Highlight Headroom

[a5m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone,

I don't know if it's a case of GAS or what, but I'm thinking of replacing the M9-P with the M10 for better highlight recovery when using the Noctilux without an ND filter in harsh lighting.

M9-P with even a Summilux in the midday sun results in blown highlights, no surprise there. I dabbled with ND filters but realized I didn't want even the slightest loss in sharpness, especially wide open. I don't want to switch to the SL for the higher shutter speeds.

Which brings me to the only solution I can think of and that is a camera with some decent range in highlight recovery. I'm wondering how many stops can I overexpose? Will it be a worthwhile upgrade? Anyone have any advice or experiences they can share?

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Hello A5m,

When high light is too high, not miracle can appear to be recovered.

When the sensor (be it M9, M10 or whatever sensor overload ) pixel records nothing, nothing can be recovered.

 

In M9/M10 we can never overexpose ( zero stop to answer your question ).

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, a5m said:

Hello everyone,

I don't know if it's a case of GAS or what, but I'm thinking of replacing the M9-P with the M10 for better highlight recovery when using the Noctilux without an ND filter in harsh lighting.

M9-P with even a Summilux in the midday sun results in blown highlights, no surprise there. I dabbled with ND filters but realized I didn't want even the slightest loss in sharpness, especially wide open. I don't want to switch to the SL for the higher shutter speeds.

Which brings me to the only solution I can think of and that is a camera with some decent range in highlight recovery. I'm wondering how many stops can I overexpose? Will it be a worthwhile upgrade? Anyone have any advice or experiences they can share?

Actually the way to avoid blown-out highlights is to - ermm- avoid blown-out highlights. In other words, you have been overexposing.
With a digital camera, exactly like you would do with slide film, you should expose for the highlights.
If needed, you can lighten the shadows, and pull  up the midtones in postprocessing. Highlight recovery is a crutch which will attempt  to reconstruct data from  non-blown out channels with varying success.
The M10 will certainly offer you more flexibility for tonal range corrections in postprocessing.

Use the histogram! it is your best friend to get exposure right!  On the M9 only in retrospect, but on the M10 it can be displayed real-time on the LCD or EVF.

[a5m]

Thank you @a.noctilux and @jaapv for your responses.

I think the answer is I won’t see much benefit. I was thinking the latitude for highlights would be greater with the M10, similar to the way it is with shadows, but it seems it’s not the same (or even close to) between the two on digital. I may already have all the room there is to play with.

1/4000 just isn’t enough sometimes for shooting a Noctilux wide open on a sunny day. I will practice using the histogram as that’s something I’ve been wanting to do.

[adan]

16 hours ago, jaapv said:

....but on the M10 [the histogram] can be displayed real-time on the LCD or EVF.

LCD or EVF - what are those?

However, Jaap is correct - the M10's additional dynamic range is mostly in the shadows. Highlights will still blow at about 3.5-4 stops above "middle gray." And colors may start to distort, due to blown individual color channels, a bit sooner than that. ISO "100" is a pull-processed ISO (meter overexposes even more, cuts that overhead even more, to 2.5-3.5 stops).

The M10 has a strong imposed contrast curve, to replicate the "pop" and saturated look of the M9 CCD.

But intelligent use of shadow recovery in post-processing, plus highlight-biased exposures (camera exposure comp set to -0.3 to -1.0 - in my case virtually permanently) usually mean one can stay within the safe zone.

But not trying to force exposures at f/1.0 in sunlight - just not possible. At least until Leica can find a shutter that goes to 1/64000 (64 thousandth) sec. Under Colorado sunlight, the aperture limit is about f/3.5-4 (@ 1/4000th) to be sure of avoiding blowing M10 "whites".

Sample below, 75 Summicron at f/6.8, shutter speed 1/3000th, ISO 200 (lowest non-pulled ISO available), exp. comp -0.67 stops - the white dresses show just a couple of flecks of pure white, narrowly avoiding blown detail.

But at f/2.0 and 1/4000th, they would have been totally blown. Let alone f/1.0

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!

Edited May 21, 2020 by adan

[adan]

Now, for comparison, here is that same picture processed:

- straight from the camera, or as it would show on camera-review and default tone curve (top)

- with maximum-effort (maybe even excessive) shadow recovery, to reveal details inside the dark shop, while still holding the white sunlit blouse textures (bottom).

Like slide film, only more so - expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows.

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!

Edited May 21, 2020 by adan

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its all about contrast. If the scene contains too much contrast then something has to give. If you expose to retain your highlights then the shadows will not be able to be resolved and will become blocky. I still use an M9 but I'm impressed with its shadow recovery ability. Sure it goes noisy but it has a distinctly analogue feel to the noise which I find less objectionable to the noise from say a Sony A7II, even though the Sony is far more impressive on paper. Haven't tried the M10 but my point is that simply expecting better recording of highlights and shadows is not as simple as all that. Retained highlight tonality has to be matched by acceptable shadow tonality and noise.

[adan]

7 minutes ago, pgk said:

Retained highlight tonality has to be matched by acceptable shadow tonality and noise.

True. Here are those shadows in 100% detail, showing the added "recovery" noise from the M10.

Bottom line, the M10's noise with ~3-stop shadow rescue (effective shadow push to 1600) is about like an M9 with a 1.5-stop rescue (effective shadow push to 400).

Can't beat 12 years of sensor innovation (given that the M9 sensor is still the same core Kodak architecture and "pixels" as the DMR (2005) and M8 (2006).)

But it still won't help shoot a Nocti at f/1 in sunlight. Wrong end of the tonal scale.

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!

[pgk]

32 minutes ago, adan said:

True. Here are those shadows in 100% detail, showing the added "recovery" noise from the M10.

Bottom line, the M10's noise with ~3-stop shadow rescue (effective shadow push to 1600) is about like an M9 with a 1.5-stop rescue (effective shadow push to 400).

Can't beat 12 years of sensor innovation (given that the M9 sensor is still the same core Kodak architecture and "pixels" as the DMR (2005) and M8 (2006).)

I'm sure you are right. As a low ISO shooter though, I don't think that upgrading would be as big a deal for me as for others who routinely shoot at higher ISOs.

[250swb]

20 hours ago, a5m said:

Hello everyone,

I don't know if it's a case of GAS or what, but I'm thinking of replacing the M9-P with the M10 for better highlight recovery when using the Noctilux without an ND filter in harsh lighting.

M9-P with even a Summilux in the midday sun results in blown highlights, no surprise there. I dabbled with ND filters but realized I didn't want even the slightest loss in sharpness, especially wide open. I don't want to switch to the SL for the higher shutter speeds.

Which brings me to the only solution I can think of and that is a camera with some decent range in highlight recovery. I'm wondering how many stops can I overexpose? Will it be a worthwhile upgrade? Anyone have any advice or experiences they can share?

It isn't highlight recovery you want to worry about but shadow recovery. The M9 has the most delicious transition from mid tones to highlights in the Leica digital stable, but throw that out the window and you should be metering for mid-tones-to-highlights and find the camera that can recover the shadows. All the newer Leica rangefinders are great at shadow recovery so you shouldn't be over exposing (when was that ever a great idea anyway?), but instead use an ND filter of the proper value that allows you to meter correctly.

[farnz]

21 hours ago, a5m said:

I dabbled with ND filters but realized I didn't want even the slightest loss in sharpness, especially wide open.

That's an unusual take considering that you're determined to shoot your Noctilux wide open (presumably for subject separation from the background) because wide open will give you the least 'sharp' shots.  (I won't start the discussion about what sharp means with respect to acutance and contrast.)

I infer from what you wrote that you feel that an ND filter will inevitably cost you sharpness.  Yes the ND filter is a thin sheet of glass in front of your lens that has the potential to act as an additional lens element but only if both surfaces of the filter are not perfectly flat and parallel.  The top filter manufacturers take great care that their filter surfaces are as practicably flat and parallel as possible for just that reason.  I'd be interested to see evidence of a top of the range ND filter causing a perceptible loss of sharpness.

The answer, as you'll be aware, is to not use a ND filter but to stop down to a suitable aperture where you can shoot your Noctilux on a sunny day without blowing the highlights but still have acceptable out of focus blur and improved 'sharpness' through a smaller aperture.  

Pete.

[T25UFO]

I was going to say the same about using a good ND filter.  I don’t have a Noctilux but even the Summilux at f1.4 is difficult without a ND.  I use a 3 stop from Breakthrough - absolutely no colour caste and no loss of sharpness.  In fact, my only sharpness problem comes from poor focusing at fully open aperture.  My eyes, not the camera, not the lens and not the filter.

[a5m]

Thank you all for your replies and input. 

21 hours ago, adan said:

But not trying to force exposures at f/1.0 in sunlight - just not possible. At least until Leica can find a shutter that goes to 1/64000 (64 thousandth) sec. Under Colorado sunlight, the aperture limit is about f/3.5-4 (@ 1/4000th) to be sure of avoiding blowing M10 "whites".

Sample below, 75 Summicron at f/6.8, shutter speed 1/3000th, ISO 200 (lowest non-pulled ISO available), exp. comp -0.67 stops - the white dresses show just a couple of flecks of pure white, narrowly avoiding blown detail.

But at f/2.0 and 1/4000th, they would have been totally blown. Let alone f/1.0

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!

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you for taking the time to explain and share samples. I guess I should clarify that I wasn’t expecting miracles with the M10, but was hoping its sensor would be less limiting for the shooting conditions I described. Seems there are gains to be had, but how much I’ll have to test for myself. Ultimately though unless Leica give us a faster shutter (let’s aim for 1/8000th for now 😉) I’m out of options.

As far as filters go, introducing something in the optical path of a lens will have an impact on image quality. Whether it’s noticed/matters depends on the person. Although I don’t have a comparison worthy of sharing, I found in my testing of two 3 Stop X4 Breakthrough filters that they wouldn’t work for me.

[adan]

3 hours ago, a5m said:

I found in my testing of two 3 Stop X4 Breakthrough filters that they wouldn’t work for me.

Try Heliopan or B+W. Not all filters are the same quality.

[a5m]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Try Heliopan or B+W. Not all filters are the same quality.

Just ordered one, will be here Sunday

Originally wanted the B+W but got swayed by reviews. Actually bought one but sold it unused. Was thinking of trying it again after the Breakthrough. Sometimes best to see for yourself.

[jaapv]

Those must be strange reviews. The brand is industry-leading.

[tom.w.bn]

When people use the term "headroom",  they normally refer to the amount of data that is in the raw files left and right from the jpg historgram. I don't know if there is one single camera out there that shows a true raw historgram. Normally the cameras show a jpg based historgram and every sensor has more data left and right from that jpg historgram! This data is thrown oberboard when you store a jpg file and it can be used with a raw file.

You can test it yourself. Take some photos and look at the in-camera-histogram. At some point the histogram tells you that highlights clip. Then add more light and use your raw converter with the restore higlights slider. There is a point when it starts to look unnatural. That's where the limit is.

Some people want to stay on the safe side and expose to the right side of the jpg histogram. This way you will never blow highlights but you give away 1EV or more of the capability of the sensor and shift that into the dark zone.

[LBJ2]

On 5/22/2020 at 6:09 PM, a5m said:

Just ordered one, will be here Sunday

Originally wanted the B+W but got swayed by reviews. Actually bought one but sold it unused. Was thinking of trying it again after the Breakthrough. Sometimes best to see for yourself.

Good to hear Breakthrough has a 60mm ND filter now. When I was shopping for a 60mm ND filter last Feb 2019, I don't think they offered 60mm--in fact not many brands offered 60mm at the time. I ended up with B+W 3-stop and then realized in some cases I needed more and bought B+W 6-stop too and am happy with both. I've seen the comparisons and reviews ( hard to tell which are real comparison reviews and which are marketing/sponsored TBH). My first choice was Breakthrough based upon what I was reading but am now happy with the B+W. In the end I really like to shoot @ f0,95 and haven't needed to use either 3 or 6-stop as often as I thought I might. I think it's easier to just look for good light, but handy to have the ND in the bag when circumstances warrant. Also my M10 allows for plenty of push pull in post, so I've been able to get away with more than I thought in post processing when pushing the 0,95 scene at 1/4000. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by LBJ2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

18 hours ago, tom.w.bn said:

When people use the term "headroom",  they normally refer to the amount of data that is in the raw files left and right from the jpg historgram. I don't know if there is one single camera out there that shows a true raw historgram. Normally the cameras show a jpg based historgram and every sensor has more data left and right from that jpg historgram! This data is thrown oberboard when you store a jpg file and it can be used with a raw file.

You can test it yourself. Take some photos and look at the in-camera-histogram. At some point the histogram tells you that highlights clip. Then add more light and use your raw converter with the restore higlights slider. There is a point when it starts to look unnatural. That's where the limit is.

Some people want to stay on the safe side and expose to the right side of the jpg histogram. This way you will never blow highlights but you give away 1EV or more of the capability of the sensor and shift that into the dark zone.

The MM1 shows a raw histogram.
I think you  mean expose to the left. Expose to the right is a technique to reduce shadow noise at the expense of blowing non-essential specular highlights.

Expose to the left is setting a permanent -2/3 EV compensation to attempt to avoid all blown highlights at the expense of lost DR in the shadows.

 

[Mikep996]

When I started shooting digital initially around 2000 or thereabouts, I quickly found that shooting digital was - as mentioned earlier in this thread - exactly the same as shooting slide film as far as exposure was concerned - expose for the highlights.  Since 90% of all my color film shooting beginning as a teenager was using slide film - Kodachrome 64, High Speed Extachrome, and later, Velvia, - I didn't really have to do anything different.  

I have typically set my digital cameras to underexpose by .7 stops which, to my eye (like slide film), works quite well for general shooting.  Also, FWIW, even on my cameras with some insane number of metering/focus points available, I set the meter preference to good old center-weighted!