New Puts article

[ho_co]

Very insightful as usual.

Digital machinery and the photographic image (June 25, 2008)

[jacarape]

I can't get my head around anyone that calls film analog.

The kicker was the following:

"This type of processing is not mechanical, as is the case with chemical development."

WTF? Thiis the last time I ever glance at his drivelings.

[sdai]

Mr. Puts needs to walk out from his ivory tower and join our discussions ... in the mean time, it's great to hear that they've failed to fit an AF motor into the R lens and I think it needs to be pointed out, there's nothing wrong with the engineers, if the management wants it, can they say no? ... a great reality check, absolutely fabulous news to me.

Leica needs to understand the reason why people are still buying Porsche is simply because that Toyota/Honda doesn't make a car like it (no that they can't). If I'm interested in AF, why would I waste my time waiting for so many years?

[ho_co]

Yeah, there were also people who couldn't understand at first when Mr Puts commented that digital meant the death of photography.

Mike Johnston picked up on the idea and despite simplifying it still got a lot of negative feedback. Then Newsweek mentioned the concept, and before long a lot of people who at first 'just didn't get it' kinda got the hang of it.

As Erwin says, it's hard to see a paradigm shift when we're in it.

I for one am glad we've got people like him who don't mind thinking, so that we needn't spend all our time on some 'numbers tell the story' news sites which haven't figured out which numbers mean something and which don't.

Thanks, Simon and jacarape, for taking a look. Simon, if you read his articles regularly, you'll see that he keeps up closely with this forum.

[luigi bertolotti]

He thinks, tests, writes, shares his view, and that's appreciable anyway, apart the personal evaluations on some specific issue. For me, for instance, this sentence in the quoted last article was someway of interest :

"
In the imaging chain, the role of the lens is becoming less important and the role of the software is now the main engine for image recording and representation. "

Is a consideration that, maybe not so straightly expressed, had emerged many times in my mind.... even if my impression is that this is not intrinsic in the "nature" of digital photo... it has to do with the fact that almost everyone has the chance & the tools to use this "engine" .... with film one could say that the "main engine" is the film development process : looking at Puts' exaples of "extreme" PP, probably one could have got similar values with some kind of "extreme" formulas and conditions of film process: but the fact is that there are/were very FEW people that can master the chem processes, expecially at the point to get "extreme" results. Of course, with digital almost any possible tool can be easily used by everyone.

[SJP]

No amount of post-processing will give information that is not there in the first place. It is essential to start with the best possible piece of glass. Postprocessing does allow for easier fine tuning after the event but surely that was the case with film as well (but even more tedious/time consuming)?

The choice of (type of) film is one of the factors that makes the information on film inherently subjective. I would argue that a digital sensor despite it not being 'chemical' is a more accurate and 'objective' medium, adding grain afterward is easy.

[stunsworth]

For internet display post processing can get away with a lot - I know this from personnal experience <grin>, but the larger the final output the more difficult it is to get away with covering up defects in post processing.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by sdai

...in the mean time, it's great to hear that they've failed to fit an AF motor into the R lens...

That's not what he said, he was explaining the difference between that decision being made by management or engineering in a theoretical sense.

[bananensplit]

My eye-opener with respect to the shift of possibilities from lenses to software was the function in Lightroom to correct the darkening of corners in pictures taken with wide-angle lenses.

I think there is not just a shift from lens to software but also from the camera as being the dominant tool in the process to the computer. Camera manufacturers are trying to avoid this by adding numerous image processing functions: Sony allows you to manipulate a face to change an serious looking person into a smiling one, the function is called "Happy Faces".

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by SJP

No amount of post-processing will give information that is not there in the first place. It is essential to start with the best possible piece of glass. Postprocessing does allow for easier fine tuning after the event but surely that was the case with film as well (but even more tedious/time consuming)?

The choice of (type of) film is one of the factors that makes the information on film inherently subjective. I would argue that a digital sensor despite it not being 'chemical' is a more accurate and 'objective' medium, adding grain afterward is easy.

In this sense, I tend to agree... I speculate that nowadays, to judge a lens, the most "objective" test is probably to analyze a bitmap... but the sensor technology is in such a development curve that defining some "standard references" (like the old "Ilford PAN F developed with...") is hard to envision.

[JBA]

Personally, I do not find Puts' writing to be very engaging or readable. He is too often abstrusely technical where a simpler explanation would suffice.

Quibbles aside, I found his conclusion quite reassuring.

The Leica M8 in its current state is not the best example of Leica’s engineering genius, but it is a clear statement that Leica wants to emphasize classical values and optical performance in an age where these properties are in danger of becoming footnotes in the relentless shift from mechanics to software superiority.

With this emphasis Leica is also setting the stage for a style of photography that clearly does not rely that heavy on software processing.

[Shootist]

I disagree with his thought on the shift, capture process view (film) and capture view process (digital), in that the original processing with film was to get something you could view before you actually processed the negatives one more time, or more in the case of making a contact sheet, for the final print. What has been taken out is the developing of the negatives.
What he never made a contact sheet so he could see what images he really wanted to print?
What has really changed is now I don't have to wait to finish a roll of film to see just what I had captured, I don't have to use chemicals to see those images in any form, the hand manipulated wand and hand cut out mask has been replaced by the mouse and keyboard. I also don't need a special room with running water and special lighting to partake in a art/hobby/vocation we all truly enjoy.

[Rolo]

Originally Posted by JBA

Personally, I do not find Puts' writing to be very engaging or readable. He is too often abstrusely technical where a simpler explanation would suffice.

Regardless of the readability, he has been my standard reference for a number of years. I've used the information he provides and been influenced substantially by what he writes.

I wouldn't dream of buying a leica lens or body without referring to what he's had to say about it. I do refer to others and common discussion on the Forums as well. I take absolutely no notice of what some reviewers have to say - Ken Rockwell, Mike Johnston et al as I find their opinions shallow, poorly researched and self promoting. Their ability to write far outweighs their photographic understanding and capability. Rockwell is a liability as he'll review a lens he's never seen, for example.

Puts is narrow, thorough and reliable. His information is free. Not everything makes good reading, but I take from him what I want and am generally very pleased when he publishes another article.

Rolo

[Peter Branch]

One must remember that for Mr Puts, like many forum members, English is not his first language. When he uses the word “mechanical” I think what he means is more usually expressed by the word “mechanistic”. If I’m correct then he is absolutely right. Once you develop a film in the manner recommended by the manufacturer then you will get a predictable result. The scope for varying the result, despite what suppliers might claim, is actually small. This is not true of the digital world where DNG file say can be processed in all manner of software and the results can be significantly different. In other words the result is a function of the software, the settings applied and the preferences of the operator.

It is an interesting debate about the information content maintained in the image at the various stages. In the film world, which is semi analogue, as at the limit it becomes random digital, it was a constant battle to get the information onto the print. Many posts on this forum seem not to appreciate the differences that the enlarging / printing stage made. Enlargers and their lenses often had a very significant effect on the final outcome. In this digital world we chose when to discard information and very often apply “sharpening” which paradoxically discards a lot of information. With film the attempts to increase “sharpness” where normally centred on the film development stage. Kodak introduced HD Developer, (the work of Dr Farnell in the Kodak Ltd Research Labs.), this certainly had the visual effect of increasing “sharpness” due to enhanced edge effects but it at the same time reduced absolute resolution.

The CEO of Eastman Kodak has argued in public that we have not yet exploited the potential of software in cameras. He has pointed out that the software could be far and away the most cost effective way of “correcting” lens errors. That is to say lenses that exhibit significant defects such as distortion, vignetting, colour artefacts etc can be used and these can be much less expensive to produce. It is worthy of comment, and Mr. Puts has done so, that Leica seems to have taken an opposite approach and frankly has not yet demonstrated that this gives superior images; hence the constant Canon / Nikon comparisons. I think he has a good point.

[delander]

I mostly read Mr Puts comments and find them useful. I do wish we could all stop using the term analogue when we mean film.

In a world where new digital cameras with new gimmicks are introduced every few days I am relieved that Leica in its M8 has not gone far down that road. I have argued for some time that it is becoming more and more that the camera is taking the photo. Others are aghast at this thought and say it is just a tool however multifunctional it is.

Watched the European football championship on TV? Seen those 20+ unattended cameras behind the goal?

Jeff

[jacarape]

After reading the article again with the enlightenment of the above posts (no, it's not light reading), I think what he has said is very interesting. On another site we also briefly touched on the lens quality versus cookie cutter sensor technology that redeems inexpensive lens design. In this article he correctly defines it as software driven.

Next time I read his artiles, I'll pay closer attention, but please Mr, Putts, don't rename to analog.

Howard, thank you for posting the link,

Regards,

Michael

[SJP]

This is not true of the digital world where DNG file say can be processed in all manner of software and the results can be significantly different.

True but the DNG file itself is an objective standard. At least 'more objective' than film.

Also to be precise on the silver-halide grain level film is binary (black or white, no other flavors are possible) so analogue is a misnomer.

[sandymc]

I think Irwin's comparison between the boosted E420 and boosted M8 image is a bit deceptive - if you take a close look at the M8 MTF plot, there are components above the Nyquist frequency at the 0.6-0.8 level, partially obscured by the legend. Those would be easily visible as artifacts in a final image, whereas in the E420 image those components are far lower, and would be far less visible. A better comparison would be how far both images could be boosted with the same levels of artifacts in the above-Nyquist range. I think that would show the boosted E420 and boosted M8 image as significantly closer together. Although the M8 image is always going to be better; no way any processing brings up a kit zoom lens to prime lens quality levels.

Sandy

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by sdai

it's great to hear that they've failed to fit an AF motor into the R lens and I think it needs to be pointed out, there's nothing wrong with the engineers,

No maker ever "fit" an AF motor into there existing lenses, all AF lenses were newly designed, other than the optics in some cases. It'd take a helluva motor, and the battery to run it, to turn a R lens focuser fast enough for reliable AF. Most of the one's I had, it was hard enough to do it with my hand. AF lenses have to have easy focusers with short distances to travel.

Leica needs to understand the reason why people are still buying Porsche is simply because that Toyota/Honda doesn't make a car like it (no that they can't). If I'm interested in AF, why would I waste my time waiting for so many years?

Really dumb analagy. Porsche is state of the art. It's got computer traction control so an unskilled driver won't end up upside down in a ditch, and for the uncoordinated there's an auto tranny that can shift better than anyone other than a pro racer can do it manually. Power steering, ABS, airbags, NAV, high-end audio...you name it, Porsche's got it. Other than styling, there's nothing old-school about a new Porsche. If a 2008 Carrera was equipped like a 1985 911, yeah a few people would prolly buy it, just like a few people buy Leica SLR's, but Porsche obviously set there sights on the bigger market and it obviously was a good decision because there selling a ton of them. That's what Leica needs to understand about Porsche.

[jaapv]

<Grin> Actually- Porsche Consulting is heavily involved in Leica - including the workflow in the production line. And quite a substantial part of the R8/R9 design came from Porsche Design.....