom v6.6, so I'm sure the correct CCP is in place.) The M-D raw files look exactly as expected when processed at the Lightroom defaults using the Adobe Standard profile: neutral and very sharp, with a full tonal scale and accurate color representation. I generally have very few, small corrections to make for average lighting situations and correctly exposed scenes to achieve a standard, natural photograph. 

 

The fact that I almost never make "standard, natural photographs" is an entirely different subject.

Edited June 25, 2018 by ramarren

[wlaidlaw]

I have finally bitten the bullet and upgraded from Capture One Pro V.10 to V.11. I still wish they had put in a proper de-haze tool instead of having to use a multi step process with a graduated mask but they have finally got a CL profile, which was not present in V.10. I think it is marginally better with CL DNG files than LR Classic 7.3.1. I prefer the standard colour balance and the resolution seems a tiny bit crisper. I also prefer the colour wheel, skin tones, moiré and purple de-fringing tools in C1. More importantly C1 works the way my brain works, whereas Lightroom doesn't. It is a bit of a relief to get back to C1 after using LR for the last 8 months since I got my CL. However I really cannot understand their stubborn refusal to put in a de-haze tool when C1 users have been requesting it since it first appeared in ACR. A case of NIH (not invented here). It cannot a patent or licensing problem, since most of the other RAW development engines have now added de-haze. 

 

Wilson

[ramarren]

I have just the opposite problem, Wilson: C1 simply doesn't work the way my brain wants to when doing image processing, and Lightroom does. I've sweated over trying to learn it a half a dozen times and it just remains opaque to me ... just like Silkypix does too, to be fair. Lightroom seems perfectly logical to me, and because of that I get excellent results from it. 

 

It's a good thing there are so many options out there, they all suit different people and different uses! 

[jay968]

Reading this I think the only thing you need to do is to adjust the default settings for this camera.

All it takes is to take one average shot, adjust it to your liking and save it as a default. 

In LR Classic or ACR make sure that you have the "make settings specific to camera serial number" box ticked and the "make settings specific to ISO" box unticked. In LRCC, save it as a preset. 

 

After that it will open the DNG much more the way you like it.

Thanks so much for this. I was unaware that you could save the profile as camera and serial number specific.

[jay968]

 

Jay968:

 

First off, do be aware that I don't yet have the CL so haven't worked with its files directly at this point in time. On the other hand, it's just another digital camera and it's files will behave precisely the same as any other RGB Bayer matrix raw files will, given that it has a known good sensor.

 

Based on your description of the problems you are seeing, and presuming you're talking about editing the raw files, not the JPEG files, it sounds to me like you're using a the wrong camera calibration profile for the CL. With exposure correct, and with a good camera calibration profile for the Leica CL used in the raw conversion process, you should not require such large corrections to get a normal tonal scale and accurate color. 

 

Yes, raw files. Yes this is what I wanted to know...when you say I should not require such large corrections.

 

BTW: When it comes to color correction and raw processing, you can never assume that the solution you use for one camera is going to be correct for the next one. It only rarely works out that way. You have to check and be sure that you are using the correct version of the image processing tools that are intended to support the specific model camera you are working with, and then experiment with what options are available to see what returns the results you want. While sometimes a bit of a PITA, this is the reality of the image processing situation.

 

What software are you using? Is it Lightroom or Photoshop using the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in? What version? 

 

I use Photoshop and ACR. Current versions of CC. I keep these updated.

 

According to the list at https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html, the Leica CL DNG files require at minimum Camera Raw v10.1 plug-in, Lightroom CC v1.1, Lightroom Classic CC v7.1, or Lightroom v6.14 (perpetual version) to obtain the correct camera calibration profile. 

 

(Note that any version of Lightroom will open and convert the DNG file, and any version of ACR later than the version for Photoshop CS2 will also, but only the LR or ACR versions which include the correct camera calibration profile will render the DNG file's color accurately without a lot of adjustments. Also, from the listing on the same page, the correct versions of ACR, LRCC, LRCC Classic, and LR6 for the M10 are v9.8, v1.0, v2015.8, and v6.8—so just because you might have the correct version of ACR or Lightroom for your M10 doesn't necessarily mean that you have the correct version of these tools for the CL.)

 

Check these things first off the bat. You cannot make a good evaluation of the CL raw files without the correct camera calibration profile for your camera. In the event that you do not have the correct version of the tools you are using, you have two options: 

 

- Update your software to the minimum required version.

- Use a tool like the Xrite Colorchecker Passport to custom-make a camera calibration profile specific for the Leica CL. 

 

It is generally easier to use the latest software tools rather than making custom CCPs, but both options can work. 

 

—

Regards the CL JPEG files, I have no information to offer as to their fidelity or color accuracy, or the adjustments available. If they're as far off as you suggest, well, I'd turn off JPEG in-camera rendering just as I did with the M9 and work exclusively with the raw files. 

 

Summarizing: I strongly doubt that there's anything wrong with the either of the CL bodies you have worked with or with their raw files. The problem lies elsewhere. I've debugged this sort of issue many times for clients who hired me to fix their image processing systems, and the above version incompatibility with the tools (as well as misunderstanding how to use these tools correctly...) is almost always the source of their problems.

 

I'm not as concerned with the JPGs at this point. I can work around them.

 

—

Regarding the M-D typ 262: 

 

 

Of course, you cannot see a raw file without processing ... it is not an RGB file that you can display without conversion. Any raw file must be processed to an RGB file for display.

 

I process my M-D files at present with Lightroom v6.12. (The M-D typ 262 was first supported in Lightroom v6.6, so I'm sure the correct CCP is in place.) The M-D raw files look exactly as expected when processed at the Lightroom defaults using the Adobe Standard profile: neutral and very sharp, with a full tonal scale and accurate color representation. I generally have very few, small corrections to make for average lighting situations and correctly exposed scenes to achieve a standard, natural photograph. 

 

The fact that I almost never make "standard, natural photographs" is an entirely different subject.

 

I did some real thorough testing and comparisons yesterday between CL and M10 files, looking at ooc images and going back over the adjustments that I had made with the M10 upon importing into ACR. While there IS a difference in the amount of adjustments I had made compared to the CL, I don't think the differences are as drastic as I had thought. It really seems to depend on the particular situation, exposure and several other factors. I am much happier now and what I SHOULD have done from the start is realize as I have always done int the past that every newly purchased camera seems to have somewhat of a learning curve and patience is the best virtue.

Thanks for the patience on your (and everyone else's) part, and thanks for the recommendations.

[ramarren]

I did some real thorough testing and comparisons yesterday between CL and M10 files, looking at ooc images and going back over the adjustments that I had made with the M10 upon importing into ACR. While there IS a difference in the amount of adjustments I had made compared to the CL, I don't think the differences are as drastic as I had thought. It really seems to depend on the particular situation, exposure and several other factors. I am much happier now and what I SHOULD have done from the start is realize as I have always done int the past that every newly purchased camera seems to have somewhat of a learning curve and patience is the best virtue.

 

 

Thanks for the patience on your (and everyone else's) part, and thanks for the recommendations.

 

 

Well, that's certainly good to hear. 

(bolded) I agree completely ... Something that all of us should keep in the back of our minds whenever we get a new camera or lens.