• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Leica Q2 Monochrom / Leica Q2 Monochrom highlights at ISO 100 — crops

Leica Q2 Monochrom highlights at ISO 100 — crops

May 25, 2022 JimK 1 Comment

This is the 15th post in a series about the Leica Q2 Monochrom. You can see all the other posts in the series by looking in the Category List drop-down menu on the right side of the page.

In the last post, I discovered some truly weird behavior in the highlights of ISO 100 images made with the Leica Q2 Monochrom.

Test procedure. Using the RRS Q2 plate, I put the Q2M on a sturdy set of RRS carbon fiber legs using an Arca Swiss C1 head. I set the camera to ISO 400 and a quarter of a second. I adjusted the aperture to get mild clipping. Using the self-timer, I made an exposure. The I set the ISO to 200, the shutter speed to 1/2 second, and made another exposure. Finally I set the ISO to 100, the shutter to one second, and made still another exposure.

Processing. I extracted the raw images, normalized them to 16383, so that full scale was now one, downsampled them in  Matlab, added a gamma 2.2 tone curve, and here’s what they look like for ISO 100 and ISO 200:

ISO 100

 

ISO 200

I wrote a interactive cropping method, and looked at the scatter plots various places in the image.

Center-right interior wall

This looks like a smooth gradient. It is clipped at about 72% of full scale. There is a funny glitch just below the clipping point.

Center right wall and floor

What if there’s a lot of high spatial frequencies?

 

Siemens star and wall

 

Pavers outside house

Note the double slipping points. What does that depend on? I’ve no idea.

Now I’ll compare the ISO100 vs the ISO 200 results (in blue) with the ISO 200 vs ISO 400 ones (in orange).

Siemens star

It appears that some widening of the scatter in the high-spatial-frequency parts of the image is due to alignment, since there is some spread — but less spread — in the higher ISO comparison.

Siemens star, wall, and floor

If we zoom out a bit, we can see the saturation better.

Pavers

Note the big spread in the lower-ISO image, and the double clipping point.

Right outside wall and sculpture

This is a lower-spatial -frequency crop.

Wall and slate floor

 

From this test, it’s clear that the camera is doing some kind of processing that depends on he image captured. But just what kind of processing? I haven’t figured that out yet.

 

 

 

 

Leica Q2 Monochrom

← Leica Q2 Monochrom highlights at ISO 100 — graphs Should you use ISO 100 on the Leica Q2 Monochrom? →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    May 26, 2022 at 4:57 am

    I’ve heard that since FF size sensors must be done in two stitched halves on the photolithography machines, you end up with different raw saturation points on each side.

    I’m surprised your double clipping occurs in small subsections of the image like just the pavers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.