Jump to content

SL2 post-processing colour profile

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I post process my SL 2 raws in Adobe Lightroom.

It is generally fine, although, as seems common with Leica raws, the reds are a bit oversaturated. 

I tend to use the Landscape profile as it seems to have a slightly less contrasty tone curve than Color and the colours are a bit more vibrant. A typical workflow is to add a bit of vignetting, adjust white balance, push the auto exposure, for a starting point, normalise the black and white points to get the right amount of clipping, add 15 clarity and 5 dehaze, and Robert is your Mother’s brother.

The SL2’s white balance is normally v good, but when it isn’t I find that Auto tends to result in an overly warm image, relative to the expected neutral. Similarly, taking the white balance reading from gray clouds seems to result in too much warming of the image, suggesting that the SL2 wants to render them blue, at least under the Landscape profile. (I get better results taking the white point from cloud highlights, where they are available and where it isn’t too close to sunset.)  I also realise that the dehaze tends to add a bit of a blue cast.

Has anyone a better recipe for getting better (more natural) colours out of the SL2?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I find that Adobe's profiles are generally not to my liking. They tend to render the skies more cyan/yellow than a custom profile, and greens tend to shift to brownish as well. I prefer the look I get from custom profiles. Unfortunately, Adobe now seems to be linking a lot of their camera based tuning to the profiles they make, so custom profiles suffer in comparison in terms of shadow noise, high ISO noise and areas where the gamut or highlights are being clipped (one common example is in the color of skies at sunset, especially with the sun in frame). I tend to use a Color Checker Passport profile when I can, but at high ISO, in mixed lighting, or in cases where the gamut is being clipped, I will go back to Adobe. I would not really advise using any of their profiles other than Adobe Color or neutral. The other profiles are more like presets than profiles. That said, from your description it sounds like you like heightened color and contrast (landscape profile, clarity, dehaze etc), rather than a "natural" look.

In general, however, taking white balance of clouds will give you a warm image...clouds are not generally neutral...there is a lot of blue light bouncing around up in the sky. I find certain rocks and manmade objects (concrete, steel, white or grey paint) tend to balance a bit more neutral than the sky generally does.

In general, I know you said you are using Lightroom, but Capture One is worth a look. I am locked into lightroom because of the data management and printing module for my business, but I recently tried Capture One and it truly is a better raw converter...at least for me, it does not come close to lightroom for convenience, but the images do look better.

Share this post

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

You might try David Farkas' (owner of Leica Store Miami) profiles; I haven not personally used them, but he has put a fair bit of effort into them.  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/04/lightroom-presets-for-leica-cameras/

the SL2 seams a good starting point if you like contrasty and saturated. So called the Japanese American look.  

Leica in camera profiles are more the European look,  more natural.

I don't think there is one profile for every situation, I have custom profiles by color checker and also use adobe / C1P profiles for other occasions.

Since Leica does not offer Raw conversion software we can only use other software to get color interpretation .

ColorChecker profile have to be made for different lighting situations, the result is often better high-lights control, more natural tones in blue and saturated red.

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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By NicholasT
      I've been shooting with Sigma 100-400 for couple of months.
      As others have mentioned I find that this lens punches way above its price point in terms of IQ. Also due to its compact size and weight I find myself bringing this lens along far more often than I've ever done with a lens with 400mm reach.
      Today I decided to test the lens to try to answer a couple of questions I had about the lens:
      1. I was finding some inconsistency in sharpness even when shooting on tripod. There's been speculation in various posts that this could be due to mechanical shutter. I wanted to test this out. 
      2. I also have the TC-1411 teleconverter, but have not been making much use as I was uncertain about its impact on image quality. I've seen several reviews that report little to no IQ degradation from its use so decided to test it out.
      To answer the first question I took 3 exposures using mechanical shutter and compared the results. I found wide variation in the results. I repeated the test 3 times with the same wide variation. The test was conducted on a tripod (top of the line Really Right Stuff) at 100 ISO with 12 second shutter delay shooting from indoors ( no wind or other impacts).
      I then repeated the test several times with electronic shutter. While there was some variability between shots the differences were minor.
      Based on this relatively simple test I'm satisfied that the speculation that mechanical shutter impacts image quality in a noticeable way is in fact correct. I will be using electronic shutter with this lens from now on. 
      In order to answer the second question I took a series of 3 images at 400mm and then at 560mm focusing on a group of junction boxes on top of a building ( distance about 230 meters or 750 ft. I chose this subject because the boxes have numbers on them which helped with subsequent comparison between images. Also the texture on the wall surrounding the junction boxes offered a further reference point. 
      From each set of images taken at 400m and 560mm I selected the best one (differences were minor based on use of electronic shutter). I then compared the image taken at 560mm with 200% magnification with the one taken at 400mm with 300% magnification. I used these settings as I figured it would "roughly" equalize the result between using lens with teleconverter versus doing a more aggressive (equivalent) crop in post. 
      All images were shot at 100 ISO in the case of 400mm F6.3  & 1/125 and in case of 560mm at F9.0 & 1/60 
      Below I've attached the comparison between the two. I will share which is which in subsequent post but thought I'd share and get some initial reaction to the comparative difference. 
    • By chris_tribble
      I'm currently wrestling with which lenses to keep / sell  / add - and wonder if others are dealing with similar issues.
      At the moment I'm using two systems.  L mount and M mount. 
      The L mount system is one SL2 body and the following lenses:
      VE 24-90
      VE 90-280
      Sigma 45 f2.8 DG DN
      The M system is two M10 bodies and:
      15 Voigtlander Super-wide Heliar III f4.5
      28 Summicron Asph
      35 Summicron Asph
      50 Summilux Asph
      50 Summarit f2.4
      75 Summarit f2.4
      90 Macro-Elmar + macro adapter
      135 M Apo-Telyt f3.4

      In the current circumstances, my daily carry everywhere is the SL2 + 24-90.  I never thought it would be so easy to manage - but it is.  Because of how life is at the moment, I'm hardly using the VE 90-280.  This means there is a large lump of money sitting in a lens that is little used.  However, I got it for a good price used and I'll hold on to it for a year or two and then review.  I don't use the Sigma 45 so much since I got the VE 24-90 (which is SUCH a good, well behaved lense), but I still like the images I make and I am happy to retain it for now.  I'm also not using the M's much at present. This isn't a reason for getting rid of them - but the retained lenses are another issue.  If I look back through thousands of images in my Lightroom archive, the three M lenses that dominate are 28 / 35 / 50.  The others account for only about 5% of images.  I loved the 90 Macro when I first got it - but I was mainly using it as a compact medium telephoto on the M10, and not really using it for macro!  AND The Sigma 45 (with its near macro capability)  on the SL2 was so much easier to work with!  Likewise, I've had the 135 A-T for a long time, and it's a flawless lens (which works great on the SL2), but how much do I use it? Very little at the moment.  I use the Voigtlander 15 Super-wide Heliar very little too - but I know that it's essential for certain kinds of interior and landscape
      Now that I have the SL2, the lenses that are really redundant are the 50 & 75 Summarits + the 90 Macro-Elmar.  Off to Ffordes they will go.  But then what.  What am I lacking.  My current feeling is that it's a really good portrait lens and (possibly) a dedicated medium telephoto / macro lens.  Which leads me to Sigma.  It seems that the new 85 1.4 DG DN is a candidate as is the 105 Macro DG DN.  I'm also tempted by the 35 f2 DG DN - though this overlaps with the 35 Summicron (which works beautifully on either M or SL).
      SO - does anyone have experience with the two Sigma lenses mentioned above (85 / 105).  Does anyone have other thoughts?  I'm toying with the Sigma 14-35, but I'm not sure if I'd use it that much.  Heigh ho - I suppose this is all to do with too much time on my hands during the pandemic - though I did get out this morning in beautiful sunshine and snow (with the SL2 and 24-90!). Examples here: 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
      Thanks for any thoughts...
    • By Steve_4802
      l’ve a 50mm Summicron and 90mm elmarit; both stellar lenses. I’ve had these lenses for a good few years and don’t have any desire for more. From the get go I was sure to source lenses with common filter sizes, in this instance 39mm. I shoot quite a lot of film with my M6, both colour and BW. Its on the way back (in the post) with a viewfinder upgrade and CLA so looking forward to giving it a good run feeding it lots more film. 
      I’ve a B+W F- Pro orange filter that I use a little and I’d like to add to this. Specifically a green filter for BW portraits, to experiment on my young surfer son who’s seven with some cute freckles. Also, for colour negative, typically with Portra, I’d like to get my hands on warming and cooling filters to try and get more consistent results and minimise colour shifts. This is particularly relevant as finding a good local scanner operator is a challenge; it’s not an excuse, just another reason to try and minimise any requirement for corrections at the scanner,
      i note Leica make some black and white filters, including a green filter, so that would likely cover off my requirement for BW, however, I’m stumped for warming and cooling filters, particularly in the 39mm size. I tried a camera store this afternoon to see what they may be able to get and was advised they’re unable to help me as there’s little need these days with digital; fair enough. Most ideally too, I’d like nice brass filters like the B+W F-Pro series, they’re very nicely made bits of kit.
      As I’d like to keep the setup compact, I don’t wish to use step downs or larger filters, I’d like to stick with 39mm. So, we’ll made brass 39mm filters; colour for BW and warming / cooling for colour neg.
      Any recommendations on where I might find the above? New or used? Thanks.
      And for a bit of fun, who else is using warming and cooling filters for colour neg film? I’ve an old Lumu light meter; I’m considering upgrading to the newer one simply for better understanding of colour temp variance, and flash measurement. FYI, the lumu’s are a great little light meter; I keep mine on my phone always, often even if I don’t have a camera with me!
    • By lecycliste
      I’m using an Atomos Ninja V 5” monitor driven by the SL2’s HDMI port. It displays the viewfinder image just fine, but none of the AF tracking and exposure data shown in the viewfinder. This gives me a very viewable display at low camera angles - the eyepiece no longer gets in the way, and I can actually see what I’m shooting.
      ** Is anyone else using an external monitor, and how do I get the AF tracking point and exposure info I see in the viewfinder to appear in the external monitor? 
      Right now all I get is the viewfinder image. I have to place the AF tracking point in the middle of the viewfinder and put the subject there when I’m using the external monitor without knowing if I’m AF tracking or not.
  • Create New...