Unexpected system crash, and image from Nikon Df

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

BUT… that would be misleading to me, as if I looked at the image review screen, it might make a huge difference - because then the camera configures the image to show me based on the selected white balance, set by me, or set by the camera

Yup. To my mind, that’s one of the biggest “dangers” of the preview screen. A lot of people setup things on the camera to give them a pleasing image on the review screen (which is a jpeg image created by the camera) even if they are shooting RAW.

However, what you see there can bear absolutely no resemblance to how a finished RAW image can look after processing. So you end up shooting for this or that WB only to find that, when you see the image on a screen that is bigger than 2" diagonal, it really wasn’t anything like that at all.

I use the review screen mainly for checking composition and to find out that I just exposed at such a low speed that I’ve got movement blur I learnt a long time ago that it bears as much resemblance to the finished picture as does a colour negative, complete with its orange substrate, or a B&W negative.

@mikemyers

That means one of the first steps in editing in PL4 will be adjusting the WB either to what I knew it was when I captured the photo, or by guessing, or by using the “white picker tool”.

I use 5600°K because I can then instantly tell if the subject was “cool” or “warm” with relation to “daylight” when I shot it.

Here’s a series of shots of some Clematis flowers that I shot through different colour correction filters to simulate the light at different times. The question is, what is the right WB and how would I go about measuring it either in the camera or in post-processing?

Had I used either auto-WB or the Preset Manual, I would still not be certain of getting it right, due to the amount of green light being reflected from the surrounding foliage, not to mention the red brick building behind me and the fact that I was in north-facing shade. So that’s a bit of extra green, red and blue to take into account.

In this case, I would possibly be best walking away from the immediate vicinity of the subject, into a more open area where I could see the sky behind me, and using Preset Manual mode to establish some kind of “normal”.

Or I could simply shoot at 5600°K and adjust it to taste later

@mikemyers

… the WB setting depends on the light, meaning ALL of the light, which may be sunlight, or whatever, and ALSO reflected light, perhaps from the water and the sky, and who knows what else

Which is why I never bother with auto-WB - there’s just too many factors that can contribute to the camera getting it wrong.

@mikemyers

… leaving the WB setting on “auto” since I’m going to have to adjust it in PL4 anyway? The benefit of doing so is the ‘jpg preview’ image I see in my review screen is likely to be closer to what I saw with my eyes?

Learn to mistrust the review screen

@mikemyers

This is to allow you to use your camera as a color exposure meter??

What you aimed at, in the light existing at that moment, will be measured and displayed?

That’s the general idea.

@mikemyers

I don’t think I understand the reason for doing this…??

Adjusting for a dominant colour where you have complex and/or mixed lighting that can change - think things like concerts where colour accent lighting is used and you want to avoid having to change every image in post-processing. e.g. (unadjusted)

@George

It’s part of her workflow. But you don’t gain anything from it.

You’re right, it is part of my workflow and it has made my life easier for many years But, of course, others may work differently.

[George]

@Joanna,
With the examples with the chair you used the colormeter. Where did you aim the colormeter on. I never used one but I would think to the light source. And that light source didn’t change between the 2 images, I suppose.

@Joanna

… where you can take a reference WB shot and save the value as a preset. I have used this to save me having to take my colour meter with me to complex lighting venues like concerts. and mixed street lighting.

How do you take that reference wb shot. I know the camera but where do you aime to.

George

[mikemyers]

@George

It’s part of her workflow. But you don’t gain anything from it.

After reading all the above, I think I do (finally) understand both what you have been writing.

My conclusion for all of this, is if I am shooting in raw, to leave the WB set to 5600 and assume it will not be correct until I adjust it in my editor (PL4). Since for most of my image editing in PL4 I’m adjusting the WB, while I may not gain anything from this, I’m not going to lose much either. Once I start doing this, it means I am probably going to need to adjust the WB in PL4 for every image I edit, but I’m already doing that. It also means I need to ignore the WB for all images viewed on my review screen. I’ve been trying to get out of the habit of looking at those screens at all anyway - but it’s a difficult habit to break. I don’t consider WB on those screens, but I do sometimes confirm my depth of field, and maybe my focus. Also, sometimes I re-adjust my POV if I’m including extra stuff in my frame that I don’t want.

I guess I should be using my M10, not the Nikon. The Leica has a minimum of auto-anything. I guess I need to decide what metering method works best for me - spot, center-weighted, and average. I have a feeling that center-weighted will get me the most appropriate starting point, if I set it while aimed at the center of interest in my viewfinder.

[George]

Use whatever you want to use.
Under normal circumstances the awb is perfect. For me up to 90%. Problems are with exposure and dynamic range. White balance is becoming a main issue when reproducing things like paintings, fashion and some more. Not with the shots of the bay.
There’re also situations when you don’t want the wb being ‘perfect’ by example with sunset. It will kill the warm feeling.
Looking at Joanna’s pictures of that chair, there’s for sure a big difference between the preset pictures.

George

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@George

Where did you aim the colormeter on. I never used one but I would think to the light source. And that light source didn’t change between the 2 images, I suppose.

You hold the meter so that its sensor window points to the light source, usually over your shoulder.

@George

How do you take that reference wb shot. I know the camera but where do you aime to.

Aim in the direction of your subject. I have Lee Filters translucent filter ring covers and I use that as a diffuser.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I have a feeling that center-weighted will get me the most appropriate starting point, if I set it while aimed at the center of interest in my viewfinder.

Centre-weighted works like average but just adds more importance to the centre area.

It’s what I use most of the time for “non-serious” work.

[George]

@Joanna

You hold the meter so that its sensor window points to the light source, usually over my shoulder.

Why do you get a colour temperature of 5150 and 8580 in the same sun? It is vissible in the gray/white parts.
And I would like to know what the awb result was t compare.

George

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@George

Why do you get a colour temperature of 5150 and 8580 in the same sun?

Because when the sun is behind you, it gives a warmer light than when blue sky is behind you.

[George]

I misread. You aime to the subject.
But I thought a color temperature correction is based on the source. If you use the subject, what is the difference with the camera awb?

George

I don’t know what I read anymore. You face the subject and you aim the meter to the back of you. Sorry for misreading.

George

[mikemyers]

@George

Use whatever you want to use.
Under normal circumstances the awb is perfect. For me up to 90%. Problems are with exposure and dynamic range. White balance is becoming a main issue when reproducing things like paintings, fashion and some more. Not with the shots of the bay.
There’re also situations when you don’t want the wb being ‘perfect’ by example with sunset. It will kill the warm feeling.

I suppose I could keep notes on every photo I take, and when I get around to editing it, I’ll have a head-start on what to do. I’m not that organized. I walked around with the M10 today, and probably captured 10 images that I may want to edit (some of which I tried different settings and angles). The WB was set to 5600. Exposure was set first by Sunny-16, more or less, or viewing the red dots in the viewfinder indicating when the exposure was close, and then re-adjusted when necessary based on the microscopically small histogram from the M10. I’ll work on them later today.

For the whole day, today, WB stayed at 5600. I don’t think looking at the relatively small viewing screen on the back of the M10, while standing in sunlight, is going to give me useful information about white balance.

My experience is that 99% of the people I interact with tell me not to use auto-white-balance. From my discussions with Joanna earlier, I can see why standardizing at 5600 and adjusting in PL4 sounds reasonable.

I probably should have brought the Sekonic with me. I’ll give that a try tomorrow.

For most of my shots today, I sort of treated the M10 as if it was a LF camera. No tripod, but each shot was captured carefully, after checking the borders. When I came upon a huge iguana sunning itself, all that careful shooting went out the window. I took a shot, as best I could, moved my feet a little forward, and repeated. I got as far as I dared, before I was starting to feel uncomfortable - and about then, the iguana went dashing off. During all that time, the only adjustment I was making, was using the M10 rangefinder to focus on the iguana’s eye. I don’t think Joanna would do this - LF film costs too much. For me, “film” is free, and I kept improving my view, taking a shot, then getting closer. I got my best shots when the camera was held very low, but I didn’t feel comfortable squatting on the ground.

Changes since yesterday were to position the camera so the distance from camera to subject stayed more constant. Even if none of the shots turn out, which I certainly do NOT expect, I had an enjoyable time taking them.

One last thing - with ALL of the M10 settings available on the top of the camera (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) it was more enjoyable using the M10 than the Df. As to focusing, the M10 was more satisfying, as it was left for me to do. The Df does it for me. The Df feels like a machine. The M10 feels like an extension of ME.

…and one last last thing - I’m starting to consider what I will do in PL4 as I’m taking the image. I never felt that way before, until the thumbnails showed up on my display at home. Because of the huge, bright, multi-function display on the Df, it would seem that the opposite should be true, but the lack of all that extra information has me just seeing the image (and the tiny histogram in the upper left).

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Centre-weighted works like average but just adds more importance to the centre area.

It’s what I use most of the time for “non-serious” work.

For “serious” work, where you need to control the entire image, I agree with you. For me, most of the time, the parts of an image I’m most interested in, are sort of towards the center. I used to use “averaging”, and then I thought I might benefit from “spot”, but with the Leica it’s more difficult to know where the exact center is. No such issue on the Nikon DSLR.

If I was setting the camera up on a tripod, and wanted to make the first shot as close to perfect as I could, I guess knowing a lot more might be a good idea. Looking at your images, I can understand that. Looking at most of my images, it would be difficult to accomplish, for the types of photos I usually make.

But yes, if I was making a photo to get printed, I would need to be MUCH more careful, and probably working more like the way you do. I guess this is where the “Zone System” is so useful.

[mikemyers]

Results of two images from today.

The tree trunk was done with DxO Filmpack. Using Silver Efex Pro gave me more default choices, but I guess I can customize the way the image looks in B&W until I’m satisfied. The lower photo of the plant is perhaps more interesting to me, as it’s obvious how the plant is reproducing near the lower part of the image. I was tempted to put my Iguana photo here, but I want to think about it some more. If I show the whole iguana, it’s small and boring. If I crop in to show the head, it gets much more exciting.

I used a much smaller aperture for the trunk photo, to try to keep more of the tree trunk in focus. But, that makes the wood chips and the grass look too distracting. I like the composition, but there is no “action”, no “movement”. Hopefully the rough bark on the tree trunk makes up for that.

I’ve obviously got a LOT more to learn about Film Pack.

L1001921 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng (29.7 MB)

L1001921 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng.dop (12.8 KB)

L1001947 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng (31.3 MB)

L1001947 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng.dop (11.7 KB)

[mikemyers]

I don’t think I’m going to get my iguana photo much better than what you see here, and I don’t know if I’ll ever get an opportunity to take a better photo. The photo was taken at a construction site, so the iguana must be used to heavy machinery and people moving all over making lots of noise. Not sure if I was supposed to even walk in to the area, but there was a huge gate area wide open, and the iguana was apparently taking in the warm sunlight maybe 20 feet away. As I approached it, I would take a photo, get a little closer, take another, then get closer, and so on. When I got to about 3 feet or so, I stopped, took a couple of photos, lowered the camera and my head a little, and so on. I would have liked to get down on the ground, but that didn’t seem safe. I stayed there for a while, and the iguana eventually turned around and scampered off.

If I showed the whole iguana, there would be no sense of scale, and the photo might look boring. So, I cropped until I got what you see here.

As to the camera, focusing with the rangefinder was super-easy - I just focused on the eye. To be honest, I had a feeling that all this would be simpler to do with the DSLR, but it didn’t work out that way. The Leica has all the controls easily accessible, and when it shoots it barely makes any sound. My DSLR would have probably scared the iguana to leave much sooner. For WB, the camera was set to 5600K, and since the photo is obviously in bright sunlight, I figured that should be good.

L1001971 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng (30.6 MB)

L1001971 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng.dop (11.5 KB)

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I used a much smaller aperture for the trunk photo, to try to keep more of the tree trunk in focus. But, that makes the wood chips and the grass look too distracting. I like the composition, but there is no “action”, no “movement”. Hopefully the rough bark on the tree trunk makes up for that

IMHO, this is one of those photos that seemed like a good idea at the time but, in reality, is never going to be that great. I should know, I’ve taken quite a few like that myself

Nonetheless, here’s my attempt…

Instead of using Style - Toning to convert to B&W, I used the Fuji Neopan™Acros 100 film rendering, then fiddled around with a few things and, in the end, applied a local adjustment to slightly blur the background. It’s not great but it helped to separate out the tree a bit more.

The other thing I tried was to apply a split toning…

Here’s the dop with your version and my two added…

L1001921 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng.dop (646,8 Ko)

Please don’t take this the wrong way but, with the Palm, I wouldn’t have bothered, for much the same reasons that you identified with the first one.

@mikemyers

I don’t think I’m going to get my iguana photo much better than what you see here, and I don’t know if I’ll ever get an opportunity to take a better photo

You are suffering from the lack of a zoom lens and thinking you can crop it later The only problem with doing that is when you find you have taken a stinking good shot that you want to enlarge for the wall, only to find that all you get is a large pixelated image of the crop.

Yes, prime lenses will give you better sharpness but, if you have to crop, you are going to lose lost of that advantage. I had to swallow my pursuit of the ultimate sharpness in order to be able to take photos that would enlarge to the kind of size I like.

Well, I thought that the comparison of the Iguana with the grasses maintained a sense of scale, so I did a slightly wider crop…

… with its dop…

L1001971 | 2021-01-21-M10 Trees, Vegetation.dng.dop (27,3 Ko)

@mikemyers

For WB, the camera was set to 5600K, and since the photo is obviously in bright sunlight, I figured that should be good

Like I said, most of the time, it’s near enough for most of the time and, anyway, applying a bit of selective saturation with the colour wheel has changed the tonality (for better or for worse)

Please don’t take my edits as definitive, they are just ideas that may or may not affect how you do your edits.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Please don’t take this the wrong way but, with the Palm, I wouldn’t have bothered, for much the same reasons that you identified with the first one.

I never take critical comments “the wrong way”. I’ll never improve if 20 people say how great something I did was, but I am very likely to improve of those same 20 people write what they didn’t like - and why. When Gregor wrote to me, he was always negative - but I gave him a “star” because I know he likes them. (Me? I don’t use “stars” or “likes” or other social media stuff like that.) Mixed in with his words, there was usually something I found helpful.

I’m not even using this editing software properly - I think I should be using it to create art, but the reality is I’m mostly using it to learn how to use it. I think the best way to learn something, is by doing it. Just reading about it isn’t enough.

Of course, if I’m mostly using it to learn how to use it, I’m also editing images that I’ll likely place on my SmugMug gallery. It’s all enjoyable, and often, like just now, it leaves me with questions as to HOW other people achieved the effects they create - like n making the background less detailed, showing off the tree better. I need to re-read that, and try it myself so I can do it from now on.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Instead of using Style - Toning to convert to B&W, I used the Fuji Neopan™Acros 100 film rendering, then fiddled around with a few things and, in the end, applied a local adjustment to slightly blur the background. It’s not great but it helped to separate out the tree a bit more.

The other thing I tried was to apply a split toning…

I’m not sure yet how to do any of that. I will try to read up and experiment with each of them later today. Where would I look to find choices such as “Fuji Neopan”? I went into Film Pack, but maybe I didn’t dig around as deeply as I should have.

I’ll go back to the “vertical view” as you did - it simplifies the photo, instead of my eye not knowing where to go.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

You are suffering from the lack of a zoom lens and thinking you can crop it later The only problem with doing that is when you find you have taken a stinking good shot that you want to enlarge for the wall, only to find that all you get is a large pixelated image of the crop.

Yes, prime lenses will give you better sharpness but, if you have to crop, you are going to lose lost of that advantage. I had to swallow my pursuit of the ultimate sharpness in order to be able to take photos that would enlarge to the kind of size I like.

Well, I thought that the comparison of the Iguana with the grasses maintained a sense of scale, so I did a slightly wider crop…

Yep, true. Maybe I’ll need to go back to my Nikon for “walkabout” shooting. For starters, there are no zoom lenses for the Leica, and Leica lenses are priced as if they were made from gold. I do have a Leica 90mm, which would have helped, but all I had on me was the camera and the standard 50. I guess I should dust off my gadget bag, and start taking it with me.

I first cropped the iguana photo pretty much like you did, and I liked what I saw, but on SmugMug or an email, people will just see an iguana and move on. Then I zoomed in - a lot - even though it meant cropping. I think that view will stop people in their tracks, and they’ll stare at it for a while.

Having said all that, a longer focal length lens would have gotten me the same end result, without so much cropping, and I could then print it and get something nice, rather than a pixel map. …meaning that my 90mm lens would have been more useful to me in a gadget bag, than sitting at home.

Good thing you mentioned all this - maybe I’ll buy another (smaller) gadget bag, big enough for a long lens, some filters, and my meter. The bag I have now is quite big.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Instead of using Style - Toning to convert to B&W, I used the Fuji Neopan™Acros 100 film rendering, then fiddled around with a few things and, in the end, applied a local adjustment to slightly blur the background. It’s not great but it helped to separate out the tree a bit more.

The other thing I tried was to apply a split toning…

I have never used, or even considered “split toning”. Going back and forth between your two images, the split toning does something amazing - it’s still sort of a black&white print, but I see color!

Now I need to go through all your settings, to find out how you selected “Acros”, how you used and configured the split toning, and how you blurred the wood chips. Fascinating!

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

Where would I look to find choices such as “Fuji Neopan”? I went into Film Pack, but maybe I didn’t dig around as deeply as I should have

You don’t need to go into FilmPack standalone version it should be integrated into PhotoLab.

Three things you can do to check it is activated and available:

Check if it is activated…

Check the palette is available…

Add the palette to the righthand side (or left if you prefer) and, once you have organised the palettes and tools how you want, save the workspace under a name of your choosing…

---

There are two ways to select a film:

1. Use the Color Rendering tool

Select the film type…

Then select the film itself…

2. Use @mwsilvers’ presets

They are available from here…

Updated FilmPack 5 Elite Color Negative Partial Presets

As I indicated in a separate topic this weekend, I discovered an error in my 16 FilmPack 5 Elite Color Negative presets which caused local adjustments to be overlaid. I corrected this error yesterday. Even though the 16 Color Negative presets were the only ones that required an update I included all 82 presets in four folders in the attached upload for those who don’t currently have access to them. . These presets were originally intended for my own use but I discovered that several other Pho…

Once they are installed, you can simply go to the Presets button and see previews of what each film will look like when applied, much like in the standalone version…

@mikemyers

… maybe I’ll buy another (smaller) gadget bag, big enough for a long lens, some filters, and my meter.

Don’t forget that every time you change lens, you stand the risk of getting dust on the sensor. My “walkabout” lens is the Nikon 28-300mm (see Ken Rockwell’s site for a review). It can be a bit soft around the edges but it certainly saves lugging a load of kit around

@mikemyers

I have never used, or even considered “split toning”. Going back and forth between your two images, the split toning does something amazing - it’s still sort of a black&white print, but I see color!

All I can say is - use it with caution; it can make a real mess if done wrong. Here’s a screenshot of what I did with your shot…

… but you really need to play with the settings to see how, or even if, it works best for a particular image.

Here’s a shot of some weird tree roots that I tried to rescue using it. In my own opinion, I was “throwing good money after bad”

@mikemyers

… how you blurred the wood chips

It was a hand-drawn brush mask in local adjustments…

What I have done is far from perfect - I needed to spend more time refining the edge of the mask by zooming in a lot more and carefully choosing the amount of feathering on the brush. What you won’t see is how, sometimes, I brushed over the boundary to the tree trunk and had to use the eraser to remove it from the other side.

Once again, lots of playing is required to get the hang of this particular tool

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

You don’t need to go into FilmPack standalone version it should be integrated into PhotoLab.

Three things you can do to check it is activated and available:

Check if it is activated…

Check the palette is available…

Add the palette to the righthand side (or left if you prefer) and, once you have organised the palettes and tools how you want, save the workspace under a name of your choosing…

FilmPack added itself to the right side “palette”. That happened when I activated Film Pack.

But, my “WorkSpaces” only show “DxO Standard”, and “DxO Advanced”. I see you have three additional workspaces, “Detached Browser”, “Dual Screen”, and “Joanna”. Why would I want to create additional workspaces? It seems to me that anything additional I configured, just became part of the “Advanced” workspace ???