Jono Slack
New member
Hi There
A big hello to everyone, old friends and new:
Diane - thank you for keeping in touch and recommending this site.
Asher - thank you for sending an invitation.
I've been using an M8 for a month tomorrow, I'm slowly getting to grips with it's foibles (and it's delights). I think the dust is beginning to settle now, and all of us beta testers will have to send our cameras back to Solms for the Banding and Green Blobs fix - I'm waiting until next year - I've only seen it on a few shots, and it's always been fixable.
The IR is a different issue - most of the focus has been on event shooting and under tungsten, where it's obviously necessary to use an IR cut filter to avoid the magentas (I don't do a lot of this kind of work, and I haven't got filters yet, but I've found Jamie's excellent C1 profiles have solved most of the problem for me).
I'm not in a position to comment seriously on these conditions, but I have done a lot of work outside, in mixed natural lighting conditions, so that's what I'm talking about in the following:
I've had a perpetual problem with colour for landscape work - especially in evening light, where everything always seems to turn from the subtle soft warm light I remember into garish yellows! There is always mixed lighting (shade and light at the very least) so 'correct' white balance is rather a non concept. I believe that the IR issue here is less relevant, but which RAW converter to use certainly is.
Ander's Uschold's recent report in the BJP where he examined images processed by ACR and C1, and also the jpgs was interesting, and brought my feelings into more focus. He implied (and I agree) that the jpg engine seems to be producing the most accurate colour (in most circumstances) Greens, especially seem to have a vibrancy which just haven't been able to reproduce in either of the current RAW converters. There is a sacrifice in terms of artifacts and a little smeariness (even with the sharpening set off).
Having said all that, I'm finding that the colours are easier to get right than with either the D200 or the D2x (where I have found greens to be a perpetual problem in evening light). It's just that sometimes it's better to do it in jpg, sometimes in ACR and sometimes in Capture - which doesn't exactly make for a quick and easy workflow. I'll be interested to see how the files are managed in Aperture (assuming that they are going to support it).
So, for landscape work, it would seem that there is still work to be done in converters - hopefully better profiles will turn up, and others will do a good job (I really don't want to go back to an 'old fashioned' raw converter after a year working with Aperture!).
The good news though, is that the files are fantastically clean and detailed, sharp right to the corners, and they lose detail gracefully (a little reminiscent of film). I've produced a number of 40X60cm prints which really leave nothing to be desired, the lenses and the lack of an AA filter meaning that the M8 really does punch above it's mp weight.
Apologies to Rainer (an old buddy) for seeming too much like an apologist, but I wish Leica well with it - I think it's a brave attempt at something which really seemed impossible a year or so ago - and although it doesn't quite hit all the spots, in many areas it's streets ahead of the competition.
kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
A big hello to everyone, old friends and new:
Diane - thank you for keeping in touch and recommending this site.
Asher - thank you for sending an invitation.
I've been using an M8 for a month tomorrow, I'm slowly getting to grips with it's foibles (and it's delights). I think the dust is beginning to settle now, and all of us beta testers will have to send our cameras back to Solms for the Banding and Green Blobs fix - I'm waiting until next year - I've only seen it on a few shots, and it's always been fixable.
The IR is a different issue - most of the focus has been on event shooting and under tungsten, where it's obviously necessary to use an IR cut filter to avoid the magentas (I don't do a lot of this kind of work, and I haven't got filters yet, but I've found Jamie's excellent C1 profiles have solved most of the problem for me).
I'm not in a position to comment seriously on these conditions, but I have done a lot of work outside, in mixed natural lighting conditions, so that's what I'm talking about in the following:
I've had a perpetual problem with colour for landscape work - especially in evening light, where everything always seems to turn from the subtle soft warm light I remember into garish yellows! There is always mixed lighting (shade and light at the very least) so 'correct' white balance is rather a non concept. I believe that the IR issue here is less relevant, but which RAW converter to use certainly is.
Ander's Uschold's recent report in the BJP where he examined images processed by ACR and C1, and also the jpgs was interesting, and brought my feelings into more focus. He implied (and I agree) that the jpg engine seems to be producing the most accurate colour (in most circumstances) Greens, especially seem to have a vibrancy which just haven't been able to reproduce in either of the current RAW converters. There is a sacrifice in terms of artifacts and a little smeariness (even with the sharpening set off).
Having said all that, I'm finding that the colours are easier to get right than with either the D200 or the D2x (where I have found greens to be a perpetual problem in evening light). It's just that sometimes it's better to do it in jpg, sometimes in ACR and sometimes in Capture - which doesn't exactly make for a quick and easy workflow. I'll be interested to see how the files are managed in Aperture (assuming that they are going to support it).
So, for landscape work, it would seem that there is still work to be done in converters - hopefully better profiles will turn up, and others will do a good job (I really don't want to go back to an 'old fashioned' raw converter after a year working with Aperture!).
The good news though, is that the files are fantastically clean and detailed, sharp right to the corners, and they lose detail gracefully (a little reminiscent of film). I've produced a number of 40X60cm prints which really leave nothing to be desired, the lenses and the lack of an AA filter meaning that the M8 really does punch above it's mp weight.
Apologies to Rainer (an old buddy) for seeming too much like an apologist, but I wish Leica well with it - I think it's a brave attempt at something which really seemed impossible a year or so ago - and although it doesn't quite hit all the spots, in many areas it's streets ahead of the competition.
kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
