The Uncertainties of Timothy "Ulcerating" Booth

[timothy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First, I'm apologizing in advance if this post is too stream-of-conscious-like; I'm writing well past my bed time.

 

Alright, I was excited about the M8 when it was first announced and that excitement has been sustained ever since. I thought, "Finally, a digital camera for me!" Yes, I should mention that I own only an M6, that film has been my capture medium, that I have been scanning film in recent years with some success but not without lots of hassle. So, buying the M8 would be my first purchase of a digital camera and my introduction to the all-digital workflow. Also, I should mention that none of the reliability issues concern me at this point. It seems that Leica has been accommodating everyone when issues do arise; I'm willing to take a chance on this; in this sense, I'm feeling lucky!

 

That said, I'm still feeling a bit, er very uncommitted in another area. I thought I had successfully convinced myself that a clean digital file is the best starting place even if that's not my ending point. Yes, I remained more or less convinced until yesterday when I was working in Photoshop on this particular diptych. (By the way, the link takes you to the photo forum. Is that how the moderators want us to do it?) Anyway, I'm concerned about the handling of harsh backlighting as seen in this scene, about the rendition of highlights in particular, and about the quality of tones. Technically speaking, maybe the M8 can capture almost as much dynamic range and maybe more tones. But what about aesthetically? Assuming correct exposure for my intended purposes, would the RAW file manage in this situation?

 

Hmm, I know it will take some coaxing, some creativity, some post-processing productivity to reproduce a similar grainy, dreamy aesthetic . . . or so I hope! It can be done right?!? I've seen mostly the continuos grayscale aesthetic from all of your monochrome picture examples. Has anyone been able to achieve better tonal separation in post-processing? I already have Alien Skin Exposure, and I don't mind spending considerable time in Photoshop as I know that I'll make up for any lost time while importing and organizing my pictures.

 

It all comes down to this; I'm just looking for a response to this question; based on what you see in my pictures examples and based on what you can infer about my values as an artist, do you really think that a clean digital file from the M8 is the best starting place for me? If not best, do you think it's an equally good complement to my ongoing if more occasional use of film?

 

Timothy

[tashley]

I like that diptych very much, and am intrigued by your working methods too.

 

To answer your question as best I can: the M8 has better dynamic range than pretty much anything else I've tried. It hold shadow detail very well, thereby allowing one to expose for the highlights a bit more than one might generally.

 

When you really work an M8 RAW in Lightroom and or Photoshop, it doesn't fall apart as quickly as a 5D file does. Take files from both at 640 and the 5D will appear tp have less noise - but work it for shadow detail and that noise will soon bit you in the rear, whereas the M8 will go further with you.

 

Hope that helps

 

Tim

[timothy]

Yeah, Tim (nice name), that helps to some degree. Right now, I'm checking out your "Sussex Land & Seascape & More With M8" portfolio, which is also helpful. Questions: Were the shots of the couple on the beach taken in partly cloudy light? The transition to the light/white background is more gentle than some other examples that I've seen on this forum. Does that have more to do you the situation not being too contrasty or more to do with your handling of the exposure and image-processing thereafter? I'm thinking that if/when I encounter too harsh a transition, I should be able to blur that white area into the area that has tonal detail. Also, I could bring it back from white to near white and add some grain for the appearance of tonal detail where there was none. That will take an eye for subtlety to achieve completely convincing results. Of course, I'm hoping to avoid clipping as much as possible and think I would generally prefer to underexpose the shadows. I have read on the "exposure to the right" technique but might chose to expose more to the left than recommended if I feel that is rendering the all-important highlights better.

 

In my response to my original question, all you digital shooters are probably thinking, "Duh! Just get the M8 already." Going from lesser digital cameras (Nikon and Canon offerings) to the Leica M8 would be a "no duh" move for me. But I'm in a totally different paradigm, the film paradigm, and it's a question of whether I can make the paradigm shift. To help talk myself into it, I have to remember that I will still have my M6 and can still shoot that. Now I can wear two cameras! One around my neck, the other around my wrist!

 

Thanks again,

 

Timothy

[Guest sirvine]

I am by no means an expert on this type of thing, but I have been experimenting with grainy black and white in some recent digital shots on my website ( solsphere ). Most of the recent images (I upload them about every day) are from M8, with a few being on the R-D1s.

 

With black and white, I have been experimenting with shooting at night with 1250 ISO, available light, and the pushing exposure and filtering colors in Lightroom. No other manipulation is used--I never open Photoshop proper or apply any filters. Remember that these are reduced to 800x600 JPEGS from the original DNG files, so there's a ton more "texture" than you are seeing. At 100% crops (I'll try posting one when I get home), the noise/grain gets a little sharp, in part because of my choices in processing. I don't use any noise reduction as an aesthetic choice.

 

The point is that if you start playing with these tools, you can achieve some impressive results. While they may not mimic film perfectly, the advantage is in the range of flexibility.

[tashley]

Yeah, Tim (nice name), that helps to some degree. Right now, I'm checking out your "Sussex Land & Seascape & More With M8" portfolio, which is also helpful. Questions: Were the shots of the couple on the beach taken in partly cloudy light? The transition to the light/white background is more gentle than some other examples that I've seen on this forum. Does that have more to do you the situation not being too contrasty or more to do with your handling of the exposure and image-processing thereafter? I'm thinking that if/when I encounter too harsh a transition, I should be able to blur that white area into the area that has tonal detail. Also, I could bring it back from white to near white and add some grain for the appearance of tonal detail where there was none. That will take an eye for subtlety to achieve completely convincing results. Of course, I'm hoping to avoid clipping as much as possible and think I would generally prefer to underexpose the shadows. I have read on the "exposure to the right" technique but might chose to expose more to the left than recommended if I feel that is rendering the all-important highlights better.

 

In my response to my original question, all you digital shooters are probably thinking, "Duh! Just get the M8 already." Going from lesser digital cameras (Nikon and Canon offerings) to the Leica M8 would be a "no duh" move for me. But I'm in a totally different paradigm, the film paradigm, and it's a question of whether I can make the paradigm shift. To help talk myself into it, I have to remember that I will still have my M6 and can still shoot that. Now I can wear two cameras! One around my neck, the other around my wrist!

 

Thanks again,

 

Timothy

 

 

What a nice name indeed!

 

Those shots were taken on a very bright day BUT it was foggy inland and there was a lot of fog drifting around the background, though we were in very bright light. Shot with a 50 'lux which is a very contrasty lens. Which brings me to my next observation: some Leica lenses are more contrasty than others. If you read Sean Reid, he like many others favours some lenses for 'flat' days and others for 'contrasty days.' In general the modern aspherics are contrasty, so you might save some dosh with some older lenses. The 90mm macro is interesting: it's natural tendency towards a slightly less contrasty rendition is exacerbated by shooting through more atmospheric haze and you could use that as a sort of filter.

 

Take a look at my Venice shots - very easy to see which lenses used and what was in sharp versus flat or murky light.

 

 

Best

 

Tim

[Jamie Roberts]

Timothy--

 

I think the answer to your question is yes--get a good digital capture to begin with. You can always degrade detail; hard to build back if you want it.

 

Having said that, I'm with Tim A here--the M8 files, especially low-ISO files, hold up wayyyy more under manipulation pressure than the 5d. I wouldn't worry about an M8 file two stops underexposed at all--and that's really saying something for a digicam. In fact, you could take those shots and probably push them beyond the two stops and still have workable shadow detail, not to mention exceptional mid tones.

 

At higher ISOs, the flexibility is still there, but I find you'll get better results if you can get a more equal exposure. At ISO 2500, if you want to maintain detail, push the exposure "to the right" as much as possible, but if you shoot JPEG, they have a nice grain factor at that ISO.

 

Alien Skin exposure is fabulous, especially since you can vary grain levels per colour channel

 

Hope this helps! I like the lawnmower shots

 

PS--Tim A--this is that damned fuzzy 35 ASPH @ either 1.4 IIRC, might be 1.6 but no more

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/people/19267-monochrome-portrait.html#post203937

 

(look! I'm posting in the photo forum! That's because it isn't a lamp shot )

[timothy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alright, hopefully I get around to replying to all your comments tomorrow. Right now, I'm too tired.

 

For now, I want to send you all back over to the photo forum to look at this detailed view of the original scan for the lawn-mower shot.

 

Later,

 

Timothy

[andit]

Hi Tim,

 

Just out of interest, are you using the standard exposure that the Program AE is suggesting? First thing that I would do is dial in -3/4 to -1 stop exposure compensation and see where that leaves the image. I'm not sure what the latitude is on the M8's sensor. It should be pretty close to regular slide film which is about 2.5 stops (in the ratio -1.5 to +1 stop). When I get my M8 next week, I'll try determine the sensor's latitude and then post my results. It may interst a few other people as well.

 

Andreas

[devils-advocate]

Tim,

 

Based on your work, I think you'd love the M8. It is able to produce a very nice 'grainy' file at higher ISOs, and is damn clean at lower ISO, with huge manipulability and 'guts' to the file. If you have the green, buy it. You can always sell it if it isn't your thing.

 

...and I strongly recommend trying Lightroom -- it is SO much more intuitive in the development process that it iwill make your transition to digitial RAW processing much, much easier than C1, imho.

 

Good luck!

 

- N.

[Guest sirvine]

Andreas,

 

I usually keep -2/3 to -1 compensation on. I do this because I can bring detail back from shadow but not from highlights. Maybe this is wrong-headed, but it seems to work for me.

[devils-advocate]

Andreas,

I usually keep -2/3 to -1 compensation on. I do this because I can bring detail back from shadow but not from highlights. Maybe this is wrong-headed, but it seems to work for me.

 

Hi Sol,

 

This is actually what you DON'T want to do with digital. You want to expose as much as possible. This article explains it better than I can.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

FWIW, you can recover a LOT from the highlights if they are mildly overexposed. Or, for scenery, bracket and blend if the sky is your concern.

 

Cheers,

 

- N.

[grantray]

Hi Sol,

 

This is actually what you DON'T want to do with digital. You want to expose as much as possible.- N.

 

I'll take the bait and disagree. But only in the context that I feel you are following LL too blindly without reading the fine print. He goes on to say that his described technique may be applied as a tool under specific circumstances, which infers that it is not to be used as a standard method for photography.

 

What I'm getting at is something many of us, (i.e. Leica users and users of high end equipment in general), are guilty of- photography as an expression of technology as opposed to photography as an expression of vision. And before you burn me, I am including myself into this group. Because of the amazing dynamic range of the M8's sensor, the photographer can shoot more like a traditional b/w photographer than one who shoots color film or slide. That means there is a LOT of room for play and variation in post-processing when considering the final "print." And that means we can and should experiment beyond maximizing dynamic range for the sake of dynamic range just because it's there.

 

Personally, I don't use the A mode while shooting, however I do generally underexpose the negative, shot at low iso, and later "push" the image in post. I do this because of something I personally want to achieve with my images, even though I know I may or may not be using the M8's sensor technology to the fullest. (I push my slide film on a regular basis as well.) That stated, I don't always use this technique when shooting with the M8.

 

Sorry to jack the thread, Timothy. As for wanting to know if the M8 will allow to do what you want? For the most part, I'd say yes; but you may need to experiment with new methods to get what you want.

 

-grant

[timothy]

N.,

 

Thank you for the link. I've actually read this article before and so have familiarity with the expose to the right technique. Yes, logically, it makes sense. However, many examples on this forum show clipped highlights, especially in the sky, the background, and out of focus areas. Even when the highlights have not been clipped, most examples here show them very, very hot. Speaking generally about the monochrome pictures on this forum, they would look much, much improved with at least a 1/2 stop less exposure or the appearance thereof (i.e. bringing back them back in post-processing) for the highlights.

 

Unfortunately, the mid tones and brighter shadows consistently look too dark. They look like they would be improved by at least a 1/2 stop more exposure.

 

Everyone,

 

For those of you who have not read it, let me refer you to Hamman's B&W from M8 thread.

 

First, he states, "As much as I like the M8 for color, I don't like digital for straight b&w. It always ends up looking like some sort of dull chromogenic b&w C41 film."

 

Second, he proves his point with a photo example that looks like dull chromogenic b&w C41 film (but with hot highlights!).

 

Then, other members try to prove that this doesn't have to be the case with examples that, in their minds, do not look like dull chromogenic b&w C41 film. Generally if not without exception, their efforts prove futile.

 

So, Hammam's original statement is only further reinforced.

[sandymc]

With an M8, the situation is actually more extreme than the LL article would suggest. Reason is that the M8's compression to 8-bits scheme compresses lows a lot more than highlights. To use the LL article's terminology, for an M8:

 

In the first f-stop: 74 levels

second f-stop: 53

third f-stop: 37

fourth f-stop: 26

fifth f-stop: 18

sixth f-stop: 13

seventh f-stop: 9

eighth f-stop: 6

 

But this is probably not really worth more than 1/3 of a f-stop

 

Sandy

[timothy]

As for wanting to know if the M8 will allow to do what you want? For the most part, I'd say yes; but you may need to experiment with new methods to get what you want.

 

-grant

 

Thanks Grant,

 

That is precisely the conclusion I've been wanting to settle on.

 

In Hamman's thread, Charles Peterson pointed out Alex Majoli's pictures from point-and-shoot cameras that achieve something like what I want. So, if Alex Majoli can do it with point-and-shoots, I should be able to do it with an M8.

 

Timothy

[devils-advocate]

Tim,

 

While I respect individual creative taste and method, there is no debate around the principles underlying the "expose to the right" maxim. If you don't, you are reducing your 12 bit camera to an 8 bit camera, 4 bit camera, and so on as the amount of data decreases. This WILL show in the image as soon as you start to manipulate it at all (and by 'manipulate' I mean simple controls such as curves, or any of the development tools in RAW converters like LR.

 

So long as you can get SOME data, on at least one channel in every pixel where you desire detail (however faint) in the final image, you will always, always and always geta better image with more exposure.

 

I agree that not all histograms and clipping indicators are created equally, making this harder in practice than principle.

 

But to respond to the underlying concern, I am baffled by the "dull chromogenic B&W" comment that people have made. If an image contains a full spectrum of tone, and you've placed all areas of interest into the tonal levels you desire, how, by definition, can an image be dull?? I am not being argumentative for its own sake, I conceptually don't get it. The various images posted in the linked thread are tonally lovely - not 'dull' at all

 

If you can't get tonal relations you like with digital, you aren't working hard enough. I say this because I discovered it was true of my own experience. It can take numerous RAW conversions, and a lot of blending and local area adjustment in PS to get tonal spead of an image to taste. It's hard, and a lot of work (kind of like dodging and burning in the wet darkroom........)

 

The answer, I suspect, lies in the reference to "chromogenic" film. That strikes me as a aesthetic reference to absence of grain (typical of both low-iso digital and chromogenic B&W), and more particularly to the absence of the micro-contrast and visual accutance which grain brings. Personally, I have the same reaction to contact prints from 8x10 negs.

 

Suggests? Well, try running a local contrast enhancement filtration (USM 20/50/0) right after you bring the image into PS. It's amazing how this 'blows the dust off' an image. Don't ask me why -- Thomas Knoll invented it, I just use. But it works.

 

As for grain, shoot at 640 with the M8. You might be very happy with the results straight out. Or maybe play with Alienskin's grain feature. That's on my agenda when my wallet recovers from buying LR.......

 

I'd be very interested to hear/see your experience if you take the plunge....just don't judge your early efforts too harshly....it can take a long time to get the swing of what digital can do - there's nothing 'simple' about it, sadly.

 

Cheers,

 

- Nick

 

ps. I just re-read the B&W thread and fell off my chair when I read this sentence: "shot at ISO 1250 with the contrast and sharpness at medium high"....Those settings only effect jpegs. If this means these folks are shooting JPEGS (very good photos, btw), why are we even having this conversation? You have to shoot RAW to retain any tonal control. If you're not willing to post-process, don't bother with digital for fine-art level work.

[Guest sirvine]

Interestingly enough, I've always imagined that most of Mr. Majoli's photos have very little dynamic range. He seems to clip blacks in favor of nice contrasty dark areas, or in the case of his "almost all white" images (esp. from the snowy balkans) he seems to live on the edge of clipping highlights. Remember, though, even if he shoots that Olympus series (a very nice little camera for a P&S), his pictures are the result of admirable discipline and technique and a great eye. If you have these things, the M8 only makes it easier to get it right.

[grantray]

In Hamman's thread, Charles Peterson pointed out Alex Majoli's pictures from point-and-shoot cameras that achieve something like what I want. So, if Alex Majoli can do it with point-and-shoots, I should be able to do it with an M8.

 

Timothy

 

Funny, I just tracked back and read that article via your earlier reference. Fantastic methodology from a fantastic photographer.

 

-grant

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}Then, other members try to prove that this doesn't have to be the case with examples that, in their minds, do not look like dull chromogenic b&w C41 film. Generally if not without exception, their efforts prove futile.

 

Yes--but you can't explain everything in an internet forum.

 

Film--negative and positive--has a traditional curve in the highlights and shadows (toe and shoulder) that varies with exposure length. In colour films, the curve varies by colour channel (and to some extent, this is what you do with different pan films or BW filters--you change the colour response of the BW film for different tones)

 

Then--in the development stage--you can further mess with those curves (doing zone development or push processing).

 

Then--in the printing stage, you choose a paper with its own curve or you mess with the same characteristics using filters.

 

See--you mess with film a lot to get the great midtones and subtle highlights and depth of shadows.

 

If you expect to get this kind of quality out of (any) digicam without post processing, your just fooling yourself. You won't do it.

 

That's why people often say if you want it to look like film, shoot film!

 

Now, having said all that, if you know what you're doing with curves and printing, you can actually get wonderfully luminous BW from something like the M8.

 

For most people, the Alien Skin Exposure plugin is a very good place to start. Don't take my word for it; download the trial in PS.

 

On a cheaper level, the "convert to BW pro" plugin (you need to google that one) is also great.

 

Still--that doesn't mean you'll be able to print it But that's a seminar in itself.

 

On ISO and 'expose to the right'--the M8 has better shadow retention and highlight headroom than almost any other portable digicam I've seen at low ISOs.

 

@ Nick--you can certainly dial the M8 back and push in post without much loss of shadow detail; this is because it has many more shadow levels (14bpp AD processing) than other 12bpp digicams (the DMR is the other exception).

 

At high ISOs, you need to expose to the right more carefully--especially under tungsten where the blue channel is going to be mush.

 

OF Course if you know how to channel blend for BW, that's not an issue anyway

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[robertwright]

With black and white on the M8 I have found a few things-

 

I agree the "expose to the right" maxim is generally correct. You can always degrade but it is hard to invent detail.

 

digital is inherently a linear capture medium, and even tho there is a tone curve applied unseen to the image in conversion, what works for color is not usually enough for bw. In otherwords, the capture is first processed from raw using whatever default tone curve the raw converter applies, whether it be in LR or Capture one or wherever. But you can always apply a subsequent tone curve. Raw Developer acknowledges this by giving you access to the original tone curve, which you can edit directly. It is a nice feature.

 

I find that almost all of my bw images require a significant boost to the midtones, and a steepening of the shadow tones, the curve looks like the classic S curve, but perhaps with less toe, more vertical in the shadow. this stretches the midtone and places more of the information higher up. Btw, the brightness setting which is often times a positive value in raw converters, LR for example, should be closer to zero before you do this. In fact, after the tone curve I usually have to lower the brightness setting, but the effect is to darken a contrastier original, which is not the same as increasing exposure and lowering brightness which would clip highlights.

 

I have saved that curve as a lightroom preset, which I can apply during import across all images. If I have exposed correctly, the result is much closer to a classic bw look.. Then I can fine tune, and go into photoshop with adjustment layers for local contrast control.

 

The other thing I have found is that LR will tend to give a grainier rendition across all bw, as compared to Raw Developer which has a much more advanced noise reduction and sharpening algorithm. I bought RD just for BW alone, there are some things you can do it it that are impossible in other developers.

 

Can't comment on C1 as I don't like it for anything, actually Aperture is my preferred, but I have been living along with everyone else in LR while Apple gets its act together. The BW options in Aperture are pretty good too, the filter presets are nice, and the overall conversion is good with other cameras, hoping it will be nice for the m8.