Farewell to the M9 in color, after getting the M10

Um, I hate to bring this up, but I'm wondering how you processed the M9 images. The skin tones - particularly in the first image - look very dark and sallow, which is very much at odds with the skin tones I've produced with what I assume are similar subjects. I've shot darker olive Asian subjects and they don't look anything like this with the M9. Or perhaps the white balance is kind of funky.
 
Not really to my liking, but you seem to be getting similar results from both, so presumably you're happy with the M10. That's not meant as a criticism, that's just down to differing tastes, no right or wrong in that.
 
The two sets of images aren't really comparable, but I prefer the colors of the M9 set. :eek:

I doubt whether a blind online test of 2 images of the same subject would really show any significant advantages for one or the other...
 
I am personally a fan of the M9. My issue with M10 is weight of the body (per physical size). Maybe if I had an M10 for a while I'd get used to it. All that said, I like the results here I see with your M10. Not saying better across the board but very nice! Enjoy the camera :)

David
 
To me the only image out of them all that looks transparency film like is the last and third to last M10 image... The rest not really... Yeah, your skin tones are off no question especially in the very first image... Is you monitor calibrated? I would recommend using some of the VSCO presets for getting film like colors as a starting point and then tweak...
 
Archiver said:
Um, I hate to bring this up, but I'm wondering how you processed the M9 images. The skin tones - particularly in the first image - look very dark and sallow, which is very much at odds with the skin tones I've produced with what I assume are similar subjects. I've shot darker olive Asian subjects and they don't look anything like this with the M9. Or perhaps the white balance is kind of funky.
Click to expand...
35photo said:
...Yeah, your skin tones are off no question especially in the very first image... Is you monitor calibrated? I would recommend using some of the VSCO presets for getting film like colors as a starting point and then tweak...
Click to expand...
@ Archiver - The first M9 picture is in an art gallery at night, with mixed lighting: bright spotlights (halogen?) on the paintings and, as I recall, some warmer floor lamps in the room — this photo is shot from a dark area with non-neutral light falling on the subjects, hence the color cast on the faces, which I did not want to neutralize. The grey wall between the two heads was, and is, truly neutral. I'm afraid it's irrelevant to compare the skin color to what you've "produced with...similar subjects."

@ 35photo - On the processing: I use Lightroom and apply some quick, preliminary adjustments in the Basic panel, of which I make a Snapshot; then, I try a VSCO preset, mostly [L - Portra 800⁺¹ -] from VSCO 6, which I use a starting point. I then compare this to the original LR snapshot and decide which to use for additional adjustments. For night shots, I generally don't use the VSCO presets but only make LR adjustments, which is the case of the first M9 shot above. I should add that my processing objective is not to produce film-like photo, but to get a look I like — and, sometimes, using the VSCO presets as a starting point helps.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
kiemchacsu said:
...for me the new summaron 28/5.6 really shines with the M10
Click to expand...
For me too. When I first read about this lens, I thought it was absurd to get a lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6; but then I saw some pictures from it on the web, especially Ian Watt's photos on Portra 400 and decided to try it — having in the back of my mind the spectacular performance of the M10 at ISO 3200. I like the rendering of this lens.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
IMO. Those images are over-processed and nowhere near to film or beautiful, vibrant tones and colors both cameras could produce SOOC.
 
My reaction is that the color looks pumped-up, over-saturated. That may or may not explain the odd skin tones, which might look better with less saturation.
 
I think you should try to give the M10's jpegs a shot here for comparison. To see how Leica would cook them and compare that to your cuisine.
 
I think you're showing us apples and oranges here. With the M9 you're primarily showing ISO 320 and ISO 640 shots -- with the M10 you're cranking it up and showing us more low light stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but my little pea-brain is taking those factors into consideration. The last shot (with the house) is cyan/blue, at least on my screen, so I'd think some colour correction would be in order.

I'm also trying to get a handle on why you're attempting to replicate 'slide' colour -- for dead shadows and a less flexible film type? Guess I'm biased towards negative film, but I don't really see an advantage to trying to digitally replicate slide film. And as a former film shooter, the last film type I'd choose for low light is slide film.

I've been shooting with my Leica M-D for a year now, and I've been really pleased with the colour images it produces (and the flexibility of the files), as well as the very dependable metering system. Skin tones can be a bit on the red side though. I believe the M-D's sensor is close to the M240's, but not quite the same (I may be wrong). I did own an M9 and admittedly I didn't really test the ability of it to render colour imagery (I shot the photos with more as black and white in mind). If I owned the M10, I'd be more interested in how it delivered - or at least enabled me to deliver - great looking colour images, and not necessarily replicating a particular film type. I'd be interested to hear your impressions of how the M10 compares to the M9 more in terms of their respective abilities to reproduce colour, how much each gives you a malleable DNG file to work with, and which one enables you to produce the best colour image with the least amount of heartache. Of course I'd probably want to see the same general scene shot with both cameras, but that's just me. Sorry for the late Saturday afternoon ramble, but I am truly interested in this comparison you've initiated, and hope you'll take it further.

Love the cafe shot with the pig painting, BTW :)
 
Vince - Thanks. But please note what I wrote in post #11: "I should add that my processing objective is not to produce film-like photos, but to get a look I like — and, sometimes, using the VSCO presets as a starting point helps." I merely made a statement in the original post that M9 images tended to look more like slide than negative film — and I'm not the only one who has said that.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
 
Nowhereman said:
Vince - Thanks. But please note what I wrote in post #11: "I should add that my processing objective is not to produce film-like photos, but to get a look I like — and, sometimes, using the VSCO presets as a starting point helps." I merely made a statement in the original post that M9 images tended to look more like slide than negative film — and I'm not the only one who has said that.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Click to expand...

Yup gotcha - sorry for the oversight. Based on the photos you've posted, and if I was interested in 'upgrading' to the M10 from the M9, I can't see a measureable difference in the photos you've posted (unless one of the goals was to compare relative low ISO's of the M9 versus relatively high ISO's of the M10 and their colour differences). Here again, if you posted direct side-by-side comparisons, it might be more compelling and the differences might be more readily apparent. But I'm sure that's not necessarily the intent.

I did a comparison with the SL and the Monochrom 246 last year (I was loaned an SL for two weeks while traveling in New Mexico), and while I only did two actual side-by-side comparisons of the same scene and with the same lens, at the same settings and at the same ISO, I did not really see a reason to jump from the 246 over to the SL. The SL's ability to render shadow detail was amazing, but since I'd only had the 246 for less than a year at that time, I didn't think it was wise to lose money on one Leica in order to buy another that only offered a modicum of 'improvement' (and even that was debatable). This comparison is here on RFF if it's of any interest.

The M10 looks like a really interesting camera and I'm sure the image quality is leaps and bounds ahead of the M9, I'm just not seeing it in the posted images (and I would concur that comparing based on a series of 72dpi images on a computer screen isn't really ideal). I'd like to see this comparison taken further and am interested to see the results!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom