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!

New M files available from Jono

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono,

great shots as always and thanks so much for this!

Now please apologize - I do not want to sound concerned or negative by any means - but IMHO some of these files show a pretty strong green cast. Something which usually the latest Nikon generations (D800 and D4) are blamed and known for, but Leica M was never as far as I can remember.

Is this only me seeing it? If not is Leica going to do something about it?

I think the typical Kodachrome look is pretty different.

Peter
HI Peter
What are you looking at the files in? Capture one?

The WB isn't quite finished yet. I've not noticed a green cast though. Added to which the C1 and LR colour profiles aren't done yet - so you shouldn't really make assumptions.
Mind you - my personal opinion is that the colour is a little nicer than the M9 already
all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, an excellent selection of respresentive images with the new M and truly appreciate, as always, your posted work. I assume from your responses to previous inquiries, that if Live view/EVF is "off", shutter lag is essentually the same as the M9?

Very much looking forward to your eventual write-up of the new M as your past writings have always been extremely informative.

Dave (D&A)
HI Dave
No - I think that with Live view off there is slightly less shutter lag than with the M9.
all the best
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Very nice. I am not noticing anything strange with the color beyond actual lighting condition and then processing becomes a matter of taste. It looks like you are having a nicer winter than I am, and as a former East Anglican, that is not fair and not right.
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
HI Peter
What are you looking at the files in? Capture one?

The WB isn't quite finished yet. I've not noticed a green cast though. Added to which the C1 and LR colour profiles aren't done yet - so you shouldn't really make assumptions.
Mind you - my personal opinion is that the colour is a little nicer than the M9 already
all the best
Jono,

actually looking at the files either in Aperture (yes it works for DNG) and PS CS4.

Both the same impression from my side - looks very much the same as my D800E files - which is usually discussed in several fora on the Internet as green cast.

And pretty much different to the M8 files, which were more magenta or Kodachrome like.

Just to be sure, my screens are color calibrated and looks the same on all screens.

Peter
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
HI Peter
What are you looking at the files in? Capture one?

The WB isn't quite finished yet. I've not noticed a green cast though. Added to which the C1 and LR colour profiles aren't done yet - so you shouldn't really make assumptions.
Mind you - my personal opinion is that the colour is a little nicer than the M9 already
all the best
I downloaded three of the DNG files and opened them in LR 4.3. The color balances look virtually identical to what you have posted on the site, I don't see a green cast. LR 4.3 certainly doesn't have profiles for this camera yet..

G
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I downloaded three of the DNG files and opened them in LR 4.3. The color balances look virtually identical to what you have posted on the site, I don't see a green cast. LR 4.3 certainly doesn't have profiles for this camera yet..

G
On my machine with calibrated screen it looks same (or even more green) as the Nikon NEF's. BTW same cast as from the JPEGs. Maybe this is how Leica feels natural colors?

Certainly different to what you get from Canon 1Dx or 5D3, which are more magenta, but looking more natural in the end at least for my eyes.

Maybe we should not look at this now before official profiles are available.

Peter
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
On my machine with calibrated screen it looks same (or even more green) as the Nikon NEF's. BTW same cast as from the JPEGs. Maybe this is how Leica feels natural colors?

Certainly different to what you get from Canon 1Dx or 5D3, which are more magenta, but looking more natural in the end at least for my eyes.

Maybe we should not look at this now before official profiles are available.

Peter
Mine are also on my calibrated screen, Peter. No green cast, using Lightroom v4.3 and no adjustments. I don't have Nikon NEFs to compare with, but I do have Ricoh GXR, Olympus E-1, E-5, Panasonic L1, etc etc, and Leica M9 to compare against. They look better than out of the camera M9 DNGs look with no adjustments, particularly when using AWB.

Perhaps your calibration targets are different from mine. I'm using the Apple Thunderbolt Display 27" with calibration targets of 120 Cdm^2 luminance, gamma 1.8, white point 5500K. They're set with an Eye One Display 2 using the Xrite i1ProfilerD2LionEdition.app software.

(These calibration targets are what I've used for everything I've processed since 2004. The fidelity of screen to print translation has always been very very close.)

G
 

Maggie O

Active member
I suddenly don't feel so bad about the dust spots on my M9 files. ;)

Seriously, great work, Jono! The lust is rising in me...oh, Type 240.
 

robertwright

New member
My understanding is that the best gamma for a display is closer to 2.0 or 2.2. the old mac standard of 1.8 is now generally not favoured. Also wp is favoured more towards D65 and not the warmer D50.

If it works for you great just saying.

Mine are also on my calibrated screen, Peter. No green cast, using Lightroom v4.3 and no adjustments. I don't have Nikon NEFs to compare with, but I do have Ricoh GXR, Olympus E-1, E-5, Panasonic L1, etc etc, and Leica M9 to compare against. They look better than out of the camera M9 DNGs look with no adjustments, particularly when using AWB.

Perhaps your calibration targets are different from mine. I'm using the Apple Thunderbolt Display 27" with calibration targets of 120 Cdm^2 luminance, gamma 1.8, white point 5500K. They're set with an Eye One Display 2 using the Xrite i1ProfilerD2LionEdition.app software.

(These calibration targets are what I've used for everything I've processed since 2004. The fidelity of screen to print translation has always been very very close.)

G
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Can't see any green cast on my monitor, except in the flower shot, but that's probably a PP decision. I feel colors are different from M9, but very nice nonetheless. I think I like them more than the M9.

Thanks a lot Jono!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
My understanding is that the best gamma for a display is closer to 2.0 or 2.2. the old mac standard of 1.8 is now generally not favoured. Also wp is favoured more towards D65 and not the warmer D50.

If it works for you great just saying.
The "best" gamma doesn't exist. The native gamma of an LED flat panel display is close to 2.2 and the native white point is close to 6500K, which is also close to the native characteristics of a CRT. These are what the original sRGB colorspace spec were modeled on (for CRTs), and the reason for adoption of 2.2 gamma as a standard across most systems has to do with the fact that most systems are uncalibrated. It's a case of the de facto driving a spec.

The "old" Apple standard of 1.8 gamma was based on the limitations of the hardware in the late-1980s/middle-1990s. Due to limitations in the graphics adapter and display hardware, they picked 1.8 gamma as a standard as it gave more range to the adjustability for calibration. That restriction is long gone, the devices (both graphics adapter and display) have far more adjustability nowadays.

However, I find the native white point of 6500 too blue and the 2.2 reference gamma too contrasty for my tastes. I have to tweak my adjustments in image processing too far off the centerline of what my cameras produce to accommodate them, and also tweak my color-managed printing process to match. I found through trial and error that using 1.8 gamma and 5500K white point allowed me to edit my images much closer to the centerline of all adjustments and produced the closest high-fidelity match to color managed prints with little additional tweaking necessary. So that's what I standardized on and that's what I continue to use.

Occasionally, I reset my calibration targets and look to see how the processing proceeds, but so far I haven't found any good reason to move to the current standard of 2.2 gamma and 6500K white point. These targets always require more extensive adjustment of curves and white point to my raw files.

Godfrey
 
Last edited:

peterv

New member
Peter, I don't see green on my mbp retina either. On the contrary, I'd say there's more of a magenta hue in these shots.

Jono, thanks for sharing. Artistically your images are really high quality, as always, I like your style.
Technically, a few Stichwörter come to mind; As in the Dr. Ullrich shots, banding seems quite apparent. Colors are quite different than the earlier digital M's, it's difficult to describe at such an early stage, but to me they look not so much 'Kodachrome', but more Agfa (Belgian!) like. Pastels with a punch ...
Question: what's this in the (not exactly ETTR-ed) bread, olive oil, tomatoes-shot?

Thanks again.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
My monitor (iMac) is NOT calibrated and the files just look perfect.
So, there you go !

:p

All the best.
 

moreammo

New member
+1 to the best samples i've seen yet. more over the samples are genuine quality photos no matter the gear, excellent job, i especially like the reflection in the puddle. great work sir!
-Jon
 

jonoslack

Active member
Peter, I don't see green on my mbp retina either. On the contrary, I'd say there's more of a magenta hue in these shots.

Jono, thanks for sharing. Artistically your images are really high quality, as always, I like your style.
Technically, a few Stichwörter come to mind; As in the Dr. Ullrich shots, banding seems quite apparent. Colors are quite different than the earlier digital M's, it's difficult to describe at such an early stage, but to me they look not so much 'Kodachrome', but more Agfa (Belgian!) like. Pastels with a punch ...
Question: what's this in the (not exactly ETTR-ed) bread, olive oil, tomatoes-shot?

Thanks again.
Hi Peter
Thank You!
The pictures were taken with three different cameras - the bread shot was taken with a really early prototype (which definitely did show banding - although not seriously IMHO). Later and better calibrated sensors are better.

All I can see on your thumbnail is nuts . . . but I guess that wasn't the point!:)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The "best" gamma doesn't exist. The native gamma of an LED flat panel display is close to 2.2 and the native white point is close to 6500K. These are what the original sRGB colorspace spec were modeled on, and the reason for adoption of 2.2 gamma as a standard across most systems has to do with the fact that most systems are uncalibrated. It's a case of the de facto driving a spec.

The "old" Apple standard of 1.8 gamma was based on the limitations of the hardware in the late-1980s/middle-1990s. Due to limitations in the graphics adapter and display hardware, they picked 1.8 gamma as a standard as it gave more range to the adjustability for calibration. That restriction is long gone, the devices (both graphics adapter and display) have far more adjustability nowadays.

However, I find the native white point of 6500 too blue and the 2.2 reference gamma too contrasty for my tastes. I have to tweak my adjustments in image processing too far off the centerline of what my cameras produce to accommodate them, and also tweak my color-managed printing process to match. I found through trial and error that using 1.8 gamma and 5500K white point allowed me to edit my images much closer to the centerline of all adjustments and produced the closest high-fidelity match to color managed prints with little additional tweaking necessary. So that's what I standardized on and that's what I continue to use.

Occasionally, I reset my calibration targets and look to see how the processing proceeds, but so far I haven't found any good reason to move to the current standard of 2.2 gamma and 6500K white point. These targets always require more extensive adjustment of curves and white point to my raw files.

Godfrey
I am using 1.8 gamma and 5500K since I started fine art printing and my local printer - who has year long experience - convinced me that this is really the closest to come to the look of number of papers on the screen.

Anyway colors seem pretty different to what came out of M8 (and also M9).

Peter
 
Top