Is it the camera, or is it the software?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Something I recently heard in a video got me to wondering.  Long ago, Leica used CCD for sensors, then changed to CMOS and some people complained about the change in image quality.  Then it was pointed out that with image processing, it became very difficult to tell which type of sensor an image was created from.

Then, more recently, I heard how we shouldn't really judge the quality of Leica's newest M until Adobe finished perfecting their software for the new M camera.

 

To me, the quality of the image from the camera is very different than the quality of an image processed in _______.  I see lots of posts talking about presets for software.  Meanwhile, there are so many types of image processing software, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.  I used to use Adobe, then tried five or six others, and finally settled with DxO PhotoLab.  But I don't think it's proper to judge the quality of my processed images as showing the capability of my Leica.

I wish it were possible to judge the image quality of a camera on its own, rather than how it was enhanced (or degraded) by the processing software.

I believe there is a forum on this site for post processing software, and that would be a good place to debate the strengths and weaknesses of each software.  But to me, that comes after debating the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, based only by the files that come from that camera.

 

Specifically, I see the beautiful results in the Red Dot Forum videos of processing M11 files in Adobe Lightroom, using Adobe's presets.  What I would like to know is how the dng files from the M11, or M10, or M10-R compare before having at it with enhancing software.  How do those files compare when it comes to dynamic range and noise and other important ways.  To compare images, we need a way to view the unprocessed image, before editing.  This may or may not be a valid way to do so:  https://www.fastrawviewer.com/viewing-raw-is-not-impossible

As an example, it would be more meaningful as I see it to compare an image from a M11 to an image from a M10-R before editing the image.

Edited November 27, 2022 by MikeMyers

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoworks]

not sure what you are trying to understand .

To me the pictures that came out of camera are fine, but my final product involves a vision that is not dictated by the camera . Plus I will do a shoot or something and process all the images to fit together into a set with harmony. 

you will never get that in camera .

Adobe always had flat looking profiles, it would alway take longer to ge a decent image out of LrC or CameraRaw.
I use capture one most of the time. one of my favorite for many reason.

[Jeff S]

You keep saying it’s the photographer, not the gear.  Now you want to know the role of the camera vs software?  Maybe time to revisit your first thought. No great prints were ever made without user input at every stage, including camera, lens, film or sensor/software (reflecting design and output decisions), darkroom or computer, display lighting, etc.  Another endless topic.

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

It's neither the camera nor the software, it's the photographer: their eye, their concept, their skill and their craft, running from seeing the image in the first place, to creating it with the camera, lens and software they have to hand.

Nobody values a photo because it was taken with a Leica, or processed in Adobe software (except for marketing reasons). We hold exhibitions for photographers, not cameras or software.

If your photos are not coming out as you want them to, then the problem is in your head and with your skills/craft, not your tools. No presets will will make them better, nor will changing software.

[rramesh]

Show me a software that can do more than what a human holding a paint brush and paint palette can achieve.

[250swb]

8 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 

I believe there is a forum on this site for post processing software, and that would be a good place to debate the strengths and weaknesses of each software.  But to me, that comes after debating the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, based only by the files that come from that camera.

 

You forgot the strengths and weaknesses of each photographer because even looking at the output directly from a camera or software package the photographer should know what they are looking at and how it translates into their own work. But generally speaking in discussions about buttons to press nobody has their own opinion anymore, instead they want to buy a new camera or use a preset to do everything for them and that is how they quantify their photographic progress, as a series of discussions that seek to dissect their GAS.

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I won't argue with what any of you have said, but ever since the photo magazines in the 1970's and 1980's, cameras were tested to see what THEY could do.  If you think this is a silly question, just ignore it.

It's like a motorcycle or a car - either of which can be put on a dynamometer with the results evaluated, and the engine re-tuned to improve its performance.  

The thread was not to ask about the ability of the photographer, or the ability of the processing software.  The results would indicate if there was barrel distortion, or pin-cushion distortion, and any number of other things.

 

People tell me the 24-120 zoom I often use with my Nikon has all sorts of distortions.  I never look at the original images, so I don't know about this.  I do know that programs like PhotoLab and Lightroom have correction files for different cameras and lenses, the end result being that if I open one of those images, make no changes, and save it, the "distortions" will likely be eliminated or minimized.  

 

I certainly don't disagree with all the things that are being mentioned up above, but that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.  

This link is a better example of what I'm asking about:

https://www.teachucomp.com/automatically-correct-lens-distortions-in-lightroom-classic-cc-instructions/

I don't know about Lightroom, but I do know that PhotoLab makes these corrections automatically (if desired) when an image is first opened.  If I do no editing, but close PhotoLab, I will have a corrected image stored on my computer to work with if I wish to.

I posted the thread because I was wondering how much automatic correction is being done to Leica camera and lenses - and my guess is "very little" because the gear is so good.  

Edited November 27, 2022 by MikeMyers

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

I posted the thread because I was wondering how much automatic correction is being done to Leica camera and lenses - and my guess is "very little" because the gear is so good.

Leica uses heavily lens distortion on zoom lenses. the correction in camera hide that.

[MikeMyers]

13 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Leica uses heavily lens distortion on zoom lenses. the correction in camera hide that.

I guess that's close to what I'm asking about.  There is another thread in this forum that suggests that the corrections, if needed, will be done by the image editing software:  https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/329356-lightroom-lens-corrections/   That is what I was asking about in this thread.

[M Street Photographer]

I've read your post #1 several times now and honestly I didn't understand what your question is or what you want.

The camera achieves xy quality, but only the photographer, with his knowledge and skills, can get the maximum performance out of the hardware.
Why do you want to know if an M10 R is better or worse than an M11? When it comes to a purchasing decision I would understand, but you have to question yourself if you are able to get the maximum possible result out of the camera.

And one last thing: Whenever you look at an image, whether RAW or Jpeg, whether on the camera display or on the computer, it has always been processed / influenced by software, be it the firmware, be it the RAW interpretation of the RAW converter.
For years there have been arguments as to whether Sony and/or Leica are already intervening in the RAWs and if so, to what extent.
This is nowhere, publicly, exhaustively, documented.

Please try to state your concern in an understandable, simply worded question.

[MikeMyers]

17 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

Please try to state your concern in an understandable, simply worded question.

I thought I did, but maybe not well enough.

"What I would like to know is how the dng files from the M11, or M10, or M10-R compare before having at it with enhancing software.  How do those files compare when it comes to dynamic range and noise and other important ways."

None of my question refers to what the photographer can or will do with the image.  I'm wondering about the quality of the images before and after loading them into an editor, with no editing by the photographer.  Maybe I should have just asked what does the editing software do to the image, when it is first opened by the software.  DxO PhotoLab refers to this as "optics correction".  I don't remember what Lightroom calls it.  If there are flaws in the image because of design deficiencies of the lens, for example, those are corrected before the photographer first sees the image on his computer screen.

Or:  does the editing software look up which camera and lens was used, and automatically correct for flaws in either?  Or, do some models of Leica cameras correct these things in-camera, before they are opened in editing software.

 

 

[Jeff S]

Sometimes yes, and sometimes yes.

Jeff

[riepibcx]

I also think you're asking a very complex question.  That being said, have you looked at "RawDigger" or "FastRawViewer?"  I don't use them, but I keep on reading about them.  It seems they might give you some of the information you need.  Also, I use "Iridient Developer" for my raw processing and it's very easy to disable lens corrections embedded in a raw file (Ie., not already performed in-camera) like distortion correction.

- Tim

[SrMi]

59 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

My Adobe Camera Raw does nothing unless I tell it to - not correcting profiles, not addings presets, not applying compensations etc. With everything switched to manual It is capable of opening any RAW file as-is.

 

Every image that comes from any digital Leica is already processed in some way, just not to the extent of the editing software. Example: My M10-R for instance writes metadata for perspective control into the DNG and does not correct it in camera - it only does that in camerat to JPGs, and only IF the perspective correction function is ON.

Adobe software applies many "hidden" modifications (default profiles, sharpening, cropping, SDC, etc.). The same is valid for all post-processors. That is why people observe differences between various post-processing tools.
The closest you can observe raw as it is are tools like RawDigger, though it may make some cropping and color adjustments.

[M Street Photographer]

vor einer Stunde schrieb MikeMyers:

I thought I did, but maybe not well enough.

"What I would like to know is how the dng files from the M11, or M10, or M10-R compare before having at it with enhancing software.  How do those files compare when it comes to dynamic range and noise and other important ways."

Well, I understand you better, if not quite.
You can find what you are asking in the technical documentation for the two cameras. You would have to put these in a table and compare them. Then you see the theoretical differences.

I said something about LR, C1 doesn't do anything at first.

Nevertheless, the question remains what you want to do with the knowledge.
With any software, if any, you can set import settings to 0 and then you have the unadulterated raw data, with all its errors, if any.

Lenses are only corrected in the camera if you have also set Jpeg.

But the question remains what you want to do with all the information here.
Are you interested in seeing how and where lenses go wrong?
Or are you concerned with knowing which software can best handle the DNG files for light rescue or depth drawing?
In this case, keep in mind that nobody can say everything about all RAW converters, there are too many. Or limit the circle, e.g. : LR + PS, C1, DXO LAb 6
Please try again to formulate your goal / reason for your question.

vor 57 Minuten schrieb Al Brown:

My Adobe Camera Raw does nothing unless I tell it to - not correcting profiles, not addings presets, not applying compensations etc. With everything switched to manual It is capable of opening any RAW file as-is.

Basically you are right. But you have to be careful with LR, since import settings are automatically available after installation. If you don't want this, you have to set them all to 0 and save them for future imports.

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, M Street Photographer said:

But the question remains what you want to do with all the information here.

Absolutely nothing.  .....and I think I already got my answers.

 

I don't use Lightroom, I use PhotoLab, and I have it set to automatically do "optical corrections only", meaning if an XYZZY lens vignettes at f/4, I think PhotoLab will correct the vignette.  Or if my 24-120 Nikon Zoom has barrel distortion, or pincushion distortion, PhotoLab will correct the image because I've asked it to do so.

I'm only asking because on the Red Dot Forum video, it was suggested that people hold off on evaluating images from a Leica M11 until after Adobe finishes the software for that camera.  

That sounded strange to me, because now with PhotoLab, or back when I used Lightroom, I didn't want my editing software to do anything to my images (other than correcting optical flaws).  That made me think that a lot of M11 users are allowing the editing software to alter their images - rather than doing it themselves.  I guess I'll have to look up the YouTube file name, and the time code for when this happened.  

If the image is noisy, I will correct that by using the PhotoLab noise reduction tools - but if I don't select these tools, noise is not corrected.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with all of you who are telling me to do the editing myself, along with everything else.  Other than "optical corrections" I agree with all of you, and that's what I try to do.  (I have optical modules for my M10 and my D780, and for several of my lenses, but nothing for my M8.2 and next to nothing for the majority of my M-mount lenses.  For better or worse, I'll do all the editing manually, and quite often it turns out to be "worse", and I keep working on it until I'm satisfied.  But I think that's what most of you do.

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Adobe software applies many "hidden" modifications (default profiles, sharpening, cropping, SDC, etc.). The same is valid for all post-processors. That is why people observe differences between various post-processing tools.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember Adobe software did NONE of that unless I told it to do so.  

DxO PhotoLab does ONLY the things I have given it permission to do, and certainly not the things you've mentioned.  Does Adobe now do these things UNLESS you de-select them, or does it not do them until/unless you DO select them?

Ouch!!!!!   and why do you put up with it?  

 

 

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, riepibcx said:

That being said, have you looked at "RawDigger" or "FastRawViewer?"  I don't use them, but I keep on reading about them.  It seems they might give you some of the information you need. 

Yes, I bought that software, but I settled on DxO PhotoLab which gives me full control, and it seems more powerful to me than the Adobe software.

 

2 hours ago, riepibcx said:

Also, I use "Iridient Developer" for my raw processing and it's very easy to disable lens corrections embedded in a raw file (Ie., not already performed in-camera) like distortion correction.

I don't know the software, and don't know what you mean.  Are you saying your camera corrects for things like lens corrections on its own?  I didn't expect that.  I prefer to let the camera capture the image complete with any lens issues, and allow my editing software to resolve those issues.  I don't think any of my cameras correct for lens issues - maybe that's a bad assumption for me to make?

You say "iridient Developer" will disable lens corrections embedded in a raw file?  I wasn't aware that there are/were any lens corrections embedded in my raw files.  Those issues are corrected by my computer.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember Adobe software did NONE of that unless I told it to do so.  

DxO PhotoLab does ONLY the things I have given it permission to do, and certainly not the things you've mentioned.  Does Adobe now do these things UNLESS you de-select them, or does it not do them until/unless you DO select them?

Ouch!!!!!   and why do you put up with it?  

Adobe applies a non-linear color profile at import and by default. That color profile is not part of the raw file but of Adobe's interpretation of the raw file. Occasionally, I have to apply a third-party linear or repro profile to back off the contrast that Adobe always adds to the raw file.
Distortion and chromatic aberration correction are sometimes automatically applied by Adobe. The only way to turn it off is to modify a DNG raw file. There are other parameters in the raw files that Adobe automatically applies without possibly disabling them (except by changing the raw file). Other parameters like sharpening and noise reduction are automatically applied but can be reverted after the import.

The users want to see a relatively attractive-looking raw file after import. IMO, that is why Adobe increased default sharpening a couple of years ago.

Much of the mentioned issues occur with every post-processing software.

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Yes, I bought that software, but I settled on DxO PhotoLab which gives me full control, and it seems more powerful to me than the Adobe software.

RawDigger is not a post-processing software but raw analysis software. It is complimentary and offers functionality that DxO, Adobe, or C1 do not provide.