The Leica Look No More?

[Ivan Muller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ivan, as an aside, I saw the article on your site regarding b/w upside down. If you don't have it already, this book, now updated is a classic, often used in the art classes you cite.

 

As to your comments above, I agree about the internet myths and the common lack of appreciation for steps one can take after capture to maximize image quality, but I don't agree that one needs to be a pro to understand and make use of that. There are plenty of amateurs around who are just as dedicated to the craft, but most of them are busy printing and not posting pics on the web that might just as well have been shot with any camera.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff thanks for the info, I will look it up!

 

...and yes, I agree there are very fine amateurs about just as there are some pretty mediocre 'professionals'... I suppose what I was trying to say is that any photographer that has many years of experience behind him using a variety of cameras & lenses will come to realize that each tool has its place and no tool is 'better' than another...and one cannot just take two pics with two different tools and then pronounce to the world with authority that one tool is clearly superior to another..its not just as simple as that...

[Jeff S]

Exactly.

 

BTW, I took a drawing class that used this book and found it invaluable to my photography (which included view cameras). The upside exercise is one of many. You will get a better handle on whether you're more naturally left or right brained, but even if the former, one can learn to be closer to the latter.

 

Jeff

[pico]

[...] You will get a better handle on whether you're more naturally left or right brained [...]

 

Eventually, I hope, we stop using the left/right brain metaphor. It is simply a fallacy.

 

Another interesting study shows that we use part of the vision center for reasoning, but because it is not available to the language centers, we cannot express it.

[Jeff S]

Yes, the topic is way more complex, and I've read much about the more current science and theory. For purposes of this discussion, though (triggered by the book title and Ivan's article), I 'shorthanded' the conversation for the sake of introducing a still useful tool for drawing and seeing better. But yes, I overstepped that boundary by using the simplistic right/left identification.

 

Jeff

[pico]

Yes, the topic is way more complex, and I've read much about the more current science and theory. For purposes of this discussion, though (triggered by the book title and Ivan's article), I 'shorthanded' the conversation for the sake of introducing a still useful tool for drawing and seeing better. But yes, I overstepped that boundary by using the simplistic right/left identification.

 

Jeff

 

Not an overstep, Jeff. I took the thread as an opportunity to encourage us to consider the so-called Leica 'look' in new terms.

 

One thought was that the look is ineffable, but even if it were then we could identify by pointing to it, so therefore it would not be ineffable.

 

Now I am overstepping?

[Jeff S]

The overstepping I referred to was of course the brain thing. But regarding the 'Leica look,' I find the topic amusing, if not sad in some aspects, given the notion that some think that not only is there such an identifiable thing, but that we can all see it on the web using others' work, and seemingly without regard to countless other factors.

 

I just know that pictures from any camera may look great, or may look like crap, and in many different ways across that spectrum. I personally prefer looking at prints to make my judgment, and after decades of both making and collecting them (and books), I don't waste time thinking in terms of a Leica look.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Printing is not my cup of tea i'm afraid but getting results like this in two minutes through a $20 raw converter is something i'd never dream about i must say.

(Dr Rohde's M240 raw file, RPP's default settings, K64 profile, couple of clicks in iCorrect, no sharpening, no noise reduction).

http://tinyurl.com/cwunhd8

[pico]

Printing is not my cup of tea i'm afraid ...

 

That is perfectly acceptable if one is confidant that super high resolution monitors will become.

 

On the other hand ... ( someone fill this in...)

[MarkP]

 

On the other hand ...

 

for me, it's still all about the print.

 

I print all of my favourite photographs (up to A2) and that is where I make my final decision about my photograph's worth.

 

Although I like seeing my photographs on the screen (and I have very good monitors), seeing my photograph come out of the printer (and I'm now very competent at PP and producing good prints if I do say so myself ) is almost as exciting as when I used to see the print come up in the developer tray.

 

 

 

Pico, did I get the answer right?

[Jeff S]

Printing is not my cup of tea i'm afraid but getting results like this in two minutes through a $20 raw converter is something i'd never dream about i must say.

(Dr Rohde's M240 raw file, RPP's default settings, K64 profile, couple of clicks in iCorrect, no sharpening, no noise reduction).

http://tinyurl.com/cwunhd8

 

Just me, or does her skin have a greenish tint, especially from the neck down?

 

Jeff

[Sailronin]

Back to Wilfredo's original thoughts...

I can't speak to other's work but for my own work I have taken the same subject from the same setup and could tell the difference between the Leica CCD and my Nikon CMOS, straight raw from Aperture (This was just a personal test and I didn't save the images so there's nothing to share). This could have been due to lenses however, an image from my Phase One back is closer to the Leica than Nikon so I believe it's the sensor.

 

With the M240 going to CMOS there will be less distinction between Leica and Nikon/Canon/Sony etc IMHO.

[Jeff S]

Back to Wilfredo's original thoughts...

I can't speak to other's work but for my own work I have taken the same subject from the same setup and could tell the difference between the Leica CCD and my Nikon CMOS, straight raw from Aperture (This was just a personal test and I didn't save the images so there's nothing to share). This could have been due to lenses however, an image from my Phase One back is closer to the Leica than Nikon so I believe it's the sensor.

 

With the M240 going to CMOS there will be less distinction between Leica and Nikon/Canon/Sony etc IMHO.

 

So you base your conclusion on the assumptions/beliefs are that: a) it's not necessary, or perhaps not possible, to make adjustments in PP before making final judgments; all CMOS sensors are created equally (Nikon and Leica M); and, c) there are no other other variables inside the camera (hardware or software) that could impact the results...just the sensor inside or the lens outside. I won't even ask if you printed your results or just looked at your screen.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Just me, or does her skin have a greenish tint, especially from the neck down?...

Yes i see it as well but i did not tweak the colors to be fair. RPP has no M240 profile so far.

[pico]

[...] With the M240 going to CMOS there will be less distinction between Leica and Nikon/Canon/Sony etc IMHO.

 

You do not know what in-camera processing has been done before the image is made to DNG, raw, or a proprietary format. DNG is a misnomer. It is not the same as a negative. Even though DNG is open source, the in-camera processing is not.

[pop]

DNG is a misnomer. It is not the same as a negative.

 

But then, neither is a negative. It's not unprocessed, I meant to say. By the time it's a negative, it will have been processed. Before it's processed, it's not a negative but an imaginative.

[Sailronin]

So you base your conclusion on the assumptions/beliefs are that: a) it's not necessary, or perhaps not possible, to make adjustments in PP before making final judgments; all CMOS sensors are created equally (Nikon and Leica M); and, c) there are no other other variables inside the camera (hardware or software) that could impact the results...just the sensor inside or the lens outside. I won't even ask if you printed your results or just looked at your screen.

 

Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

I was judging on no/minimal post processing...what's the point of altering the output if you're trying to do a test? Both images were printed 13x19 inch (A3+) from the same printer, paper and profile settings. I shared the prints with several photographer friends, all saw a difference but picking Leica from Nikon was no better than random chance would predict.

In my limited experience, CMOS sensors yield similar results, be it Canon, Nikon or Sony. If I recall, N & S use same sensor, who is making Leica's? I believe the physics of CMOS produces a different result from CCD, and yes the in camera processing alters that image.

[Jeff S]

 

I was judging on no/minimal post processing...what's the point of altering the output if you're trying to do a test?

 

...(snip)...

 

I recall, N & S use same sensor, who is making Leica's?

 

My point is that the test is meaningless. You can't isolate the sensor as a factor to begin with. I think Jaap said it well here. Besides, I'm interested in real world results (prints), not tests that one would never print for display.

 

Maybe the camera isn't for you, but I think the way you're assessing it is both incomplete and premature. As a recent example, the MM often yields flat, some might say uninteresting, files out-of-camera according to many reports here; does that mean the sensor is inferior or that these unaltered results should be used as the criteria to judge the potential camera output? Not based on my approach. YMMV.

 

The sensor for the M was built specifically for Leica by CMOSIS, a Belgian firm, and it has been widely discussed on the forum. A search will bring up a lot of info.

 

Jeff

[erl]

A maybe meaningless comparison:

In the days when I shot truckloads of film of stage productions, I was often asked, by wannabe replacements for me, "what film do you use, what camera do you use, .....etc. My response was fairly universal. it's the way I process the film that delivers the magic, and the way I hold my mouth . Basically true.

 

The links in the chain are no more than the means to get to the end. The means are important, but not of interest to the consumer.

 

Show me what you can do, not how you do it!

[Ivan Muller]

Back to Wilfredo's original thoughts...

I can't speak to other's work but for my own work I have taken the same subject from the same setup and could tell the difference between the Leica CCD and my Nikon CMOS, straight raw from Aperture (This was just a personal test and I didn't save the images so there's nothing to share). This could have been due to lenses however, an image from my Phase One back is closer to the Leica than Nikon so I believe it's the sensor.

 

With the M240 going to CMOS there will be less distinction between Leica and Nikon/Canon/Sony etc IMHO.

 

Differences between cameras/sensors should be quite easy to see. Lenses also play their part obviously. But a straight from Raw does not mean that is all what the camera is capable of...further processing, exposure techniques etc should 'bring' out a lot more of most sensors and imo a fine lens will just increase overall image quality.

 

But I have yet to be convinced that between the top sensors around today one type or one brand is so much 'more' superior to the rest...sure we may prefer one look to another but that is not saying it is better.

 

Over at Lensrentals.com there is an interesting article/blog post on choosing a camera where the author compared systems to systems. a good lens will enhance a sensor quite dramatically, and I think perhaps that's where Leica's quality lies, in a combination of sensor and lens which results in the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear