stalker Posted May 21, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why do we like Tri-X over T-max or HP5 over Delta in most cases. It is certainly not the sharpness factor that influences our preference. So can better sharpness be a major factor in buying Monochrom? I don't think so . What is your stand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 Hi stalker, Take a look here Is razorlike sharpness a really desired virtue for B&W. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted May 21, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted May 21, 2012 You can reduce sharpness, but cannot add it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 21, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted May 21, 2012 The obsession with "razorlike sharpness" is not (just) a monochrome (or film) thing. A lot of people regard sharpness as the sine qua non of photography and in so doing chase the "latest and greatest". There will be those who, a couple of weeks ago, would not hear a word said against the Summilux who are now in the same sort of funk as a salad-dodger confronted by a choice between a bag of doughnuts and a newly arrived plate of eclairs; they cannot have them both but they MUST have the "best". The Summicron will be an irresistible draw for a while, then will be popping up with monotonous (no pun intended) regularity on the secondhand shelves because it "just isn't fast enough for me" (you heard it here first). Â All too often the thoughtless pursuit of sharpness - and let's differentiate here between front-to-back stopped down sharpness and wide open, look how I can make things pop, sharpness is a substitute for skill. Let's face it, if front to back sharpness is your goal, go up a format or two and invest in a solid tripod. If you want to demonstrate a sharp subject in front of an impressionistic swirl work on your focussing technique and learn how optics work - oh and go up a couple of formats and get out that solid tripod again. Â The weakest link in the optical chain is the nut that holds the camera. Being a nut who can afford to choose between a Summilux (costly) a Summicron (a bit more costly) and a Noctilux (insanely costly) does not in and of itself make you a competent photographer. Sharpness is a weapon in your arsenal. In order to deploy it you have to a) understand what you are doing work on your technique c) buy kit that gives you a fighting chance of achieving your desired end result if you have got a and b right. I put them in order of importance, in case that was not clear. Â There are a few photographers around here whose understanding and technique is such that they can lay claim to being masters of sharpness. The rest of us buy a "sharp" lens or use "sharp" film and hang on for the ride. Â Regards, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Quite a few of my best shots could probably be classed as "unsharp":o However, it depends on the photographic discipline imo. For landscape, wildlife (especially birds) etc, sharpness is a part of the quality of the image. (whatever the term sharpness may mean - optically the meaning is unclear) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 21, 2012 Share #5  Posted May 21, 2012 The obsession with "razorlike sharpness" is not (just) a monochrome thing. A lot of people regard sharpness as the sine qua non of photography and in so doing chase the "latest and greatest". There will be those who, a couple of weeks ago, would not hear a word said against the Summilux who are now in the same sort of funk as a salad-dodger confronted by a choice between a bag of doughnuts and a newly arrived plate of eclairs; they cannot have them both but they MUST have the "best". The Summicron will be an irresistible draw for a while, then will be popping up with monotonous (no pun intended) regularity on the secondhand shelves because it "just isn't fast enough for me" (you heard it here first). All too often the thoughtless pursuit of sharpness - and let's differentiate here between front-to-back stopped down sharpness and wide open, look how I can make things pop, sharpness is a substitute for skill. Let's face it, if front to back sharpness is your goal, go up a format or two and invest in a solid tripod. If you want to demonstrate a sharp subject in front of an impressionistic swirl work on your focussing technique and learn how optics work - oh and go up a couple of formats and get out that solid tripod again.  The weakest link in the optical chain is the nut that holds the camera. Being a nut who can afford to choose between a Summilux (costly) a Summicron (a bit more costly) and a Noctilux (insanely costly) does not in and of itself make you a competent photographer. Sharpness is a weapon in your arsenal. In order to deploy it you have to a) understand what you are doing work on your technique c) buy kit that gives you a fighting chance of achieving your desired end result if you have got a and b right. I put them in order of importance, in case that was not clear.  Amen. I find myself in complete agreement with Bill's post.  I have modern Leica lenses and I have tried old Leitz lenses, my oldest being late 1930s Elmars and Hektors. With a background in Canon FD and EF I am persuaded that also old Leitz lenses, but certainly all modern Leica lenses, are at least as sharp as their Canon counterparts. In fact my EF L lenses are never, either on film or digital, as sharp on film as my modern Leica lenses are on film.  Nevertheless, I find that "acceptably sharp" is good enough for me in almost all my photography (portraits, usually, being the notable exception).  Ps. Speaking of the weakest link, the nut holding the camera, reminds me of that joke Nut screws washers and bolts (sorry about the tangent). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stalker Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share #6 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Thank you for your comments. Â I am not talking about the sharpness as a result of the quality of the lens used but rather through the disposal of the bayer filter which results in increased sharpness in the files. Most M users do not use the camera for landscape work. Its forte is in street. So extended dynamic range and high iso capability are important developments for MM but am not sure about the importance of clinical looking rendering for a b&w photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted May 21, 2012 Share #7  Posted May 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) See post #2.  It is a tool, it can deliver sharp image but you have creative freedom to make it less sharp at the time you press the shutter or later in PP.  Thank you for your comments. I am not talking about the sharpness as a result of the quality of the lens used but rather through the disposal of the bayer filter which results in increased sharpness in the files. Most M users do not use the camera for landscape work. Its forte is in street. So extended dynamic range and high iso capability are important developments for MM but am not sure about the importance of clinical looking rendering for a b&w photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2012 Share #8  Posted May 21, 2012 Thank you for your comments. I am not talking about the sharpness as a result of the quality of the lens used but rather through the disposal of the bayer filter which results in increased sharpness in the files. Most M users do not use the camera for landscape work. Its forte is in street. So extended dynamic range and high iso capability are important developments for MM but am not sure about the importance of clinical looking rendering for a b&w photo. I beg to differ - by many it is considered the best choice out there for landscape work when a donkey for carrying the gear is unavailable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted May 21, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted May 21, 2012 by many it is considered the best choice out there for landscape work when a donkey for carrying the gear is unavailable. Â If this forum was your sole experience of Leica you could be forgiven for believing that the cameras are seldom carried by anything other than donkeys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Well, having to carry a full DSLR kit with lenses up to 500 mm in 110 F. sure made me wish for a donkey:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted May 21, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted May 21, 2012 If you can readily afford the MM plus the new Summicron a bit of loose change will easily cover the cost of a Sherpa to carry your gear... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 21, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Sharpness. Not a word I generally associate with photography yet its use is ever more commonplace especially on this forum. Â I think a lot of people talk about sharpness when they in fact mean 'in focus' or 'not blurred'. There was a chap on here who posted a selection of photos from his newly acquired Noctilux. Not one of them was in focus although he was obviously delighted with them. It wasn't the famous Noctilux signature that he was impressed by, it was his inability to focus correctly! Â I've noticed a tendancy for photographers to over-sharpen their images in PP. There's a photo from one of the Leica beta testers taken with the new Summicron, which looks dreadfully over-sharpened to me. I'm sure it's not the 'sharpness' of the lens. Â Maybe the MM images are such that they require little or no sharpening in PP, which will hopefully mean less over-sharpened images as a result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 21, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted May 21, 2012 I think a lot of people talk about sharpness when they in fact mean 'in focus' or 'not blurred'. Â Well said. Â Regards, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 21, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Why do we like Tri-X over T-max or HP5 over Delta in most cases. It is certainly not the sharpness factor that influences our preference. So can better sharpness be a major factor in buying Monochrom? I don't think so . What is your stand? Â On stalker's original question, though (and thanks for clarifying; I was a bit off the mark in my first reply), I think one has to add more information for it to make sense. Â Better than what? Â This will depend on what the camera's output is intended for imho. Â I'm wondering how many people will buy the MM and place their photos on Flickr, 1x, 500px etc. For them, any increased sharpness capabilities of the MM will be lost (though I'm pretty sure they will feel very good they have a photographic tool with a sensor rivalling the Hubble Telescope; nb I have no idea what the HST's resolution is - I just added this for effect ). Â For other photographers, such as those who print giant posters, the MM may well offer better images than what they are currently using (whatever that may be). So for them the MM's performance could be a "major factor" in buying an all-b/w digital M. Â And for yet other photographers the MM sensor's DR may be an important consideration, though as many have shown already the fact that it is fairly easy to blow highlights may be an irritation to some. Â So it all depends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 21, 2012 Share #15  Posted May 21, 2012 I used to say that sharpness is what you get from sharpening while resolution is the quality you should actually be after. But that was about pictures captured through a Bayer filter array. Demosaicing introduces blur which needs to be compensated for by a moderate amount of sharpening. The image delivered by a monochrome sensor is as sharp as the lens allows for, simply because there is nothing that would compromise sharpness. The sensor just can’t help delivering sharp images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 21, 2012 Share #16  Posted May 21, 2012 The image delivered by a monochrome sensor is as sharp as the lens allows for, simply because there is nothing that would compromise sharpness. The sensor just can’t help delivering sharp images.  Yes, this is no doubt true but, getting back to the original question, has there ever been a problem with current (pre-MM) levels of sharpness? Has anyone thought (having nailed the focus) that if only the photograph was a little bit sharper it would be a better photograph? There are many times when I've wished I had been less sloppy with my focussing or used a higher shutter speed or used a smaller aperture but I don't think there has ever been an occasion when I've wished the camera (especially one like the M8 or M9) was intrinsically sharper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 21, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted May 21, 2012 If by sharpness you mean 'clarity of detail', then somtimes it is critical, at other times it is not. Trying to be prescriptive over how an image should look is a sure way to stifle creativity. But as jaapv said, you can't add sharpness (although you can boost edge contrast via usm or other techniques, which is not the same). I rather like mjh's comment about the sensor myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 21, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted May 21, 2012 Why do we like Tri-X over T-max or HP5 over Delta in most cases. It is certainly not the sharpness factor that influences our preference. So can better sharpness be a major factor in buying Monochrom? I don't think so . What is your stand? Â Sharpness is overrated IMHO. Mainly due to people looking at images at 100% magnification on a computer screen. It's a bit like looking at paintings in an art gallery through a magnifying glass - no doubt there are some people who do that, and I'm sure it can be interesting in the short term, but it's not how most people look at paintings, or usually how the artist intended them to be looked at. Â There's certainly a 'wow' factor when you see an extremely high resolution image, but unless you are printing huge prints it's not really that relevant - again IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 21, 2012 Share #19  Posted May 21, 2012 Has anyone thought (having nailed the focus) that if only the photograph was a little bit sharper it would be a better photograph? Probably not, but see above – resolution is the quality we should strive for, not sharpness. If a photograph isn’t as sharp as you would like it to be, just slide the sharpness slider all the way to the right. This wouldn’t increase resolution though, not to mention that the picture might be ruined by sharpening artefacts. The M Monochrom delivers excellent resolution and trumps the M9 in this respect; incidentally its JPEG images are also sharper even without any sharpening being applied, but that’s just an added bonus for those who happen to care about sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 21, 2012 Share #20 Â Posted May 21, 2012 If you can readily afford the MM plus the new Summicron a bit of loose change will easily cover the cost of a Sherpa to carry your gear... I wish I could convince my bank manager that that is the case Unfortunately his bonus doesn't depend on that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.