Setting that replicates colour filters on film Ms?

<p>Good day everyone, I have but a small question. I'm currently using a Leica M9 and have been using it for about a month now. I came back from a trip to Hong Kong a few days ago on the pretext of visiting friends but also with the goal of 1. taking the new camera for a spin and 2. buying some lenses not in stock locally.</p>

<p>I shot a combination of JPEG + DNG. With contrast and sharpening to the minimum but with colour set to B/W. And after coming home and running all the DNGs(86 of them over the course of 4 days) through Lightroom. I've realised that I really don't bother editing much. Probably a throwback to the days of using film. I also downloaded Silver Efex to have a go at b/w conversions but even then, all I do is add filter colours(yellow, orange or red). I don't see the beauty in all of those dynamic range effects or processes. As for film emulation, I think it's quite redundant since I have them readily on hand as well as an M6 and a ZI.</p>

<p>My workflow thus far seems to be: Crop -> Add a colour filter -> Save and export to JPEG. I did straighten one or two shots and add fill light to another couple, but that's about it.</p>

<p>Thus I am wondering if the contrast settings or other settings in camera work at perhaps recreating the effect of colour filters for JPEG images. Of course by shooting only JPEG, I lose the DNG, but considering how little I change to the DNG, it's quite a waste of space isn't it? One could also argue that I just stick to film Ms with my colour filters if I shoot primarily in b/w, but the point of digital to me is simply convenience. And I must say I'm spoiled by it right now.</p>

<p>Sounds to me like you've wasted a whole lot of money if all your interested in is shooting JPEGS. You could do that with something like a Panasonic FZ100, Canon G12 or like. If using the M9 makes you a happy snapper - fine, as you seem to be quite content ignoring the possibilities inherent within the camera, DNG (raw format) file, and the M system in general.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...but the point of digital to me is simply convenience</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems to be the crux of the bisquit as you refuse to recognize and use the unique capabilities of the system you have. Pity, as the M digital system is capable of producing spectacular results if you have the personal vision to use it.</p>

Wow. Mac has a wonderful first name. And Kennins might mean knowing something. The 'M system' includes some

great lenses as he obviously knows - he wanted to buy some more. Can't see any of the cameras you list giving

anything like what he could get from a 50 lux asph, ZM 50 1.5 or ZM 25 (no barrel distortion) etc etc.

<blockquote>

<p>Wow. Mac has a wonderful first name. And Kennins might mean knowing something. The 'M system' includes some great lenses as he obviously knows - he wanted to buy some more. Can't see any of the cameras you list giving anything like what he could get from a 50 lux asph, ZM 50 1.5 or ZM 25 (no barrel distortion) etc etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All wasted shooting JPEGS...you must have missed that part...some people buy things just to own them, not to use them to best advantage.</p>

<p>If you understand JPEG compression algorithms, then you understand that the process is "lossy" and reduces the amount of data. The process reduces file size by throwing away parts of the data.</p>

<p>The grey scale first - there goes the wonderful contrast and micro-contrast available from Leica lenses.</p>

<p>Then color data - there goes the color rendering qualities of the Leica lenses.</p>

<p>Then (depending upon the compression setting) resolution ...so, there goes the resolution available from the Leica lenses.</p>

<p>Yep - he really needs those Leica lenses alrighty...I'm at a personal loss at to what his names have to do with anything.</p>

<p>Perhaps Steve, you missed the memo about the M9 being the only full frame digital rangefinder on the planet. At least on this planet I don't have a choice. Maybe where you are there is another option? All malice aside though. You seem to have missed my point entirely. </p>

<p>I bought the M9 because it is a wonderful system and is really convenient as all forms of digital capture are. That being said, I do realise a lot is lost from not shooting in RAW. But because I don't edit a lot. Or more like, I dislike editing an image heavily. I was wondering if there was an alternate option for what I want to do.</p>

<p>Sounds to me like you're a jealous sort and the way I use my M9 is too simple for your extravagant fantasies. Now I'm not saying you don't own an M9, rather you believe I under-utilize it. The truth is, I don't see how that's relevant at all. At least not with regards to my initial question.</p>

<p>Personal vision only plays apart before the 'decisive moment'. Once that's done, all you're left with is a medium to tweak or not to tweak. At least in my opinion.</p>

<p>And thanks Richard. Apologies though, it isn't really my first name. Rather it's the abbreviation of my first name and my two middles. As for Kennins, you're right, it's the anglicization of Kennen(to know in German). And again, you're quite spot on. I do use the ZM 50/1.5 and the ZM 25. I did go to Hong Kong to buy the Leica 28/2.8 ASPH and did, also found the 50 lux. Except it was terribly marked up in price, somewhere in the region of 5,200 USD. I want the lens, but not at that price.</p>

I'd agree with Steve. Shooting jpg only on an M9 is kind of like getting a Porsche for Granny to drive around town at 25 mph. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's your choice.

<p>Forgive me if I'm mistaken. But shooting RAW requires processing, if only to convert the images into files to view on any given website. I spend months abroad and travel very light, it's part of what I do. I can't be lugging around too much excess weight, even an 11" MBA is too much at times when I could do without one.</p>

<p>I believe one of the hallmarks of the Leica system is the portability. Combined with a digital process giving an instant ability to upload images anywhere. It's second to none.</p>

<p>What I simply cannot understand is why the two of you(or maybe more as time goes by) constantly harp on shooting JPEGs. If there is no alternative, I will of course shoot RAW. But I'm beginning to lose patience having to explain this. If you cannot or do not know of an alternative to shooting RAW and having to process it into b/w. Then please don't bother replying. I'm not trying to be rude, but no one has even touched on what the question is about, nor shed light on the points I brought up other than their personal opinions on what format I should use.</p>

<p>Please be on topic for the love of God.</p>

<p>Mac, I'm not familiar with M9 but if there isn't any color filter options in the camera's software why not use the same filters you use for film? It may seem less comfortable but at least it makes harder to forget the wrong filter on?<br /> Of course they affect the optical quality too, but this may also contribute to the "film look?"</p>

<p>As for my part, I shoot RAW, but I think I'd have trouble telling the difference between a print from a well exposed JPEG and a DNG... if Mac can do without and likes his results, that is fine by me!</p>

<p>As for your question, I do not think there is a way of recreating the any B&W filter effect with available controls (good idea though). You could of course us real filters (but then again the sensor does not behave like real film) :)<br /> Personally, I find that the DNG is a little more forgiving in terms of posterization when converting, but mostly if pushing it in one or the other direction very hard.</p>

<p>PS.: you could create a certain filter look you like in the "Quick Develop" option in LR3 and just apply it to all photos...</p>

<p>Never understood the RAW obsession myself, maybe if less people were willing to shoot RAW and spend hours in front of a PC in the first place we might get much better in camera processing and less need to shoot RAW.</p>

<p>Try shooting in B&W mode but using different white balance setting. It could effect the look of the B&W images if the camera applies the white balance before converting to B&W may only be very subtle though.<br>

You could try using the color filters as you would with B&W film shoot in B&W mode but set WB to daylight not auto.</p>

<p>In my digital work I shoot in nothing but raw format; but I can understand that many people need fine control less than they need fast results with a minimum of work. There are different ways to achieve filter effects before or after conversion to B&W: but in the present context, Stuart Moxham's suggestion seems to me the most practical.</p>

<p>[[Never understood the RAW obsession myself, maybe if less people were willing to shoot RAW and spend hours in front of a PC in the first place we might get much better in camera processing and less need to shoot RAW.]]</p>

<p>If you're spending hours in front of the computer simply because you're shooting RAW then either your obsessed with editing or, more likely, you're simply doing it wrong.</p>

 

<p>Thank you for taking the time to reply and give informative opinions everyone, I was worried having to wake up to more "You're giving mommy a ferrari" analogies.</p>

<p>Benjamin, I would try that but I know digital sensors are a whole different ball game. They read through the filters and compensate for whatever tint they're in. Of course I wasn't sure if the M9 was the same, but it's like that on my NEX and my old DSLRs(which I gave away in due course after acquiring my M9), so I didn't think it'd be any different on the M9.</p>

<p>Stuart. Thank you, I honestly didn't think of tweaking the WB and have it set in daylight, at least when outdoors. I will try it as soon as the sun rises and the skies become a bit more clear. If it works, I'll be a happy snapper as someone before mentioned, and if it doesn't. Well I'll just suck it up and shoot RAW, but thank you again for the idea. And of course, sharing a similar viewpoint.</p>

<p>Mukul, thanks for the endorsement. More excited to find out if that works now.</p>

<p>And Rob. I'm a novice to the digital workflow. Granted I spent far more hours in my darkroom than on my computer. But call me a traditionalist snob if you will, I find working on the computer a disconnect from when I was in the darkroom. Maybe time will soothe the estrangement. Perhaps you could shed light on what I'm doing wrong.<br>

I cannot for the life of me, batch process the entire slew of images I want to use. I crop nearly all my images into a square format but some of them I don't. As for coloured filters for the b/w prints. Every print is different. As such, I have to process nearly every image individually. Granted I take about three to five minutes to process one print. But this was but a short trip, 86 in total and only 27 used. If this was one of my regular month to three month trips. I would be dealing with at least 200 images. How should I not be spending hours in front of my computer?</p>

<p>From years ago, the B+W filter effect was not really noticed until you printed the negative. If you had something like a monochrome monitor, the changes between a red and orange filter might be more dramatic...but on a color monitor -- it may not be so great in viewing. [Generally, the digital camera created B+W is decreasing or deleting the Green channel. The B+W filter effect on film would depend on what color the subject was.]</p>

<p>I don't know if the above helps any.....?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never understood the RAW obsession myself, maybe if less people were willing to shoot RAW and spend hours in front of a PC in the first place we might get much better in camera processing and less need to shoot RAW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been discussed to death a zillion different time in these forums alone...but shooting in RAW isn't just an obsession. What it <em>is...</em>is an important part of the process of getting the most out of any digital photograph you take. It's silly to suggest that we have to give up one or the other, i.e., good in camera processing...or good post processing of images on the PC. Why not do both? Do you think Ansel Adams ever had Walmart do his printing for him so as to avoid all that tedious dark room work? If you don't have the time to spend in post processing....fine. But let's don't pretend like all those "hours behind the PC" is such a trivial endeavor, or that "in camera processing" is the answer for "good pictures". It takes both. If we could shoot "perfect pictures" straight from the camera (and no one does)...we could forget all this silly Photoshop stuff and spend all our time snapping away.</p>

Agreed John. But that said, I have found that a handheld incident meter in good light with a Zeiss lens on

a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex film camera, does- more often than I ever thought possible- produce perfect exposure and

contrast, with little or no photoshop adjustments necessary!

<p>And I don't have any problem agreeing with what you're sayng, Ray. I just think that there are a lot of people who are simply too lazy to spend the time working with RAW files despite how much it could improve their images...so they try to "foo foo" the value of doing so. If you're like Mac, and just don't have the time to spend...that's certainly understandable. Or...if you have "a handheld incident meter in good light with a Zeiss lens on a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex film camera"...(and know how to use it...) I'm sure you wouldn't have to worry about all that extra work either! :) Thanks, Ray! Good point.</p>

<p>p.s. - I see that you're a POW recipient. Would you mind pointing me to the image that won the award for you? Thanks...</p>

<p>I like Rob's logic. Personally I shoot jpg + raw, and just as often as not delete the raw file without processing. If the shot is already good, what do I need to do?</p>

<p>Mac, my apologies if this has already been answered, but scanning the thread it looked like most of the replies were ragging on you for camera/processing choices. You own a nice camera, it fits your needs, and you're happy with it. Good for you. These guys are just being jealous children. I'm a little jealous too, but at least I realize it :)</p>

<p>The reason 'colour filters' don't work well in post is because the image is already black and white; they have no colour to actually filter. They work with black and white film though, because the image is still in colour when it passes through the filter. If you want to shoot B&W only, you need to use a physical filter. Personally, I recommend shooting in colour and using Lightroom to do your black and white conversions, as I have NO intention of carrying around fifteen different colour filters. However, a real filter is the most 'geniune', and it seems like that's what you're after.</p>

<p>You can also shoot in jpg + raw, and leave the camera in black and white mode. That way you have a 'true' monochrome, and you can always alter the raw file later if you're not happy with the jpg. That method makes it hard to use filters though, unless the Leica has 'in camera' colour filters.</p>

<i>"These guys are just being jealous children."</i><p>Jeez... Just so beginners don't get led down the

wrong path, suggesting people use the RAW capacity of the camera has absolutely nothing to do with

jealousy. Shooting RAW is always the best route to take if achieving optimal image quality is the objective.

<p>Hello. My name is Doug and I am a "lazy photographer." :-)</p>

<p>I also shoot RAW and use LR. If I shot JPG, I would save processing time how? I rarely print (to be honest, I rarely shoot any more) but, when I do, it is the same time/process for either jpg/raw. I see no time savings shooting jpg vs. raw. Perhaps I am missing something?</p>

<p>Yep shooting RAW is the best way to obtain optimal image quality, we probably don't always need optimal but we should be able to get decent image quality without needing to shoot RAW not optimal but decent.<br>

So if we can't get decent image quality without shooting RAW after trying different image parameters such as sharpening, contrast, saturation etc. then don't we really need to be a bit harder on the camera manufactures.<br>

Alot of P&S cameras produce decent well exposed image straight from the camera we should expect the same from system cameras. Truth is most system cameras will produce decent images straight from the camera once some time has be spent to set the camera up to the users liking maybe not optimal but certainly decent.</p>

<p>Mac -- if you are going to have to do things like crop or adjust the colors and contrast of your jpegs after the fact, you might be better off just setting up some presets in lightroom. It will take a bit to set them up, but once you do so, you can have very easy batch processing. For example, let's say you want a yellow filter effect, a red filter effect and a green filter effect. You could adjust the black and white conversion to your liking for each different effect and then save that as a preset. Then as you are reviewing your images after you have taken them, you can flag the images in light room with the appropriate color label. This will allow you to sort them quickly, and apply the right preset to the right image. You can also sort them easily to export them as jpegs. Lightroom is an incredible tool for processing lots of images quickly. Though you are busy, you might consider reading a book on it, because there is the potential there to both save you a ton of time and make your images better. Since it is non-destructive, you will not need to worry about setting the wrong jpeg settings in camera...you could always go back and change your work. <br>

For that reason alone, it is generally better to work in RAW than in JPEG -- you images have the most potential, and they really do not take any more time to work with than jpegs as long as you have a basic understanding of the potential of batch processing software like lightroom. </p>

<p>Mac, concerning recreating the effects of colored filters and leaving the issue of JPEG vs RAW for a moment, It has been my experience that I get the best results by making the original capture in color and doing the B&W conversion myself, later in post processing, by selecting a single color channel and converting to grayscale. This produces an effect that is most similar to using a colored filter. Instead of limiting the wavelength of light transmitted through the lens, you are instead only looking at a fraction of the wavelengths captured by the sensor. The end result is pretty much the same. Plus, you don't have to worry about sticking another piece of glass in front of your lens. I'll post a sample image showing the difference between red vs. green channel display. I find that these two channels generally show the greatest difference in contrast.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with either the M9 or Lightroom, so I can't tell you exactly how to go about doing this. Most cameras do not have the ability to select color channels in-camera. Lightroom may or may not allow this functionality with JPEG images (I use Nikon's Capture NX2, and it does not allow this with JPEG's). My normal workflow for a B&W image is to convert to black and white via selecting the appropriate channel depending on the subject, set a white point and a black point and adjust until I get the contrast I like, make a few local brightness/contrast enhancements if necessary , then save. This might sound like a lot of work, but in reality, it usually only takes 2-3 minutes per image. Sometimes less. I would imagine that much of this could be set up as a preset in Lightroom, further shortening the process.</p>

<p>The advantage of such a work-flow is that you don't have to waste time changing capture modes while you're out shooting, and you get a much more flexible end-result since all the information for all color channels is retained. Whether the added time in post processing is worth it or not is a question only you can answer. For me, the improved quality over a straight B&W conversion in-camera is worth the extra time.</p><div></div>

<p>Duplicate post</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"</em>These<em> guys are just being jealous children."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

Such a totally uncalled for insult, especially in light of the fact that it not only isn't true...but doesn't even make sense! Jealous of what? How does jealousy fit into anything that's been said?</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hello. My name is Doug and I am a "lazy photographer." :-)<br>

I also shoot RAW and use LR. If I shot JPG, I would save processing time how? I rarely print (to be honest, I rarely shoot any more) but, when I do, it is the same time/process for either jpg/raw. I see no time savings shooting jpg vs. raw. Perhaps I am missing something?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Doug, Since your comment seems to have been prompted by <em>my</em> comments, allow me to explain what I meant...as it seems I confused you, and that's my fault. As for saving processing time by shooting in JPG only...I was speaking of those who seem to be content with the picture that comes straight from the camera...or, those such as Mac, who "Crop -> Add a colour filter -> Save and export to JPEG". Otherwise...I agree with you. No time saved.</p>