Color profile for Leica M (M10, 262) with ColorChecker

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's easy to get overly complicated on colour.

So try just using common sense and once your monitor is in right low light work from there. 

Everyone has opinions on colour...but I occassionally use my x rite color checker to calibrate for copying etc when exact color is necessary.

Otherwise "wing it" with a critical eye and run test print.

[MikeMyers]

53 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Your Leica output is already interpreted by Leica engineers and/or by your converter. Why wouldn’t you want to better optimize your own initial color output for display on that wonderful screen?

Sorry, I must be slow.  I don't understand your question.  It makes sense to me that when Leica ships a new camera, all the calibration and adjustments are already done and "correct".  By calibrating the screen, I assume that I will see the information coming from the camera, which should be correct.  So far, so good.  But if I want to print my image, the printer needs to be calibrated too, and if I post my image here, in the forum, people may see the image very differently based on the calibration of the screens they are using to view the image.

I haven't calibrated my own screen on the ASUS for several months.  The last time I did check it, it was still at the correct settings.  Maybe I should be doing that once a month as mentioned earlier.  

 

Back to my question, if I post an image here in this forum, presumably those of you who have calibrated screens will be more likely to see an accurate view of my image, but I'm guessing at least 3/4 of the people reading this are using whatever screen they happen to have handy at the moment, and if it's an Apple iMac, they are probably not seeing the image "correctly" because the iMac computers make the screen overly bright by default.

 

Anyway, what did you mean by the highlighted text in my quote?

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Sorry, I must be slow.  I don't understand your question.  It makes sense to me that when Leica ships a new camera, all the calibration and adjustments are already done and "correct".  By calibrating the screen, I assume that I will see the information coming from the camera, which should be correct.  So far, so good.  But if I want to print my image, the printer needs to be calibrated too, and if I post my image here, in the forum, people may see the image very differently based on the calibration of the screens they are using to view the image.

I haven't calibrated my own screen on the ASUS for several months.  The last time I did check it, it was still at the correct settings.  Maybe I should be doing that once a month as mentioned earlier.  

 

Back to my question, if I post an image here in this forum, presumably those of you who have calibrated screens will be more likely to see an accurate view of my image, but I'm guessing at least 3/4 of the people reading this are using whatever screen they happen to have handy at the moment, and if it's an Apple iMac, they are probably not seeing the image "correctly" because the iMac computers make the screen overly bright by default.

 

Anyway, what did you mean by the highlighted text in my quote?

Out of camera files are not necessarily ‘correct’; they are just one interpretation, which is then again managed by conversion software, with myriad other possibilities through use of custom camera profiles (potentially combined with new default import settings and/or presets), editing controls, etc. This very thread topic is about creating a custom camera profile using a ColorChecker.

Cameras with high dynamic range, as another example, often have ‘flat’ files out of camera, based on a mostly linear contrast curve. The user can adjust that tone curve in a matter of seconds, dramatically altering contrast, color saturation, etc. Leica and Adobe added a modest S curve through an update to the M10 Monochrom, after users complained (with apparent lack of understanding) about dull out of camera files. Film stocks had built in characteristic curves; digital is far more flexible for users.  Just as users can adjust screen contrast and brightness, so too can they adjust image file contrast, both at the import stage and thereafter.

If there were just one ‘correct’ file version for each camera model, everyone using that camera would generate similar looking files and output.  How boring that would be.

I prefer to make prints; no concerns over what your screen looks like. But if you bought a print, the display lighting would indeed matter.  It’s always a chain of events, starting with user intent.

Jeff

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jeff S

[MikeMyers]

36 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

........If there were just one ‘correct’ file version for each camera model, everyone using that camera would generate similar looking files and output......

I was under the impression that all that stuff only applied to "jpg" files.  I almost always shoot 'dng'.  Are you suggesting that 'dng' files shot with a dozen different M10 Leica's would be very different?  I assumed until just now that Leica would adjust new cameras such that the 'dng' files would be reasonably identical for all new M cameras, as a 'dng' file isn't even an image.  It's the editing software that creates the "image".  Am I wrong?   I think Leica sensors should be "the same" in the same way that Leica lenses are "the same" for any given lens.

[Jeff S]

38 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I was under the impression that all that stuff only applied to "jpg" files.  I almost always shoot 'dng'.  Are you suggesting that 'dng' files shot with a dozen different M10 Leica's would be very different?  I assumed until just now that Leica would adjust new cameras such that the 'dng' files would be reasonably identical for all new M cameras, as a 'dng' file isn't even an image.  It's the editing software that creates the "image".  Am I wrong?   I think Leica sensors should be "the same" in the same way that Leica lenses are "the same" for any given lens.

The point is that DNG provides infinite flexibility based on choices YOU  make, whether at the shooting, importing or editing stage. Leica sensors might be the same, if QC provides, but ‘same’ isn’t synonymous with ‘correct’. Leica and Adobe provide a starting point.  JPEG interpretations are more baked in, with more limited flexibility thereafter, but RAW  /DNG also has to start someplace, and that someplace is easily altered throughout the workflow, and isn’t the same for everyone.

 Look up ColorChecker Passport videos.  Or search this forum for dozens of threads regarding edits and presets for those not happy with ‘out of camera’ color output from their Leica camera.  
 

This is no different than your monitor calibration. You still decide brightness, contrast ratio, etc, even if all monitors come from the factory set identically. Even your (or others’) room lighting can matter. So, too, can the color gamut range of someone else’s monitor. Endless variables.
 

Jeff

 

[MikeMyers]

We're not communicating.  I don't disagree with anything you wrote.  There are lots of good reasons for shooting in 'dng', and for the original digital Leica camera, the M8, it was a necessity because the camera's jpg conversion was not very good.  I bought an M8.2, and in my opinion, the 'jpg' images it created were horrible. To my mind, a 'jpg' file is limited by the capability of a device to convert what was captured by the camera into a 'jpg' file.  (Speaking of which, the M10 seems to create beautiful jpg images, when/if I'm in a hurry and need to send off an image shortly after taking it.)

My question is how the 'dng' files from one Leica M10 would compare with the 'dng' files from another.  If I were to take the same photo with several M10 cameras, and take a 'dng' file from each camera, and upload to a folder on my computer, and use one of the editors for creating a 'jpg' image from the 'dng' files, using the same settings, would the images seem identical?  I assume all the Leica cameras have their sensors and electronics "calibrated" to some standard, and it makes no difference which M10 I pick up to shoot with - they will all create almost-identical 'dng' files.  That's my question - am I wrong?

(If I bought ten high quality weight scales, and weighed something on each scale, they should all give me a nearly identical weight reading, although at some point as I approach the limitation of the scales, there will be differences.)

(If you guys want to buy a 50mm Summicron, do you buy one and use it, or try several until you find your favorite, as you might need to do with cheaper lenses?)

(If there is some difference in the 'dng' files, would I notice it using my eyes?)

Edited August 4, 2021 by MikeMyers

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I already answered, so I’ll let others chime in.  I don’t care if all Leica cameras are calibrated the same; I’ll still make my own changes, at import, during editing, in printing and display.  As will many others here.  You’ll also never know how my monitor exactly displays your pics, despite meticulous calibration on both our parts.

Jeff

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

My question is how the 'dng' files from one Leica M10 would compare with the 'dng' files from another.  If I were to take the same photo with several M10 cameras, and take a 'dng' file from each camera, and upload to a folder on my computer, and use one of the editors for creating a 'jpg' image from the 'dng' files, using the same settings, would the images seem identical?

The camera as such has no "calibration" The colours are set by the DNG conversion using the IT developer or user profile provided.Those will be different for each camera type. In the case of user profiles sometimes even different according to the light on the subject. Between different cameras of the same series the differences should be minor.

Having said that, there is a basic colour and tonal character that is determined by the Bayer filter of the sensor. As sensor specifications and makers vary between camera types, there is no universal output.  Having said that, Leica does strive to maintain some consistency in colour across the range by tweaking the spectral curves of the RGGB filter and IR filter coating. But as said, that does not influence the colour per se but only the tonal rendering.

[djmay]

3 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

We're not communicating.  I don't disagree with anything you wrote.  There are lots of good reasons for shooting in 'dng', and for the original digital Leica camera, the M8, it was a necessity because the camera's jpg conversion was not very good.  I bought an M8.2, and in my opinion, the 'jpg' images it created were horrible. To my mind, a 'jpg' file is limited by the capability of a device to convert what was captured by the camera into a 'jpg' file.  (Speaking of which, the M10 seems to create beautiful jpg images, when/if I'm in a hurry and need to send off an image shortly after taking it.)

My question is how the 'dng' files from one Leica M10 would compare with the 'dng' files from another.  If I were to take the same photo with several M10 cameras, and take a 'dng' file from each camera, and upload to a folder on my computer, and use one of the editors for creating a 'jpg' image from the 'dng' files, using the same settings, would the images seem identical?  I assume all the Leica cameras have their sensors and electronics "calibrated" to some standard, and it makes no difference which M10 I pick up to shoot with - they will all create almost-identical 'dng' files.  That's my question - am I wrong?

(If I bought ten high quality weight scales, and weighed something on each scale, they should all give me a nearly identical weight reading, although at some point as I approach the limitation of the scales, there will be differences.)

(If you guys want to buy a 50mm Summicron, do you buy one and use it, or try several until you find your favorite, as you might need to do with cheaper lenses?)

(If there is some difference in the 'dng' files, would I notice it using my eyes?)

Since nobody has answered your specific question I will try.

In theory, two M10 cameras with the same lens, same lighting conditions and settings should produce dng files that are indistinguishable. You would have to validate if you are concerned otherwise.

[MikeMyers]

Thanks, @djmay that's the answer to what I was thinking about.  I also appreciate what @jaapv wrote.  

When I post files in the DxO forums, I post both the 'dng' file, and the 'dot' file which represents all the settings I made to the DxO PhotoLab 4 editor.  As long as we're all using calibrated displays, others can view my images, see what I did, and offer suggestions about how best to use PhotoLab 4.

I have no idea how a raw image from a Leica compares to a raw image from other cameras, but I assume they're similar, but not identical.  My Nikon gear is getting dusty, and my Fuji I'm mostly using in 'jpg' mode, because DxO PhotoLab doesn't understand the raw images from the type of sensor used in the Fuji (X-Trans Sensor).

I still have and use a Leica M8.2, but the dng files it produces are likely different in many ways compared to the dng files from my M10.  Speaking of which, DxO PhotoLab doesn't recognize the Leica M8 cameras anyway, so I'm trying to process those images in DarkTable.

[MikeMyers]

Oops, I actually typed "I post both the 'dng' file, and the 'dop' file which represents all the settings I made to the DxO PhotoLab 4 editor."  

My computer insists on correcting "dop" into "dot".   Oh well.  Sorry, I'll try to be more careful from now on......

The DOP file contains every setting I used in the DxO PhotoLab 4 image editor.  When other users send me their own "dop" file, I can copy it to my computer and see how they edited the image, and if I want, play around with their settings.  Very handy.

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Thanks, @djmay that's the answer to what I was thinking about.  I also appreciate what @jaapv wrote.  

When I post files in the DxO forums, I post both the 'dng' file, and the 'dot' file which represents all the settings I made to the DxO PhotoLab 4 editor.  As long as we're all using calibrated displays, others can view my images, see what I did, and offer suggestions about how best to use PhotoLab 4.

I have no idea how a raw image from a Leica compares to a raw image from other cameras, but I assume they're similar, but not identical.  My Nikon gear is getting dusty, and my Fuji I'm mostly using in 'jpg' mode, because DxO PhotoLab doesn't understand the raw images from the type of sensor used in the Fuji (X-Trans Sensor).

I still have and use a Leica M8.2, but the dng files it produces are likely different in many ways compared to the dng files from my M10.  Speaking of which, DxO PhotoLab doesn't recognize the Leica M8 cameras anyway, so I'm trying to process those images in DarkTable.

Just because we each calibrate our screens, doesn’t mean that we’re seeing exactly the same thing (as long as you seem to care about the minute details of Leica camera calibration, there are many details on the viewing end as well). You have no idea of the color gamut reproduction capabilities for my screen, the brightness level of my screen, the contrast ratio setting I’ve chosen, my room light conditions, etc.  And that’s before we get into the complexities of individual differences in color perception.  Add to that the capabilities of the software used by various forums if images are shared that way; the LUF viewing issues have been widely discussed. Good luck with all that if you think you’ve eliminated variations.

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

Maybe so, but with the people in the DxO forums, this seems to work well enough.  

I think that's enough.  Nothing will ever be "perfect".  I'm not going to worry about "eliminating variations".  Before I calibrated my display, things were much worse.  As far as I'm concerned, it's better to do what I can do, rather than to do nothing.   I see no point in wasting time thinking of things I have no control over, but I was able to do the things the other forum members suggested.  I guess that's "good enough".    🙂

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

 I see no point in wasting time thinking of things I have no control over, 

Like pounding the point over whether Leica calibrates each camera precisely the same? But then dismissing my more practical issues over which one has tremendous control and flexibility.  Indeed, enough silliness, especially in a thread about creating custom camera profiles. 🤪

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

Actually, it's the other way around.  After reading your post, I lost interest in the idea - since it's not possible, why beat my head against a brick wall.  I'm in no way "dismissing" your thoughts, I'm just "accepting" them.  

I never wanted to create custom camera profiles - I just wanted to know if Leica makes them all the same.  Big difference.

Thank you for pointing out that I was going down a dead-end street.  It's obvious to me now that I'm wasting time, with all this.  I give up.  There's lots of good stuff I can spend time on, and as you clearly pointed out, this isn't one of them.  Again, thank you.

[Jeff S]

16 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Actually, it's the other way around.  After reading your post, I lost interest in the idea - since it's not possible, why beat my head against a brick wall.  I'm in no way "dismissing" your thoughts, I'm just "accepting" them.  

I never wanted to create custom camera profiles - I just wanted to know if Leica makes them all the same.  Big difference.

Thank you for pointing out that I was going down a dead-end street.  It's obvious to me now that I'm wasting time, with all this.  I give up.  There's lots of good stuff I can spend time on, and as you clearly pointed out, this isn't one of them.  Again, thank you.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if not, you've apparently missed my points.  Calibrating your monitor is a beneficial and basic step in color management.  So, too, is the notion that one can create a custom camera profile (easily) in order to complete another step in the color management process. Paper profiles at the print stage are another link in the color management chain.  And so forth.  Not wasted time at all, at any stage.  

The added point I made at the end, however, is that you shouldn't conclude, just because you calibrate YOUR monitor, that everybody else is necessarily seeing precisely the same thing on THEIR monitor.  Especially as translated through potentially crappy forum software.  Not wasted time at all, but I think it helps to understand the limitations.

Anyway, hope you're enjoying your Billingham bag, where I also attempted to provide you with practical recommendations.

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

You were spot-on about the Billingham.  

I agree about calibrating my display, as once I did that, my "electronic" friends in the DxO Forum could see what I was doing much better, and I could see how their suggestions improved my original image.

In a way, I am calibrating my camera, but it's due to the PhotoLab 4 software.  When the software goes through the images, it uses its own database to check the camera and lens that I used, and compensate for any "errors" such as vignetting, or distortions.  This is all done in the initial DxO "profile" which is customized for many (but not all) lenses and cameras.  I can use that profile as-is, or I can add additional corrections.  When PhotoLab 4 sees a new set of images, I can see them change, one at a time, as PhotoLab makes this initial change to every image.  This works great on my M10, and most of my lenses.  They never created settings for my M8.2, so it refuses to accept raw files from that camera.  It works with most 'jpg' and 'tif' images.  If anyone is interested in trying the software, they provide free trial versions.

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic - I admit that I no longer have no idea how my images will look to others.  With MY display calibrated, and processing my image for camera and lens defects, I've done all I can do.  If other people use un-calibrated systems, they may or may not see what I "created".  Since everyone in the DxO forum is probably learning or using the DxO PhotoLab software, there's a lot of discussion about this for newcomers to the forum, such as me last year.  You can find the forums here:  https://feedback.dxo.com  They also provide training webinars, later saved as videos, to teach people how to get the most out of their software.  Since they purchased the Nik software from google, they also sell that, and it's integrated into their own software (but Google's "free" version can still be downloaded from various websites - it just takes some searching to find them).

I'll post an image below that was shot with my M10 recently, and processed in PhotoLab4.  It's a reduced size image.  The people in the forum are rarely satisfied with my images, and always make suggestions.  I haven't posted this image there yet.  Apparently they are way beyond me in how to use the software, and I get images "close" but they always find flaws.  As long as I keep getting better, I'm happy.

Last week I would have expected others with a calibrated display to see what I see.  From the posts up above, I lost most of that confidence.  Since there is nothing I can do about what other people use, it seems pointless for me to spend time worrying about it.  That's what I was trying to say earlier.

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]

I’m aware of DxO, once considering them as a Lightroom alternative, but lost any interest in their approach, which precludes profiles for any Leica Monochrom camera, plus they admit to great difficulty accessing Leica products, often experiencing long delays before completing tests, if ever. I wrote to their feedback site, and instead of an optimistic response, the DxO rep basically apologized and said that was all they could or would do, not to expect improvements.

But whether I use LR, DxO or or any other software editing tool, I still follow my own color management steps, including color profiles for my cameras using a ColorChecker. Easy to do and, once done, doesn’t require ongoing maintenance like screen calibration.  
 

I do all of this to make prints, which I control without ever worrying about variations in others’ screen viewing habits.  Plus I find prints far more enjoyable.  Software-wise, ImagePrint provides custom paper profiles, is always in soft-proof mode (what you see on screen is what you get in print), and eliminates potential user errors for any printer settings and controls.

Jeff

[jaapv]

34 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

doesn’t require ongoing maintenance like screen calibration.

The newest generation of screens includes some self-calibrating ones.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Just now, jaapv said:

The newest generation of screens includes some self-calibrating ones.

I’m aware, although I seem to recall some users preferring to still do it manually for some reason(s).

Jeff