Is it the camera, or is it the software?

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 26 Minuten schrieb MikeMyers:

..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.  ....

Thanks, now I finally understand. Yes it was like that. When the M11 came out, Adobe didn't support it.
For the RAW converter it is not only important to know a camera for the correction of the lenses.
I'm not a software specialist and I can't tell you why it is technically necessary to support a camera, even if a file format like DNG is known and supported.
I just accept that point as it doesn't matter to me either. If the camera or a lens is supported, I know that I can develop my photos optimally from this point on.

This was also the case with Adobe when the Sony A 7 IV appeared, which is why Adobe users first downloaded a test installation from C1, since C1 immediately supported the A7 IV. After 4 weeks there was an update regarding the A7 IV support from Adobe.

And one last thing: DXO is very, very slow with lens support. Sometimes it takes 6 months for DXO to support a new lens. So you should be careful with DXO!

[Advertisement]

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

[M Street Photographer]

Perhaps allow me a hint:
Now that I've correctly understood the background of your question, I get the feeling that you are dealing with certain technical details that don't get you any further, but rather hinder you.

Often one reads somewhere about small problems that influence.
In my opinion, it's better to just go take photos, develop the photos in the digital darkroom and have fun.

Too much knowledge can also limit...

[Tailwagger]

36 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.  

C1, Adobe, whatever has to interpret the raw file into something that gets displayed for your viewing (dis)pleasure. What you're asking is akin to wondering which color negative looks best before it gets loaded into a color enlarger head and printed. As you likely already have sensed, some people swear by C1, Topaz, Irrident, what have you because they prefer its generic raw processor output to Adobe's.  What that should make immediately clear is that what you seek simply doesn't exist... there are no absolutes here.  What the camera provides the back end software has to be interpreted to be displayed.  Remember, an M these days has somewhere around 1/2 dozen more stop of dynamic range than the device you're viewing it on.  Among other things, this means that something outside the camera has to decide how to compress and represent all this extra information in shadow and highlights with the confines of the capabilities of the display.  All this, and much more, is up to how the raw implementers decide to generically interpret the incoming data. Therefore, at this level, it's not about what comes out of the camera before the first slider is slid, but rather, after you've done your level best working the image, A: how much effort did it take and B: are you sad or elated with the result.

[MikeMyers]

You're right, but I'd say I'm curious about a lot of things, mostly "background information".  I don't think they either get me further, or hinder me.  I'm sure they slow me down, as it's all stuff that I'd like to understand.  There are roughly 30 Red Dot Forum videos posted on YouTube, and I'm gradually working my way through all of them.  

I've decided I don't need an M11, or even an M10-R, and the things I'm mostly buying nowadays are a few more lenses.  I am decades behind in film photography, and I want to be shooting a roll of 24 exposures every week.  I've also re-watched the old videos on the M10 when it was released, and I am very happy to have one.  

The biggest change I have made in the past month, is I stopped using auto-anything.  Both my cameras are in Manual mode, and I find myself thinking more before I take a photo.

In a few weeks I want to check out the new M11 at the Leica Store, Miami - but I don't think I'm ready for one, or vice versa.  

[MikeMyers]

12 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

C1, Adobe, whatever has to interpret the raw file into something that gets displayed for your viewing (dis)pleasure. What you're asking is akin to wondering which color negative looks best before it gets loaded into a color enlarger head and printed.

No, what I'm asking for, is to see the original image, as I shot it.  DxO Photolab can be set for NO CORRECTIONS, where it just shows the image, or it can be set to OPTICAL CORRECTIONS ONLY where it fixes lens issue.  You're likely correct, and Adobe can be set to show you anything you want - which is not what I want.  I want to be the person who will adjust the settings to make the image what I want it to be.  I'm certainly NOT asking which negative looks best before I print it, because the way I've configured the software, I have to make all sorts of changes manually.  

From what I've read here, I suspect a lot of people let Adobe enhance their images.  If they are happy with that, great, but that is very much NOT what I want.  

Years ago, I used to have "profiles" (maybe that's the right name) which would be applied to whatever number of images I wanted to review.  I'll never go back to that.

I think I understand now why people found this post confusing, or that I was confused.  

By the way, my images rarely look "finished" when I open them in PhotoLab.  It's only a starting point, and any editing that is needed (other than stuff like fixing lens errors) I want to do manually.  

What thing(s) does YOUR image editor do, when YOU open up some images you just captured?  If you accidentally used the wrong lighting, does your editor fix that for you?  If you over or under exposed your images, so you see them just the way they are, or does your editor fix them for you?

[Adam Bonn]

Don’t really understand the OP sorry.

Each editing app has it’s own under the hood features… the way adobe processed RAW data back in the M8/9 days is very different to how it does it these days.

The adobe M9 profile is quite strange by adobe standards. The M8 one is quite contemporary for the year. It’s not just CCD witchcraft

The OP mentions cars and/or motorbikes. Lewis Hamilton or Valentino Rossi can make a car or a bike go round a corner faster than you could believe. But on a straight road s/he with the fastest engine wins. This is like dynamic range (horsepower) vs realisation of photographical intent (talent)

In this modern day and age of high tech cameras, it’s not so much that the newest camera makes the best pictures, but it might very well be that owning a camera that you’re proud to have and enjoy to use inspires you to go out shooting with it.

And this is the personal thing we must learn for ourselves, what makes us pursue an image? If it’s a great camera, buy one and get shooting. If it’s great software, buy/SAS it and get shooting. If it’s the merely (sic) the joy of making the photo to tell the story you feel compelled to tell and the camera/software are to you what the plate and fork are to the fine dining aficionado, then just get shooting.

All the roads lead to Rome. And when in Rome do what the Romans do, and they get shooting.

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

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.

Thanks for posting that - it explains a lot.  Maybe that's one of the reasons I stopped using Adobe.  

You wrote The users want to see a relatively attractive-looking raw file after import.  That explains a lot.  No wonder people here didn't understand what I was asking.  That is very much what I do NOT want to see.  If I made mistakes in the image, I don't want Adobe to fix them - I want to learn what they were/are, so I won't make them again.  I want to see the image I captured, with any mistakes or flaws I made left in place.

 

If you are right, there's no point to this thread.  It does explain why the Red Dot Forum guys said what they did.  THANK YOU!!!!  No point in my saying anything here, now that I understand what Adobe does with/to my images.  Sorry.

[MikeMyers]

10 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Don’t really understand the OP sorry.

Like I said, sorry.  I had no idea about what @SrMi just posted.  If Adobe does all that stuff automatically, this thread is useless.  

I will continue on with DxO PhotoLab, where the software doesn't mess with my images, trying to make them better.  That's what I'm supposed to do, not my computer, and how will I ever correct things I'm doing wrong, if I need see the "wrong" images?  Doesn't matter.

A lot more I could say, but won't.  

[M Street Photographer]

vor 28 Minuten schrieb MikeMyers:

What thing(s) does YOUR image editor do, when YOU open up some images you just captured?  If you accidentally used the wrong lighting, does your editor fix that for you?  If you over or under exposed your images, so you see them just the way they are, or does your editor fix them for you?

I can tell you that C1 does nothing if you import a RAW image. You see mercilessly what you have produced.

Now for the last impression:
I have the feeling that you feel personally attacked by some of the statements, or you just don't like the answers because the answers don't correspond to what you wanted to hear. If so, it would be a pity, as we have all tried very hard to answer your question.
It's just an impression that can be wrong.

[Adam Bonn]

all the apps mess about with the RAW file upon import.

C1 embeds three tone curves in their profiles, and the M9 one is weird there too (iirc -and it's been a while- their M9 profile uses separate RGB tone curves, when typically C1 uses LAB HueSatTables) adobe takes the tone curve that you used to see in (what they now call) 'version 2' and applies it under the hood

The editors make decisions based upon things like ISO (eg sharpening &/or NR) - BUT unless the user hits auto edit then the app isn't really changing much.

adobe have been adding a Profile LUT for well over a decade that applies adobe's  adobe look 

For my 2 cents it's not so much OMG the RAW app does shit behind my back it's more about understanding what the shit is and whether or not I care to change it... After all, these apps may pick a starting point, but the user picks the end point.

Without RAW apps we'd be SOOC Jpeg shooters... or doing our own RAW conversions based on the DNG standard

Quote

Translating White Balance xy Coordinates to Camera Neutral Coordinates If the white balance is specified in terms of a CIE xy coordinate, then a camera neutral coordinate can be derived by first finding the correlated color temperature for the xy value. This value determines the interpolation weighting factor between the two sets of color calibration tags. The XYZ to camera space matrix is: XYZtoCamera = AB * CC * CM The camera neutral can be found by expanding the xy value to a 3-by-1 XYZ matrix (assuming Y = 1.0) and multiplying it by the XYZtoCamera matrix: CameraNeutral = XYZtoCamera * XYZ

That's how you get white balanced RAW data (super important)

If you want to then get WB RAW data into adobe's working space it's this

Quote

The white balanced transform is computed: CameraToXYZ_D50 = CA * CameraToXYZ CA, above, is a chromatic adaptation matrix that maps from the white balance xy value to the D50 white point. The recommended method for computing this chromatic adaptation matrix is to use the linear Bradford algorithm.

Mustn't forget the Bradford part...

Source

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!

Pretty simple really... use a DNG embedded tag to calculate a kelvin value based on the camera's WB algorithm against the two standard illuminants (StdA and D65), then provide a chromatic adaption to the XYZ_D50 white point using the PD/PS equation, then on top of that apply any home brew lens corrections etc that you want and suddenly there's no need for a RAW app at all...

 

Oh no wait... actually all the stuff above really sucks to do yourself... far better that you let industry leading software houses do all this heavy lifting in the background and all you merely have to do is learn how to move some sliders around to get the look YOU want.

Yay. Go professional editing software

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Adam Bonn

[Tailwagger]

46 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

No, what I'm asking for, is to see the original image, as I shot it.  DxO Photolab can be set for NO CORRECTIONS, where it just shows the image, or it can be set to OPTICAL CORRECTIONS ONLY where it fixes lens issue.  

Previously you wrote:

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.

What the heck do lens corrections have to do with your original post?  Color me confused. NO CORRECTIONS AFAIK simply means not applying any lens corrections. Nothing to do with color, shadow etc.  There simply is no such thing as an 'Original Image' in the sense that there is a singular pure virgin, right way to display the incoming bits. If there was every raw processor's initial output would look exactly the same when displayed on the same computer... and while they can be close they're not. 

As for lens correction, Abode can enable or disable SOME lens corrections, primarily curvature, vignetting, presumably exactly like DXO.  Note the checkbox on the right below. However, some other corrections are automatically applied in camera and simply built-in to the file. The only way to defeat those corrections is to tape over the optical sensor on the M or scratch out the 8 bit code on the lens.

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!

 

[SrMi]

49 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I can tell you that C1 does nothing if you import a RAW image. You see mercilessly what you have produced.

Of course C1 does. The standard claim from C1 aficionados is that the raw files look much better than when opened  with Adobe. The reason is not because the images look flatter and with less contrast with C1 (aka nothing done to raw image).

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

Like I said, sorry.  I had no idea about what @SrMi just posted.  If Adobe does all that stuff automatically, this thread is useless.  

I will continue on with DxO PhotoLab, where the software doesn't mess with my images, trying to make them better.  That's what I'm supposed to do, not my computer, and how will I ever correct things I'm doing wrong, if I need see the "wrong" images?  Doesn't matter.

A lot more I could say, but won't.  

DxO "messes" with your raw images as well. All post-processing software does. The difference between the tools is how the initial raw file looks (most users and reviewers do not prefer a flat image, unfortunately) and how well the tools can modify the files.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 There are roughly 30 Red Dot Forum videos posted on YouTube, and I'm gradually working my way through all of them.  

 

Their 50th Camera Talk episode was posted 5 months ago…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fqnPCeVfePE

And they have posted many other videos.  

Btw,  DXO is no exception regarding RAW file adjustments.  The company is good, however, at delaying or ignoring Leica gear updates.  
 

The point regarding all software, however, is that the user has the final say.  No viewer cares how ‘the sausage’ was made.

Jeff

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Jeff S

[Adam Bonn]

Ok I just modified the standard adobe profiles for the M10, M10-R and M11.

I deleted the Profile LUT (the adobe look part) and added a LINEAR tone curve to each.

This will be (give or take) about as vanilla as you can get with the adobe files as these profiles will overwrite the LR/ACR inbuilt TC with a 'zero' one and also remove all the look adjustments that adobe provides (google DCP Tool hue twists for the background on this)

Fundamentally this strips the adobe profile back to the bare bones of a StdA/D65 to XYZ_D50 transformation as per the DNG spec (or in simple terms I scrapped off adobe's secret sauce)

If you think that the linear TC looks like crap (and it does) then apply the 'medium contrast' TC from the TC tool in LR/ACR, then adjust to taste.

Feel free to add these into a preset that also adds zero sharpening/NR and turns lens corrections off.

Love you all... but I'm throwing out a bone here and I don't need to hear about how it tastes = use it or discard it, it's all the same to me

(google can tell you how to import these into LR/ACR in case that's a problem)

 

LEICA M11 Adobe Standard (nLUT LinTC).dcp LEICA M10 Adobe Standard (nLUT LinTC).dcp LEICA M10-R Adobe Standard (nLUT LinTC).dcp

[UliWer]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb MikeMyers:

No, what I'm asking for, is to see the original image, as I shot it.  DxO Photolab can be set for NO CORRECTIONS, where it just shows the image, or it can be set to OPTICAL CORRECTIONS ONLY where it fixes lens issue.  You're likely correct, and Adobe can be set to show you anything you want - which is not what I want.  I want to be the person who will adjust the settings to make the image what I want it to be.

I think your wish is a very legitimate one.

You might try the following:

In your camera you switch off "Lens detection". Switch off "Vignetting correction". 

In Lightroom you may go to "Preferences" -"Presets" and switch off "Camera settings" but go to "Adobe default". In the "Development" menu of Lightroom you scroll down to "Lens Corrections" and disable the button for  "Enable Profile Corrections".

With this setting Lightroom does not "know" your camera nor your lens. It is just a tool to apply some corrections you wish to do.

Now you might try a comparison with all the settings I mentioned above enabled in your camera and in Lightroom. The camera does some "adjustments" to the Raw-Files and Lightroom may do some specific adjustments as well.

Please compare the results either by printing them or saving them on a different resource. Do you really see any differences? If you see them, I am sure that they are very slight (I  tried, and I am sure that I see no reason to bother about them).

I think the whole discussion has sources in the Internet which are all void. The first is a constant lament of people who don't find a button in their software which applies to their cameras and/or lenses. They say: "Why doesn't Lightroom (or any other software) support my camera and/or my lens"? If you ask these people what "support" they are looking for, you never get an answer. How do the software developers answer this question? They just offer a button for your camera and/or lens and everybody is content. "Oh, great! Lightroom supports my camera/lens now!! Thank you for this!!!". I still remember a case - I think it was Capture One - when a specific profile for a Leica camera was just weird. Colors were totally off etc. With "Adobe Standard" (or "DNG neutral" or however they called it) you were happy. They changed this "specific" Leica M "profile" some months later. I tried: it was o.k. as it was identical to "Standard" or "Neutral" profile.

Now I was talking about the Leica M. But there are other cameras and especially lenses which certainly need software "support"and that is the second source of the discussion. If you look around in this forum about the Leica Q and many lenses for the SL you may find examples which show extreme lens distortion which would make the results unusable. The reason for this is quite simple: the lenses were not corrected against distortion. This is a way to achieve max resolution at lower costs.  That's one of the reasons why Leica M lenses are so expensive: they are almost fully corrected against distortion so they don't need software support. Though other M-lenses e.g. from Voigtländer which are much cheaper, also don't need (much) software support. But modern lens design - also at Leica - goes different ways: they neglect many criteria which can be corrected by software. Therefore you cannot just depend on what you get out of the camera but need the software.

This does not mean that everything you get out of a Leica M is just perfect. There are many legitimate concerns about e.g. reds being too pronounced for skin tones, blue skies being overblown etc. Though that is just what you get using a Leica M. You have to adjust manually if you don't like it, or perhaps choose a Fuji where you can apply so many "film styles". . .

 

 

 

 

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

I have the feeling that you feel personally attacked by some of the statements, or you just don't like the answers because the answers don't correspond to what you wanted to hear. If so, it would be a pity, as we have all tried very hard to answer your question.
It's just an impression that can be wrong.

Nope, I don't think anyone is "attacking" me, we just see things differently, and I've given up on Adobe many years ago.

 

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

What the heck do lens corrections have to do with your original post?  Color me confused. NO CORRECTIONS AFAIK simply means not applying any lens corrections. Nothing to do with color, shadow etc.  There simply is no such thing as an 'Original Image' in the sense that there is a singular pure virgin, right way to display the incoming bits. If there was every raw processor's initial output would look exactly the same when displayed on the same computer... and while they can be close they're not. 

With DxO PhotoLab, you can select what corrections you want, or you can select "no corrections", so the image is as good or bad as you made it when you pressed the shutter button.  I didn't realize until now that Adobe doesn't do this - and why.  See below:

 

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

DxO "messes" with your raw images as well. All post-processing software does. The difference between the tools is how the initial raw file looks (most users and reviewers do not prefer a flat image, unfortunately) and how well the tools can modify the files.

It does this only if you tell it to do so.  Download the trial version (free) and see for yourself.

 

45 minutes ago, UliWer said:

You might try the following:

In your camera you switch off "Lens detection". Switch off "Vignetting correction". 

In Lightroom you may go to "Preferences" -"Presets" and switch off "Camera settings" but go to "Adobe default". In the "Development" menu of Lightroom you scroll down to "Lens Corrections" and disable the button for  "Enable Profile Corrections".

With this setting Lightroom does not "know" your camera nor your lens. It is just a tool to apply some corrections you wish to do........

 

Thanks, but no thanks.  I already have things working the way I want.  I haven't used Lightroom in ages.....

 

47 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Now I was talking about the Leica M. But there are other cameras and especially lenses which certainly need software "support"and that is the second source of the discussion. If you look around in this forum about the Leica Q and many lenses for the SL you may find examples which show extreme lens distortion which would make the results unusable. The reason for this is quite simple: the lenses were not corrected against distortion. This is a way to achieve max resolution at lower costs.  That's one of the reasons why Leica M lenses are so expensive: they are almost fully corrected against distortion so they don't need software support. Though other M-lenses e.g. from Voigtländer which are much cheaper, also don't need (much) software support. But modern lens design - also at Leica - goes different ways: they neglect many criteria which can be corrected by software. Therefore you cannot just depend on what you get out of the camera but need the software.

This does not mean that everything you get out of a Leica M is just perfect. There are many legitimate concerns about e.g. reds being too pronounced for skin tones, blue skies being overblown etc. Though that is just what you get using a Leica M. You have to adjust manually if you don't like it, or perhaps choose a Fuji where you can apply so many "film styles". . .

I wasn't aware of most of that.  Thank you.

It doesn't apply to me, as I'm already making all my adjustments manually, with PhotoLab.

[MikeMyers]

Hmm, the last thing I wrote isn't technically correct, as I tell DxO to make all the optical corrections that are needed and available.  Camera is used in Manual mode, and white balance is usually set to 5600 K and left there.  I adjust/correct it in PhotoLab.  

I'll check back here tomorrow.  I learned a lot - thanks to all of you.  I'm grateful.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, MikeMyers said:

It does this only if you tell it to do so.  Download the trial version (free) and see for yourself.

I own DxO PhotoLab 6 and DxO PureRaw 2 and occasionally use them primarily for noise reduction.
Certain corrections in DxO can be optional, and the same goes for M cameras when using Adobe. [Other camera models embed lens profiles in the raw files, which cannot be turned off in Adobe but can be turned off in C1 or DxO.]
When you turn everything off in DxO, you get a similar initial view of the raw file that you get in Adobe when you turn everything off.

[MikeMyers]

3 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I own DxO PhotoLab 6 and DxO PureRaw 2 and occasionally use them primarily for noise reduction.

So, you've got "Presets: Default preset for new RAW images set to #2 (Optical Corrections Only) or to #5 (No Corrections)?

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!