M-E dull DNG.

[shawn]

I'd say the M240 WB is still not great but it isn't an issue shooting RAW. I set Lightroom to automatically set WB to Auto (not As Shot) for any M240 DNGs imported into it. WB is much more consistent that way and I can of course correct it further if needed.

Shawn

 

[Pete B]

I had a quick go with this one. I white balanced off the lid of one of those boxes. Sorry it's so small.
Pete

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Looks awesome!
I spent two+ hours in DR yesterday to have couple of OK prints. I feel, I’d rather use M- E with its film like exposure metering and do some PP. TMAX (edit: 3200, forgot to mention 🙂 ) is as awful on prints as on scans by me 🙂

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

This is such a useful thread - the blown highlight has been the bane of my life for me on digital, and Airfrogusmc's post makes so much sense. One feels that digital should be easy and convenient, but when you think of it like transparencies it makes so more sense.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Somewhat related, this is a really interesting video of Ansel Adams and his famous 'Moonrise, Hernandez'. For those of you who think that his stunning photo just popped out of the camera as-is onto Grade 2 paper without any or very little adjustments, well think again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Ar5ZPuKUM

As Ansel has said, the negative is the score, the print is the performance. Maybe look at digital files and resulting images the same way, might be helpful.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Looks awesome!
I spent two+ hours in DR yesterday to have couple of OK prints. I feel, I’d rather use M- E with its film like exposure metering and do some PP. TMAX is as awful on prints as on scans by me 🙂

T max can be tricky, I never liked the results of T max 400 with d-76 or t max developer. Loved it with Rodinal 1:50. 1:25 not so much.

 

[Henry]

This is such a useful thread - the blown highlight has been the bane of my life for me on digital, and Airfrogusmc's post makes so much sense. One feels that digital should be easy and convenient, but when you think of it like transparencies it makes so more sense.

Part of the tricky part with digital is that it really came along at the same time as matrix metering (and later, different iterations). Modern digital cameras are really good at figuring out how to expose for the limitations of their sensors. Something like the M bodies leaves you without all that clever work being done. What we think of as convenience of digital cameras is a confluence of the sensor technology and the metering technology evolving together.

 

[Erik van Straten]

T max can be tricky, I never liked the results of T max 400 with d-76 or t max developer. Loved it with Rodinal 1:50. 1:25 not so much.

400Tmax2 is great as you expose it as ISO200 and develop it for 10 minutes in Perceptol 1+2 @ 20 degrees C. Not tricky at all! The best film of all times, except maybe the TriX from around 1974.

Erik.

Leica MP/Cooke Amotal.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorr,y I mislead, it was about new TMAX 3200. Even at @800 and in TMAX developer it just awful with me. )

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Part of the tricky part with digital is that it really came along at the same time as matrix metering (and later, different iterations). Modern digital cameras are really good at figuring out how to expose for the limitations of their sensors. Something like the M bodies leaves you without all that clever work being done. What we think of as convenience of digital cameras is a confluence of the sensor technology and the metering technology evolving together.

Exactly.

iPhone's cameras were able to take no blown highlights and too dark shadows for sometime now. I skipped AA zones thing. All I need to get good negative now is to measure it with iPhone exposure metering application. Works with any size of the negative. Including 4x5. It just more tricky to develop, comparing to 135 negatives.

Thanks to this thread, I will remember my M-E is just spot metering camera. But many other cameras aren't.

 

[Derek Leath]

Sometimes I use a grey card. That seems to work well.
Handheld meter also is a great back up.

 

[shawn]

Part of the tricky part with digital is that it really came along at the same time as matrix metering (and later, different iterations). Modern digital cameras are really good at figuring out how to expose for the limitations of their sensors. Something like the M bodies leaves you without all that clever work being done. What we think of as convenience of digital cameras is a confluence of the sensor technology and the metering technology evolving together.

Partially, but Matrix metering was out in the 80s though with less segments that what can be done with digital. My F5 has 1005 segments and even takes color (and focus position) into account with its metering.

With mirrorless digital the meter is happening right on the sensor so it can be extremely accurate regarding overexposure as well as determining the percentage of the sensor being blown out, knows focus position and it likely takes color into account too. Many cameras have additional tricks to help prevent overexposure by underexposing and applying a tone curve to the data too if it detects too large of a dynamic range in the scene.

Things like the iPhone will shoot multiple exposures and perform a HDR blend automatically too.

Shawn

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm sure Leica is relying on photographers to be the ones that make the exposure decisions. Nothing beats a photographers knowledge and experience. Leica M would not be a camera that I would recommend to someone just starting out or a novice.

I choose Leica M because of it's simplicity and it's not the kind of camera I rely on to make important exposure decisions for me.

If you are using Leica Ms just take a moment and make a test image before you start shooting to see if you are or aren't loosing detail in the important parts of the image. Like I said in post #51. Adjust accordingly.

 

[Derek Leath]

I'm sure Leica is relying on photographers to be the ones that make the exposure decisions. Nothing beats a photographers knowledge and experience. Leica M would not be a camera that I would recommend to someone just starting out or a novice.

I choose Leica M because of it's simplicity and it's not the kind of camera I rely on to make important exposure decisions for me.

If you are using Leica Ms just take a moment and make a test image before you start shooting to see if you are or aren't loosing detail in the important parts of the image. Like I said in post #51. Adjust accordingly.

This is so true. good advice.

 

[Henry]

I agree with everything said in this thread but I think it actually bears repeating: M cameras simply do not behave the way people expect them to if they aren't familiar with them. Metering with them is a surprise, even for experienced photographers, and they aren't consistent between cameras either.

My M240 meters differently than my M9 which metered differently than my M6. You might say, "well, obviously" but until you really internalize that information it doesn't necessarily click.

Why do I use a light meter now? Because I don't have the mental energy when switching cameras to remember all the quirks, even between M bodies. My M6 consistently meters 2 stops lower than my M240, that's silly (though, saying that, maybe I need to change the battery in my M6).

Anyway, long post to say that I agree with you, but that this thread is super important because even experienced photographers can get flummoxed by it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Henry do all camera's meter the same? An experienced photographer should know to test and figure it all out before they do anything important with a new piece of equipment.

In the days of film Nikon cameras coming from the same factory made at the time had a half stop tolerance. So two cameras could have a stop difference between the two.

Thats why when using the zone system with large format or really any format it is so important to do the tests.

I use a light meter all the time. I just know it is a tool and that is is giving me information that I then need to make decisions from that information.Reflective meters are different from incident meters. Spot are different from average. Dark red reflects light differently than bright yellow. Dark gray differently than light gray.

Like I was saying in previous posts with digital I meter then I do a test shot before I start shooting. With digital the test shot before you start is REAL easy.

I have checked my meters in all of my Leica Ms with a gray card and they, the M 262, 2 M 10s, M-E and MM, are all within a half stop of one another.

Now how close and accurate my shutter speeds and apertures are to one another is another conversation. ha ha. They seem to be close enough for me to get consistent results. But I always do a test shot first before I start shooting and I always test in different light. It is a habit.

 

[Henry]

Henry do all camera's meter the same? An experienced photographer should know to test and figure it all out before they do anything important with a new piece of equipment.

In the days of film Nikon cameras coming from the same factory made at the time had a half stop tolerance. So two cameras could have a stop difference between the two.

Thats why when using the zone system with large format or really any format it is so important to do the tests.

I use a light meter all the time. I just know it is a tool and that is is giving me information that I then need to make decisions from that information.Reflective meters are different from incident meters. Spot are different from average. Dark red reflects light differently than bright yellow. Dark gray differently than light gray.

Like I was saying in previous posts with digital I meter then I do a test shot before I start shooting. With digital the test shot before you start is REAL easy.

I have checked my meters in all of my Leica Ms with a gray card and they, the M 262, 2 M 10s, M-E and MM, are all within a half stop of one another.

Now how close and accurate my shutter speeds and apertures are to one another is another conversation. ha ha. They seem to be close enough for me to get consistent results. But I always do a test shot first before I start shooting and I always test in different light. It is a habit.

If we were on reddit I would upvote you. Perfectly said.

 

[airfrogusmc]

If we were on reddit I would upvote you. Perfectly said.

Thanks Henry!

 

[icebear]

Ko ...
you have the ME since 2016 and haven't figured out to maximize it's potential within the limitations this very basic digital camera has?
You are pulling our collective legs here, right?😉

If not then : RTFM 🙄 In case you lost your's or the camera didn't come with one, you can download it here:
https://www.camerauserguide.net/lei...anual-instruction-manual-user-guide-pdf/14927

p. 118 histogram
p. 126/127 white balance
p. 135-137 exposure

Cheers

 

[willie_901]

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.

Well put.

More exposure yields data with more information content. More information content increases post-production rendering flexibility. This is the case right up to when over exposure exceeds the photo sites' full-well capacity and, or exposure combined with gain (camera ISO setting) causes analog signal clipping during digitization. The former happens at the camera's native ISO and the latter occurs after the shutter closes and the camera ISO setting is above the native setting.

...

Being able to manipulate images digitally is no justification for not getting your exposure right in camera. ...

It turns out cameras with ISO-invariant sensor assembly designs do not require "getting the exposure right in-camera". These cameras have very low read (electronic) noise levels up to quite high camera ISO settings (1600 or more). This means image noise is dominated by photon noise (noise inherent to converting electromagnetic radiation to photoelectrons). The result is essentially identical signal-to-noise ratios for images made at different camera ISO settings using identical shutter times and apertures. Increasing signal gain (using higher camera ISO settings) does not improve perceived image noise levels.

However, cameras with ISO-invariant sensor assembly designs do require "getting the exposure right in-camera". Now "getting the exposure right" means maximizing exposure. Exposure is maximized by using the longest practical shutter time and widest aperture that does not overexpose or clip important highlight regions. This approach is only useful for raw files. The disadvantage is in-camera image review (JPEGs) could be compromised due to dark images.

Here are some comparisons of shadow region noise vs. camera ISO setting for the M9, M240 and M10. These noise level estimates are computed using unrendered raw-file data.
Note the difference between the M9, M240 compared to the M10. For the M9 and M240 analog signal gain (in-camera ISO setting) improves shadow region rendering. Read noise levels are important. The M10 has essentially the same (within 0.1 EV) shadow region noise between ISO 400 and 1600 while the M9 and M240 data shows shadow region noise improvement over the same range. The M10 exhibits very little (if any) dependence on read noise levels.

One shocking example of ISO invariance is the Sony Alpha 7s II. The shadow region noise level (data) is ISO-invariant from ISO 2000 through ISO 80000!


These blog posts provide more details.

ISO Dependent

ISO Invariant