The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Leica Q color
- Thread starter Paratom
- Start date
rayyan
Well-known member
Guys, I am not being sarcastic or rude..do not take it that way.
My question, not specific to the Q but all cameras, is what does one mean when they say ' I like the way the colors come out..'. There must be some settings on the camera one must be setting. I honestly would like to know.
In my Nikon, e.g. ' I have to set standard, normal etc. Same with all other cameras I have used.
Thank you.
My question, not specific to the Q but all cameras, is what does one mean when they say ' I like the way the colors come out..'. There must be some settings on the camera one must be setting. I honestly would like to know.
In my Nikon, e.g. ' I have to set standard, normal etc. Same with all other cameras I have used.
Thank you.
barjohn
New member
Those are JPG color rendition choices. With RAW files, the manufacturer sets values in a matrix that tell the developing software how to render the colors. Every vendor has their own formula for their specific sensor and the look they want to achieve. Programs like LR allow one to create custom profiles where it tries to render colors as close to the ideal colors of the color checker such as Xrite's, Gretag McBeth's or others. You can elect to use the manufacture's profile or the Adobe profile or create your own. The profile settings vary with the lighting so multiple profiles are frequently created. For example mid day sun versus an incandescent bulb or fluorescent lighting. Ultimately, these are starting points and each user tweaks to render colors that are pleasing to the user or that create a desired artistic effect.
Are you serious?
Didn't we just have a big discussion on this not to long ago?
Anyway, each camera maker sets a profile for how the camera interprets the colors the sensor sees. This is why Nikon can produce different colors then Sony, even though they use the same sensor (BTW one of but not the only reason I don't like Sony sensors). So when people say they like the colors out of camera. They are usually referring to the JPG files, how Leica interprets colors.
However, even a raw file will have colors as interpreted by the companies profile of the sensor. It's really hard to strip away that profile and build in your own. Think of it as a two step process. One is taking the original colors from the sensor and making heads or tails of it. That you couldn't change unless you built your own camera, the next is taking those raw colors and giving them a signature (that you can sort of manipulate if you want to). Once the signature is stamped onto the RAW you get to play with it even further.
So when you hear about the CCD vs CMOS debate, even though it's not 100% accurate for me to say this. But generally people like the M9 because the RAW file is easier to manipulate to suit personal preferences. The M240 looks totally different in the RAW stage, and you have to do a LOT to make it look like an M9 file.
So I suppose Paratom is just not use to the nature of the files.
Paratom to answer your question - I'm getting very inconsistent RAW results from the Q. One day it'll be punchy and the next it'll be flat and dull. It depends on the white balance, exposure settings (especially ISO) and a lot of other things. I have a feeling it's a LR issue. Because my JPG files are pretty consistently punchy (but that's good for me, since I live in Singapore right now, with flat awful light).
Just to add, even from shot to shot, in virtually the same light conditions, I'm seeing inconsistency. And even on Manual WB, LR is being wonky with RAW colors.
Didn't we just have a big discussion on this not to long ago?
Anyway, each camera maker sets a profile for how the camera interprets the colors the sensor sees. This is why Nikon can produce different colors then Sony, even though they use the same sensor (BTW one of but not the only reason I don't like Sony sensors). So when people say they like the colors out of camera. They are usually referring to the JPG files, how Leica interprets colors.
However, even a raw file will have colors as interpreted by the companies profile of the sensor. It's really hard to strip away that profile and build in your own. Think of it as a two step process. One is taking the original colors from the sensor and making heads or tails of it. That you couldn't change unless you built your own camera, the next is taking those raw colors and giving them a signature (that you can sort of manipulate if you want to). Once the signature is stamped onto the RAW you get to play with it even further.
So when you hear about the CCD vs CMOS debate, even though it's not 100% accurate for me to say this. But generally people like the M9 because the RAW file is easier to manipulate to suit personal preferences. The M240 looks totally different in the RAW stage, and you have to do a LOT to make it look like an M9 file.
So I suppose Paratom is just not use to the nature of the files.
Paratom to answer your question - I'm getting very inconsistent RAW results from the Q. One day it'll be punchy and the next it'll be flat and dull. It depends on the white balance, exposure settings (especially ISO) and a lot of other things. I have a feeling it's a LR issue. Because my JPG files are pretty consistently punchy (but that's good for me, since I live in Singapore right now, with flat awful light).
Just to add, even from shot to shot, in virtually the same light conditions, I'm seeing inconsistency. And even on Manual WB, LR is being wonky with RAW colors.
I mean the following:
The converted files in standard setting of various raw converters usually differs a bit, but there is still a tendecy usually. I mean DF files from various raw converters will still probably look more punchy than lets say D810 files from the same raw converters.
M9 files will look more punchy than M type 240 files, Leica X files a little more saturated than Leica T files.
I have and use DXO,C1 and LR, but mostly LR because it can files from all my cameras and while C1 can be better for some cameras overall LR for me is a good starting point.
WHat I mean here is that the files converted in LR do more have the punchy and slightly oversaturated look with slightly artificial colors.
Of course we can do all sorts of corrections in the raw converted, but it allways helps if the standard profile and settings allready are close to what we want. Otherwise we have to spend a lot of tmie for each file before converting it.
The converted files in standard setting of various raw converters usually differs a bit, but there is still a tendecy usually. I mean DF files from various raw converters will still probably look more punchy than lets say D810 files from the same raw converters.
M9 files will look more punchy than M type 240 files, Leica X files a little more saturated than Leica T files.
I have and use DXO,C1 and LR, but mostly LR because it can files from all my cameras and while C1 can be better for some cameras overall LR for me is a good starting point.
WHat I mean here is that the files converted in LR do more have the punchy and slightly oversaturated look with slightly artificial colors.
Of course we can do all sorts of corrections in the raw converted, but it allways helps if the standard profile and settings allready are close to what we want. Otherwise we have to spend a lot of tmie for each file before converting it.
I looked further on files, both jpg and raw. I find both too saturated and too contrasty, I also do not find the WB ideal yet and not easy to adjust in post. For my taste it should be a little more neutral with finer tonal transitions. I am sure it is camera software/converter profile. No big deal though.
Detail/micro detail looks excellent, and DR too.
Detail/micro detail looks excellent, and DR too.
