M10 problem with Lightroom?

[julianf73]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using Lightroom for many years (with my M9). Never had a problem with it. However, since I made the switch to M10 two months ago, I noticed that Lightroom (version 6) doesn't apply any correction when using Profile Corrections.

 

Possibly related, I also see that the same lens is listed differently with the images taken by the M10

 

Example:

M9 images list the lens as Super-Elmar-M 21 mm f/3.4 ASPH.

M10 images list it as Super-Elmar-M 1:3.4/21 ASPH.

 

Would that have something to do with it? Is it the camera firmware? Is it Lightroom?

[jdlaing]

Is the lens coded?

[julianf73]

Yes, lens is coded

[jdlaing]

The corrections are done in camera before it ever hits Lightroom. Lens profiles in Lightroom do basically the same as the in camera corrections so you probably won’t see a difference.

 

If you take some shots with an uncoded lens with the lens not selected from the camera menu you should be able to,see,the corrections in Lightroom.

[julianf73]

So the M10 does the corrections in camera, but the M9 didn't?

[visoflex]

Should the Lightroom settings for a coded lens therefore be Auto or Default?

[schattenundlicht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To my technical understanding, lens profiles will be applied in camera for ooc jpg‘s only, whereas for DNG captures, merely the lens information will be written into the EXIF metadata, but no changes to the image should happen in camera, as raw file formats should include the sensor readout data as captured. It is then up to the postprocessing software to act upon the profile information (if appropriate option is checked).

 

There cannot be such a thing as an entirely "profile-less" DNG conversion, because generating a visible colour rendering (i.e. an image for display) of the sensor's Bayer array data will have to be done with some kind of profile information, albeit an embedded or a default one, which may more or less suit the camera at hand. Someone with a more detailed technical insight might elaborate on this.

The different naming of the same lens will stem from the 6 bit lookup table within the camera firmware, which may slightly differ in human readable labeling from camera to camera but which should not affect image processing.

In general, I find that LR adds much less profile correction to Leica cameras and lenses than most other brands which, of course, in part is due to the fact that in a high quality Leica prime, there will be less residual aberration to be corrected in post production. Besides some excellent lenses from that brand, I own a sloppily designed 50 mm Nikon f/1.4 prime where comparing profiled vs. unprofiled output, you would swear it was an altogether different lens

Which sub-version of LR6 do you use? I seem to remember that there have been camera profile updates with point releases.

I am running LR 6.13 on mac OSX. When working with DNG files from my M10, I do get the profile correction behaviour detailed below, which does seem a bit funny:

(I) Camera Profile

Depending on camera firmware version (?), there are different options in the LR drop down menu which will result in (rather subtly) different output, mainly effecting color transitions.

1) Reviewing my first M10 DNG‘s from 2017, LR offers these options:
- „Adobe Standard“
- „LEICA M10“
which will result in starkly different rendering (most prominently of blue hues).

2) Reviewing some later M10 DNGs, LR offers:
- „Adobe Standard“
- „Embedded“
which will result in slightly different rendering.

3) For very recent M10-P DNG‘s, the „Adobe Standard“ option is gone from the menu and checking/unchecking camera calibration with the only option available, „LEICA M10“ does NOT influence the image at all...

Since Adobe no longer updates profiles for standalone LR6, there will not be any M10-P profile in the „Adobe Standard“ repository. However, I would have expected to see some difference, when toggling/untoggling the „LEICA M10“ profile.

<Puzzled...>

As I eagerly await my M10 back from Wetzlar CS, I cannot currently check, what profiles LR offers when „regular M10“ images are taken with the latest Leica firmware. I will check this, once I get my camera back. Could someone else please try to reproduce LR behaviour with M10 DNGs from different firmware versions?

(II) Lens profile

- „Profile“ checked with lenses auto-detected (6 bit coding) or manually selected from menu, also for third party lenses, will give the expected corrections for distortion etc. which are clearly visible, with all of my lenses. No funny behaviour there.

Kind regards
Mathias

Edited September 1, 2018 by schattenundlicht

[jaapv]

To my technical understanding, lens profiles will be applied in camera for ooc jpg‘s only, whereas for DNG captures, merely the lens information will be written into the EXIF metadata, but no changes to the image should happen in camera, as raw file formats should include the sensor readout data as captured. It is then up to the postprocessing software to act upon the profile information (if appropriate option is checked).

This is incorrect, there is considerable in-camera processing before the raw file is written.

[schattenundlicht]

This is incorrect, there is considerable in-camera processing before the raw file is written.

Thanks.

 

However, when comparing ooc jpg and DNG, I find that only the jpg’s show correction of vignetting, distortion and color fringing. Thus preprocessing of the raw files must be on a lower level.

Edited September 1, 2018 by schattenundlicht

[schattenundlicht]

This is incorrect, there is considerable in-camera processing before the raw file is written.

Btw, from an Adobe article („Understanding Digital Raw Capture“)

 

„A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data.“

[ckuwajima]

I've been using Lightroom for many years (with my M9). Never had a problem with it. However, since I made the switch to M10 two months ago, I noticed that Lightroom (version 6) doesn't apply any correction when using Profile Corrections.

Adobe requires Lightroom 6 version 6.8 or above to support M10. The compatibility matrix can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

[budjames]

I could be that you are running an obsolete version of Lightroom. Version 6 is already end of life and will no longer be updated, from what I understand.

 

Personally, I switched from LR CC to Capture One Pro about two years ago, primarily because LR does a such poor job on Fuji X Trans RAW conversions. Now that I'm using Leica too, the C1P does a great job with the default settings.

 

Regards,

Bud James

 

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[jaapv]

Btw, from an Adobe article („Understanding Digital Raw Capture“)

 

„A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data.“

Which is a simplification to the extent of being misleading.

[schattenundlicht]

Which is a simplification to the extent of being misleading.

I am unaware of relevant sensor data manipulation other than hot pixel / dead pixel remapping and long term exposure noise reduction (if applicable) being performed before writing the raw file. Could you please elaborate/ substantiate/ give a citation? I am not being belligerent, merely curious...

 

Kind regards

Mathias

[jaapv]

Bayer balancing, sensor mapping, setting black and white point (Leica set an unusually high black point on the M9 to raise the noise floor, reducing DR), sometimes noise reduction especially at higher ISO (Nikon used to do this aggressively, Leica only over ISO 2500), deleting data under the noise floor, colour shift corrections (example: M8), sometimes compression, sometimes other lens corrections (vignetting), LENR, etc.

The processing applied varies per brand and camera type. Reason why many makers choose to use a proprietary raw format. This encrypts the EXIF data which define the raw parameters.

 

The best definition of raw is: sensor output with minimal processing applied.

 

If you read the Adobe sentence carefully, they say that the sensor output is "a record" which is "encoded", i.e. not pure.

It is also worth noting that makers seem to have been reducing the amount of manipulation over time as sensors improved. 

[oltimer]

Adobe requires Lightroom 6 version 6.8 or above to support M10. The compatibility matrix can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

[oltimer]

I’m also runnng LR 6.14 (stand-alone) ACR 10.1

Adobe says the M10 needs ACR 9.8 minimum.

It’s working fine for me.

[Tony Cole]

Odd.  No problem with my switch fro 9 to 10 and using LR 6.2

[schattenundlicht]

Each Leica DNG file contains an embedded profile made by Leica, which LR (or rather, under the hood the CameraRaw engine) will use to render the image, even if Adobe does not (yet) supply an Adobe profile for a given camera in that specific LR release. Thus even „unsupported“ cameras can be dealt with in LR, as long as they use the DNG container format for their raw data. This is different from NEF or CR2 raw files.

Edited September 3, 2018 by schattenundlicht

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

As I eagerly await my M10 back from Wetzlar CS, I cannot currently check, what profiles LR offers when „regular M10“ images are taken with the latest Leica firmware. I will check this, once I get my camera back. Could someone else please try to reproduce LR behaviour with M10 DNGs from different firmware versions?

Not sure one can move backward in terms of firmware spec.  With  LR CC 7.5 and M10 2.4.5.0 there are dozens of profiles.  7 core Adobe supplied 6 color. 1 BW)  + the M10 profile along with a series of presets, 20 color and 17 monochrome. 

 

I've not noticed any trouble with the 21mm SEM lens profile, but I'll go back and check. 

 

...I checked. I can clearly see reduced field curvature with the profile checked.  Works for me. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Tailwagger