Leica M11 -purplish tint ???

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Looking carefully I would say that the M10 has a slight tendency towards Yellow and Cyan and the M11 towards Magenta. A good argument to always balance your starting point, irrespective off camera.

Agree, I happen to like that as a starting point so works for me (perhaps better than a 'balanced' starting point).  May not be the case for others, of course ! 

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Uncorrected:

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!

 

Corrected (same white balance dropper point):

In this case I think the M10 needed more correction than the M11.

[grahamc]

This one not revealing anything on Magenta-gate but you may see a difference in the general look of the sensors. Like the colours it is personal preference which one we prefer or which one places us closer to our desired end point (never a bad thing IMO).

Both already white balance 'corrected' using the same spot on the grey of the light shade, M11 left , M10 right as with all the images: 

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!

That's all from me ! 

 

 

[grahamc]

16 minutes ago, jaapv said:

In this case I think the M10 needed more correction than the M11.

Maybe yes.  I may not be a typical case as I really quite dislike magenta casts.  In the sky of film scans, for example it's a pet hate and if anything I'd much rather a slight green tint to skies (I often post process that way to get a consistent look to my digital images & what I typically get from Kodak films).  I'm also generally drawn to warmer images vers. cooler.    

So the 10 works very well for me but I accept neither is probably 'correct'.  Especially with the extra 'punch' I saw from the smaller sensor I decided that the M10 was the better option for my particular needs.  

Edited November 28, 2023 by grahamc

[lct]

3 hours ago, elmars said:

The fact that we are arguing here is probably because one group likes the magenta cast while the other does not.

Don't cont me in please. I have no magenta cast and i dislike yours with all due respect. Nothing personal obviously.

[elmars]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb lct:

I have no magenta cast and i dislike yours with all due respect.

Sorry, I don´t understand this post.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, elmars said:

Sorry, I don´t understand this post.

Sorry for my bad English. You said  we are arguing  probably because one group likes the magenta cast while the other does not. The way i understand this sentence, unhappy people dislike the magenta cast whilst happy ones like it. I belong to neither group personally given that i'm happy with the current  firmware and i dislike your magenta cast a lot.  I say "your" because i have no magenta cast at all and i suppose you're suffering from it but i may be missing something.

[elmars]

I'm sorry to have to say this: If you can't see the magenta cast, you have a perception problem. However, I don't want to commit myself to the word magenta cast, my English is too bad for that. I just want to say that there is a lot of magenta in the photos of the M11 and you can see it clearly. It's much more magenta than in other Leica cameras or in the two Nikons (D800 and Z9) I've done comparisons with.

I don't suffer from the magenta cast. Often I like it, often I don't care about it, but sometimes it bothers me. But there are quite a few users who want more neutral results or a more neutral starting point. I can understand that very well. In my opinion, Leica should accommodate them by offering an alternative white balance setting. That way, everyone could choose and be satisfied.

[lct]

Just now, elmars said:

I'm sorry to have to say this: If you can't see the magenta cast, you have a perception problem

I don't see the magenta cast because i have none and i have none because i don't use Adobe or similarly incompetent raw converters.

[elmars]

Can anyone else explain it or does it seem pointless?

[hmzimelka]

8 minutes ago, elmars said:

Can anyone else explain it or does it seem pointless?

It's pointless honestly. I've argued other issues in circles with LCT and it's an endless loop. 

I've refrained from commenting earlier simply because it would go nowhere. 

I think reaching the point of accusing Adobe as incompetent is a good point to tap out.

 

EDIT, I confirm the magenta cast is there, and it bothers me a little, but I've mitigated it by doing a grey card reading at mid-day, once and my camera lives on that setting. My Lightroom WB on imported files is now at a +10 tint which is perfect for me. Previously, Auto WB would have daylight at +20 to +22

Edited November 28, 2023 by hmzimelka

[lct]

1 minute ago, hmzimelka said:

It's pointless honestly. I've argued other issues in circles with LCT and it's an endless loop. 

I've refrained from commenting earlier simply because it goes nowhere. 

I think reaching the point of accusing Adobe as incompetent is a good point to tap out.

Bit sad to read this but you may wish to read my posts above including this one:

 

[hmzimelka]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Bit sad to read this but you may wish to read my posts above including this one:

 

I've read every comment and often re-read comments in this thread.

The culprit is very likely Leica, with the camera calibration instruction embedded in every DNG file, which is what Adobe works off!

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!

[lct]

2 minutes ago, hmzimelka said:

The culprit is very likely Leica, with the camera calibration instruction embedded in every DNG file, which is what Adobe works off!

Could you please explain why i have zero magenta cast issue with non-Adobe softwares then?

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, lct said:

Could you please explain why i have zero magenta cast issue with non-Adobe softwares then?

Probably because other software ignores the instructions. Which means that there is nothing wrong with the camera or software but that some ( many?) users do not like the added spices. 

[hmzimelka]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

Could you please explain why i have zero magenta cast issue with non-Adobe softwares then?

Because that raw converter has probably made its own colour profile for the M11 from which all subsequent edits are then made. 

A RAW converter needs to have some colour calibration file. Which is why one can buy or download icc or DCP profiles made for specific cameras when the camera manufacturer or RAW converter doesn't create the look that some people like those form https://colorfidelity.com 

Then of course the DNG file has WB data that the RAW converter applies. This can be applied as is, as is likely the case with Adobe products, but other RAW converters will have mapped out a colour cast in their custom profiles and therefor any subsequent WB will look fine on other converters. Creating your own profile using DNG profile editor or other automated means of using a colour checker chart, will also get rid of global tints.

I am certain this magenta cast is thanks to Leica with the data written to the DNG file, and Leica can fix it.

[hmzimelka]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Probably because other software ignores the instructions. Which means that there is nothing wrong with the camera or software but that some ( many?) users do not like the added spices. 

Exactly.

Other raw converters also choose to ignore the the embedded OPCodes that Leica embeds into some camera RAW files, like that of the Q, Q2 and Q3 to map out that lens' horrendous distortion. With Adobe products , that lens correction is honoured as the DNG file instructs, but other converters can choose to ignore this completely, and then the images look like it was shot from a very expensive go-pro lens

Edited November 28, 2023 by hmzimelka

[jaapv]

Yes but that is stupid to do as the distortion correction is taken into account throughout the optical design process, improving the overall lens quality ( and for the Q, importantly) reducing overall lens size. Many brands produce opto-electronic hybrid lenses nowadays. 

[hmzimelka]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes but that is stupid to do as the distortion correction is taken into account throughout the optical design process, improving the overall lens quality ( and for the Q, importantly) reducing overall lens size. 

Yes it is stupid. 

However, I also think it's deceptive of Leica to do that on such an expensive product. Personally, I would feel very cheated, as software lens correction is a great way to reduce costs on products to keep the price low, but not on something as expensive as a Q3. But who knows, maybe the Q3 is just a cheap point and shoot in the eye of Leica.

EDIT: It is evident that digital lens correction can cause several issues in certain circumstances. It can cause posterisation in the sky or in even toned surfaces in some low light conditions. We've seen this before even in some images posted online in this forum. Image quality can also be further degraded when noise levels are distorted and magnified at the edges due to lens corrections. The noise of the image is not homogenous throughout the frame. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by hmzimelka

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

22 minutes ago, hmzimelka said:

Because that raw converter has probably made its own colour profile for the M11 from which all subsequent edits are then made. [...]

All i can say is I have no magenta cast issues with non-Adobe software hence i have no reason to complain about the way Leica cooperates with Adobe.