M8: "Super Camera" ... or just a super camera?

[frc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brent, count me in, me to I would love to have a digi-body for all the lovely M-glass.

But the M8 as it is now is no option for me, over the time using my lenses I gradualy abandoned the use of filters because of flare and ghost-imaging problems.

Seeing the filter-option being presented as THE solution for the IR-sensitivity by Leica has made me lose hope for the moment. Either the digi Nikon is used or when I've got the choice the film-loaded MP.

Steaking, banding, green blobs, magenta cast, I know it doesn't happen all the time but for my documentary-stuff, where I can take my time it's still film that I choose.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}You are a lot braver than I: I'm not to the point of committing my M8 to "revenue service" yet because I have no faith in its WB. We'll consider that after it gets its "fix" in Germany, hopefully this month already.

 

-g

 

I have no faith in any camera's wb--especially in mixed light. Forget it--you're shooting RAW; fix the WB in post. That's easy and quick (and a lot easier than changing films, Vic, sorry!)

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}Steaking, banding, green blobs, magenta cast, I know it doesn't happen all the time but for my documentary-stuff, where I can take my time it's still film that I choose.

 

The streaking / banding issue is fixed. There's some pictures here on this forum which show the updated hw and firmware fix it.

 

Magenta can be dealt with in profiling too. You don't need to use filters; though with groomsmen and magenta highlights I'd use the filters anyway!

[Jamie Roberts]

No one said it better than you did, Dan. Good job ...

 

Actually, I have to say this, even though I'll get flamed...Sorry Simon, this isn't aimed at you, really...

 

All you're picking with different films are different contrast curves and color responses based on exposures. Oh, and grain characteristics. Yes, that's chef-like, I guess.

 

Then you print and you do the same thing: more curves, more colour and contrast judgements. Anyone who has spent any time in a darkroom at all knows I'm right on this.

 

Of course, if you *don't* go into the darkroom, all you're doing is trusting your lab to make those choices for you.

 

Digital presents exactly the same choices--you just need to address them differently.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

your mk1d is great - im sure it is great - it is fantastic, amazing, it is so detailed that u cacn see the moleculs and sometimes even atoms :-))))))))))))

 

Honestly, Vic, this is quite stupid. The 1ds2 (not 1d2) resolves a lot of information, typically more than 35mm film.

 

Your comments on Marc's internet proofs are IMO, simply quite ridiculous--verging on the absurd. Most of your misgivings on texture and tone are profile and JPEG related (that's what the noise is in the shadows). Not even "net related )" though I have no idea what monitor you use or how it's profiled and calibrated.

 

BTW, the amount of contrast in your shots, to my eye, is completely overdone for colour, 9 times out of 10. It's ok for that "cool" BW look I mastered when I was 20, but I happen to like shadow detail, especially in colour prints.

 

Also, I'd say your notion of contrast ratios for weddings is a wee bit off; the posted image--no shadow detail and blown highlights to boot--is way off and hardly an exemplary film / print picture. Nice midtones, though.

 

Vic, have you spent the *years* necessary to understand how to process and print RAW? Some of the film guys here don't even seem to understand the basics, like white balance in post! That's ok--ignorance of something is just fine. But don't claim a 'truth' out of ignorance.

 

So Vic, let me tell you flat out--an M8 shot (or a DMR shot or 5d or 1ds2 shot, come to that) properly processed from RAW and printed on a Lambda (a wet process) eats 35 film for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

It's got better "texture", better contrast, better DR (now) better colour and archival printing to boot built into the process. Printing on the new K3 Epson inkset is no slouch either.

 

My clients are not just pleased by this. They're thrilled with the kind of quality the M8 and other modern digital cameras are capable of producing.

 

One of my most recent ones is a professor of Fine Art... in Film no less... who is absolutely floored by the quality of the final prints (that was the 1ds2 / 5d with Leica R glass).

 

I can't show this to you over the internet.

 

But before you even begin to question Marc's M8 proofs--cause I'm sure that's what they are given his need to travel--take a breath and consider that perhaps you're really not seeing the whole "picture" here.

 

But I guess ignorance is bliss

[ddp]

Actually, I have to say this, even though I'll get flamed...Sorry Simon, this isn't aimed at you, really...

 

All you're picking with different films are different contrast curves and color responses based on exposures. Oh, and grain characteristics. Yes, that's chef-like, I guess.

 

Then you print and you do the same thing: more curves, more colour and contrast judgements. Anyone who has spent any time in a darkroom at all knows I'm right on this.

 

Of course, if you *don't* go into the darkroom, all you're doing is trusting your lab to make those choices for you.

 

Digital presents exactly the same choices--you just need to address them differently.

 

For the record, the second part of my post on that did address digital:

 

"If one knows how to pick film like a chef picks an ingredient, the outcome of the image is clearly affected. And when going digital, you're dealing with photoshop for post processing."

 

This is not saying that one can be a digital chef - I'm merely commenting that those that choose to use film for whatever reason often choose carefully based on conditions & subject matter.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the record, the second part of my post on that did address digital:

 

"If one knows how to pick film like a chef picks an ingredient, the outcome of the image is clearly affected. And when going digital, you're dealing with photoshop for post processing."

 

Yes, except my point is that by the time you get into PS a lot of your digital choices are made already--contrast, WB, saturation, tone and capture detail--even if you use something relatively simple like ACR--or the camera in the case of a JPEG workflow.

 

Saying you're dealing with PS for post-processing misses the processing step--sort of like saying film is all about the enlarger

 

This is not saying that one can be a digital chef - I'm merely commenting that those that choose to use film for whatever reason often choose carefully based on conditions & subject matter.

 

Yes I agree. Of course, the nice thing about digital is that I can make those choices after the shoot, often times. It's artistically useful, though, sometimes to commit yourself at the time.

[ddp]

Yes, except my point is that by the time you get into PS a lot of your digital choices are made already--contrast, WB, saturation, tone and capture detail--even if you use something relatively simple like ACR--or the camera in the case of a JPEG workflow.

 

Saying you're dealing with PS for post-processing misses the processing step--sort of like saying film is all about the enlarger

 

 

 

Yes I agree. Of course, the nice thing about digital is that I can make those choices after the shoot, often times. It's artistically useful, though, sometimes to commit yourself at the time.

 

Ahhhhh......I didn't make myslef clear in my post...lol. I meant that when I SHOOT digital, I can do my post processing in photoshop. When I shoot film, I am committed at the line of scrimmage in some ways. Hope that clears it up.

[smsmd]

Hi all,

 

I'm new here and still on steep learning curve, but as I read the thread with respect to the choices made for film and digital processing, I started to question what my goals are a bit.

 

To use an analogy, there are many audiophiles who prefer the sound of vintage tube gear. I also find this pleasant, but recognize that I am, in effect, adding distortion to the output to modify the art for my tastes. As I read about picking film for an occasion, I wonder if choices are made once again to produce a pleasant distortion. If I have a menu of many film types, only one at most can reproduce reality accurately, I would think. The "art" becomes the goal at some level.

 

When we say the M8 "crushes" 35mm film under some conditions, do we mean it more accurately reproduces the image reaching the sensor or do we mean that the distortions are more pleasant to our eye than that of film?

 

My M8 has not yet arrived, so I can't make a call from experience. I hope, though, that the M8 accurately reproduces the signal that arrives to it, so I can add the "art" afterwords. With film, I would think that choice is relatively more locked in by film choices.

 

I know the question is more complicated than this, as my perception of reality is itself a distortion, but if I could measure the input-output of the M8 vs film, how would they compare?

 

Thanks and I hope my thinking isn't too opaque,

 

steve

[dannirr]

Question for the original poster. I am not a professional photographer, so I do not know your contracts - but when you post pictures here that you were contracted and paid to make, are you not violating their privacy?

 

Danni

[Jean LeBlanc]

Magenta can be dealt with in profiling too. You don't need to use filters; though with groomsmen and magenta highlights I'd use the filters anyway!

 

Jamie,

 

How does your profile deal with a subject having both black and magenta coloring? If someone is wearing a sweater that's the same magenta color that the M8 produces from some plastics and fabrics, and a black coat, what does the image look like straight from the camera? No filter, of course. ;-)

 

Thanks,

[blakley]

Danni:

 

Like most of the people on this forum, I'm not a lawyer. You could look here for a lawyer's answers to your questions - the book is a good resource and worth a look. Wikipedia has an article on the subject here (though I don't think it's a good idea to take legal advice from Wikipedia). An overview of various national regimes (the answer varies from country to country in the absence of a contract) appears here, and there are other similar articles on the web.

 

Generally speaking, in the USA, according to the lawyers I've spoken to, if you're allowed to take the picture (i.e. if you're in public, or you're in a private space with permission) you're usually allowed to exhibit the picture for non-commercial purposes (and see the Lorca di Corcia case for how far the definition of "non-commercial" extends). But also generally speaking, in the USA, anyone who doesn't like what you've done might sue you, which would cost money even if you won. So if you're getting ready to post a picture you think one of the subjects might not like, getting permission isn't just the right thing to do - it's a good idea. I seriously doubt Marc is confused about any of this, and I'm sure his procedures and contracts have these situations well under control.

 

There seem to be a lot of posts by non-lawyers raising legal issues in this forum; what's up with that?

[jojet]

Hello,

 

Frankly I'm a little bit disappointed with these photo's. I can't honestly see that these pictures arde made with a "super camera". Most pictures don't look tack sharp. I've seen much better photo's here on the forum made with the M8.

 

Although I like the last picture (the group) very much even that shot don't look pin sharp.

 

Perhaps this has something to do with the resizing for the web? Or is it just me who thinks these pictures are not tack sharp? Anyway, these pictures didn't bring a "wow" to me in the sense that they are made with a super camera.

 

 

john

[blakley]

You think the lack of pin-sharpness has anything to do with shooting moving subjects in different focal planes at apertures between f/1.4 and f/2.8, John?

[Gerhardt Isringhaus]

Clear and clean color. I'm sure the clients will love these. Well done!

 

GI

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Clear and clean color. I'm sure the clients will love these. Well done!

 

GI

 

 

That's the bottom line. Nothing else really maters . Marc get's a nice healthy check and on to the next project. That is the life of a commercial photography. i know i live it.

 

 

Number one priority is satifiy your clients needs or you won't have clients and what you may like means nothing if there is no work. That is the creed of a good Pro

[thpeters]

Your picture from the bride is not sharp, as a client I should not accept this ...my humble opinion...

 

Theo Peters

 

why 400 film is sold???

or why i use 400 film..

ok - lets talk about colour films of course...

provia 400.. u can use it as normal at 800, u can push it without much risk to 1600.

i have never had rejected images by editor because it was done on provia400 and not on k64.

provia 400 is great - have no douubts about it.

 

i odnt do weddings, so the pic below is the closest to weding. my sisters wedding. provia 400 film, avaliable light.

 

frc...

ya - of course i understand your point. and man, i once said on this forum that the only small digital camera i will work with is going to be m8. simply because i love M as small camera, and i dont love any other small format cameras (the slr - dslr).

but this is a different question.

the clients are suttisfied - cool.

but that doesnt make the camera - super camea, or perfect. lets face it - the camea has problems as it seems to be - serious problmes in my opinion. and i say it with some sadness, and great hope that it will be fixed anytime in the near future. and leica shuld know that the m users, at least some of them, dont go blindly with the leica stuff, only because it has red dot on it.

about clints - they want me, not my camera. if cleint wants to work with me then it is becasue of my photography, because of my way to do things... so, first of all, this is me who has to be sutisfied with my work, and then i will proudly can give it to the clients.

[jojet]

Blakley,

 

 

You may be right. It could be the movement with lower shutter speed. I've the same "problem" with mine 35 L 1.4 on mine 5D. When I see mine pictures and people are slightly moving you get some blur, out of focus but certainly not the tack sharp ou expect from such a combination. That's mine point here too. In mine opion you can't harldy say that these pictures justifies the predicate "super camera" or whatsoever. I think we must be honest to ourselves. Although I'm a an fervent canon user I like the M8 design very much ( I've used a leica minilux and the contax g range) and envy the people who has it.

 

But these pictures don't jusitifie the status of "super camera" IMHO.

 

As I stated before: I've seen much better pictures (especially with the noctilux which I like very much).

 

john

[frc]

Available light photography has the disadvantage of motion-blur and sometimes unwanted shallow depth of field.

If you don't like this get a flash, if you like the light-dropoff in the distance.

I prefer some life in a picture, others only want it sharp.

Just married couples are known to grab for their magnifier-glasses to scrutinize our work ;-)

I'm not realy into this business but the few times i've done it I was asked because one wanted lively pics.

Not a guy with a big black box flashing the party to pieces.

This is a personal opinion and a matter of taste, not a guideline, don't get me wrong.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[johnkuo]

Marc's pictures look great and sharp to me. I think some are used to the oversharpened jpg, which actually kills more detail than anything. I prefer a more natural approach and these look just fine.