CV 25/4 M9 ==> underexposed

[Phil_F_NM]

Also take into account the metering pattern of the M9. It is easy to fool the meter in the camera with bright areas near the edge of the frame due to the bright stripe in the middle shutter blade center-wieghting the meter. The stripe is the same as the meter in the M8 but there are two medium gray blades on each side of the middle one. In spite of the gray blades, the meter still exhibits a tendency to underexpose when bright areas are near the middle of the sides of frame.

You may also notice that your exposure will change according to the distance you have focused at. This is due to the meter cell being partially blocked at infinity and lesser so at close focus.

I often used a 21mm Super Angulon with my M9 as well as other older lenses that weren't coded so I just carried a handheld meter just as I do with my M4 or Nikon SP.

Phil Forrest

 

[Jim-st]

Raid-

If you decide to go the RAW route, and if you have Lightroom, try the Flat Field Correction plugin (built by Eric Chan) that Adobe recently put out for free here. It corrects vignetting and discolouration in corners/ down the sides at a stroke, once you've got your lens presets loaded in your LR library. Other than that there's Cornerfix, but the Flat Filed plugin seems to me the best solution to all the many issues with wides on M8/ M9. I'm just glad I got it in time to set up presets before my M8 has to go to cover the cost of my new M9, as I've got lots of uncorrected WA shots from the M8 that will benefit when I get round to dealing with them.

BTW I bought a video tutorial thingy from LuminousLandscape.com that showed me how to work the plugin. So it's not exactly plug'n'play, but it really does do the business. And I don't think you'll see general exposure issues in your M9+CV25 shots once you've run them through the plugin

 

[Range-rover]

I think all those pictures look great, the Voightlander lenses on the Leica M9 seem
to work out well, just remember it's still digital on the Leica M9 and you have to test these things out.

Range

 

[Richard G]

Hi Richard,
Your point is well taken, but I have never used RAW data before.

I remember the first time I did it. I was very nervous. I imported the pictures, expecting to see black on white writing with a header text and a series of 1s and 0s. But no, they were colour pictures, just like yours. There's nothing to it. I have a preset export for JPEGS for the RFF gallery. I have never used the M9 colour jpegs, but the black and white ones are actually very good.

 

[ChrisN]

Hi Richard,
Your point is well taken, but I have never used RAW data before.

Raid, do you use Lightroom software? These days I shoot only in RAW, and let Lightroom import the RAW file straight from the card (using the "Copy as DNG" option).

I shoot in uncompressed (16-bit) RAW, then the Lightroom import process converts this to a smaller (lossless compression) 16-bit .dng file for storage on the computer.

Post-processing to get the look I prefer is then exactly the same as it would have been with a .jpg file, except that I have a lot more leeway in adjusting the tones throughout the full range. I can also export copies of the image in .jpg format at whatever file size I want - big ones for printing and small ones for internet or for the portfolio I carry on the tablet device.

If you are not already using Lightroom, I'd really recommend it.

 

[nandemofoto]

As mentioned earlier by crispy12 recovering blown highlights is a pain with m9 files so you are better off with slightly underexposed shots which can be easily recovered in LR4.
Shooting RAW files and manual metering is highly recommended!

If you do end up with blown highlights RPP (Raw Photo Processor) for Mac does better job in recovering them than LR (IMO).

As for good wide for m9, I recommend M-Hexanon 28mm f2.8 - awesome lens.

 

[raid]

Hi Chris,
I have LR on one of my computers. I will try what you described.
Thanks.

 

[raid]

As mentioned earlier by crispy12 recovering blown highlights is a pain with m9 files so you are better off with slightly underexposed shots which can be easily recovered in LR4.
Shooting RAW files and manual metering is highly recommended!

If you do end up with blown highlights RPP (Raw Photo Processor) for Mac does better job in recovering them than LR (IMO).

As for good wide for m9, I recommend M-Hexanon 28mm f2.8 - awesome lens.

I have the 28mm Kobalux and the Rokkor.

 

[Monochrom]

Also take into account the metering pattern of the M9. It is easy to fool the meter in the camera with bright areas near the edge of the frame due to the bright stripe in the middle shutter blade center-wieghting the meter. The stripe is the same as the meter in the M8 but there are two medium gray blades on each side of the middle one. In spite of the gray blades, the meter still exhibits a tendency to underexpose when bright areas are near the middle of the sides of frame.

You may also notice that your exposure will change according to the distance you have focused at. This is due to the meter cell being partially blocked at infinity and lesser so at close focus.

I often used a 21mm Super Angulon with my M9 as well as other older lenses that weren't coded so I just carried a handheld meter just as I do with my M4 or Nikon SP.

Phil Forrest

Hi, this post is very accurate on the exposure of the m9 and how it behaves with wide angles...!

 

[swoop]

Exposure compensation helps.

 

[raid]

Thanks

Thanks

Hi, this post is very accurate on the exposure of the m9 and how it behaves with wide angles...!

This is very helpful. I started this thread by stating there is underexposure.

 

[raid]

I will next try out the Kobalux 28/3.5 and also the Canon FD 17/4 on the M9. I will check the exposure.

 

[Rob-F]

Raid, your pictures don't seem so bad to me. They are filled with rich, vibrant colors. Before giving up on the lens, why not just set the M9 for about +1/3 stop of compensation? Or maybe 2/3 stop tops. I have a feeling that might be all it needs. It might not even need that for all shots. The meter might be overcompensating for the bright areas in a couple of your shots, as Phil mentioned.

 

[raid]

Raid, your pictures don't seem so bad to me. They are filled with rich, vibrant colors. Before giving up on the lens, why not just set the M9 for about +1/3 stop of compensation? Or maybe 2/3 stop tops. I have a feeling that might be all it needs. It might not even need that for all shots. The meter might be overcompensating for the bright areas in a couple of your shots, as Phil mentioned.

The sunlight was very powerful today, and with trees in the scene, there was a need for manual exposure, Rob. I should have known better.

 

[Vince Lupo]

How are you metering these scenes? If you have it set on auto, then the exposures look about right, considering the scenes. If you look at the last shot in your first post, for example, the kids are against what looks to be a white background. Well that light meter is reading that white background and wants to make it 18% grey, so it did what it was supposed to do (whether that's what you wanted it to do is another matter!). The other shots have very contrasty light (bright sunshine, deep shadows), so the meter did the best that it could under the circumstances.

As well, how to you have the 'lens detection' set? Is it off? Is it set to a comparable lens in the list? That might possibly explain the vignetting.

 

[raid]

Hi Vince,
The M9 was on Auto, and there was no lens detection in place.
I used the lens as if it were mounted on a film camera.
Maybe I should not do it.

 

[ChrisN]

I'm another one that routinely underexposes with the M9, deliberately, to avoid blowing out my digital highlights. Straight from the camera my shots look dark, but shoot in RAW and it is so easy to bring up the values in the shadows without losing quality. Treat it like color transparency film, Raid - avoid overexposure at all costs.

In some situations you'll get a bit more noise in the shadows doing this, but overall I've found it a pretty good rule to set the camera for -1/3 stop exposure compensation when shooting in auto.

 

[raid]

This makes sense, Chris. I am used to shooting slides anyways from past years of SLR usage. I will try using RAW.

 

[jaapv]

It is basic to let the camera know what wide-angle lens is mounted, either with lens detection and coding or through the menu. The sensor is sensitive to the incidence angle of the light (film is not) and the camera MUST be able to compensate. For non- Leica lenses look for an equivalent.

I am always sad to see people use the camera so far below its potential.
Postprocessing - well, it is like dropping off your film at Wallmart for el- cheapo prints if you don't and use jpg.
Buy a simple book like a Scott Kelby one and learn to process your images properly. It is really not difficult and so rewarding.
Raw is just a format in which the file is written, that contains the full information that the camera outputs. The only difference is that you get far more flexibility and quality in your final image.
As I said, read up in a good book for beginners before you start post processing. It is the difference between enjoying the process and hours of frustrated button-pushing. You will be stunned by the difference in quality of your work.
Oh - and make sure your monitor renders the colors and contrast properly. Your dealer sells not-too-expensive gear to do that. Follow the manual and it is easy to get right.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/colorvisionspyder.htm

Good Lord! I just linked to Ken Rockwell!!😱😱

 

[Range-rover]

Raid,
When I first got Digital I was shooting jpeg, but once you shoot Raw you never
go back, you just have more control over that final image which is better for you in
the end.

Range