Setting that replicates colour filters on film Ms?

[g-man1]

The epson r-d1 had/has color filters.

 

Maybe the new M9 firmware will have then? :-) (don't hold your breath!)

[dan_south]

<p>In order to simulate color filtering in post-processing, one first has to capture some color to filter. If we set the camera to capture black and white only, we've thrown away the very data that we need to accomplish the filtered look.</p>

<p>For instance, a yellow filter passes yellow and dims other colors, primarily blue. B&W film converts this filtered mix of light to grayscale, not the other way around. To create a similar effect with a digital camera, capture full color RAW files, boost yellow (and maybe some orange and yellow-green), cut other colors (especially blue and cyan), and THEN convert to grayscale. Try different amounts of boost and cut until and contrast until you get a look that pleases you. We CANNOT accomplish this if we discard the color information at the time of capture.</p>

<p>Processing. You make it sound like scrubbing a 747 with a toothbrush. With a little practice, you can turn a RAW file into a finished product in a minute or two with Lightroom. Then you can copy those same adjustments (or a subset thereof) and apply them to another photo. Or another five-hundred photos. Or five-thousand. In ONE operation. It's wise to understand a process before you decide not to apply it.</p>

 

[mac_kennins]

<p>Good day again everyone, now you have to forgive me for not replying to everyone individually as is my courtesy. Since there have been a lot of replies since I last checked. But I feel compelled to get some things out of the way first.</p>

<p>1. This is not a RAW vs. JPEG duel to the death. I don't understand why or how that came about, and I do not intend to broach this subject either. I understand the merits of both, and I have researched the RAW advantage to death. What I simply cannot fathom is why there are so many blind people(excuse my insult) who cannot see where I'm going with this. But who am I kidding? I have lost patience having to explain myself.<br>

To satisfy those who are intent on preaching to the choir. Fine. I agree, RAW is God's boon to digital photography.</p>

<p>2. I know exactly what colour filters do, I've been shooting black and white for a long time. And I know what I'm losing etc etc. by shooting JPEG. But because I use an iPad(more on that later). DNG is of no good use to me. I believe in getting the exposure right the first time, granted I do get it wrong some times, and on some days, quite often if the lights are crazy. Some times yes, fill light is necessary, so editing is necessary. But more often than not the image looks fine to me and my employer straight out of camera. In fact, very often it is my editor that does the cropping or even adding fill light.</p>

<p>Now my question has only ever been;<br>

Is there a way to play with the in-camera settings of the M9 to simulate or get the contrast differences(i.e. with the contrast option) you get if you shoot B/W on film with coloured filters over the lenses?</p>

<p>My intent was to get the "filtered contrast" so to speak straight out of camera with having to do anything in post processing. The variables of me getting the shot right don't matter, I just wanted to know if one could either use in-camera settings or physical filters to replicate the contrast.</p>

<p>If I was not clear before I apologise most profusely for wasting everyone's time, but if that was understood and you proceeded to lecture me on the merits of RAW. Shame on you sir!</p>

<p>Now I tried the 'WB set to daylight and shoot b/w as is with filters' and it did work, to a certain extent, but not in the way I expected. The contrast was more pronounced sans filter(i.e. sky was darker without the red filter than when it was on). Which is very strange to say the least, but then again I have absolutely no clue how digital sensors work.</p>

<p>That said, I believe my only option now is to do conversions as everyone has suggested. Which is rather odd for me but I'll have to live with it.</p>

<p>Now as a final note, just to explain why I'm insistent on the peculiar way I choose to do photography. I'm not a journalist nor am I a wedding photographer. I'm more a travel writer. That said, I travel very light and a lot of things I use are geared towards a lighter/faster way of travel. Yes you can argue that an MBA isn't that much heavier than an iPad. But there's the power cord too, along with the mouse since no one likes editing with a trackpad. As everyone is well aware, the iPad can't process DNGs, so that's why I shoot JPEG. My gear consists of an M9, two lenses, the iPad, a week's worth of clothes and miscellaneous chargers and what not. It's basically one cabin bag so everything's with me all the time and I don't have to wait for my bags at the belt or get delayed in the rare occurrence of losing something in transit. This is off-topic certainly, but I think it's necessary for me to shed some light why I insist on doing what I do. I also don't have a lot of sit down time to process everything for the day before I go to bed, uploading what I like to the iPad and sending it to my boss is perhaps the only time I spend more than a few hours in one place, other than when I'm sleeping of course(even then, it's not always guaranteed I sleep in a bed). If you can't see my reasons for wanting to shoot JPEGs, then let's just leave it at 'I have special needs'. Some people probably think I'm mentally deficient in some way anyway.</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you Stuart and Stuart for the help and the tip with the presets. I'll go have a try with it now. Ray, while I agree that image quality should be optimal. But for all intents and purposes, it is redundant to me because I hardly print, and even when I do, I am quite certain a JPEG from most cameras should hold up well enough to at least 8"x10". And thank you Cory for the post with the examples, it's a lot to digest but it's a good start for me at any rate.</p>

[mac_kennins]

<p>Good day again everyone, now you have to forgive me for not replying to everyone individually as is my courtesy. Since there have been a lot of replies since I last checked. But I feel compelled to get some things out of the way first.</p>

<p>1. This is not a RAW vs. JPEG duel to the death. I don't understand why or how that came about, and I do not intend to broach this subject either. I understand the merits of both, and I have researched the RAW advantage to death. What I simply cannot fathom is why there are so many blind people(excuse my insult) who cannot see where I'm going with this. But who am I kidding? I have lost patience having to explain myself.<br>

To satisfy those who are intent on preaching to the choir. Fine. I agree, RAW is God's boon to digital photography.</p>

<p>2. I know exactly what colour filters do, I've been shooting black and white for a long time. And I know what I'm losing etc etc. by shooting JPEG. But because I use an iPad(more on that later). DNG is of no good use to me. I believe in getting the exposure right the first time, granted I do get it wrong some times, and on some days, quite often if the lights are crazy. Some times yes, fill light is necessary, so editing is necessary. But more often than not the image looks fine to me and my employer straight out of camera. In fact, very often it is my editor that does the cropping or even adding fill light.</p>

<p>Now my question has only ever been;<br>

Is there a way to play with the in-camera settings of the M9 to simulate or get the contrast differences(i.e. with the contrast option) you get if you shoot B/W on film with coloured filters over the lenses?</p>

<p>My intent was to get the "filtered contrast" so to speak straight out of camera with having to do anything in post processing. The variables of me getting the shot right don't matter, I just wanted to know if one could either use in-camera settings or physical filters to replicate the contrast.</p>

<p>If I was not clear before I apologise most profusely for wasting everyone's time, but if that was understood and you proceeded to lecture me on the merits of RAW. Shame on you sir!</p>

<p>Now I tried the 'WB set to daylight and shoot b/w as is with filters' and it did work, to a certain extent, but not in the way I expected. The contrast was more pronounced sans filter(i.e. sky was darker without the red filter than when it was on). Which is very strange to say the least, but then again I have absolutely no clue how digital sensors work.</p>

<p>That said, I believe my only option now is to do conversions as everyone has suggested. Which is rather odd for me but I'll have to live with it.</p>

<p>Now as a final note, just to explain why I'm insistent on the peculiar way I choose to do photography. I'm not a journalist nor am I a wedding photographer. I'm more a travel writer. That said, I travel very light and a lot of things I use are geared towards a lighter/faster way of travel. Yes you can argue that an MBA isn't that much heavier than an iPad. But there's the power cord too, along with the mouse since no one likes editing with a trackpad. As everyone is well aware, the iPad can't process DNGs, so that's why I shoot JPEG. My gear consists of an M9, two lenses, the iPad, a week's worth of clothes and miscellaneous chargers and what not. It's basically one cabin bag so everything's with me all the time and I don't have to wait for my bags at the belt or get delayed in the rare occurrence of losing something in transit. This is off-topic certainly, but I think it's necessary for me to shed some light why I insist on doing what I do. I also don't have a lot of sit down time to process everything for the day before I go to bed, uploading what I like to the iPad and sending it to my boss is perhaps the only time I spend more than a few hours in one place, other than when I'm sleeping of course(even then, it's not always guaranteed I sleep in a bed). If you can't see my reasons for wanting to shoot JPEGs, then let's just leave it at 'I have special needs'. Some people probably think I'm mentally deficient in some way anyway.</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you Stuart and Stuart for the help and the tip with the presets. I'll go have a try with it now. Ray, while I agree that image quality should be optimal. But for all intents and purposes, it is redundant to me because I hardly print, and even when I do, I am quite certain a JPEG from most cameras should hold up well enough to at least 8"x10". And thank you Cory for the post with the examples, it's a lot to digest but it's a good start for me at any rate.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2397502">John Galyon</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 14, 2011; 04:13 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>

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

<br>

<em> </em><br />Such a totally uncalled for ins<a name="00YjIF"></a>ult, 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>Because Mac has an expensive camera and shoots monochrome jpgs. Thus, according to the Photo.net law of probability, it will take no more than ten posts for someone to write a post that totally ignores his question, and instead rails on him for 'not using the camera to its fullest potential.' This very rarely happens when people post similar questions about cheaper cameras. If the same question were asked about a D90 or T2i, the responses would have been much more helpful. Since I don't know anything about Mac but what he wrote, the only difference I can see is the cost of the camera. </p>

<p>Try this: make a post that reads, "Hi guys! I just got an H3D for a graduation present, and I can't figure out how to attach a cable release. Can anyone help me?" Then make a post that reads, "My wife and I have been saving up for a digital camera, and we just bought a used D40. Can someone tell me how to attach a cable release?" I <em>guarantee </em>you that even though the D40 doesn't even have a socket for a cable release, responses will be much more helpful and polite. I also guarantee that at least one person on the Hassy thread will give you lip about not knowing how to use your camera. It's a fact that people with expensive cameras get more flak than not when they ask for help. You can say I'm being insulting; but it's a spade, and I'm calling it a spade.</p>

<p>The over-the-top reactions that people like Mac get are far more insulting that what I said.</p>

 

[douglas lee]

<p>Mac,</p>

<p>Sorry if my comments offended you. Not my intent. In your initial post, you admitted to being new to the digital workflow and didn't mention your workflow included an iPad with limited processing power. I was merely responding to what I perceived (perhaps incorrectly) as the idea that RAW requires additional processing steps than JPG.</p>

<p>If you want to us an M9 to shoot jpg and it works for you, congratulations. Personally, I have finally admitted to myself that I hate post processing and just want to simplify the entire image making process. Regardless, I still shoot dng, but I do not have your limitations (referring to the use of an iPad).</p>

<p>As far as the detour the thread took? It happens frequently.</p>

<p>Take care.</p>

[mac_kennins]

<p>Dear Douglas, your comments did not offend me one bit. It was more the 'others', whom I refuse to name on principle. And despite how irritated I am from certain responses, I don't want to dabble in name calling either. Not that I think it's wrong, rather that since I started the post. I believe it's up to me to maintain some form of decorum and keep it on-topic despite how off-topic it's been so far.</p>

<p>Yes, I didn't think it was necessary to mention the iPad. I was hoping to get responses that were to the point rather than what transpired here(i.e. No it's not possible/Yes, just use Standard contrast for yellow etc.). Seeing as how I was being 'ragged on' as Zack so aptly put it, and knowing I wouldn't get clearer answers if I didn't specify my reasons behind my process, I had to make that lengthy post that ended up double posting too.</p>

<p>The iPad is clearly a drawback, but like I mentioned before. Mobility is of the utmost importance for me. I've finally cut out all the nonsense I don't need for a kit and change of clothes that I actually use. Granted if DNG is my only option, I will naturally find a way to make it work. Regarding the additional steps part, technically in my eyes it still does. If you refine to it's simplest process, JPEG is up and ready to go anywhere you can find an internet connection. RAW still requires me to convert the file into something viewable. It might not seem like a whole lot, but for a style as spartan as mine, one step more, is a step too many.</p>

<p>And Zack, despite how off-topic you are. You certainly have my thanks for making the naysayers see some light(if any, since none of them have replied, and hopefully never will). I was actually considering making a whole new account to ask the exact same question with a different cheaper camera. A camera that of course shared at the very least, the same sensor type. But decided against it because it would require too much research for something so trivial and would be a waste of bandwidth. What that says though, with regards to the "critical opinions", should speak volumes.</p>

<p>Any more advice would certainly be very welcome and you will have my thanks. Any other "critical opinions" can be kept to yourselves and I have but one last thing to say to that end.</p>

<p>If you have nothing better, helpful or constructive to write. Please, for the love of God, tie your fingers up.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Mac -- if it must be in-camera jpegs, then I think someone already mentioned white balance -- that would be a very good way to try to replicate it, if it worked. I just gave it a try though by shooting a black and white jpeg at 2000K and 12800K, the min and max white balance -- it came out looking the same. I think this means that when you shoot black and white in-camera, the camera has its own set channel mixing that does not take into account white balance. So your only real choice is to use the contrast settings in camera (they give you five choices from low to high), and the two black and white settings -- black and white and vintage black and white. Of course, you could just use the color filters as well, as you discussed. Beyond that, all your options will be software based. The M9's user base generally does not have this issue very much (as everyone here has made it clear!), as most people are geared towards shooting DNG. Leica's design philosophy for the m system focuses more on simplicity and clarity than comprehensive features, so they leave out most things like picture modes and lots of jpeg options that you might find in SLRs. <br>

For your ipad, you could look at photoshop express -- that has several different black and white conversion options. There might be another app that does as well....always worth searching. <br>

Finally, if you would rather forget lightroom and presets, you could try Silver Efex, which offers a lot of options for replicating film types and filters etc. Capture One also has several black and white filter presets to choose from. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>So as not to offend the Almighty, all content here will be in direct response to statements and/or questions posted by the O/P.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am wondering if the contrast settings or other settings in camera work at perhaps recreating the effect of colour filters for JPEG images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Contrast, Curves, and Local Contrast controls provide a wide array of useful effects, but they don't replicate the effect of color filters.</p>

<p>It seems to me that you're missing an obvious solution. Why don't you just use the color filters that you already own on your M9 set to monochrome capture?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>considering how little I change to the DNG, it's quite a waste of space isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a waste of space only in cases where the JPEG gives you the results that you are looking for. And even then you can delete the larger files if you don't need them. If one image in one thousand would profit from the extra dynamic range and flexibility of the DNG, why not capture it? Memory cards are relatively cheap, and unlike processed film, you can delete the files that you don't need and reclaim the space.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>In your case portability is of tantamount importance. If RAW processing isn't available for the iPad today (one can imagine that it will be coming soon) perhaps a lightweight computer such as the Macbook Air would be of some utility to the traveling photographer. Just a suggestion. I love my iPad, but I don't process photos on it. A Macbook air isn't much larger or heavier, but it will run just about any program.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is not a RAW vs. JPEG duel to the death. I don't understand why or how that came about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It came about because (a) you said that for your purposes a DNG is a waste of space and (b) because your objective of color filter emulation would be a lot more straightforward if you were working with color RAW files.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shame on you sir!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shame on WHOM? And for WHAT? For explaining the most effective way to reach your stated objective in the digital realm? For explaining this to someone who admittedly has little experience with digital post-processing? Why did you even bother to post the question if you didn't want responses explaining how to do what you claim that you want to do?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As everyone is well aware, the iPad can't process DNGs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have heard of at least one RAW processing app for iPad called piRAWnha, although I haven't used it. Perhaps it would solve your DNG dilemma.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Please, for the love of God, tie your fingers up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please, for the sake of the "decorum" that you claim to defend, you might consider refraining from using the Lord's name in vain when expressing frustration toward others.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>Mac, let me get back on topic ... I haven't used the previously mentioned DNG converter, but you should definitely download it and try it. Obviously nothing in this world is better than shooting it right the first time (effects aside of course), but if it works even somewhat well it might give you some leeway in shooting without adding any other weight.</p>

<p>And sort of on topic, have you tried the LL Bean 'SPF rated' shirts and pants? I forget the real name of them, but they're available through their fishing department. I bought some of these the last time I was at the LL Bean store in Maine, and they just make travel so much easier. The shirts have button-up sleeves, and the pants can zip off into shorts; meaning that I don't need to actually pack separate short and long clothes. They also roll up VERY small, and the lightweight synthetic fiber doesn't absorb body odor as much as cotton, and can be washed (and dried!) much more easily and quickly. The only downside I've found is that they're expensive enough that the first time you spill curry, chili paste, bbq sauce, or anything else that stains on them, you may freak out. That said, I ALWAYS bring some of them when I'm going somewhere warm.</p>

[mac_kennins]

<p>Thanks Stuart, but I tried that a couple of days ago. And the results are conclusive to yours. The camera seems to process black and white on it's own, regardless of what filter is on the lens at the time. It just doesn't work. But with regards to black and white or the vintage option, the vintage option seems to be more of a sepia which is not quite black and white. I believe I will have to shoot RAW if I want any semblance of filtered black and white.</p>

<p>Dan, thanks very much for your direct and to-the-point answer. At least now I know. About the other points, I accept your criticism on all but one. Namely why I was surprised to find this topic degenerating into a duel. Simply put, I believed I asked a very simple question. I may have used the terms RAW and JPEG a bit, but it was to outline what I wanted. No where did I say I didn't know how to make a B/W conversion, nor did I ever request for help on making the best B/W images. I thought it would have been clear that if for example I produce stellar JPEG images in no need of further post-processing but just lacking the punch shall we say, of a colour filter. This is perhaps the crux of the issue, people do not seem to get that I want to refrain from processing. I will reiterate a point I made in an earlier post. A simple answer would have sufficed. "No, it's not possible to reproduce filtered contrast with in-camera settings" or "Yes, just use the five levels of contrast settings". Now I know the answer is no, and I thank you.</p>

<p>On to Zack, about piRAWhna. I have tried it, but it wasn't quite up to par. Not to say the program is bad, rather it's just the limitations of an iPad processor. It would be ideal if one processed say 10 images a day, but even then it would take a ridiculous amount of time. Although computer tech is something I'm not in the least fluent at. I highly doubt the iPad can ever process RAW competently and without hiccups in it's lifetime, even if an app were to have itself "optimized" for the system. It's an interesting idea though, maybe when the third or fourth-generation iPad/tablet pokes it's head up, there might be a possibility.</p>

<p>About the clothes, no I haven't tried them. But you're not the first to mention them, however with another recommendation I believe it's time to at least give them a try. Thanks for the tip. Personally I just use wrinkle-free shirts and cheap pants that can do the zip-away-to-shorts conversion. Of course I still keep a formal dinner suit with me at all times, it's about the only thing I cannot get rid off. And it also accounts for a third of my bag space since I have to pack shoes and a coat with it as well.</p>

[dan_south]

I find that Internet discussion are very duel-inspiring. At least we no longer use real bullets as in the 18th Century.

Aaron Burr would have loved these fora, I suppose.