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!

Steve Huff sells his M after severe color problems, commits to MM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gary Clennan

New member
Thanks for posting. He should have waited for another month for the next 240 firmware update to correct the colors and then made a decision based on the results. I would personally LOVE to have both the MM and M240 (OK, and an M9). :)
 

MCTuomey

New member
It seems to me his reasons for selling the M are, first, that he can't rationalize financially keeping both the M and the MM and, second, he really likes B&W images and prefers shooting B&W with the MM. He sees the color matter being resolved with firmware updates, and mentions the possibility of buying an M after shooting the MM for a year.

In other words, it's a decision predicated on his perception that the MM is better for this preferred B&W shooting and lack of funds to keep both.

And, yes, thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:

photomeme

New member
In other words, it's a decision predicated on his perception that the MM is better for this preferred B&W shooting and lack of funds to keep both.
Oh no, you misunderstand Huff. He's absolutely not a preferred B&W shooter. Repeatedly, he has said that a B&W only camera makes no sense for his style of shooting, at this price level. I've critiqued his B&W samples in the past, the caliber of which, IIRC, some attributed to inexperience with B&W media.

The article clearly suggests he's been converting M240 DNG's to B&W so often because, as he states forthrightly, he finds the colors of the M so problematic.

This is a flat out reversal of the M vs. MM impressions he wrote about when he'd had the M240 in his hands for just a few days. He seemed ready to leave the MM behind, and intent frankly upon racking up as many click-through M pre/orders as possible. At the time, aside from his sales commission incentive (as I understand his business model), I attributed his comments to a general preference for color, and failure to climb the (steep) learning curve on MM post-processing. That he'd go so far as to push, even slightly, those pre/ordering the M to reconsider is a remarkable development.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
What someone does in terms of buy&sell does not affect me at all. I was not interested in buying the SLR magic 50/0.9 lens beacuse some bought it nor did it prevent me buying the MM even after another proclaiming the MM as $hitt product. People buy/sell, diss/praise.


IMO, the MM is the best digicam that LEica ever made.
 

MCTuomey

New member
Oh no, you misunderstand Huff. He's absolutely not a preferred B&W shooter. (I've critiqued his B&W in the past, which those who know his work attribute to inexperience with B&W media).

He's been converting because he finds the colors of the M so problematic.

This is also, IIRC, a flat out reversal of his M vs. MM impressions he wrote about when he'd had the 240 in his hands for just a few days.
I'm not familiar with Huff's site or his writing, so I well could misunderstand him. He just doesn't seem so obviously critical of the M in the linked article.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The article clearly suggests he's been converting M240 DNG's to B&W so often because, as he states forthrightly, he finds the colors of the M so problematic.
LOL. What Steve said is he had to choose between the MM and M because he could not justify having both. Because he was having so much fun shooting in monochrome and the MM is better for that, he decided to keep the MM. He did not say he was having "severe" color problems, but he simply did not like the AWB on the M because it was inconsistent--sometime going too warm and sometimes just right.

Steve does like the new M:

So I had to decide. Keep the versatile 240 after it has proven itself as rock solid reliable without any issues to me (besides the loose strap eyelet) or keep the Monochrom that does one thing and one thing only but that one thing that it does do is gorgeous.
 

photomeme

New member
He did not say he was having "severe" color problems:
um, OK, but ...

the 240 is a big step up from an M9 in usability, features, mechanics and just about everything except one. That is COLOR.... the camera ... is very unpredictable and sometimes it will give you some crazy super warm WB results and other times it will be just right ... Other times you will have a yellow cast or an orange cast.
sounds like bang up color! ok, not severe, just "very unpredictable" and "crazy".

move along, there's nothing to see here. Shashin, what's your obsession with minimizing all the bad news and judgments coming out about this camera?

steve's not a technical enough guy to follow the discussions all over the net right now about the M's apparent metamarism, most evident in abysmal rendering of skin tones. (if this speculation is correct, it's not just an AWB issue, and can't be fixed with a gray card, expodisc, firmware upgrade or new profile).

but steve was instinctively saavy enough to sell his M, sensing there's no quick solution to the severe color problems. for steve huff to become a primary B&W shooter on Leica is quite a change. and considering his financial incentives, as I understand them, the above link is a dramatic posting.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
photomeme, what's the beef with you and the new M? I did say Steve thought the AWB was inconsistent, but he also said it was an excellent camera. He sold it because he could not afford to keep it, not because of the color--those are his words. So, why do you have this irrational dislike for this camera? Do you have one? Are you thinking of buying one?

Forget the metamerism thing, you don't know what metamerism is. And profiles and WB will impact metamerism.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
That's your reply? I'm a computer scientist and DSP algorithm designer. Are you frick'n kidding me?
But one that never studied color science.

BTW, bullying does not really work with me. You can do all the name calling you like, but it does not impact facts.
 

photomeme

New member
But one that never studied color science.

BTW, bullying does not really work with me. You can do all the name calling you like, but it does not impact facts.
Good luck with that. Pathetic. The fanboys always go for the ad hominem. Never studied color science, J H C.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Photomeme, you're the only person I've read who regards the M as having "severe color problems" or suggests metamerism problems. I've been reading Huff a very long time, and what you pointed to suggests only that SH found an issue with the AWB ...

Which is a non problem IMO .. most serious shooters I know set the white balance to a fixed value on any camera for consistency, when needed, and adjust it in the raw converter as needed.

I know plenty of computer scientists and DSP designers who know nothing about metamerism. That's not much of a credential in my opinion. I have yet to see a solid example of a color problem with the M that isn't easily fixed in three seconds using Lightroom.

G
 
Last edited:

monza

Active member
Not good for this thread to degenerate.

I like Steve, he's a good guy. Some of that gear he bought from me. :)

Sounds like he made a rational decision. He has other cameras for color, the M color is not ready for prime time, and he likes the MM.

So?
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Have not read Steve's article but in regards to AWB. Flat out fact there is no camera or digital back period that will work in different types of lighting or color scenes which do effect color when your on AWB that is 100 percent accurate. I bet my life on it. Trust me no brand name anything can nail AWB 100 percent of the time as they read a scene and it makes a guess at the balance even the Same scene with a slight shift in direction can affect it. Any other setting sets a predetermined kelvin temp. And that does not change kelvin its a fixed number, the color maybe off given the light but it will always be for instance daylight 5200 kelvin in the camera reading , its a fixed number and AWB is not, it will fluctuate the kelvin number. I NEVER use AWB although on some cams it does a good job of it but you watch the kelvin temp it will shift numbers. It simple is a moving target per say.
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Sometimes it really does depend on how you choose to shoot. I don't think anyone is naive or inexperienced enough to think that they are going to demand perfect color right out of the box.

An accurate AWB though, that gets you to a neutral starting point can be a major help if you tend to shoot in scenarios where lighting shifts by the moment and you don't have time to pull out a card.

If you are shooting on the street, where your shots can go from bright light in one instance to deep shadows and artificial light in the next, AWB is an invaluable tool.

Also tweaking a few shots in PP really isn't an issue for anyone that spends a lot of time post processing shots. But, should you be shooting hundreds of shots per day, then the whole process becomes much more onerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top