Digilux 2 - skin colour wrong under studio flash

[roydonian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve just tried using my Digilux 2 during a female figure studio session and the end results were not good.

 

I was using studio flash, and had set the white balance on the camera to the flash setting, but the images make the model look copper-coloured with almost a ‘radioactive’ glow. To get a useable image, I’m having to get the yellow saturation by more than 50 in Photoshop, and the red saturation by about 25.

 

I’m guessing that the problem is that the camera has a very high sensitivity in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Does anyone know if IR-blocking filters are made in E69 size?

 

Best regards,

 

Doug Richardson

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

Sorry to hear about your problems, Doug. I can't remember hearing IR sensitivity related to the D2 before so are you sure this is really the problem? I also don't recall copper-coloured skin problems with the M8, which is very sensitive to IR.

 

I think you're unlikely to find an IR blocking filter in 69mm; I'd suggest acquiring a 69 to 72 mm step-up ring from a well-known auction site (still plenty around if you search on "digilux 2") and a 72mm B+W 486 filter.

 

Pete.

[Michel Boda]

When I use my flash I leave wb setting on cloudy (metz flash mz 53)

colours are superb.

 

MB

[ho_co]

D2 isn't IR sensitive.

 

You can check that by flashing a remote control (for TV, radio, what have you) pointed at the camera while watching the image on the display.

 

If it were seeing IR when you flash the remote control, the IR would be converted to visible on the LCD or EVF.

 

--HC

[wparsonsgisnet]

Doug, I have never had color casts when using either the in-house flash or my Metz 54. Are you shooting raw? As I always did, I never set the wb to anything.

[roydonian]

I had the same problem some time ago with a Digilux 1, so I know it’s not unique to my particular D2.

 

Puzzled by what I was seeing in my D1 images, I spent some time a couple of years ago on a Google search, and finally located a page that explained in some detail how the ‘copper-coloured-skin’ problem was a common phenomenon with digital point & shoots. If I remember the details correctly, it seems that human skin strongly reflects IR wavelengths to which many P&S cameras are sensitive, causing problems with skin colouring and exaggerating the visibility of veins and blood vessels when flash is used.

 

When my Digilux 2 finally arrived back at the dealer after a four and a half month absence for repair, I decided not to carry a heavy camera around while on business in London, but to collect the D2 on the way to the studio and use that instead – in a moment of absent-mindedness I’d forgotten about the ‘copper-skin’ problem I’d had with the D1.

 

I suspect Pete is right about the non-availability of IR-blocking filters in E69 size, but using a step-up ring will create problems if I want to fit a lens hood. I’d like to have been able to work in London during the day and have the D2 in my briefcase for use in evening studio sessions, but the solution is probably going to be to keep the D2 for work (I’m a journalist and need a fairly lightweight digital camera with a fast lens for taking ‘hardware’ pics at trade shows), and rely on a recently acquired Nikon D200 for my digital ‘hobby’ shooting.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the same problem some time ago with a Digilux 1, so I know it’s not unique to my particular D2.

 

Now that's a non-sequitur if ever I heard one! "I had the same problem some years back with a poodle, so I know it's not a problem unique to my maine coon."

 

Doug, you're not thinking. Get off the IR thing. D2 is not IR-sensitive. (But then, maybe yours is, after four months' repair. I hope that work was done by Leica, otherwise all bets are off.) I showed you above how to test your camera for IR-sensitivity. Check it, and then start trying to help us solve the problem.

 

D1 was quite IR-sensitive. I used it with an IR-pass filter for IR shots, till I got an M8.

 

Or check the forums from when the D2 came out; a number of people asked whether it was IR-sensitive, and in each case were told, "no."

 

BTW, B+W will gladly make any filter you request, but have you noticed that no one else has asked for an IR-cut filter for the D2?

 

Sorry to be so direct, but someone has to try to get your attention! First check to see if the camera is IR-sensitive. I recognize that you may have the only IR-sensitive D2, but I doubt it!

 

Good luck!

 

Or are you just trying to get us to ask you to post images of copper-skinned nudes?

 

--HC

[Riley]

is the camera still OK in daylight ?

[roydonian]

Bill Parsons asked:

 

>Are you shooting raw?

 

No – I was shooting jpeg. The camera had just come back from Leica, and was still set to record low-compression jpegs. I did a quick setup en-route between the dealer and the studio, but didn’t get round to changing the image-storage setting.

 

 

 

And Riley asked:

 

>is the camera still OK in daylight ?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Howard Cornelsen said:

>Now that's a non-sequitur if ever I heard one! "I had the same problem some years back with a poodle, so I know it's not a problem unique to my maine coon."

 

Not a fair comparison, I think.

 

I’ve got a problem that could be due to one or more of the following - errors in technique, limitations of the camera, or a fault in the camera.

 

A general fault in my technique seems unlikely, since I have shot figure pics successfully with film, and with Fuji, Canon, and Nikon digital cameras bought at different stages in the evolution of digital camera technology.

 

What I wrote was “I had the same problem some time ago with a Digilux 1, so I know it’s not unique to my particular D2.”

 

I don’t see any lack of logic in that statement.

 

Since the problem also occurs with the D1, we can rule out a specific technique problem associated only with the D2, or a fault on my specific D2, or a fault with the studio flash setup.

 

We are left with either some specific fault in my technique that surfaces only when I’m using the D1 or D2, or a generic problem or hardware limitation with the D1 and D2.

 

(As an example of the latter, my first attempts to use the D1 in the studio by using its built-in flash to trigger the studio flashes failed because I hadn’t realised that the D1 fires a pre-flash for exposure-estimation purposes. This pre-flash was triggering the studio flash system prior to the shutter opening.)

 

>D2 is not IR-sensitive...I showed you above how to test your camera for IR-sensitivity. Check it, and then start trying to help us solve the problem.

 

I did the experiment you suggested, which confirms that the D2 is not sensitive to whatever IR wavelength the controller uses. It says nothing about its possible response to other IR wavelengths, such as those immediately below the visible part of the spectrum. (My expertise in the IR field is limited to military hardware, so I have no knowledge of the specific frequencies used by hand controllers.) But if reliable published info says there is no IR sensitivity, that suggests that the problem may lie elsewhere.

 

I’ve got no axe to grind on behalf of the IR theory – just the memory of having seen a webpage on the subject and having looked at the example pics and thought “Yes – that’s the sort of effect I’m getting on the D1— so that’s probably what the problem is.” I can’t remember what exact part of the IR spectrum the problem was blamed on, but on the basis of that article, I’d have tried an IR-cut filter as a possible ‘quick fix’ had a suitable one been available.

 

 

>Or are you just trying to get us to ask you to post images of copper-skinned nudes?

Amateur models = privacy problem = I won’t be posting images.

 

While it would be handy to nail this problem and been able to use the D2 in the studio, it’s not a show-stopper. The practical way forward is to use the D200 or M2/film for most studio sessions, switching to my CL or IIIg on the occasions when I need a lighter-weight camera.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[ho_co]

Doug--

Thanks for your courteous response. I was getting annoyed at the fact that you hadn't responded to any of the points raised by previous posters, myself included.

 

My basic point is the same that others have made: M8 is known to be IR-sensitive but isn't known to produce the symptom you describe. Digilux 2 is not known to be IR-sensitive; many of us had never heard of IR-cut filters before the M8 came out, though a number of people do use the D2 with flash units of various sorts.

 

I, for one, am very curious about what caused the 'radioactive' copper glow and would like to help understand it, or at least be informed as you move forward on the matter. It seems not to be a general problem with the D2.

 

In re testing for IR with TV remotes: You're right, "IR" comprises a large range of wavelengths. But my IR-sensitive cameras respond visibly to the test.

 

Best wishes; and keep us posted!

 

--HC

[elansprint72]

So just show us your female studio figure shots.

[roydonian]

Hello Howard.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

As my late mother-in-law used to say when she hadn’t found time to do something yet, “Give rabbit time”. My initial postings were made on Tuesday evening, and I checked the specific points folks had raised as soon as I’d finished work for the day on Wednesday.

 

I was interested by your comment that the D1 was IR sensitive, since that was the camera I’d first seen the problem on, both when shooting with the built-in flash and trying to shoot with studio flash.

 

Although I’ve had the D2 for more than two years, Monday was the first time it had been used in the studio. I should have taken the D200, but laziness intervened. I knew I’d be dashing around London in ‘headless-chicken mode’ with a classic-era (= heavy) film camera in my bag, and would be collecting the D2, and opted not to add the weight of the Nikon D200 and its heavy 17-55mm f2.8 zoom.

 

Also I’m known at the studio as the guy with the Leicas, so had a reputation to live up to...

 

This morning I remembered that the D2 had been used with its built-in flash for a session outside of the studio. Looking back through the stored images, there was only a minor white-balance problem that was easily ‘tweaked’ .

 

Although the D2 was sent to Leica to get its lens marking replaced – the aperture markings had fallen off – Leica also replaced the sensor, which I understand is a precaution that are taking with all D2s that some back to the works. The new sensor is presumably changed/modified in some way to eliminate the high failure rate, so it’s possible that the changes affected the frequency response.

 

An obvious next step would be to take some pics with the internal flash and see of the skin tone looks OK. However, my wife had a bad fall at the weekend and her face is now severely bruised, so this test will have go be postponed for a month or so.

 

The D2 is a great camera – I use it for work and on occasions when I don’t want to be lumbered with a camera bag -- but has the limitations of being based on point & shoot technology. Its designers probably never envisaged anyone using it with studio flash.

 

Like you, I’m very curious about what caused the 'radioactive' copper glow and would like to understand it. One possibility is some form of synch problem – perhaps the shutter was not opening in time with the flash, and the camera (set to flash WB) was taking the pic with the tungsten illumination from the modelling lights.

 

The exif says 1/125 at 5.6, so that theory seems rather unlikely, but I loaded an image into Bibble Pro with the intention of trying alternative WB settings. To my surprise, these had no effect whatsoever on the image. The histograms show a huge peak at the right-hand end of the red channel.

 

Satisfying though it might be to work out what’s happening, I think the working solution will be to use the Nikon D200 when shooting digital in the studio. The models will certainly find it easier – most have never been photographed with a non-SLR and are used to hearing the ‘SLR sound’ as the flashes trigger. Some have never been photographed with a manually focussed camera and are disturbed by the fact that once they take up the pose, I have to adjust the camera before taking the pic.

 

It’s not just the models who are puzzled by the Leica. At a lighting workshop several years ago, I overheard one photographer saying “I just can’t believe the sound that guy’s camera is making.” (I was using an M2). An elderly photographer replied “That’s the famous Leica sound – almost none”.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[ho_co]

Doug--

Sounds as if a lot of elements have convened to create a real mess.

 

I was unaware that Leica was replacing the D2 sensors generally, but that certainly weakens my 'know-it-all theory' of the D2's insensitivity to IR.

 

I guess a preliminary solution might be to try various white-balance settings with the studio flash units. If the results are the same, then the camera may indeed be exposing with the modeling lights.

Also I’m known at the studio as the guy with the Leicas, so had a reputation to live up to...

I know how that feels. For the same reason, I really have a hard time making myself pick up the D200. Even replaced the Nikon yellow-and-black strap with a more discreet black one.

 

I understand that you haven't a lot of time to spare trying to figure out the D2's quirks, but if you do get a handle on the matter, I think a number of us on the forum would be interested. This digital world is certainly new to me, with its pre-flashes and white balances and moiré artifacts etc.

 

Sorry about your wife's fall; I wish her well in her recuperation.

 

--HC

[roydonian]

Howard wrote:

 

>I was unaware that Leica was replacing the D2 sensors generally

 

That’s what my dealer told me, and the paperwork that came back with my D2 listed a sensor change as part of the work carried out.

 

 

>I guess a preliminary solution might be to try various white-balance settings with the studio flash units. If the results are the same, then the camera may indeed be exposing with the modeling lights.

 

Thinking about it some more, I’ve thrown out that theory. The camera was running in manual mode, and set to the speed and stop suggested by metering.

 

For the next session, I’ll try the D2 in RAW mode, and with the alternate WB settings you suggested, and even in Auto WB.

 

Just as an experiment, I went into a darkened room this evening and took a pic with the IR trigger attached to the camera. You’ll be pleased to know that the end result was a blank frame. So we know the camera isn’t seeing the IR ‘flash’ from the trigger.

 

BTW I realised a technical ‘howler’ in yesterday’s post – of course the Bibble Pro WB control didn’t work, I was importing a jpeg and not a NEF...

 

 

 

>I really have a hard time making myself pick up the D200.

 

Bought my first Leica in 1962, but despite my life-long love of the brand I’m a staunch fan of the D200. When I decided that I needed to ‘go digital’ for hobby photography, and concluded that the M8 was not for me, after a few days of research the D200 & 17-55mm f2.8 seemed the best choice – pro build quality for around the price of a Digilux 3 prosumer camera, and with all the commonly-needed functions on dedicated controls. Much tho’ I hate to be a member of the DSLR gang (I’m a rangefinder man at heart) I’m really enjoying the D200, and the beast should meet my hobby needs until a full-frame M-mount (Zeiss Ikon?) digital finally appears.

 

 

 

>Even replaced the Nikon yellow-and-black strap with a more discreet black one.

 

*Anything* is more discrete that that yellow & blank monstrosity. Mine never came out of the box. I’m using an Optec strap from Speed Graphic. The wide and stretchy centre section makes the weight of the camera more bearable on the back of the neck for long periods. I was wandering around the RAF Museum in North London for about six hours last week (barring a half-hour stop for a snack and a glass of wine).

 

 

 

>Sorry about your wife's fall; I wish her well in her recuperation.

 

Thanks – she’s doing OK.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[ho_co]

Doug--

I also love the D200. I knew I needed to have a dSLR and bought when it first came on the market. The camera is a brilliant, usable tool despite its taxing menu systems. I do need to get a lens more in the league of your 17-55, though. My 18-200 is incredibly handy and its image stabilization is amazing, but the optical quality is merely adequate.

 

My problem is that I've been into Leica since about 1975 (?), when I bought an M5. I've had SLRs from Zeiss, Pentax and Leica, but I have always tended to pick up the M instead.

 

And my friends all know me as a Leica user, so there is an embarrassment factor involved in being seen with a Nikon. That said, I do carry it when necessary.

 

My guess is that the R10 will be a modern camera which might draw me away from Nikon, but probably won't because I just feel happier with the M camera. And because I can't afford Leica lenses and don't need to start another system.

 

I am using the M8, but since the discontinuation of the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50, none of my lenses are current. One dates as far back as when I purchased the M5.

 

 

I understand your interest in a full-frame rangefinder, but considering the new technology Leica had to introduce to produce the M8, I don't think other companies are up to it. Leica can get by on smaller volumes because their business, but my guess is that Zeiss doesn't sell nearly the quantity, and at nowhere near the margins that Leica does. In other words, I don't think Zeiss has a big enough market to justify the investment; and as Leica has shown, anyone building a full-frame rangefinder would have to junk most if not all the lenses already out there. (Look at the fact that a number of the Leica wides work fine on the M8 but vignetted on the R-D1.) Zeiss, as you're aware, is instead building lenses for others' systems. Dunno, though. They've had a number of different, incompatible lens mounts through the years, so if anyone were to do it, Zeiss would be a good choice.

 

--HC