jaapv Posted January 2 Share #841  Posted January 2 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I said, it does not harm. If you pour your wine into too small a glass, you will spill some onto he floor. If you subsequently pour the contents into a larger glass you will not have more to drink. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 2 Posted January 2 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Leica M11 -purplish tint ???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
charlesphoto99 Posted January 2 Share #842  Posted January 2 I can look back on just about any of the 317 M11 pages and see a magenta tint bias in the images, some much stronger than others, but almost all have it, esp those that obviously are sooc or soLR with no adjustments. This is on an uncalibrated MacBook M1 Air, or my calibrated NEC. Really not sure why so many people can't see it. I would say in general it's about a -5 correction that's needed (in LR). 3 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2 Share #843  Posted January 2 Because not everyone sees colours the same way? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 2 Share #844  Posted January 2 2 hours ago, jaapv said: Because not everyone sees colours the same way? Or people are lazy? I get your point, but there are standards. If it was just a few images with magenta bias, I would chalk it up to those individuals. But it's the camera. Anyway, adjusting it is easy. Remember trying to get the color right on Type C prints? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2 Share #845  Posted January 2 I do...🥵. My point is that colour, in the end, is shaped by the Neurons in our brains which are trained by the environment we live in, the light we are used to, our experience, our cultural background, our genetic configuration and probably quite a few factors more. It is more than unlikely that you and I see exactly the same colours. Making threads like this singularly unproductive. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 2 Share #846  Posted January 2 5 hours ago, lct said: This is no theory. Just long practice. I have never worked on compressed file and will never do. YMMV The file may not be compressed as TIF, but data has already been lost as JPG, as Jaap notes.  I work in RAW/DNG for all my digital cameras, then convert to TIF for printing via ImagePrint.  The DNG and TIF files remain, with full data, to use in the event of future editing software improvements and/or new rendering intents. So yes, MMDV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2 Share #847  Posted January 2 Advertisement (gone after registration) 35 minutes ago, Jeff S said: The file may not be compressed as TIF, but data has already been lost as JPG [...] The DNG and TIF files remain, with full data, to use in the event of future editing software improvements and/or new rendering intents [...] I must have learnt this 20+ years ago, with all due respect, and i always shoot raw together with jpeg files. I keep the raw files for archiving purpose and i may use them for editing, too, but this is not a religion for me. Raw converters bring their own colors i may like or not and i may prefer those of the camera profile as is the case with the M11. Less so with my M240, even less so with my Kolari mod Sony. Not to say that i dislike these cameras but using jpegs out of them would take too much processing time for my taste. As for data lost, the size of raw and jpeg files converted to tif is almost the same, about 360MB in my case. Anyway, those tehnical details are of little interest to me. What interest me is what i see and when a jpeg file pleases me, i simply use it. YMMV. 😎 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 2 Share #848 Â Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, jaapv said: Â Â Edited January 2 by charlesphoto99 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2 Share #849  Posted January 2 13 minutes ago, lct said: I must have learnt this 20+ years ago, with all due respect, and i always shoot raw together with jpeg files. I keep the raw files for archiving purpose and i may use them for editing, too, but this is not a religion for me. Raw converters bring their own colors i may like or not and i may prefer those of the camera profile as is the case with the M11. Less so with my M240, even less so with my Kolari mod Sony. Not to say that i dislike these cameras but using jpegs out of them would take too much processing time for my taste. As for data lost, the size of raw and jpeg files converted to tif is almost the same, about 360MB in my case. Anyway, those tehnical details are of little interest to me. What interest me is what i see and when a jpeg file pleases me, i simply use it. YMMV. 😎 File size has nothing to do with it I fear. Compression loss cannot be restored, no matter how many zeros the TIF writes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 2 Share #850  Posted January 2 (edited) 34 minutes ago, lct said: As for data lost, the size of raw and jpeg files converted to tif is almost the same, about 360MB in my case. Anyway, those tehnical details are of little interest to me. What interest me is what i see and when a jpeg file pleases me, i simply use it. YMMV. 😎 Sounds like you think JPGs lose no data vs RAW. Clearly our thoughts and approaches differ. I don’t mind how much PP effort or time it takes to get the print result I want, provided of course the pic is worthy.  Same as in my darkroom days. Digital life is a breeze by comparison for me. I don’t want to reduce the chance of optimizing current and future results by sacrificing data, nor do I need a JPG to produce my pics and prints. Edited January 2 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2 Share #851  Posted January 2 31 minutes ago, jaapv said: File size has nothing to do with it I fear. Compression loss cannot be restored, no matter how many zeros the TIF writes. I had to learn this 20+ years ago, too, but i respect what you say the same way i would have if you was on LUF then. September 2002 in my case. Please don't call me grandpa 😄 Now, i always take raw files along with jpeg files as i said above. I keep the raw files for archival purpose anyway so restoration cannot be a concern for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2 Share #852  Posted January 2 Nothing against your workflow for results that please you if it fits you,  but you are wasting a lot of space and some time. That’s all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymoose Posted January 2 Share #853 Â Posted January 2 I noticed with the Q2 vs. the Q3 that the Q3 also has a magenta shift relative to the Q2. I'm wondering if it's a function of the sensor used in the M11/Q3 and not necessarily an M11 or Leica thing. That made me dig through some pictures I took (of the same scene) with my old Q3, an SL3 (I rented), and my A1. The Q3/SL3 files are consistently +20 towards magenta (in Lightroom Cloud, unedited RAW) in all of the shots compared to the A1. Does anyone have an A7RV (should be the same 61MP sensor) to compare? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2 Share #854  Posted January 2 It has a different Bayer filter… And different software. Comparing colours  does not make much sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymoose Posted January 3 Share #855  Posted January 3 6 hours ago, jaapv said: It has a different Bayer filter… And different software. Comparing colours  does not make much sense. It makes perfect sense and is a classic way of doing 'failure' analysis in engineering: If the same sensor in a completely different camera (Sony) also produces magenta-tinted images, then there's strong reason to believe it's something about the design of the sensor itself (e.g. it's sensitivity to certain wavelengths of light) and thus doesn't make sense to get mad at Leica or pretend like the M11 is defective and return/sell it. If the same sensor in a completely different camera does not produce magenta-tinted images, then we have reason to believe it's a Leica-specific issue. If all of their sensors (e.g. Q3, SL3, M11) produce this magenta-tinted image (something I'm finding), then it's possibly something that can be fixed in firmware. Or maybe it's Leica's specific Bayer filter and there's nothing that can be done for existing cameras. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J S H Posted January 3 Share #856  Posted January 3 9 hours ago, jaapv said: I do...🥵. My point is that colour, in the end, is shaped by the Neurons in our brains which are trained by the environment we live in, the light we are used to, our experience, our cultural background, our genetic configuration and probably quite a few factors more. It is more than unlikely that you and I see exactly the same colours. Making threads like this singularly unproductive. No doubt. The very nature of color as seen by humans is subjective and this is well documented. I don't even see the same color from both eyes, which is not uncommon at all. I discovered this while trying to set the diopter correction for a pair of binoculars. The color seen from each eye is/was dramatically different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted January 3 Share #857  Posted January 3 At least it’s not a green bias.  That would make people look sick. I’ve gone through one trip’s set of photos giving special attention to tint.  In Capture One I did find myself adjusting some towards green by about 2 points, but for at least half of the images I found that ‘as shot’ was best (using daylight white balance as default; not automatic).  So, from this limited trial I can confirm that (1) I also find a magenta bias if I try hard and that (2) I also don’t really see it and think the unadjusted images are a great start. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo Faber Posted January 3 Share #858  Posted January 3 vor 12 Stunden schrieb jaapv: I do...🥵. My point is that colour, in the end, is shaped by the Neurons in our brains which are trained by the environment we live in, the light we are used to, our experience, our cultural background, our genetic configuration and probably quite a few factors more. It is more than unlikely that you and I see exactly the same colours. Making threads like this singularly unproductive. I'm sorry, but the fact that colours are created in the human brain has as little to do with the M11’s magenta tint as a holey umbrella has to do with rain. Exactly nothing. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted January 3 Share #859  Posted January 3 vor 20 Minuten schrieb Homo Faber: I'm sorry, but the fact that colours are created in the human brain has as little to do with the M11’s magenta tint as a holey umbrella has to do with rain. Exactly nothing. You're right, but jaapv hasn't understood that for a long time. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted January 3 Share #860  Posted January 3 33 minutes ago, Homo Faber said: I'm sorry, but the fact that colours are created in the human brain has as little to do with the M11’s magenta tint as a holey umbrella has to do with rain. Exactly nothing. Are you certain that everyone sees tint the same way?  White balance (at least the yellow vs blue part, if not the green vs magenta part?) is a good example of how the brain generates an image.  It actively removes the illuminant light’s color.  If you look at a sheet of paper indoors and then take it outside, it continues to look white.  However, the actual color, as in the light that reflects off the sheet of paper, would actually go from yellow towards blue.  If the brain didn’t generate the image, but simply recorded what’s out there, we wouldn’t have this whole white balance issue to start with.  And given that the brain generates the image, wouldn’t it be more likely than less likely that we don’t see the same colors exactly? 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.