• 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 / The Bleeding Edge / Leica M240 green shadows

Leica M240 green shadows

September 6, 2013 JimK 2 Comments

I thought it might help to get a handle on the M240 green shift when pushed in post to look at the M240’s performance compared to another camera. Was this something that all cameras did, and I’d just never set up the right test conditions? I decided to construct a test image set calculated to show the green shift in the shadows and compare the M240 to the Sony RX1. It’s a reasonable comparison. Both full frame. Both 24 megapixels (but the Leica image is slightly smaller, at 5984×3992, versus 6000×4000 for the Sony). I put the Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon on the Leica. It seemed like a fair comparison to the fixed Zeiss 35mm f/2 lens on the RX1. As it turned out, both lenses were up to the task.

I went back to the bookcase, and made exposures with both cameras at ISO 3200 that were about four stops down from ETTR. It wasn’t as simple as it sounds. Turns out the RX1 is about one stop more sensitive than the M240 when the two camera are set to identical ISOs. I guess that’s not a surprise. There’s no standard for ISO setting in a digital camera. [Historical footnote: ISO was once a standard that meant something, with a rigorous procedure; it was used to define film speed. In the digital era, it means whatever the camera manufacturer wants it to mean.]

I picked an exposure that wouldn’t clip in either camera: f/8 at 1/125 at ISO 3200. With each camera, I made the above exposure, then made four more pictures at the same exposure at ISO 1600, 800, 400, and 200.

I brought all ten images into Lightroom. I turned off all noise suppression. I applied a +1 EV Exposure boost to the ISO 1600 images, +2 EV to the ISO 800 images, +3 EV to the ISO 400 images, and +4 Ev to the ISO 200 images.

The color balance of the M240 and the RX1 images were different. I had been using Auto WB. I turned it off, and set the WB for all 10 images to 4200K, +10 tint.

I exported the files as layers to Photoshop. I added an exposure adjustment layer to bring the values up to near that of the original scene, but remember, we’re looking at shadow detail and shadow color balance in all the images. I also added a +1EV Exposure layer for use with the M240 images; that brought their values into the same ballpark as the RX1.

We’ll look at the overall scene first, res’d down to 600×400 for the web.

RX1, ISO 3200:

rx13200oa

M240, ISO 3200:

m2403200oa

RX1, ISO 1600 + 1 EV:

rx11600oa

M240, ISO 1600 + 1 EV:

m2401600oa

RX1, ISO 800 + 2 EV:

rx1800oa

M240, ISO 800 + 2 EV:

m240800oa

RX1, ISO 400 + 3 EV:

rx1400oa

M240, ISO 400 + 3 EV:

m240400oa

RX1, ISO 200 + 4 EV:

rx1200oa

M240, ISO 200 + 4 EV:

m240200oa

As you can see, the green shift when the raw image is pushed in post is an M240 problem that doesn’t show up in the RX1. Is this the way all M240s behave, or do I have a bad one? Hmm. this needs some more work.

The Bleeding Edge, The Last Word

← Leica M240 banding, part 3 Leica M240 green shadows, part 2 →

Comments

  1. Ron says

    September 7, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    I have an underexposed ISO 200 M240 DNG file from someone who shared images on a photo forum early in the M240’s release. It requires a 5-stop push in LR and definitely reveals a green cast in darker values. Lighter mid tones and highlights look decent. Playing with the Shadow Tint slider in the Camera Calibration section of LR4 and moving it slightly to the magenta side somewhat compensates for the green cast. The image still doesn’t look quite right, but can be salvaged to an acceptable appearance by tweaking WB and tint along with the shadow tint values.

    Reply
  2. Jim says

    September 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Thanks, Ron. I’m in contact with someone who is sending me a series similar to the one in this post, but made with another M240.

    Jim

    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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.