Jump to content
Jake

Leica CL vs Lumix GX85

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing is certain, professional photographers don't have time to argue over trivial nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I shoot b&w jpg + dng , if I like the jpg  I copy paste the settings of the jpg into the dng in Lightroom, then I get the jpg look with 14 bits 
I did the same with M9 and M240

Edited by cirke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Color OOC does matter to me, whether shooting JPG or DNG.  For casual stuff I shoot with a Fuji because they have the most pleasing JPGs.  I now use a Hasselblad X1D for my more considered work because it produces the most accurate colors (to my eye) in DNG and it makes my post-processing work easier, which in turn allows me spend more time to go out and capture images. If you are primarily a JPG shooter perhaps you could give Fujifilm a try.

???

DNG has no specific "OOC colour". The colours are produced by your own specific profiles and settings in your postprocessing program.

In fact you are saying that you like your X1D settings in Lightroom best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Foxtwo said:

One thing is certain, professional photographers don't have time to argue over trivial nonsense. 

I think that many professional photographers care greatly about the way their images look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does arguing on social media about who is right make your images look better?

Ego is the enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just establishing the facts and discussing techniques. If you don't know the basics, your images will improve by the discussion. If you think you do, your images won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You gents are arguing about what "professional" means, not image quality or technique. It's banal and useless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen one argument about professional or not. Please link to it.

That is a distinction we have put long behind us in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaapv said:

???

DNG has no specific "OOC colour". The colours are produced by your own specific profiles and settings in your postprocessing program.

In fact you are saying that you like your X1D settings in Lightroom best.

You speak the truth. However, When you load a file in Lightroom (or others) it's loaded with a profile that Adobe has generated (to look somewhat like the OEM software) and it's often difficult to emulate that for a different camera brand using the standard Lightroom controls. Load an X1D file next to a S007 file (I have both) of the same scene and the default outputs are different. I could spend time getting the S file close by the 'blad file is already there. And I'll never get an exact match. I think the default profile loaded is what is being referred to as the "OOC colour".

I suppose it would be possible to create a camera profile for a Leica that could give a "Fuji" look at the click of a button in the profiles tab. Maybe Colin from Huelight might make such a beast. But for mere mortals like me, making colour profile to change a cameras "look" isn't something I have the time or desire to learn.

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Foxtwo said:

One thing is certain, professional photographers don't have time to argue over trivial nonsense. 

Oh yes we do. Hahaha......

Thankfully, it's often done with a glass of wine in hand and a smile on the face.

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Foxtwo said:

You gents are arguing about what "professional" means, not image quality or technique. It's banal and useless. 

Guilty as charged. Sorry.

I do get a bee in my bonnet about "professional cameras". It's a term I really dislike. 

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

You speak the truth. However, When you load a file in Lightroom (or others) it's loaded with a profile that Adobe has generated (to look somewhat like the OEM software) and it's often difficult to emulate that for a different camera brand using the standard Lightroom controls. Load an X1D file next to a S007 file (I have both) of the same scene and the default outputs are different. I could spend time getting the S file close by the 'blad file is already there. And I'll never get an exact match. I think the default profile loaded is what is being referred to as the "OOC colour".

I suppose it would be possible to create a camera profile for a Leica that could give a "Fuji" look at the click of a button in the profiles tab. Maybe Colin from Huelight might make such a beast. But for mere mortals like me, making colour profile to change a cameras "look" isn't something I have the time or desire to learn.

Gordon

I handle this differently, Gordon. When I get a new camera I spend time and effort to profile it to my taste, using Greta Macbeth colour charts, various light situations, etc. That way I get a fairly consistent output over the years. Actually, the worst camera in this respect was the M240. I worked on it, on and off, for a couple of months before I was satisfied with the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 8:14 PM, Jeff S said:

 But the relevant point is that people see, perceive and react to colors differently. Scientific findings have reversed age old beliefs about how individuals ‘see’ colors.   Google “people see colors differently” and a host of interesting articles contradict your simplistic notion about “color correcting to the human eyeball”, which isn’t the same for everyone and can’t be discussed without considering brain complexities.  Color photos don’t just involve kelvin readings, but color differences and juxtapositions based on real life subjects, not trickery, and then differing observer interpretations.  

It’s interesting, and relevant, that you apparently thought the CL colors were fine until you juxtaposed them with the GX85.  Funny how those perceptions work.  And even more interesting that someone who seems so concerned with color would rely on JPEGS in the first place rather than a fully color managed workflow starting with RAW/DNG.  Leica has never touted JPEG  output anyway.

Last, all Leica gear is expensive; that doesn’t make it any more pro oriented than top notch, far lower priced gear from a variety of current manufacturers.  There are many superb choices these days, at widely disparate price points, that are capable of delivering astounding IQ (using RAW). The most important differences reside behind the camera, and between the ears.  As always.

Jeff

I can't help but notice your post reeks of condescension. I posit you revisit your reading comprehension skills when reading my posts. It might enlighten you as to what I actually mean. I never suggested there wasn't personal and subjective interpretations of color. . . up to a certain point. But if you see blue where 95% of the population sees green, then I'd say you are an outlier. Thank you for calling my observation "simplistic" despite over 40 years of working with color "professionally."  In all formats. Photography, art, design, architecture, theater design, lighting design, you name it. 

I never said once, here or elsewhere that I ". . . thought the CL colors were fine until you juxtaposed them with the GX85." Funny how reading comprehension works. Or more accurately, assumptions.  Further, I admitted that color managed workflow starting with RAW/DNG is the way to go. I won't bother quoting myself since you didn't read it in the first place.

My observations were off the cuff, and not intended to start a debate about how humans perceive color, but that's what it's turned into. I was referring to general characteristics, not whether or not color is perceived differently among humans. But taking your "argument" to it's logical conclusion, there is no need to teach color theory in art, architecture, or design education. Since you know, we all perceive it differently anyways, so 'rules' don't exist, and everything centuries of artists have relied upon is worthless. Even the poster that started this senseless debate admitted there are differences. 

I never said it was totally objective, but it's not totally subjective either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff has it 100% correct.  Colour theory is not simplistic.

Colour is created in the human brain and cannot be captured solely by general characteristics. And yes, this does create debate in the artistic world. When Renaissance painters starting painting Italian landscapes  they were decried in Northern Europe for the false colours - until people started traveling and saw that the painters were putting their perception of reality to the canvas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish you guys would stop arguing about color esoterics. There is a difference in "White Balance" so to speak, between my left and my right eye. It is an endless argument driven by ego, not science. Photographers today are rarely about color fidelity in their work. It's more about artist license if truth be told.

Whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we start a new topic ? GX85/80 is dead now. Long live to GX90/91/95/99 or whatever the stupid Panasonic naming convention is calling the new camera. 

This new Lumix can be a good companion to CL, they share the same batteries as a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Foxtwo said:

Wish you guys would stop arguing about color esoterics. There is a difference in "White Balance" so to speak, between my left and my right eye.

Mine as well. Cataracts do not develop in symmetry.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Jeff has it 100% correct.  Colour theory is not simplistic.

Colour is created in the human brain and cannot be captured solely by general characteristics. And yes, this does create debate in the artistic world. When Renaissance painters starting painting Italian landscapes  they were decried in Northern Europe for the false colours - until people started traveling and saw that the painters were putting their perception of reality to the canvas.

Who said color was simplistic? Not I. But yes of course there are general characteristics. Blue is blue, yes? Is yellow green or is it purple?

And since we are going to be pedantic, which artists are you referring to? Which paintings? What year? Lets look at all the details in regard to your statement. Cite sources for you assertions. If you are an art historian, furnish your credentials. 

This thread has made me ornery when I'm usually not. 

Edited by Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/23/2019 at 5:27 PM, Jake said:

I've had the CL for over a year now, and have had no complaints. Well made, interface is great, optics are above average, and the sensor is performing wonderfully. 

Recently, my partner purchased a lumix GX85 (size requirement and a mini flash as opposed to the GX8), and I've been playing around with it comparing it to my CL. Although the optics and sensor are superior, the JPG output seems better/ more accurate than the CL under low light conditions. I've played around with white balance and vivid/ standard/ natural settings, but I can't seem to get the CL to be as accurate as the lumix. Sure, I can post process and adjust, but the fact that the CL was touted as having great JPG output, I'm left disappointed. 

Does anybody have any suggestions or information that reconciles my disappointment? 

This post was essentially addressed early on (and fwiw, establishes that you had no complaints with the CL for a year... then your partner got a GX85....).  The rest was largely prompted by you (e.g., comments about professional vs consumer cameras, “calibrating colors to the human eyeball”, etc)... including the dismissive tone (“captain obvious”).  

Gordon’s pics aren’t mere “optical illusions” or trickery; they relate to our brain processing, which is the important point. And it’s not just that two people may see and experience colors differently; even the same person experiences colors (and other visual characteristics) differently depending on surrounding conditions... like the same color juxtaposed against different neighboring colors.... or like 2 different camera outputs under varying lighting conditions.

Shoot DNG and be happy using a basic color managed workflow.

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jake said:

Who said color was simplistic? Not I. But yes of course there are general characteristics. Blue is blue, yes? Is yellow green or is it purple?

And since we are going to be pedantic, which artists are you referring to? Which paintings? What year? Lets look at all the details in regard to your statement. Cite sources for you assertions. If you are an art historian, furnish your credentials. 

This thread has made me ornery when I'm usually not. 

Interesting you should mention green and blue. Many languages (including Classical Japanese ) use the same word for both colours. Where does that leave your argument, if some cultures don’t see a difference between the two?  And don’t heckle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy