d-lux8 D-Lux 8: DNG: post process as monochrom in Lightroom

[HansPAF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Hello, dear Leica forum users.

A brief introduction and a question about the D-Lux 8 post-processing within Lightroom.

Introduction: I have also been using a D-Lux 8 for a few days now. It is a really nice camera, and the handling is really simple and convincing. Coming from the world of the SONY A7, I appreciate the easy and good handling of the D-Lux 8. The first pictures have turned out great, and I think I've found the right camera to accompany me every day and everywhere. It will certainly be a good companion for street photography too, as it is not as big as an A7 IV with a 35 GM or 50 mm GM - and not as heavy.

Nevertheless, I'm still struggling with the DNG files. The import into Lightroom Classic works wonderfully. However, the monochrome images are displayed in RGB mode, which is initially based on the DNG format.

For years, the majority of my images have been taken in monochrome and come very close to the “high contrast” monochrome of the D-Lux 8. I created a special sensor profile for my SONY A7 IV, which later displays the RAW files as desired. Here, I convert the RAW files into TIFFs using the SONY software and then just crop them slightly in LR. Thats all.

Since there is no explicit software from Leica that can take over the monochrome "settings", the only way is probably via Lightroom.

Now to my question: Are there any pre-sets for Lightroom that change the DNG so that they come very close to the appearance of the JPG image? - The JPGs are wonderful, but I would like to keep the DNGs and delete the JPGs, assuming that the DNGs can be displayed in this way. Maybe there is a software that can handle the monochrome "settings" of the DNG.

Thank you very much in advance for your support and tips.

Best regards

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

A DNG has all information including colour so cannot be limited to part of its data. It is a data file, not an image one. However Lightroom has plenty of tools to develop the DNG into a B&W image. See the tutorial videos by Adobe. You can also use the Silver Efex Pro Lightroom plugin which has presets that can be customized. There is no harm in using RGB for monochrome files, in fact you will have more editing options than a Greyscale one. You can convert the file to Greyscale on export if you wish, as that is when Lightroom converts the files including your edits. During editing Lightroom will use Prophoto RGB in the background, converting to sRGB previews on the fly

[HansPAF]

Thank you for your prompt reply and the hint about the DNG. Well, I am essentially aware of the background to the DNG. I am therefore also aware that the DNG files are displayed in color - unfortunately.

However, I would like to reduce all the post-processing work to a minimum and not spend the next few weeks working on profiles in order to come close to the perception of the JPG, which is really great. Then I'll probably realize that the presets for daytime shots in sunlight can't be applied to pictures taken indoors in artificial light and I'll most likely have to try again for weeks to get a preset that only comes very close to the JPG.

The way the JPG looks is wonderful. I'm investigating how to manipulate the DNG (exposure, lights, shadows, whites, ...) to get a result that looks exactly like the JPG. In other words, to get the “Leica look” of the JPG in the DNG as well.

There must be a way to somehow export the algorithms that Leica uses in the camera to display the DNG as the incredible monochrome images.

Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't found anything on this yet. This is and would be my requirement for photos to look exactly as they were taken. What you do with the photos afterward or how you change them would be a further step. However, the original material should correspond to what you have set up in the camera.

I can achieve this with the SONY A7 and I am very pleased because I can already see the result on the monitor (apart from the differences between the monitor and the actual file). Only minimal adjustments to the basic settings (highlights, shadows ...) are necessary here and there in the post process.

Well, it looks like I have to live with the fact that the images, whether color or monochrome, are interpreted in Lightroom, but do not correspond to the great-looking JPG.

Of course, I will continue to look for possibilities and when I have found something I will let you know here.
 

[Dazzajl]

I’m probably missing a vital part of what you’ve told us here, so please excuse me. 
 

I’m wondering why it’s worth working with the DNG file at all if the jpeg delivers the look you want? Unless you want to push the files around in processing and stamp your own look on the images, there is nothing to be gained by the added file size and extra workflow. 
 

JPEGs are much maligned as an output file from cameras but the truth is, for most shots and most people, they are the perfect tool for the job. 

[Jeff S]

39 minutes ago, HansPAF said:

This is and would be my requirement for photos to look exactly as they were taken.

JPEGs aren’t “as they were taken;” they’re somone else’s built-in processing interpretation.  You can easily create your own interpretation(s) and then create presets and/or default import profile to save steps if desired.  These controls are well covered in LR (Classic) tutorials, via video and text. See, for instance, free Adobe videos from Julieanne Kost.  
 

I personally like to treat each pic individually, and have no trouble quickly adjusting DNG files (using various other Leica cameras) to get somewhat close to what I envision, even without presets. But it’s rare that I don’t also employ a variety of local adjustments and various tweaks to eventually create a file that results in a great print, assuming of course the pic is worthy. Just as in darkroom days; no plug and play.

Jeff

[jaapv]

Jeff, the problem is that people expect the camera and software to do the creative work for them. Nothing different from before; many people were happy to take their film to the drugstore and were happy with the stack of prints in the envelope they got back. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can only say: never buy a Monochrom. Without decent processing, the raw files are muddy and low contrast. With good processing they can be superb. 

See the Monochrom image threads. 

4 hours ago, HansPAF said:

 

Thank you for your prompt reply and the hint about the DNG. Well, I am essentially aware of the background to the DNG. I am therefore also aware that the DNG files are displayed in color - unfortunately.

However, I would like to reduce all the post-processing work to a minimum and not spend the next few weeks working on profiles in order to come close to the perception of the JPG, which is really great. Then I'll probably realize that the presets for daytime shots in sunlight can't be applied to pictures taken indoors in artificial light and I'll most likely have to try again for weeks to get a preset that only comes very close to the JPG.

The way the JPG looks is wonderful. I'm investigating how to manipulate the DNG (exposure, lights, shadows, whites, ...) to get a result that looks exactly like the JPG. In other words, to get the “Leica look” of the JPG in the DNG as well.

There must be a way to somehow export the algorithms that Leica uses in the camera to display the DNG as the incredible monochrome images.

Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't found anything on this yet. This is and would be my requirement for photos to look exactly as they were taken. What you do with the photos afterward or how you change them would be a further step. However, the original material should correspond to what you have set up in the camera.

I can achieve this with the SONY A7 and I am very pleased because I can already see the result on the monitor (apart from the differences between the monitor and the actual file). Only minimal adjustments to the basic settings (highlights, shadows ...) are necessary here and there in the post process.

Well, it looks like I have to live with the fact that the images, whether color or monochrome, are interpreted in Lightroom, but do not correspond to the great-looking JPG.

Of course, I will continue to look for possibilities and when I have found something I will let you know here.
 

 

[Jeff S]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Jeff, the problem is that people expect the camera and software to do the creative work for them. Nothing different from before; many people were happy to take their film to the drugstore and were happy with the stack of prints in the envelope they got back. 

Yup, some things don’t change. On the other hand, we used to be able to fairly easily separate the excellent photographers, and printers, from the mediocre. Now they get lost in the shuffle of billions of daily pics, and very few even bother to print. Even Leica, with the M11D, apparently considers a smartphone as one of “the essentials.”  🤪
 

Jeff

[HansPAF]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dazzajl:

I’m probably missing a vital part of what you’ve told us here, so please excuse me. 
 

I’m wondering why it’s worth working with the DNG file at all if the jpeg delivers the look you want? Unless you want to push the files around in processing and stamp your own look on the images, there is nothing to be gained by the added file size and extra workflow. 
 

JPEGs are much maligned as an output file from cameras but the truth is, for most shots and most people, they are the perfect tool for the job. 

Well, I don't think you've overlooked anything. There are perhaps different approaches, even in photography. I would rather not take the liberty of evaluating them because it's the results that count. If people like the results, then, as a photographer, you've probably done everything right during the photo shoot and post-processing.

However, it is important to me to work as loss-free as possible from the source to the print. I print with pigment inks and on Baryta papers that comply with DIN ISO 9706. My aim is to keep the loss of quality due to conversion and post-processing or media breaks as low as possible. That is my claim.

A JPG is a squeezed-out image that you can look at on your smartphone, but I would rather not print it on Baryta paper if there is a RAW file next to it.

This is about a feeling that is comparable to photographing with a Leica. It's much more than just the quality. An SL3, which is almost three times pricier than an A7R IV, doesn't take three times better pictures. But in photography, it is sometimes more than just technical parameters 😉

I'm not saying that my way is the truth; it's just my way, and it was already my way in my black and white lab: exposing the film in such a way that the development basically delivers the desired result (incl. over/under exposing and under/over development).

In the past, as well as today, I certainly adjusted (with a small percentage range) the 5 basic zones (blacks, whites, shadows, highlights, and exposure), but that's all it should be.

It is now my way, which I am satisfied with and which I have developed for myself.
 

Edited September 19, 2024 by HansPAF
typo

[HansPAF]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

I can only say: never buy a Monochrom. Without decent processing, the raw files are muddy and low contrast. With good processing they can be superb. 

See the Monochrom image threads. 

 

Well, I already wrote that I make fine adjustments. But in 2024, I expect to be able to see essentially the result I want on the monitor connected to the camera. 

That's why I also have three monochrome profiles for my Sony, which essentially deliver the final results (RAW + profile) as I already see them in the camera. 
In addition, I add black and white lens filters (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, ...) to focus the lights and shadows on certain objects and then take a photo, done. In post-processing, I make minimal adjustments to the essential zones (as described at the beginning) in my shots, on the lossless RAW image.

I don't belong to the category of photographers: “Keep calm and fix it in the post” 😉

[HansPAF]

Nevertheless, I would like to thank everyone here. It is a very emotional topic, and I feel the same way: I stand by the path I have found for myself and consider it to be the "best" one - at least for me 😉

Fortunately, however, my approach is one of the many ways to take a photo that gives us beautiful moments and satisfaction in photography.

Our emotions drive us to take wonderful photos every day, and we are proud when people love our pictures.

Thank you again!

PS: Today I accidentally found a way to output a TIFF (lossless and, unfortunately, uncompressed), which corresponds to the JPG in terms of color and tonal values. Tested in PSD with 2 layers and the difference. 
So I am now very happy with the little Leica. The handling and the haptics alone are great for an “always-on camera” and I think Leica has done a good job with it.

[Dazzajl]

40 minutes ago, HansPAF said:

Well, I don't think you've overlooked anything. There are perhaps different approaches, even in photography. I would rather not take the liberty of evaluating them because it's the results that count. If people like the results, then, as a photographer, you've probably done everything right during the photo shoot and post-processing.

However, it is important to me to work as loss-free as possible from the source to the print. I print with pigment inks and on Baryta papers that comply with DIN ISO 9706. My aim is to keep the loss of quality due to conversion and post-processing or media breaks as low as possible. That is my claim.

A JPG is a squeezed-out image that you can look at on your smartphone, but I would rather not print it on Baryta paper if there is a RAW file next to it.

This is about a feeling that is comparable to photographing with a Leica. It's much more than just the quality. An SL3, which is almost three times pricier than an A7R IV, doesn't take three times better pictures. But in photography, it is sometimes more than just technical parameters 😉

I'm not saying that my way is the truth; it's just my way, and it was already my way in my black and white lab: exposing the film in such a way that the development basically delivers the desired result (incl. over/under exposing and under/over development).

In the past, as well as today, I certainly adjusted (with a small percentage range) the 5 basic zones (blacks, whites, shadows, highlights, and exposure), but that's all it should be.

It is now my way, which I am satisfied with and which I have developed for myself.
 

I cant say that I can line up with your reasoning on the technical/delivery side of the discussion but I completely understand the desire to define your work with a process that honours what you create. The intent and your involvement with the art you're making is always going to be more important than pixels, files or emulsions.

[jaapv]

You cannot express your intent and involvement without pixels, files and emulsions - and skill. 

[Dazzajl]

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You cannot express your intent and involvement without pixels, files and emulsions - and skill. 

Very true but you can have that involvement any way that works for you. It wouldn't work for me, in a past life when there was a need I was an exhibition printer and still very much follow the path of Mr A Adams, in the sense that the negative is the score and the print is the performance.

[jaapv]

Mr Adams produced series of different darkroom interpretations of his negatives which he regarded as the raw material for his artistry If there is one postprocessing guy it is he. 

[jaapv]

https://petapixel.com/2018/11/07/the-story-behind-ansel-adams-iconic-moonrise-hernandez/

[Dazzajl]

10 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Mr Adams produced series of different darkroom interpretations of his negatives which he regarded as the raw material for his artistry If there is one postprocessing guy it is he. 

Exactly. The idea of the final image coming straight from the camera is a million miles from my process. What comes from the camera is the ingredients I need to produce the image I saw in my mind when I fired the shutter. But I can also get behind the idea that HansPAF works in a way that makes no sense to me, if you're not producing images for a client, then the journey can be more (or as) important than the destination 

[jaapv]

I agree completely. One of the reasons I like the M9M so much is that it has a zone syste inspired histogram. Most of my images there ( depending on the scene) will have a black point and white point set. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I agree completely. One of the reasons I like the M9M so much is that it has a zone syste inspired histogram. Most of my images there ( depending on the scene) will have a black point and white point set. 

And the only digital M with a RAW-based histogram.  Any idea why this wasn’t continued with subsequent Monochroms?

Jeff

[jaapv]

No idea.