Reid's review on colors of M10R vs. M11

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Much of that “native” tonality is related to the default settings that the camera company and the software vendors choose to incorporate.  Folks here complained initially about ‘flat’ files from the M10 Monochrom (common with high DR sensors), and soon after a new, more S-shaped, tone curve was introduced as the LR import default. Many here then just thought the M10 M had an inherently high “native” contrast. 
 

Jeff

I don’t doubt that’s true about the monochrom. Sounds like adobe tweaked their demosaicing process, I wonder if other brand RAW app users had the same issue?

Earlier process versions of LR has an S shaped tone curve displayed in the tone curve tool as standard (maybe it was process 2012) now days it’s displayed as a linear TC. But in actual fact the S curve is still there just ‘under the hood’

When Leica releases (say) a FW update that fixes colours or colour bias (like IIRC they did with the 240 and M10) this has nothing to do with adobe, or Capture One, or DxO etc etc. This works by Leica tweaking things under the hood of the camera.

Adobe et el can only change how they process the information Leica (etc) provide in the RAW, the camera manufacturer can tweak that info.

The native tonality of each camera that I’m referring too is part of the process that the manufacturer does to convert sensor RAW data into RAW file (eg DNG) data.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

I don’t doubt that’s true about the monochrom. Sounds like adobe tweaked their demosaicing process, I wonder if other brand RAW app users had the same issue?

Earlier process versions of LR has an S shaped tone curve displayed in the tone curve tool as standard (maybe it was process 2012) now days it’s displayed as a linear TC. But in actual fact the S curve is still there just ‘under the hood’

When Leica releases (say) a FW update that fixes colours or colour bias (like IIRC they did with the 240 and M10) this has nothing to do with adobe, or Capture One, or DxO etc etc. This works by Leica tweaking things under the hood of the camera.

Adobe et el can only change how they process the information Leica (etc) provide in the RAW, the camera manufacturer can tweak that info.

The native tonality of each camera that I’m referring too is part of the process that the manufacturer does to convert sensor RAW data into RAW file (eg DNG) data.

 

 

No, they merely adjusted the default tone curve upon import, with a FW tweak after introduction amid user complaints about ‘flat’ files.  Everything else remained the same. The process engine is a different matter altogether. Of course this is user controllable, and easily changed, but many users fail to understand editing basics.  Changing the contrast curve will similarly affect color saturation, etc, for a color-based M, making inexperienced users think that the camera has more “native pop.” Other effects can be achieved with simple changes in various other default import settings, user presets and/or alternative or custom color profiles. 
 

Jeff

Edited October 16, 2022 by Jeff S

[hdmesa]

On 10/14/2022 at 11:56 AM, jakontil said:

im partly colour blind and since the day i started shooting, the least concern thing for me is colour or colour science or whatever we call it...

https://enchroma.com

You may already know about these glasses, but I post the link whenever someone says they are color blind.

[Adam Bonn]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

No, they merely adjusted the default tone curve upon import, with a FW tweak after introduction amid user complaints about ‘flat’ files

"they" with "FW" ??

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!

 

I'd be very surprised if this TC came from Leica via "FW" - looks like adobe made it... I don't own the M10M, but the sample DNG I found online from DPR was taken on the 10th of Feb 2020, (so 2 weeks after the 10M was announced, and no doubt way before any FW was released for it, the installed FW version on this shot is 2.12.8.0, the current M10M FW is 4.22.11.52)

This is not the native tonality of the camera I'm talking about.

What I'm referring to is:

If you took an M9/240/M10/10R/M11 set them all to the same ISO/SS/Ap and shot the same thing with the same lens, would you expect each picture to have same tonality?

(the answer is no)

Andy (@adan) has a post explaining it very well here 

Quote

The M10 has a rather steep contrast curve applied to its .DNG files, to "simulate" the punch of M9 shots (or color slides) after some folks complained about the "dullness" of native M(typ240) .DNGs.

Most of the M10s dynamic range (7.5 stops out of ~11) is thus below "middle gray." So don't be surprised that you have to (and can) pull up the shadows a lot, where needed. This graph is from my own M10 latitude tests.

The amount of DR applied here, or there in relation to middle grey is part of a decision making process taken by the camera OEM, and incorporated into the RAW file at it's creation = this is native tonality - not some settings in any one of umpteen different RAW editing apps that are not under the control of the OEM. These as you say, are for users to make their own choices with, and these app makers are smart to make tools that work with all hands, not just experienced ones.

 

 

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

"they" with "FW" ??

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!

 

I'd be very surprised if this TC came from Leica via "FW" - looks like adobe made it... I don't own the M10M, but the sample DNG I found online from DPR was taken on the 10th of Feb 2020, (so 2 weeks after the 10M was announced, and no doubt way before any FW was released for it, the installed FW version on this shot is 2.12.8.0, the current M10M FW is 4.22.11.52)

This is not the native tonality of the camera I'm talking about.

What I'm referring to is:

If you took an M9/240/M10/10R/M11 set them all to the same ISO/SS/Ap and shot the same thing with the same lens, would you expect each picture to have same tonality?

(the answer is no)

Andy (@adan) has a post explaining it very well here 

The amount of DR applied here, or there in relation to middle grey is part of a decision making process taken by the camera OEM, and incorporated into the RAW file at it's creation = this is native tonality - not some settings in any one of umpteen different RAW editing apps that are not under the control of the OEM. These as you say, are for users to make their own choices with, and these app makers are smart to make tools that work with all hands, not just experienced ones.

 

 

I looked back to refresh my memory.  Not a FW update, but LR9.2 introduced a changes to default settings and procedures, which included a higher contrast tone cure for the M10M once it was supported.  Regardless, my point was that users often wrongly interpret these type of changes as inherent file characteristics, rather than simple user adjustable settings. 
 

 

Jeff

[Adam Bonn]

@Jeff S your point has merit, but changes made by a software house affecting but two products in an area with many vendor options is the antithesis of the innate RAW file characteristics selected at product design and affirmation prototype stages by the OEM. I’m not a subscriber to Reid, but my hunch would be he can tell the difference between what’s in the RAW and what the editing software’s doing.

But I reiterate, your point is valid, a very great many OEM image characteristics can be edited away. It’s just not the point I was making, and many users do prefer RAW files that require less cajoling to reach their destination, you can’t really make two different cameras render the same so native characteristics are, IMHO anyway, a valid point of interest.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

@Jeff S your point has merit, but changes made by a software house affecting but two products in an area with many vendor options is the antithesis of the innate RAW file characteristics selected at product design and affirmation prototype stages by the OEM. I’m not a subscriber to Reid, but my hunch would be he can tell the difference between what’s in the RAW and what the editing software’s doing.

But I reiterate, your point is valid, a very great many OEM image characteristics can be edited away. It’s just not the point I was making, and many users do prefer RAW files that require less cajoling to reach their destination, you can’t really make two different cameras render the same so native characteristics are, IMHO anyway, a valid point of interest.

I never disputed your point. Rather, I wrote in post # 79… “Much of that native tonality is related to the default settings that the camera company and the software vendors choose to incorporate.” I didn’t say that was  the whole story; just that users often misinterpret what’s inherent versus what’s arbitrarily set by default and is user controllable.

Jeff
 

 

[jaapv]

As a matter of fact, the choice of the filter transmission curves of the Bayer filter is of great influence on the resulting tonality and cannot be fully compensated for by either firmware or postprocessing.

[Jeff S]

Yes, part of the rest of the story.

Jeff

[Adam Bonn]

18 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I never disputed your point. Rather, I wrote in post # 79… “Much of that native tonality is related to the default settings that the camera company and the software vendors choose to incorporate.” I didn’t say that was  the whole story; just that users often misinterpret what’s inherent versus what’s arbitrarily set by default and is user controllable.

Jeff
 

 

Probably the use of ‘and’ that’s throwing me, whatever adobe/c1/etc are doing isn’t really native tonality. But some cameras undeservedly get a bit of crappy IQ rap (early adobe support of x-trans springs to mind) because of software vendor choices

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

As a matter of fact, the choice of the filter transmission curves of the Bayer filter is of great influence on the resulting tonality and cannot be fully compensated for by either firmware or postprocessing.

Indeed, which is why native tonality is a valid point of interest and not to be confused with whatever the software house is doing🙂 Also colours as well, certain biases that are inherent from the CFA can only be mitigated not fully changed