LWR
All The Gear - No Idea
Sailor Ted said:
The machine itself is a thing of beauty (although not that much more beautiful than the R-D1). If the IR cut filters make a difference, then I will stick with it. If not, then I will sell.
LWR
All The Gear - No Idea
To take this thread somewhere different, may I ask what might be a dumb question?
If the solution to the IR sensitivity is a cut filter, rather than place that filter at the front of the lens, why didn't Leica take all the cameras back and put a different filter on the sensor?
I know that some will say that maybe B&W work is better with the IR sensitivity, but surely B&W would suffer less with the filters than colour does without?
Also, I see B&W as largely a post processing options - I can't see me deliberately removing the filter from the lens because the picture I am about to take might be post-processed B&W.
Just the thoughts and questions of an amateur...
If the solution to the IR sensitivity is a cut filter, rather than place that filter at the front of the lens, why didn't Leica take all the cameras back and put a different filter on the sensor?
I know that some will say that maybe B&W work is better with the IR sensitivity, but surely B&W would suffer less with the filters than colour does without?
Also, I see B&W as largely a post processing options - I can't see me deliberately removing the filter from the lens because the picture I am about to take might be post-processed B&W.
Just the thoughts and questions of an amateur...
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
I think the worse would be for people that already use filters for other reasons, stacking up filters is never a good idea.
J. Borger
Well-known
All people who love to shoot camerabags under tungsten light AND who are not prepared to use a proper colorprofile and/ or use IR filters should sell the M8 asap ... no question about it!
sirvine
Established
It's funny -- this type of thing is not unique to the M8. I bought a very nice (very fast) car a few years back. It was a new model, first production year, and the technical specs on it were unheard of at the time. I drove it up to New York from New Orleans and had the time of my life. Then I found the message board for owners and started reading everyone's complaints. I couldn't stop focusing on the problems, and it took a lot out of my enjoyment for the car.
On the other hand, I read all about people's issues with the R-D1s on this board. Since it was the only game in town at the time, I went ahead and bought one. The first one arrived and the shutter stuck after five minutes. I was sure I was making a mistake, but I went ahead and replaced it. The new one has been an absolute dream--more satisfying than I can express in words.
I guess it's going to be the same for the M8. Some people will nitpick it to death. Others will anguish over their buyer's remorse. Still others will defend it out of pride or intolerance for FUD. Then there are those that will learn to work with it, because they have no real alternative.
On the other hand, I read all about people's issues with the R-D1s on this board. Since it was the only game in town at the time, I went ahead and bought one. The first one arrived and the shutter stuck after five minutes. I was sure I was making a mistake, but I went ahead and replaced it. The new one has been an absolute dream--more satisfying than I can express in words.
I guess it's going to be the same for the M8. Some people will nitpick it to death. Others will anguish over their buyer's remorse. Still others will defend it out of pride or intolerance for FUD. Then there are those that will learn to work with it, because they have no real alternative.
Stu W
Well-known
From Kodak's film tech data web page.
Fluorescent lamps in a room can cause odd color rendition in your color pictures because most fluorescent illumination is deficient in red light. Daylight-type color films used under fluorescent light produce greenish results, while tungsten film results are decidedly blue. Films exposed under fluorescent lighting require special printing unless you use filters during exposures.
How can Kodak make this kind of mistake? A situation that necessitates the use of a filter! Unacceptable!
Fluorescent lamps in a room can cause odd color rendition in your color pictures because most fluorescent illumination is deficient in red light. Daylight-type color films used under fluorescent light produce greenish results, while tungsten film results are decidedly blue. Films exposed under fluorescent lighting require special printing unless you use filters during exposures.
How can Kodak make this kind of mistake? A situation that necessitates the use of a filter! Unacceptable!
willie_901
Veteran
LWR;
Leica could not find an in-camera IR filter with the proper thinness (to avoid optical distortion) and adequate IR attenuation (to avoid sensor-well miscounts). Because IR contamination affects all digital imaging (including the lucrative video-camera market), it is likely a thin IR filter with adequate attenuation will be available in the future for in-camera use.
J. Borger,
I understand your statement, "proper colorprofile and use IR filters." But, "proper colorprofile or use IR filters" confuses me.
The presence of IR energy effects every sensor-well. The unwanted IR photon counts impact the fidelity of low-frequency, low-energy light the most. But all sensor-well results are "wrong" when IR photons inflate the count. There is no way a priori to know which sensor wells are counting undesired IR photons, or the number of IR photon counts.
If software algorithms can adequately model (and remove) IR contamination, why don't all camera manufacturers use them? As far as I know IR filters are essential for color fidelity in all digital cameras.
The M8 shows (for the M mount at least) an IR filter in front of the lens causes less optical distortion compared to a filter placed in front of the sensor. But when IR energy is present, color fidelity is compromised if it reaches the sensor wells.
willie
Leica could not find an in-camera IR filter with the proper thinness (to avoid optical distortion) and adequate IR attenuation (to avoid sensor-well miscounts). Because IR contamination affects all digital imaging (including the lucrative video-camera market), it is likely a thin IR filter with adequate attenuation will be available in the future for in-camera use.
J. Borger,
I understand your statement, "proper colorprofile and use IR filters." But, "proper colorprofile or use IR filters" confuses me.
The presence of IR energy effects every sensor-well. The unwanted IR photon counts impact the fidelity of low-frequency, low-energy light the most. But all sensor-well results are "wrong" when IR photons inflate the count. There is no way a priori to know which sensor wells are counting undesired IR photons, or the number of IR photon counts.
If software algorithms can adequately model (and remove) IR contamination, why don't all camera manufacturers use them? As far as I know IR filters are essential for color fidelity in all digital cameras.
The M8 shows (for the M mount at least) an IR filter in front of the lens causes less optical distortion compared to a filter placed in front of the sensor. But when IR energy is present, color fidelity is compromised if it reaches the sensor wells.
willie
Sailor Ted
Well-known
LWR said:
LWR,
I've got to get to work however what you are asking has been answered here. Namely if they had used a thicker filter in front of the sensor it would have compromised the camera's performance so they did not. Also read some of Barjohns posts- he hit the issue (I think) regarding the Kodak sensor on the head in a different thread today.
IR filters- they solve the color problem. Again it's as if you have never read any of this and it's all news to you. You're setting the camera up under the worst possible conditions known from day 3 for IR shift and then acting surprised- this seems odd even for here (but you'll get two or three who will run to your aid on this one however M8 owners will think you daft). The real question is simple- do you want to shoot on a DRF? If the answer is yes then you've got two choices and the M8 is by far the better camera all things considered. If you decide to keep the M8 do as all good photographers do- focus on the cameras strong suites and work around its weaknesses. Be it sports, business, photography, life, whatever- this is always the recipe for winners- whining is the gameplan of loosing.
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
Hello Willie,willie_901 said:
In a pure academic sense there is no "proper" colorprofile possible because of IR sensitivity .... on a practical level there are however colorprofiles available that manage the IR "ISSUE" for 99% of all practical shootingsituations.
I shoot confidently without IR filters using these profiles and do not feel any need to use IR filters in the future.
For good order ... i use the M8 for free photography: street, landscape, travel, architecture, portraiture etc. ........ i am NOT a commercial photographer shooting products for catalogues, weddings or nuns on the southpole.... those are the situations where i would use the filters .....
The cynical thing is .. that people using the M8 for family snapshots (and there is nothing wrong with this, do not get me wrong) make an issue of the filters .. where professional photographers find a way to work around them.
And yes .. 3 month after M8 release i start to get angry when people take the 100th picture of a camerabag under tungsten and post it without taking the time to download a "proper" profile and try a proper conversion in C1 Le.
They took time to read the forums and find out that the camerabag under tungsten is a perfeect way to show IR sensitivity ..... so why not spend the time to read about ways to work around it???
I try to avoid these threads ... but sometimes i can't resist :bang: :bang:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
LWR
All The Gear - No Idea
Sailor Ted said:
How come the lady on the right's trousers (pants) are really black? Filter? Post-processing? Luck? :bang:
I'd be happy if my colour issues were limited to the compromises in that shot...
LWR
Stu W
Well-known
Ted, I'm with you the whole way on this subject. Although I don't presently own an M8, I do have quite a few thou tied up in Leica film equipment. Nothing is perfect under all conditions. If you're shooting film at high altitudes wouldn't a uva filter would be appropriate? I have been kicking around the idea of purchasing the M8 and I am not deterred by the necessity of filters under certain conditions. Stu
Sailor Ted
Well-known
LWR,
Not sure what you mean- most of my shots, say 90% do not have the IR issue and I did not compensate for her pants. This is the neurotic thing I am talking about. As to the WB, on a calibrated monitor the shot looks like Velvia slide film as I used a Velvia slide film preset in Lightroom and then tweaked it a little for the shot.
Stu,
Photogs looking to shoot a DRF will work with this tool exploiting its strengths and over time the M8 will produce iconic images worthy of the Leica badge. Lesser photogs will look for excuses in their equipment- it's as simple as that. You don’t see real photogs complaining about the grain in Tri-X or trying to lessen it to a fine grain image- they work with the grain. Every great photog has worked within the strengths of their chosen medium.
Not sure what you mean- most of my shots, say 90% do not have the IR issue and I did not compensate for her pants. This is the neurotic thing I am talking about. As to the WB, on a calibrated monitor the shot looks like Velvia slide film as I used a Velvia slide film preset in Lightroom and then tweaked it a little for the shot.
Stu,
Photogs looking to shoot a DRF will work with this tool exploiting its strengths and over time the M8 will produce iconic images worthy of the Leica badge. Lesser photogs will look for excuses in their equipment- it's as simple as that. You don’t see real photogs complaining about the grain in Tri-X or trying to lessen it to a fine grain image- they work with the grain. Every great photog has worked within the strengths of their chosen medium.
Last edited:
LWR
All The Gear - No Idea
Sailor Ted said:LWR,
Not sure what you mean- most of my shots, say 90% do not have the IR issue and I did not compensate for her pants. This is the neurotic thing I am talking about. QUOTE]
Neurotic is a little strong - not least unhelpful.
Forgetting WB for a moment - based on my experience so far, those pants in artificial light would not have been rendered black. Maybe there is a variable quality issue with the M8???
LWR
Sailor Ted
Well-known
LWR,
You need to go out and shoot your camera not recreate know experiments that induce the IR shift. Sorry if I offended you however you need to shoot your camera for awhile. The IR issue is bad under certain circumstances and not an issue in many.
Also go to Adobe's website and download Lightroom as well as some "film" presets then go out with your new Leica and have some fun- it's a lot of fun.
Peace,
T
You need to go out and shoot your camera not recreate know experiments that induce the IR shift. Sorry if I offended you however you need to shoot your camera for awhile. The IR issue is bad under certain circumstances and not an issue in many.
Also go to Adobe's website and download Lightroom as well as some "film" presets then go out with your new Leica and have some fun- it's a lot of fun.
Peace,
T
Last edited:
rsl
Russell
Exactly what kind of film has that particular "film look," Ted?
Sailor Ted
Well-known
rsl,
You and I are from completely different planets- enjoy.
Ted
You and I are from completely different planets- enjoy.
Ted
LichMD
Member
LWR said:Sailor Ted said:LWR,
Not sure what you mean- most of my shots, say 90% do not have the IR issue and I did not compensate for her pants. This is the neurotic thing I am talking about. QUOTE]
Neurotic is a little strong - not least unhelpful.
Forgetting WB for a moment - based on my experience so far, those pants in artificial light would not have been rendered black. Maybe there is a variable quality issue with the M8???
LWR
LWR,
last night after forcing a magenta cast, as an experiment, I did some laoding of shots taking the prior night and found my first un forced magenta cast on a family candid I took when my folks came over for dinner. 2 minutes in Lightroom later it was gone. Tried again in C1 and same thing. This specific photo was the 335th photo I've taken.
Ergo, the problem exists, the camera is a hoot to use, it forces you to think about photography differently and has led to my taking more pix. All in all worth every penny I spent. I say this as someone who came over from the DSLR world and hasn't held a RF since I was 7 or 8.
sirvine
Established
"Hows this for film like digital on the M8?"
I'm missing something, I guess, but that looks like a shot my Canon P&S could produce. Is the M8 now being measured on its ability to render black in non-magenta tones under artificial light? That's a few steps short of perfection, and I really do associate Leica with perfection.
I'm missing something, I guess, but that looks like a shot my Canon P&S could produce. Is the M8 now being measured on its ability to render black in non-magenta tones under artificial light? That's a few steps short of perfection, and I really do associate Leica with perfection.
Olsen
Well-known
BillRogers said:
You have a point regarding the Leica managment-tackling of this issue.
But the car alegory.... We see little of american cars over here in Europe. Despite record low dollar. They are regarded as 'rubble from manufacturers who overpay managment and share holders'. And we see Ford and GM are going over the cliff. Ironically, it is the japanese who will prove to the world that 'americans can make cars...' So I have great respect for the common american industrial worker. Good quality work - for all too little pay.
Germany, the greatest export nation in the world - not bad for some 80 million people, make some great cars. I have had german cars practically all my life and have enjoyed some of the most advanced and the most reliable cars ever built. I have just received my 2. Audi Quattro, a 2,0T. Nothing built in america - or Japan, comes close.
The German car industry comprises of - not only the car makers, but a large cluster of industries, ranging from giants like Bosch and Europes greatest banks to small one-man consulting firms. The german car industry has tentacles reaching into the german government and the powerfull 'EU commission' - and further on to universities, the media etc. They 'drive' the nation. Only the weapons industry has a similar position in USA, I would guess.
I am sure that the japanese camera industry has a similar cluster and similar governmental contacts as part of a national strategy. Canon has a research budget of a small nation; some 20 billion Norwegian Kroner, - compared to the sum of governmental and private research of Norway (4,7 million people) that does not exceed more than 15 - 16 billion NOK.
Take Canon; they earn 80% (about) of all the camera industry profit of the world! No other, not even Nikon (for sale), are close. This is the footballfield that the digital camera market has created.
Imagine Leica - you can put them into 'mens room' of the Canon canteen. Nor do Leica have the support of a focused government, like the japanese camera makers. - Ironically, Leica would fare well if they launched themselves as a cognac brand - with the European Union supporting anything tasting of agruculture. And alcohol.