M-E dull DNG.

[Ko.Fe.]

I took M-E with me yesterday. It was sunny and then kind of light winter haze.
I used dng only and images looks dull, not popping out.
Don’t know if is lens, ultron 28 1.9 Asph, it is not dull indoors.
Or luck of IR cut filter.
I was using in camera JPEG1 at another day couple of months ago with same lens and low contrast, mid saturation, images seems to look better.

 

[Godfrey]

DNG are raw files. They need to be rendered for the look you want. The results out of a good raw converter set to the defaults *should* be a little dull and neutral looking.

JPEG files are exposures that have been converted from raw to RGB and then had rendering image processing applied, whether in-camera or in your image processing setup afterwards.

G

 

[Huss]

DNG are raw files. They need to be rendered for the look you want. The results out of a good raw converter set to the defaults *should* be a little dull and neutral looking.

JPEG files are exposures that have been converted from raw to RGB and then had rendering image processing applied, whether in-camera or in your image processing setup afterwards.

G

What G said. RAWS are always dull/flat as they are waiting for you to do your PP magic. And give you headspace to do that.

 

[peterm1]

This pretty much happens with every camera. JPG images are processed in camera and almost invariably come out looking better straight out of camera. Never the less I invariably shoot in RAW as I prefer the options this offers me for post processing. Same for black and white conversions - I could shoot black and white in camera which necessitates using JPG images but I still prefer post processing with me choosing the settings not the camera so I shoot full color RAW then convert.

Some digital cameras (but not I think Leica M cameras) can apply a tone curve in camera to boost tonal quality out of camera but it has never been clear to me whether such settings affect RAW or JPG only. I suspect even these kind of settings work only on JPG.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, all, for answers.
I never had this problem with Canon 5D and Olympus E-PL1. Those are SOOC RAWs cameras, next to none PP is needed. Canon was better with their L lenses than regular ones or with Zeiss ZE and Olympus gives good RAWs even with f8 cap lens.
Yesterday M-E images were so dull, I converted them to BW in PP .
I also don't have problem like yesterday all the time with M-E RAW files. Sometimes DNG are fine, sometimes dull. I noticed, if I don't leave WB on auto, but choose matching close (daylight, shadow) it renders much better.
I'll try it with another lens this week in same places, winter light seems to be the same.

 

[retinax]

Canon 5D and Olympus E-PL1 are older and have less dynamic range. But output contrast range remains the same with your ME, which can record a longer scale. So you get less contrast. It's like printing a high contrast negative versus a lower contrast (longer scale) one on the same paper grade. To reach the same contrast, you need to adjust paper grade.

 

[peterm1]

Thank you, all, for answers.
I never had this problem with Canon 5D and Olympus E-PL1. Those are SOOC RAWs cameras, next to none PP is needed. Canon was better with their L lenses than regular ones or with Zeiss ZE and Olympus gives good RAWs even with f8 cap lens.
Yesterday M-E images were so dull, I converted them to BW in PP .
I also don't have problem like yesterday all the time with M-E RAW files. Sometimes DNG are fine, sometimes dull. I noticed, if I don't leave WB on auto, but choose matching close (daylight, shadow) it renders much better.
I'll try it with another lens this week in same places, winter light seems to be the same.

I have certainly heard it suggested that some cameras can be set to apply some more extensive basic processing (i.e. processing which can be selected to some extent by the user) before RAW images are saved. Perhaps the Canon is like this.

For example my Nikon DSLRs allow me to specify a "D-Lighting" setting which can be used to adjust the contrast of an image before it is shot. My Sony NEX 7 camera has settings for "D-Range" which as far as I can tell works in a similar way though it is a bit more sophisticated. Higher contrast settings would account for better / crisper out of camera appearance. To be honest I try to make sure I have lower contrast not higher even though it looks worse straight from the camera simply because I want to minimize the risk of shadow detail loss or highlight clipping and I believe it should allow me more leeway in post.

I have always assumed these types of settings work on RAW as well as JPG images but to be honest have never thought to research it and I do not know where I got this belief from. Perhaps it just seems logical to me that they should function in this manner. Possibly Canon has similar settings which might account for the presentation of their RAW images but I do not believe Leica has anything of this sort, as far as I can recall. Which would mean their RAW images out of camera would tend to look universally flat.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It looks like for my "as less PP as possible needs", M-E is better with JPEG1 mode. Maybe DNG in addition, just in case.

Canon 5D and Olympus E-PL1 are older and have less dynamic range. But output contrast range remains the same with your ME, which can record a longer scale. So you get less contrast. It's like printing a high contrast negative versus a lower contrast (longer scale) one on the same paper grade. To reach the same contrast, you need to adjust paper grade.

Canon 5D is from 2005 but it has visually more DR than M9 sensor.
Olympus E-PL1 is 2010 camera, M9 is from 2009. I like how E-PL1 renders more.

The only one thing which is good with my M-E M9 sensor for sure is absence of low ISO noise.
But I have seen others M9 images and they are better than mine. Perhaps, it is all about processing with M9, while Canon and Olympus are with RAW files which needs less processing.

 

[retinax]

Oh right, I got confused and thought the ME was a variation on the 240, but it's an M9 sister model of course, so almost the same generation as 5D... maybe then the RAW converter applies different curves per default?
Sooting RAW+JPEG is one possibility, or you can automate your RAW converter to apply a curve all the time, then you can still change it when you need to.

 

[Ronald M]

Raw files are supposed to be “flat”. If they are too saturated or too much contrast, it is hard to get rid of. Easy to add, harder to subtract.

If you want more in camera processing, there are settings to adjust JPEG in camera before you see them.

Indoor flash is hard light and raw will have more contest just like a sunny day, Overcast light raw will look dull.

 

[Godfrey]

You could just modify the default settings for the raw converter if you don't want to do much customized processing. Lightroom allows you to work up whatever rendering you prefer and save that as a default for that camera, for instance. Or create a Develop preset that will cover the majority of your needs and have it applied on import.

Lots of ways to get what you want. You just need to be creative and learn them.

G

 

[taffy]

To the group:

Would differences in RAW developers help the situation of Ko Fe specifically in attaining a look with more pop upon importing the files?

I understand that RAW is there for malleability in post but for the goal of "least PP as possible" objective, would exploring different developers help?

 

[peterm1]

To the group:

Would differences in RAW developers help the situation of Ko Fe specifically in attaining a look with more pop upon importing the files?

I understand that RAW is there for malleability in post but for the goal of "least PP as possible" objective, would exploring different developers help?

I am not sure. I am open to the idea (mainly because I am often looking for ways to reduce post processing workload) and would love it to be so and I have often heard that this or that RAW developer produces better outcomes for this or that RAW file from this or that camera. But I have tried a few different software suites and do not see much difference in initial outcomes upon importing - only after some work by myself. Perhaps if the imports are made together with specific custom profiles for that camera and lens it ,might be different???

If Ko.Fe. wants to improve RAW outcomes, one option might be to create a custom preset for his camera / lens then run that preset for all files after he has imported them or if the software he is using allows it - as he imports them. The aim being to get all files to a starting point for further post processing where he is basically happy with the tonality, saturation etc. Of course I do not expect it is a complete answer as I find that every file is different depending on factors like ambient lighting, whether there is backlighting, the nature of each subject etc. but it would possibly help and would minimize the further work that is needed by getting all files to the same starting point. Lightroom for example allows me to globally apply all or some edits from one photo to every other file (or selected files) in the folder.

 

[peterm1]

Ko.Fe this is just an afterthought. Are you SURE the problem was not with the ambient conditions? On rereading your original post it occurred to me that you mentioned a "light haze". This type of atmospheric condition is custom made for low contrast and images that fail to "pop". You also say the lens does not produce dull images inside (where of course there would be no atmospheric haze). This increases my suspicion that the ambient conditions have played a role.

What I would suggest is this. Take a few images that you find are lacking "pop" and use the local contrast filter in whatever image editor you are using. (They all have them - sometimes called a "clarity" filter instead). Such filters mainly boost midtone contrast - exactly where you usually need more "pop". They also give the impression of greater image clarity (hence the name sometimes used by some editors).

Also if you have access to Nik Color Efex Pro 2, try the "Tonal Contrast" filter - you will find it somewhere near the bottom of the list of its filters. Tonal contrast is even better than a global clarity filter as it has 3 sliders - one for highlights, one for midtones and one for Shadows. Plus it also has a slider for saturation. These 3 tone sliders allow you to adjust tone in each of these ranges independent of the tone in the others and I find it to be extremely powerful in producing image "pop". Just don't over do it or it can look like an overdone HDR image. If it needs it color saturation can be tweaked too.

If Clarity/Local Contrast/Tonal Contrast (any one of these) fixes your problems I would be even more suspicious that the ambient conditions in your photo walk were at least part of the problem.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, it was day with hazy feel. The sun light was in the afternoon, but it was not very contrasty.
I have all of these parameters, sliders in LR, but any digital processing is removing part of original image and I’m not good at making it looks better this way. My days of computer graphics were on earlier stage .

 

[Henry]

You could try with the “Embedded” profile for the DNG. It’s as close to the default jpg engine I think. Some cameras have “camera matching” profiles in Lightroom, but Leica does not seem to (at least for the M), so “Embedded” is your best option. I believe that the original M-E did this (I had one, and I remember it doing it). It’s in the camera profiles section in the developed module.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Thank you, all, for answers.
I never had this problem with Canon 5D and Olympus E-PL1. Those are SOOC RAWs cameras, next to none PP is needed.

.

Given that you can’t really look at a SOOC raw file, how were you looking at your Canon and Olympus images? Ie. what program/raw processor were you using?

I shoot raw on my Pen F and process with Lightroom, which applies its default raw processing, giving an effect much like an ooc jpeg. But this is NOT the raw, it’s Lightroom’s interpretation of the raw.

 

[Godfrey]

Would differences in RAW developers help the situation of Ko Fe specifically in attaining a look with more pop upon importing the files?

I understand that RAW is there for malleability in post but for the goal of "the least PP as possible" objective, would exploring different developers help?

All raw conversion processing apps have defaults based on what their creators felt posed as priorities in image rendering. These defaults are without a doubt somewhat different from one app to the next. So yes: One might find that for some class of images one raw conversion app does a more pleasing job than another, and for another class of images the reverse might be true, and there might be others handled better by yet a third, and others by yet a fourth all operating at their defaults. And so forth...

BUT ... Is it really sensible to have to acquire, install, learn, and maintain several different raw processing apps when any one of them is certainly capable of being used to produce very nearly the same results that all of them do on their defaults? I'm sorry, but it is just foolishness to do that. It is FAR more efficient and better time spent to simply learn how to look at any given raw file that the defaults of a particular raw processor does handle well and learn how to obtain that kind of rendering from the ones that it doesn't handle well on its defaults.

The statement that "any digital processing is removing part of original image" is simply incorrect. The process of rendering an image is indeed always a lossy process in the technical sense of "data will be reduced by these manipulations" ... but the goal of rendering is to expose and bring up the parts of a captured image that you want viewers to see while pushing down and reprioritizing whatever parts of a captured image the occlude the important parts. In essence, the process of rendering an image is the process of exposing what you want to show. This is the same whether you work with film, enlarger, and chemical processes or with digital capture and image processing. BOTH require a good deal of learning to figure out both what to do and how to do it correctly. A raw digital capture isn't even viewable without rendering to RGB one way or another, in the same way that a negative isn't directly viewable as a finished image without additional work being done, and that rendering process is always lossy—the notion is that you throw away the things that are irrelevant and expose the things that are relevant with that lossy process.

And if you say, "Well, the JPEGs out of the camera are nearly perfect, why aren't the raw images?" just be aware that the JPEGs out of the camera are raw captures that have been subjected to raw conversion and then adjustment algorithms ... and then compressed for efficiency in storage and transmission. The actual amount of data being presented in those "perfect" images has been reduced from the raw capture data total by typically 60% to 80%; they are perfect specifically when the settings of the rendering engine match the capture data conditions well.

These are the hard facts of making photographs: you have lots of techniques to learn both in capture and in rendering what you've captured to the final photograph. It's NOT a simple thing, it only seems simple when you rely upon automated/external processes that you don't have control over to do the work for you, presuming that they do a passable job. They often do not, which is why being able to save digital captures as raw files is valuable. Raw files out of a camera have vastly more data in them than JPEG files do, which enables you to edit and render the raw files to a finish state with far more precision and quality. It takes some work and knowledge to do that.

If you're not willing to learn how to do this, then all bets are off that you will consistently get what you think you want. If Ko.Fe is working with raw files and Lightroom, all he has to do is spend some time learning how to use Lightroom and he would find that he can very quickly and with minimal effort make all the adjustments he needs on an arbitrarily large number of files at the same time bringing the total PP work to virtually zero per photograph.

It is very, very, very rare that I spend more than about twenty to thirty seconds rendering even my most difficult photographs. I might spend a half hour or more looking at an exposure to decide how I want it to look, but the actual adjustment time required is rarely more than just a moment. Part of this is that I've learned how, for each and every one of my cameras, to get the exposure that I want such that the defaults of my chosen raw processing app do a good job. And the other part is that I've learned how to see my exposures from the perspective of the raw processing app with respect to where the defaults fail and my desires prefer, and I've learned how to push the settings to the point where the rendering of those exposures suits what I want.

G

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." – Albert Einstein​

 

[Richard G]

Couldn’t read all of this today. But, 28mm lenses take exposure from sky to a great extent, leading to underexposure and flat looking images on Auto.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.