Jump to content

M240 White Balance


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m shooting an M10 and an M240 and the M10 consistently nails white balance and the 240 is very hit or miss... is anyone else experiencing this as well? 

Honestly I don’t understand why there is such a difference. I feel like the white balance could be improved via firmware. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

AWB can be weird with every Leica M that I use (include M10) with artificial LED lighting which is so common now.

If not in this use, can you share some pics ?

I can dig some up from the other day, but it was a simple mid day window light pic of my dog. The m10 got it on the first try and the m240 went really cold and it had an overall blue cast... then when I moved the dog to another spot, in the not so big room, the m240 nailed it. ?!?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed lighting situations can be tricky to get your images to look how I want

To me, the Raw Camera filter in Photoshop is the best tool for that, especially the temp & tint sliders

Be sure your monitor is calibrated to match your output if you're printing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M240 has never been known for good white balance.

Shoot RAW if you’re not doing so already and correct WB in post. Better still use grey cards and you’ll nail WB every time. 

I accept it as a quirk of the M240. There are plenty of cameras out there that can nail WB every time and I still choose to shoot with an M240 because I love everything else about it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 52K said:

The M240 has never been known for good white balance.

Shoot RAW if you’re not doing so already and correct WB in post. Better still use grey cards and you’ll nail WB every time. 

I accept it as a quirk of the M240. There are plenty of cameras out there that can nail WB every time and I still choose to shoot with an M240 because I love everything else about it.  

I guess... but white balance seems like a basic function for a camera and using a white balance card is outrageously inconvenient. Especially for a camera that’s is supposed to be “quick and discreet”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bayernfan said:

So no problem, really.  

You just want to see more WB consistency, which I can understand.  I've noticed this quirk with my M240 as well in mixed or indoor lighting.

Yeah I can fix it later, but I shouldn’t have to. 

I guess my question is why can’t this be as consistent as the m10? It seems like a software issue that can be fixed via firmware updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

I guess... but white balance seems like a basic function for a camera and using a white balance card is outrageously inconvenient. Especially for a camera that’s is supposed to be “quick and discreet”

Err... A wee spot of postprocessing skill?  White balance is an artistic choice for most photography. You use AWB and/or a whitebalancing card for convenience, the real colours will appear on your well-calibrated monitor.

About as useless complaining as it used to be comparing various slide films...

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Err... A wee spot of postprocessing skill?  White balance is an artistic choice for most photography. You use AWB and/or a whitebalancing card for convenience, the real colours will appear on your well-calibrated monitor.

About as useless complaining as it used to be comparing various slide films...

Sure, it’s a artistic choice, but I’m not talking about warming up an image or anything minor... I’m talking about the camera flat out getting it wrong. I don’t think it’s useless to expect my $7000 camera to know the right color temp for sunlight. 

Also, I could fix it in post, but that’s not the point. The point is I shouldn’t have to.

Well, the real point was why can’t this be fixed in a firmware update... but sure... tell me more about these various slide films. 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a camera that had my taste in white balance on AWB. Not interested really. I set it to daylight and choose the presets in ACR (or LR for that matter) as my starting point. Profile the camera first.
BTW, it is not "fixing" in postprocessing; it is choosing. The white balance is set by the raw developing software, and you can choose between the camera AWB, the software AWB and a number of other presets. Then you can tweak if needed. Often the WB in the shadows will have to differ from the one in the bright parts for the best result. Easy enough in Photoshop
The only real relevance of in-camera AWB is the way the image looks on the LCD.

Having said that, the  M240 is not the easiest of cameras to colour-manage. It took me a couple of months to get my profiles, presets and colour workflow just as I like it. An added complication is that it tends to blow the reds out and produce "neon" greens.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the camera combines two methods: mixing up the colours and assuming that results in grey, and looking for the brightest bit in the image and assuming that is white. The algorithm will ignore large areas of a single colour. But I'm sure there is more to it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

Sure, it’s a artistic choice, but I’m not talking about warming up an image or anything minor... I’m talking about the camera flat out getting it wrong. I don’t think it’s useless to expect my $7000 camera to know the right color temp for sunlight. 

Also, I could fix it in post, but that’s not the point. The point is I shouldn’t have to.

Well, the real point was why can’t this be fixed in a firmware update... but sure... tell me more about these various slide films. 🙄

Slides and lighting ...

Yes comparing AWB to the "good days" of slides is something to be considering.

By then with many film manufacturers, the slides existed in two types: one for daylight and the other for artificial light.

When photographer wanted to use in "A" type lighting, the obvious choice was "A" type film.

With "D" film mainly used in daylight, when used in "A" lighting filters must be added depending on the type of lightting.

Filters ("warming, cooling, etc.") are sort of "white balancing devices" for slide use.

 

Choice of slide film to use is another fun matter,

color rendering is not the same with same lighting but different film, even with same manufacturer or different ISO.

Kodak's Ektachrome has different hues than the Kodachrome which is different from each other in 25 ASA, 64 or 200 ASA.

Agfa, Kodak, Konica and Fuji or Ansco had each their own palette.

 

With our digital cameras, this white balancing is in it's software and some is better than other depending on many causes.

So with time we tend to use the workflow that suites us best.

 

Edited by a.noctilux
  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...