New to the Leica M240

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, epand56 said:

On my M240 I only use Jpeg (no DNG) when switch to my B&W only User Profile. Settings are: Jpeg fine only, Sharpness: Medium-high, Saturation: standard Contrast: Medium-high
This is a sample shot with a Voigtlander Nokton 21/1.4 Asph. The B&W is made in-camera and very slightly worked in Lightroom.

 

Nice photo.  I'm curious why you don't use DNG and convert to B&W in post processing.  I would think DNG, containing all the color information, would give you the option to manipulate colors, just like using a colored filter filter with B&W film.

[piblondin]

On 2/14/2021 at 3:05 PM, mmmike said:

Hi Everyone,

So I just purchased a used M240, and I love shooting with it as I have an M4 but I find that the JPEG's are a little too contrasty for my taste. I've never been one to shoot RAW/DNG on my digital cameras for hard drive space and quick transfers to my iPhone. In a nutshell I was wondering if anyone had a go to contrast setting that better matches the M240's DNG for JPEG's to eliminate having to import the files into Lightroom to export the DNG to save space and to be able to send to my iPhone for when I'm out and about and want to share for a quick upload. 

My current image settings on the M420 are: 

Sharpness: Standard.
Saturation: Standard.
Contrast: Standard.
Film Mode: Off.
Color Space: sRGB.
DNG Compression: Off.

 

Edit: As a reference I have a Nikon D750 and enjoy its Neutral Picture Profile or flat look to later add contrast if I want to. 

I think it’s worth playing around with the settings to see if you can find something you like. I prefer more contrast than you do, and I’m pretty satisfied with the black and white and color JPEG settings I’ve settled on with my M240, which often the eliminate the needs for editing DNGs altogether. 

[Advertisement]

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

[piblondin]

2 hours ago, RayD28 said:

Nice photo.  I'm curious why you don't use DNG and convert to B&W in post processing.  I would think DNG, containing all the color information, would give you the option to manipulate colors, just like using a colored filter filter with B&W film.

Why add the extra step, if the JPEG from the camera is satisfactory? 

[darylgo]

7 hours ago, piblondin said:

Why add the extra step, if the JPEG from the camera is satisfactory? 

More options, more data. But that’s technical, and photography is also art. 
That’s the beauty of it, we can each make our own decisions. 

[boojum]

9 hours ago, darylgo said:

More options, more data. But that’s technical, and photography is also art. 
That’s the beauty of it, we can each make our own decisions. 

You need not choose between the two.  You can have both DNG and JPG at the same time and JPG in B&W or color. That is an option where Leitz/Leica did it right.

[mmmike]

Update to this:

I enjoyed shooting with it so much I ended up upgrading to the M10 and I couldn't be any happier with the decision. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/18/2021 at 4:36 AM, piblondin said:

I think it’s worth playing around with the settings to see if you can find something you like. I prefer more contrast than you do, and I’m pretty satisfied with the black and white and color JPEG settings I’ve settled on with my M240, which often the eliminate the needs for editing DNGs altogether. 

However there is very little difference between editing JPGs and DNGs if any, and the DNG yields better results. 

[piblondin]

On 6/11/2021 at 3:34 PM, jaapv said:

However there is very little difference between editing JPGs and DNGs if any, and the DNG yields better results. 

This isn't my experience. The DNG is like starting from 0% and the JPG can be like starting from 80%. Oftentimes, 80% is enough. Now, if I want to get to 90%, yes, the DNG is probably the way to go. But there's no point for me in editing the DNG only to try and replicate the look of the JPG without any further enhancements. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by piblondin

[jaapv]

Have you ever tried hitting “auto” in LR.? Usually a perfect starting point for your DNG with one click. . As soon as you start editing in JPG you run into all kinds of nasties like posterizing and JPG artifacts. 
I guess I have another approach. 80% is unacceptable for me. It 

[kivis]

On 2/14/2021 at 9:01 PM, nwphil said:

yeah, the jpeg files are not that great....

I have been experimenting with jpeg (although I usually shoot DNG). I have gotten very good results shooting B/W in jpeg.

[piblondin]

On 6/15/2021 at 5:43 PM, jaapv said:

Have you ever tried hitting “auto” in LR.? Usually a perfect starting point for your DNG with one click. . As soon as you start editing in JPG you run into all kinds of nasties like posterizing and JPG artifacts. 
I guess I have another approach. 80% is unacceptable for me. It 

I have and I also have presets and plug-ins that I've purchased and like to use with LR--DXO, VSCO, etc. But if a JPEG is better than the DNG + applied import preset, I'm often going to go with the JPEG. Granted, this doesn't always work and the lighting and exposure conditions need to be within a certain range.

When I'm covering something, I'm processing a fair amount of images and I can't afford the 45-60 minutes that it would take to get each one to 95-100% in Photoshop. That's usually not my goal. So, even when I'm working with DNGs, I'm working pretty quickly most of the time. JPEGs allow me to achieve a consistent look and work even faster, if they're good. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by piblondin

[jaapv]

Presets are only useful if you want to avoid real postprocessing or to create a quick starting point. I never use them - my own processing beats the hollow to reach the rsultthat I want to see. My average processing time is normally well under 5 minutes, unless I really want to something special or prepare perfectly for a large print. 45-60 minutes is way off the scale.