Jonathan Eastland in BJP on M9 and new 35mm

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard, logically, if "the camera" can produce "Leica color" then so can a RAW converter. It's not as if the JPEGs made are made from different data Tweaked they may be, but impossible to reproduce? Not in the slightest....

 

Jamie, that's my point. Don't think I said anything about "irreproducible."

 

Jonathan's point (as Paul quoted above) is simple:

(from http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/test/2029793/leica-m9-extended-range)

... the idea that users can only get the best of the camera by shooting in a mode that may often require extra time-consuming post-processing is anathema to the raison d'être of an M camera.

He seems to feel that the benefit of the M9 JPG is good quality without losing time in PP. The fact that KammaGamma has analyzed Leica's JPGs to see how their color palette differs from that of Nikon's JPGs makes my point. Fine, you can spend a quarter hour getting the look you like from RAWs, but if the camera can do it for you, let it.

 

 

As for Paul's comment about HCB taking time to achieve the best print (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/169806-am-i-missing-something.html#post1630571), SFAIK he generally gave the film to someone else for printing: The same philosophy Ian expressed above regarding transparencies.

 

 

I'm not particularly a fan of Jonathan Eastland, but here I think his point is both simple and well-stated, whether it's your (or his, for that matter) usual way of working or not.

 

 

 

EDIT: BTW, a more important point to me than whether one might should shoot JPGs is this comment by Eastland (loc.cit.), with which I strongly agree:

... the Walter de Silva designed special edition M9 Titan ... has much better styling in my opinion.

[zlatkob]

As for Paul's comment about HCB taking time to achieve the best print ..., SFAIK he generally gave the film to someone else for printing: The same philosophy Ian expressed above regarding transparencies.

 

HCB did his own printing early on, but for most of his career he delegated the post-processing to master printers who carefully crafted his prints. Carefully crafting prints, whether by the photographer or by an expert printer, is not the same as doing nothing to a straight-from-the-camera file and expecting it to be superb. Even in the case of transparencies, the adjustments were "the client's problem" as stated above -- in other words, someone had the job of post-processing, rather than no one.

[ho_co]

Of course, zlat, but we're shifting the argument then, aren't we?

 

Transparencies: take the picture and ship it to the editor.

B/W: take the picture and give the negative (film?) to the printer.

JPG: take the picture and email it to the editor.

 

From the viewpoint of the photographer, all are the same. The fact that someone else processes the result obtains in all three cases.

 

So to be equivalent, your argument would have to be to shoot RAW and ship the files to the editor. That's not what Jonathan Eastland was talking about.

 

 

The question has already been answered: Jonathan and Paul differ.

 

To quote Minnie in La Fanciulla del West: "So what's new, Jack?"

 

 

To my eye, the part of the article on using the M9's JPGs is fluff, Eastland's filler before getting around to his review of the current 35/1.4. If he feels his M9 JPGs are good enough for his clients, more power to him.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie, that's my point. Don't think I said anything about "irreproducible."

 

{snipped}

 

Sorry Howard, I misread your post above.

 

When you said:

 

" The M9's JPG produces "Leica color." That's something impossible with RAW, because of its very universality"

 

I read that to mean "the color Leica gets in creating M9 JPEGs is impossible [to reproduce] with a RAW workflow" and not the way you meant it, which was "Leica can't possibly bias the colour interpretation of RAW files (the way they do with JPEGs), because RAW files can be interpreted differently by their very nature."

 

Ain't writing fun

 

FWIW, I bet Leica *could* have provided an ICC profile or Lightroom equivalent set of settings to mimic the colour they get with the in-camera processor. Of course, you could over-ride it, but it would provide a RAW workflow with a "Leica colour" starting point.

[ho_co]

Ain't writing fun

Amen to that!

 

Thanks, Jamie; you put it perfectly. Until your explanation, I hadn't realized how ambiguous my statement was. I was striving--against my nature ()--for brevity rather than incontrovertibility.

 

I think it was in one of the concluding posts on the M9 that E Puts mentioned that Leica might should consider attempting to establish a "Leica look" exactly as you say.

 

IIRC, he sees a stumbling-block in the fact that today the entire digital post-processing regime is aimed at reproducing a certain set of colors as exactly as possible. So if Leica or anyone else were to deviate from the de facto standard, its palette would be seen as sub-standard rather than as unique.

 

I find it an interesting point. With film, one might choose a "Kodachrome look" or a "Velvia look"; in addition, one company's lenses might be known as 'a little warm' or 'a little cool.' The idea of a color-managed workflow based on everyone reproducing a particular color chart in the same way tends to work against that.

 

I'm not sure how far I'd push the thought, since once a color-managed workflow is established, the photographer can do whatever he pleases with his images and get from his printer what he intended.

 

But it's related to the basic idea of this thread: With film, you chose a film because of its specific look--similar to Eastland's saying that M9 JPGs have their own look. But with RAW, we've got immediately under our control a lot of choices that we had previously given to Kodak or Agfa or another film manufacturer; and the tendency may be to try to bring the images to a norm.

[John Ricard]

Well I know NO pro photographer who shoots jpegs... -

 

And I know of NO pro photographers who shoot raw. Seriously. Most of my photographer friends shoot for agencies like Wireimage, Getty, Picture Group, etc. They shoot up to 3 different events per day and these events must be uploaded the the agency websites within 60 minutes or so of completion of the event. Not one of these guys is shooting raw and they are most certainly pro photographers.

 

While a DSLR is best suited to covering events where a long lens is needed, I know a lot of these guys would be walking around with a Leica alongside their Nikons and Canons if the system were as affordable as a Nikon or Canon system. While price is the main barrier between these photographers incorporating an M9 into their workflow, if you told these guys, "Hey, there's no way you can shoot jpegs with the M9" you would automatically lose any chance of these guys adding a Leica alongside their Nikons and Canons.

 

Until I got my M9 a few days ago, I had not shot in raw since around 2002 when I was using my first digital camera, the Nikon D100.

[RSL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nobody seems to have mentioned what to me is one of the most important reasons to shoot raw: postprocessing tools keep improving. I've already been able to achieve improved results with some of my best raw files from a decade ago. Jpeg processing keeps improving too, but the jpeg you made a decade ago will always be the jpeg you made a decade ago.

[Nicoleica]

Nobody seems to have mentioned what to me is one of the most important reasons to shoot raw: postprocessing tools keep improving. I've already been able to achieve improved results with some of my best raw files from a decade ago. Jpeg processing keeps improving too, but the jpeg you made a decade ago will always be the jpeg you made a decade ago.

 

That's one reason why I select both RAW+JPEG for my cameras. The JPEG is available for instant use in my 6x4 printer, and for most purposes is all I ever need. But having the RAW available too, means that I have it available should I ever need it for some reason.

[chris_tribble]

Further musings from Eastland...

Leica M9: Extended range - British Journal of Photography

 

... not that I agree with him about all of it (or that I can afford the 35 lux...)

[ho_co]

There's already a thread on the topic at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/169806-am-i-missing-something.html.

[gib_robinson]

Aside from the jpg issue -- the pluses and minuses of that format -- it's is the quality of the lens that fascinates me. I would love to get my hands on one just to take a few images. I suspect it's a pretty mind-blowing bit of glass.

 

--Gib

[markgay]

What no one’s mentioned is that the workflow or WORKLOAD of shooting RAW and then post-processing shifts a job that was previously done by a second person onto the photographer’s shoulders.

 

It’s not good or bad. It’s a feature of modern labour.

 

In television, journalists are frequently now expected to film and edit audiovisual material as well as write and voice the script.

 

It’s not just about cost savings for the employer, because it is also a feature of the way technology is implemented in our Age.

 

Industry launches products on the market that are half-finished, often inadequately tested and constantly being updated. Modern technology is a work-in-progress that is changing at a phenomenal speed. The purchaser, whether amateur or professional, is a guinea pig and a beta tester who pays for the privilege.

 

That is one reason many of us gravitate to a manufacturer such as Leica with a somewhat slower and more thoughtful pace of evolution.

 

But in so far as the complaint about the M9’s JPEG output relate to inadequate hardware and a processor which handles images more slowly than the M8, Mr Eastland’s complaint is valid in my view.

[AbbeyFoto]

There's already a thread on the topic at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/169806-am-i-missing-something.html.

 

See also

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/161258-jonathan-eastland-bjp-m9-new-35mm.html

 

Chris

[Mike Shimwell]

Aside from the jpg issue -- the pluses and minuses of that format -- it's is the quality of the lens that fascinates me. I would love to get my hands on one just to take a few images. I suspect it's a pretty mind-blowing bit of glass.

 

--Gib

 

 

I had a play with one the other day when I was visiteing my local shop. I had my Ikon with me, so the film's not developed yet, but I'll try to go back soon with the M9. Seemed nicely made though:)

[zlatkob]

What no one’s mentioned is that the workflow or WORKLOAD of shooting RAW and then post-processing shifts a job that was previously done by a second person onto the photographer’s shoulders.

 

For some fine art and landscape photographers, processing is/was part of the regular workload, and the way they do it is an essential part of their style (e.g. Ansel Adams and Sally Mann.) So having to do post-processing in the digital era would be no different.

 

There are a number of vendors who offer raw-file editing and adjustments for a fee. I know that some wedding photographers send out all of their raw processing. Overall, they're likely to get better results sending out raw files than jpeg files.

[ho_co]

FWIW, you may not be aware that there are two more threads on the same topic:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/170102-interesting-perspective.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/161258-jonathan-eastland-bjp-m9-new-35mm.html

[ho_co]

Don't want to restart this, but there are two additional threads on the topic:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/169806-am-i-missing-something.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/170102-interesting-perspective.html

 

 

It's interesting how all three have moved off in different directions.

[albireo_double]

Instead of better Jpegs out of the camera, I would prefer Leica to provide (or persuade Adobe to provide) dedicated profiles for LR3 to achieve that "Leica color", just the same way these can be selected for the Canon or Nikon cameras (as in "Camera Portrait", "Camera Neutral" etc.). There is something called "Embedded Profile" that can be selected but I am not sure it provides better conversions than the "Adobe Standard" profile. Going forward, it would also be nice if each M9.2/M10 had an individual white reference file stored in memory, for different lenses (especially wide-angle), to deal with light fall-off and red/cyan edge (some MF digital backs have this), as it seems that a universal firmware fix is difficult due to body-to-body variation. These would save me much more PP time than great jpgs out of camera.

[jaapv]

Well, I can understand Jonathan Eastland's aversion of postprocessing. His darkroom work was never up to his qualities as photographer - Have a look at his Compendium - Seldom have I seen such dust- and hair-strewn prints in a serious book, not to mention sometimes surprising choices of gradation. Don't get me wrong - I really appreciate the expertise and photography in the book - which makes the dark-room work all the more surprising. I imagine this extrapolates to present-day postprocessing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M