CL colour versus SL colour

[Robert Campbell]

The original rose is long gone; I had a go with another bloom today; it was very cloudy and dull.

The upper is the CL with 60mm macro, the lower is the SL with the 24-90. Both in Adobe 6.14, both Adobe Standard; no adjustments:

CL auto colour temp is 4300º, the SL auto temp is 5250º

The CL is, to my eye, the more accurate; the SL has a sort of orange tinge to it. I looked very closely at the rose. The tips of the outermost, oldest petals have a faint bluish tinge, the others don't. There are a few darker red spots.

For amusement, I also tried the M240 with 90mm apo Summicron. It doesn't focus as close, so this is a crop. Auto colour temp is 5100º

FWIW, the SL and the M240 are in Adobe rgb colour space; I can't find a setting for this in the CL.

Both the CL and SL would, IMO, with a little gentle tweaking be very satisfactory; the CL does seem in it's raw state to be a bit 'cold'. The M240 looks as if it was glorious sunshine which it certainly wasn't.

 

[Robert Campbell]

BTW: I've also been testing Affinity Photo on macOS, comparing raw conversion for the Leica CL with LR 6.14.

So far, AP and LR (Adobe Standard ccp) rendering of an Xrite Color Checker exposure is producing very near to identical color results with either set to the defaults, outputting full resolution JPEG with minimum compression and sRGB color profile, and I'm beginning to think that AP's are very very slightly sharper with slightly better tonal gradation on some continuous toned tests.

If anything, it means there's a non-subscription, reasonably priced alternative to the Adobe hegemony. The AP UI is a bit cluttered, but it seems to work well and doesn't give me a headache like Capture One does.


G

I've been using LR from version 1, so I'm well used to it. I like the ability to catalogue photos; for 'flowers and plants' I now have over 6500. Not a huge number by others standards, but more than I can otherwise keep track of.

I find LR's controls easy to use; I don't tend to do much, and I certainly don't pretend to be any expert. It simply does what I want and need, and easily.

But...I'm unhappy with the monetary direction in which LR is now going. I see this as a further extension of 'financialisation', the 'sweating of the assets'. I simply do not agree with this neo-liberal economic theory, or where von Hayek has taken us. As this is a photography discussion forum, and not a political one, I'll end before I rant even more.

 

[Paratom]

I am a user of those cameras as well and my feeling is the CL in standard settings is tweaked more on the "punchy" side compared to the SL and T(L). For my taste something in between would be nice, but I think it is possible to postprocess files from both cameras in both directions.
Of all Leicas I prefer the color of the S bodies.

 

[Godfrey]

I've been using LR from version 1, so I'm well used to it. I like the ability to catalogue photos; for 'flowers and plants' I now have over 6500. Not a huge number by others standards, but more than I can otherwise keep track of.

I find LR's controls easy to use; I don't tend to do much, and I certainly don't pretend to be any expert. It simply does what I want and need, and easily.
...

Same here, except that I have well over 450,000 photographs in my LR catalogs.

But I refuse to have to "subscribe" to LR or Photoshop—my use of them is not consistent enough paying a monthly tithe. For instance, I haven't really used Photoshop for anything at all since 2014.

When LR v6.14 stops working for whatever reason, I'll move on to something else for rendering, cataloging, and managing my photographs.

G

 

[Godfrey]

The original rose is long gone; I had a go with another bloom today; it was very cloudy and dull.

The upper is the CL with 60mm macro, the lower is the SL with the 24-90. Both in Adobe 6.14, both Adobe Standard; no adjustments:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1937/45487301522_efcd595133_c.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1963/31665182508_92c57984f7_c.jpg

CL auto colour temp is 4300º, the SL auto temp is 5250º

The CL is, to my eye, the more accurate; the SL has a sort of orange tinge to it. I looked very closely at the rose. The tips of the outermost, oldest petals have a faint bluish tinge, the others don't. There are a few darker red spots.

For amusement, I also tried the M240 with 90mm apo Summicron. It doesn't focus as close, so this is a crop. Auto colour temp is 5100º

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1920/43720393530_a31bc9e5fb_c.jpg

FWIW, the SL and the M240 are in Adobe rgb colour space; I can't find a setting for this in the CL.

Both the CL and SL would, IMO, with a little gentle tweaking be very satisfactory; the CL does seem in it's raw state to be a bit 'cold'. The M240 looks as if it was glorious sunshine which it certainly wasn't.

Note: The COLOR SPACE setting only affects in-camera JPEG files, not DNG (raw) file output. Color space metrics are applied in the raw conversion process.

That's much more what I see, although to be sure if I need two cameras to match, I generally don't use AWB. The M240 seems to be slightly overexposed by comparison. All three are well within the range of adjustability afforded by image processing and not too far off the mark.

 

[iiiNelson]

I've had the iPad version for a year and some but only started using it recently. It's the best raw converter I've found on the iPad Pro, although I prefer SnapSeed's simpler interface for iOS. I do like that it has some image management capability.

Now I have both iOS and macOS versions. The UI seems more natural on macOS.

I bought the workbook as soon as I saw the promo. It arrived yesterday.



Glad to help. It's unfortunate that Leica's embedded profiles always produce such cartoonish, unnatural colors.

G

Yeah I bought the workbook around this same time last year when they had the same deal.

 

[Robert Campbell]

I am a user of those cameras as well and my feeling is the CL in standard settings is tweaked more on the "punchy" side compared to the SL and T(L). For my taste something in between would be nice, but I think it is possible to postprocess files from both cameras in both directions.
Of all Leicas I prefer the color of the S bodies.

I find the SL just a bit too heavy for me; I'm sure the S would be just too much, colour or not.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Note: The COLOR SPACE setting only affects in-camera JPEG files, not DNG (raw) file output. Color space metrics are applied in the raw conversion process.

That's much more what I see, although to be sure if I need two cameras to match, I generally don't use AWB. The M240 seems to be slightly overexposed by comparison. All three are well within the range of adjustability afforded by image processing and not too far off the mark.

Of course, you're right about the colour space; I was checking the parameters, to try to make sure they were all more or less the same, and I just noticed that the CL doesn't seem to offer any options; unless, that is, it is buried somewhere in the menus. I'm sure I could make a pleasing enough image from the CL or SL images, and probably from the M240 as well.

I usually leave the white space at auto, and adjust later if I think it needs it.

 

[Robert Campbell]

I had another go late this afternoon; sunny between the showers, the sun comes from low on the left as you look at the pix. Both were taken at WB of Daylight, and As-Shot was changed to Daylight in LR. The very edges of the petals, specially on the right, are slightly overexposed; I've not corrected this. The CL with the 60 macro is the upper, the lower is the SL with the 24-90. Both are uncropped.

There are no "cyanotic peripheries" on the flower or in the images. They look very similar to me, and very reasonable representations of reality.

 

[Godfrey]

Very close results... Good enough for me!

G

 

[bab]

I had another go late this afternoon; sunny between the showers, the sun comes from low on the left as you look at the pix. Both were taken at WB of Daylight, and As-Shot was changed to Daylight in LR. The very edges of the petals, specially on the right, are slightly overexposed; I've not corrected this. The CL with the 60 macro is the upper, the lower is the SL with the 24-90. Both are uncropped.

There are no "cyanotic peripheries" on the flower or in the images. They look very similar to me, and very reasonable representations of reality.

With a pixel pitch of 3.92μm versus 6.00μm for the SL I can only imagine how the internal software weights heavily on the processed raw image you put into either LR, PS or C1 for processing. If you load both RAW images into Raw Digger you can then properly see the answer you might be looking for.

To me the ability to increase the shadows would be the difference as Leica files are not known for their ability to regain HIGHLIGHTS>

Also the DOF of course is a big difference between the two cameras with the larger sensor having a better chance of blurred background. Also the larger sensor should have richer color, more dynamic range and better low-light captures.

 

[Godfrey]

...
To me the ability to increase the shadows would be the difference as Leica files are not known for their ability to regain HIGHLIGHTS>

Also the DOF of course is a big difference between the two cameras with the larger sensor having a better chance of blurred background. Also the larger sensor should have richer color, more dynamic range and better low-light captures.

Regaining highlights is always matter of the recovery software being able to reconstruct three channels when one or two channels are nearly blown out.

I've made a series of exposures of a contrasty, close up subject from +3 to -5 EV with both Leica M-D and Leica CL, utilizing a 50mm lens on the CL and a 75mm lens on the M-D. All at ISO 200, f/5.6 on the CL, and f/8 on the M-D, exposure time varied to suit. All AWB.

The results are as near to identical with respect to DoF and framing. Setting the exposure slider in LR v6.14 to the compensating EV number on a frame by frame basis, and choosing the same area in the frame representing a neutral gray for WB correction, the results are near to identical between the two 24 Mpixel sensors, with a slight edge in overall quality going to the CL. With both cameras, the -5EV exposure color shifts when corrected in software but is still usable. Similarly, with both cameras, the +3EV exposure color shifts and has inversion errors at the specular highlight/recovery points.

The biggest difference between the two cameras' output is that the -4EV and -5EV images with the CL show a bit more speckle and dark grain noise viewed at 1:1 compared to the M-D images. However, it just looks a bit like higher speed film, not the typical mottled color noise.

Very impressive performance for an APS-C sensor, IMO.

Of course, any photographer worth the name would expose much nearer the balanced 0EV point for the scene and never see any of these issues.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Very close results... Good enough for me!

G

Me too!

 

[Robert Campbell]

With a pixel pitch of 3.92μm versus 6.00μm for the SL I can only imagine how the internal software weights heavily on the processed raw image you put into either LR, PS or C1 for processing. If you load both RAW images into Raw Digger you can then properly see the answer you might be looking for.

To me the ability to increase the shadows would be the difference as Leica files are not known for their ability to regain HIGHLIGHTS>

Also the DOF of course is a big difference between the two cameras with the larger sensor having a better chance of blurred background. Also the larger sensor should have richer color, more dynamic range and better low-light captures.

The problem I had was the blue edges to the rose bloom in the earliest (topmost here) photos, and the difference between the CL and the SL. Part at least I'm sure is down to my inability to process properly. Flowers can be tricky, the bluebells turning into pinkbells is perhaps the best known difficulty. Flowers can have UV patterns which are presumably helpful for pollinators, but which humans can't (normally) see; I wondered if this was part of the problem, or even an IR phenomenon. I've not come to any firm conclusion. I'll keep a closer eye on this bloom to see if anything strange happens as it starts to decay.

 

[Robert Campbell]

The original 'last rose' is long gone, but a couple have replaced it. I've been watching to see if they develop the violaceous margins; no very definite sign so far, though there is some evidence on the SL photo. The upper photo, from one rose, is from the CL, the lower, from the other rose, from the SL. Both are slightly cropped, with minor tweaks to contrast, vibrance and clarity. I didn't change the white balance. The pink colour in the SL seems to me to be closer to reality, though the violaceous edges aren't so marked in nature.

The rose variety is probably 'Gertrude Jekyll'.

 

[Robert Campbell]

The blooms are very much past their best now. On the one remaining, I can more or less force myself to see the violaceous edges that are so apparent in some of the images. I wondered if the cheat's answer to the problem of accurate colour might be b/w:

M246, 90mm AA Summicron, f/2.8, cropped.

Alternatively, perhaps I should simply give up.

The only explanation I have to date for the blue edges is UV sensitivity, despite UV filters on the various lenses. We can't normally see UV radiation.

 

[aDam007]

For the cameras I own here are my colour preferences:

X1D
M10
CL
X-T2
Q
SL

In the first sample I have to say the SL seemed like it took a better shot of the rose (but this was due to the light being in favour of the SL). But his second attempt I liked the CL followed by the M240 followed by the SL (though the M240 always seems to go warmer making the other cameras seem too cool). If you're going by straight rendering then I feel the SL lens did a better job.

I also have the 60TL and I think the 24-90SL and 90-280SL and 90SL are all better lenses but it doesn't mean I don't like the 60TL it's really quite decent and it's a macro. I've done comparisons between all the lenses @ 90mm (also have the 75SL) and I've come to the conclusion that the 60TL is very similar in performance close up to the 90SL. For portraits I'd be happy with any of the 4 lenses lens. Especially with non messy backgrounds. But when you consider size/performance the 60TL is probably the best of the bunch followed by the 90SL, but I get that you're giving up the flexibility of a zoom with the two primes.

On a similar note none of the TL lenses are slouches.. I did a 50APO/50LuxM/50LuxSL/50FEZA/35TL test and the 35TL held it's own (aside from smaller bokeh balls from being a slower lens, looked more similar to the 50APO than the rest). I also did the test with the 35FLE/35cron/23TL/35FEZA and came to the conclusion that although the 35FLE is the best lens for the focal length that the 23TL has a really nice quality to it that makes it one of Leica's best value lenses if you like that certain look/style to your images.


The takeaway here is that I need to slim down my kit more. But also that I'm still not a huge fan of the SL colours