[LRflex] DMR raw images: lack of consistency

[LEICAFLEX <leicaflex@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bill - Thanks for your interesting comments on the lack of
consistency in DMR raw images.  I have seen the same in every single
digital camera, incl. Fuji + Canon SLR's as well as Point-n-shoot
SONY's, Nikon's, etc.  Actually the Point-in-shoots were a lot more
even -tempered, since they must already have 'smart' algorithms to
ensure the results from different angles of the same scene are more
homogeneous.  I think the manufacturers by definition leave RAW images
as 'unprocessed' as possible ~ altho' Leica seems to be defining a new
standard with their digital negative concept.

In engineering terms, the 'transfer function' for reflected light from
scene subject to digital sensor is much more complicated than that to
film.  So many variables in between, incl. sensor physics, no. of bits
of A/D converter, dynamic range, color depth and firmware color
tweaking/encoding, IR filters along the light path, etc.  (Leica's
solution to have the IR filter IN FRONT of the M-lens, rather than
just in front of the sensor plane seems to make for better Physics
sense to me ~ but that's another thread for another day).

In film photography this is more predictable because the primary
variable is the lens and the coatings on the lens/ outer filter.  For
the digital world, I sincerely doubt that one will be able to
standardize the expected results across the spectrum (no pun intended)
of digital camera manufacturers.  Having said that, in my humble
digital camera experience since the year 2000, I have come to expect a
certain type of result for the Fuji S-series sensors, another for the
Canon 20D, and yet another for the SONY/Nikon/CASIO
point-n-shoots......and I have only compared JPEG's - so sorry if this
is a "weak" personal experiential statement.   I haven't ventured into
Leica-R DMR territory but I would hazard a guess that it still lacks
the dynamic range of film when it comes to contrasty subjects.  With
film, I can still "pull" details out of the negative/slide in shadow
or very bright areas using Photoshop.

For instant gratification and reportage work flow, nothing beats
digital......but when it comes to consistency of results and
predictability of colors with least amount of post-processing, a
scanned neg or slide still gets my vote!

Cheers to all!
~ Eric Chan


------------------------------

From: William Abbott <wbabbott3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [LRflex] Re: L1-Vario- Couple of shots
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:58:31 -0800

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your cat picture to go along with Phillipe's lovely
Sphinx. I remember those cats fondly from my days in Japan many years
ago.

You wrote "Notice how the absence of auto-white balance in using film
has allowed the play of artificial and sun light to add mood to the
scene... leading into the film vs digital thing."

I've complained in this forum about the lack of consistency exhibited
in a series of DMR raw images I made of a path in a forest, images of
shade and sunlight taken from both shade and sunlight, using both the
Auto WB setting and again with a single WB setting.

Not like "film," and there is no reason it should be, because the
physics are much different. The raw output of the  digital sensor is
different than the effects of the same set of photons on a film
emulsion. The twain shall never meet. I can accommodate almost any
output in some way as long as it is consistent.

I am told that improved image firmware will ameliorate if not
eradicate this anomaly and I hope so. I have no experience with Nikon
or Canon Auto WB with raw images but I am curious about how they've
handled consistency, knowing they face the same physics.

I can always use tiff or jpeg mode, with their consistent "Leica-
chrome" images, but I'd like the advantages which raw digital
negatives provide. Adobe CS2 offers an Auto WB option for DNG files
that almost accomplishes my consistency need but I need to do some
more experimenting.

Yes, I want my cake and I want to eat it too!

I am now trying a demo of Alien Skin Software's "Exposure"
application, a US$ 199 plug-in for Adobe CS (or later), which
directly addresses consistency. It is a post-processing application
that enables the image output of a DNG file to mimic a wide variety
of Kodachrome and Fuji films plus a few GAF and Agfa films, using a
split screen to enable visual comparison (Hurray!) of the original
and the modified image. Other effects such as sharpening, grain,
focus, etc. are included. For a look, go to:

http://alienskin.com/exposure/index.html

I'll share my conclusions when I can.

All my best,

Bill
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

• Follow-Ups:
  • [LRflex] Re: DMR raw images: lack of consistency
    • From: Douglas Herr

Other related posts:

[LRflex] DMR raw images: lack of consistency

[LRflex] Re: DMR raw images: lack of consistency