retinax
Well-known
You overcompensated the underexposure. Learn to work with the simple tools like levels and curves, plugins can't replace them.
bullterrier
Established
a simple fill flash would have solved this
taffy
Well-known
Here is one from DNG on that day:
No exposure compensation and no edit on import, export.
And this one is from same DNG but I applied LR and DXO FilmPack3 editing.
Can't say I like any of them.
Ko Fe I am looking to get an M240 down the road. Is there a way for you to put download links to your DNGs and I'll try them on my workflow? Thanks
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Files via google drive is not a problem.
So, you would like to get M240, but want to try M9 sensor dng files?
taffy
Well-known
I misunderstood. It thought it was the newer M-E! Sorry.
Henry
Well-known
The biggest issue I see with that unprocessed raw file is that it’s radically underexposed. Then again shadow recovery should be possible.
I had a lot of exposure issues with my M-E when I had it, it always wanted to expose half a stop or more under. For me it was that i was used to spot metering as opposed to the RF center weight style, but I doubt that is what is happening for you. How would you have exposed that image with film?
Looking at that image I cannot even tell what the camera was trying to meter, I think the sky is under too, so it wasn’t that, and the rest of it is nearly black.
Anyway, this isn’t a raw conversion issue, you would have to edit that file to make it look reasonable anyway, and the JPG or embedded profile would have been underexposed too.
I had a lot of exposure issues with my M-E when I had it, it always wanted to expose half a stop or more under. For me it was that i was used to spot metering as opposed to the RF center weight style, but I doubt that is what is happening for you. How would you have exposed that image with film?
Looking at that image I cannot even tell what the camera was trying to meter, I think the sky is under too, so it wasn’t that, and the rest of it is nearly black.
Anyway, this isn’t a raw conversion issue, you would have to edit that file to make it look reasonable anyway, and the JPG or embedded profile would have been underexposed too.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Here is one from DNG on that day:
No exposure compensation and no edit on import, export.
And this one is from same DNG but I applied LR and DXO FilmPack3 editing.
Can't say I like any of them.
The lower rendering isn't terrible, but I don't know what you're expecting with such radical underexposure and automated processing.
G
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
My M-E metering is not like any other camera I have, use. It is as spot metering, indeed, but if bright part is present even at not the half of the frame, it will measure to this brightest part.
Why it underexposed in this particular frame, I don't know. Third party, 28mm f1.9 ASPH Ultron, selected as Summicron 28 ASPH.
I took test shots outside with 50 Cron today and DNG is still slightly underexposed, comparing to same frame JPEG1.
In the past I would use M-E as M4-2, by S16 and it was better than M-E metering.
peterm1
Veteran
Here is one from DNG on that day:
No exposure compensation and no edit on import, export.
And this one is from same DNG but I applied LR and DXO FilmPack3 editing.
Can't say I like any of them.
To my eye while the first shot looks under exposed, the second looks somewhat over exposed for it to be effective as an image.
Speaking of the second file I would personally lower highlight tones a little to provide more definition in the sky and also lower the darker tones in the image which would help the image pop more. For example there should be some shadow under the overpass - it would be more natural if there were - its to be expected give the sky is reasonably clear providing direct overhead lighting. The midtones are not too bad but to my eye could also benefit from a tiny bit more contrast.
Henry
Well-known
I often used a light meter with the M-E as well, and found that more reliable. The m240 does it a little, but not as badly, and has better shadow recovery so it’s less of an issue.
Henry
Well-known
I would likely do something similar, but I am a sucker for having true black in my digital images (just a bit, or just above it), so I might up the exposure a hair under the second image and then pull blacks down to give it more depth. Highlights are a bit jarring, so I would likely pull that down too. Pure white I don’t like in digital, so I would try to salvage anything near blowing out.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
With your experience, it is third case with M-E metering I'm aware of.
Archiver
Veteran
@Ko.Fe. - That file is very underexposed. I sometimes get those if I'm not careful. M-E metering is like a wide centre spot, so if you're using automatic shutter speed. be sure to aim the centre of the frame at the area you want properly exposed. There's no intelligent matrix metering in a Leica M!
Secondly, I sometimes find M9 files a little hard to tweak to my liking. This seems to shift depending on what other files I'm looking at, around the same time. I like to start with a flattish base with a bit of a S curve, but keep contrast down to help the shadow detail come out. If I want more pop, then I increase black point. Shadow recovery with the M-E / M9 is amazing, though.
Secondly, I sometimes find M9 files a little hard to tweak to my liking. This seems to shift depending on what other files I'm looking at, around the same time. I like to start with a flattish base with a bit of a S curve, but keep contrast down to help the shadow detail come out. If I want more pop, then I increase black point. Shadow recovery with the M-E / M9 is amazing, though.
Bill Clark
Veteran
What color space are you using?
I use sRGB. Some will probably disagree. The lab I used, WHCC, wanted sRGB files.
Here is some info from Ken Rockwell (it’s old but I believe it is still relevant):
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
Quote from article:
“Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.
Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.“
Another article:
https://www.format.com/magazine/resources/photography/srgb-vs-rgb
Do what ever works for you.
I’m just telling you that sRGB works for me.
I use sRGB. Some will probably disagree. The lab I used, WHCC, wanted sRGB files.
Here is some info from Ken Rockwell (it’s old but I believe it is still relevant):
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
Quote from article:
“Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.
Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.“
Another article:
https://www.format.com/magazine/resources/photography/srgb-vs-rgb
Do what ever works for you.
I’m just telling you that sRGB works for me.
willie_901
Veteran
peterm1
Veteran
I downloaded the darker image from below and reprocessed it (mainly just a touch of contrast adjustment and selective brightening - about 20 seconds work) and below I have linked how I think would look more effective to my way of thinking. Sorry Ko Fe hope you do not mind. This interpretation (and all images are interpretations) keeps some shadows where they should be and has more sky / cloud definition
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm fine with it. But my inner voice telling me "slide it from blue to yellow" .
.rulnacco
Well-known
A couple of people have mentioned this, and I agree with them completely. The huge problem here is not really any of the above except for that image is waaaay too underexposed as shot. It looks like it needs at least another stop and a half of exposure, more likely two.
I don't wish to sound rude, but I do want to be honest. Personally, if I had a DNG file that looked like that, I'd kick myself for blowing the exposure, not point at the camera. If you'd been shooting film, which I still shoot a lot of, and you underexposed it that badly, you'd not have much to work with--at least nowhere near what the lens and film could produce with proper exposure, most definitely. Particularly on a day where contrast wasn't too high, you could have exposed much more generously than that file shows without blowing highlights in any place important.
Digital is capable of much more enhancing in post than film of course, but you still have to give it something to work with. (And allegedly, "exposing to the right," which you clearly didn't do here, helps this process--although I always shoot to give me what I want straight out of camera...and that DNG above ain't it.)
It's like I tell people, it's called Photoshop, not Magicshop. If you want the best images possible, you have to know your camera, your lens, the light, and your exposure, and give the software something to work with. And if you do that, you'll be a lot happier with your images before you ever touch them in the computer.
Being able to manipulate images digitally is no justification for not getting your exposure right in camera. And that doesn't cost anything at all to learn how to do--and to do consistently. You'll be much more pleased with your gear--which is most definitely quality kit--your images, and photography in general if you master that absolutely essential skill.
I don't wish to sound rude, but I do want to be honest. Personally, if I had a DNG file that looked like that, I'd kick myself for blowing the exposure, not point at the camera. If you'd been shooting film, which I still shoot a lot of, and you underexposed it that badly, you'd not have much to work with--at least nowhere near what the lens and film could produce with proper exposure, most definitely. Particularly on a day where contrast wasn't too high, you could have exposed much more generously than that file shows without blowing highlights in any place important.
Digital is capable of much more enhancing in post than film of course, but you still have to give it something to work with. (And allegedly, "exposing to the right," which you clearly didn't do here, helps this process--although I always shoot to give me what I want straight out of camera...and that DNG above ain't it.)
It's like I tell people, it's called Photoshop, not Magicshop. If you want the best images possible, you have to know your camera, your lens, the light, and your exposure, and give the software something to work with. And if you do that, you'll be a lot happier with your images before you ever touch them in the computer.
Being able to manipulate images digitally is no justification for not getting your exposure right in camera. And that doesn't cost anything at all to learn how to do--and to do consistently. You'll be much more pleased with your gear--which is most definitely quality kit--your images, and photography in general if you master that absolutely essential skill.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yes... The problem is... I could get correct exposure by Auto or TV, Av mode with Canon, and 70 USD Olympus, but with M-E it is getting screwed from time to time. And even if I get it right on exposure, colors are not something I like...
It looks like it is manual mode, custom WB balance camera. Not something I want to deal with... Nor I want to jump through all of hoops like more processing, changing entire color space and so on. I have normal photos from Canon and Olympus without all of this mastering.
It looks like it is manual mode, custom WB balance camera. Not something I want to deal with... Nor I want to jump through all of hoops like more processing, changing entire color space and so on. I have normal photos from Canon and Olympus without all of this mastering.
rulnacco
Well-known
Well, since you're using a Leica, why don't you learn to use the art of Sunny F16, like we did back in film days? (Or meter off the palm of your hand, and open up one stop from the reading--that one works really well, too.) That may not cause you to like the colors any better even if you get the exposure perfect, but at least it will help you make sure you get the first link in the chain--the exposure--pretty much on, without having to depend on the camera to make decisions about exposure for you.
Honestly, I almost *never* shoot in any kind of auto mode, because I know a lot more about what I'm doing--and what I want the image to look like--than the camera does. And I know my gear well enough, I can look at the light--indoors or out--estimate the ISO, white balance, and exposure I need, and after one or two test shots to tweak what my instincts (and knowledge) tell me, I'm ready to go. That's because back in the days of film, when you *had* to get it right in camera, you had better know how to get good exposure (and color, if you were shooting that).
You're using a Leica: no auto focus, no through-the-lens viewing, extremely rudimentary metering and auto-exposure modes, primitive continuous shooting. You *can't* shoot it the same way you would a Canon, Nikon or Olympus. And if you *don't* like taking on the responsibility of making a lot of your own calculations, you're not going to get on with it, it's simple as that.
*But* if you are happy with the challenges that presents, and you know how to get the image you want, the Leica *frees* you from a lot of crap that those other cameras put in the way of you and what's in front of your lens, to enable people who *aren't* as well practiced get at least decent images automatically. I frequently use a Nikon D810, but I've turned off practically *every* automatic feature except autofocus (my eyes aren't so great anymore for manually focusing with a crappy DSLR screen, or that'd be shut off, too). And I still cuss it on occasion for making it a lot harder sometimes than my M6 to get the photo I want.
I mentor a lot of young photographers--including some very good ones indeed--and I constantly tell them their camera is like a guitar: they have to learn how to *play* it. You can have the fanciest guitar in the world, but if you don't know how to play it, you won't make music. Meanwhile, someone who knows what they're doing can take a cheap guitar, give it a bit of tuning, and make very nice sounds indeed. And like a guitar, some cameras give you a particular feel that you may want in your image, while others work better in other situations--I use a few different cameras, and I "play" them in different ways.
Like some guitars are harder to play than others, some *cameras* are harder to play, too--but there may be some reason why that guitar/camera gives you something that makes playing it, hard as that may be, a rewarding prospect in terms of what it produces. And some musicians choose to play a particular guitar because it most comfortably and easily gives them the ability to play what *they* want--you really might want to think about your cameras the same way.
You have to accept that you have to play your Leica differently than the other cameras you've used. It's an *extremely* capable and freeing camera, even though it doesn't make it easy to do certain things. If you master the playing of it, and you have some talent, you'll get some great images.
Of course, just like some musicians get frustrated with a particular guitar, either because it's too bloody hard to play or doesn't give them the sound they want--or both--and chuck it out of the window, you may decide that you just don't like to play your Leica, or fancy the kind of images that it makes.
If that happens, *please* don't chuck your M-E/Ultron out of the window. Send them my way--I know how to play them, and I'd be very happy to be able to do that!
Cheers, and all the bes!
Honestly, I almost *never* shoot in any kind of auto mode, because I know a lot more about what I'm doing--and what I want the image to look like--than the camera does. And I know my gear well enough, I can look at the light--indoors or out--estimate the ISO, white balance, and exposure I need, and after one or two test shots to tweak what my instincts (and knowledge) tell me, I'm ready to go. That's because back in the days of film, when you *had* to get it right in camera, you had better know how to get good exposure (and color, if you were shooting that).
You're using a Leica: no auto focus, no through-the-lens viewing, extremely rudimentary metering and auto-exposure modes, primitive continuous shooting. You *can't* shoot it the same way you would a Canon, Nikon or Olympus. And if you *don't* like taking on the responsibility of making a lot of your own calculations, you're not going to get on with it, it's simple as that.
*But* if you are happy with the challenges that presents, and you know how to get the image you want, the Leica *frees* you from a lot of crap that those other cameras put in the way of you and what's in front of your lens, to enable people who *aren't* as well practiced get at least decent images automatically. I frequently use a Nikon D810, but I've turned off practically *every* automatic feature except autofocus (my eyes aren't so great anymore for manually focusing with a crappy DSLR screen, or that'd be shut off, too). And I still cuss it on occasion for making it a lot harder sometimes than my M6 to get the photo I want.
I mentor a lot of young photographers--including some very good ones indeed--and I constantly tell them their camera is like a guitar: they have to learn how to *play* it. You can have the fanciest guitar in the world, but if you don't know how to play it, you won't make music. Meanwhile, someone who knows what they're doing can take a cheap guitar, give it a bit of tuning, and make very nice sounds indeed. And like a guitar, some cameras give you a particular feel that you may want in your image, while others work better in other situations--I use a few different cameras, and I "play" them in different ways.
Like some guitars are harder to play than others, some *cameras* are harder to play, too--but there may be some reason why that guitar/camera gives you something that makes playing it, hard as that may be, a rewarding prospect in terms of what it produces. And some musicians choose to play a particular guitar because it most comfortably and easily gives them the ability to play what *they* want--you really might want to think about your cameras the same way.
You have to accept that you have to play your Leica differently than the other cameras you've used. It's an *extremely* capable and freeing camera, even though it doesn't make it easy to do certain things. If you master the playing of it, and you have some talent, you'll get some great images.
Of course, just like some musicians get frustrated with a particular guitar, either because it's too bloody hard to play or doesn't give them the sound they want--or both--and chuck it out of the window, you may decide that you just don't like to play your Leica, or fancy the kind of images that it makes.
If that happens, *please* don't chuck your M-E/Ultron out of the window. Send them my way--I know how to play them, and I'd be very happy to be able to do that!
Cheers, and all the bes!