Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #741 Posted February 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why is it that the moment someone expresses their wish of keeping a product changing into something else ridiculed as druids trying to keep mankind from evolving? This is nuts. Paul, if those 60MP photographs of yours worked so well in museums and galleries with people commenting on the great detail from it's high resolution sensor, why not keep using those type of cameras (60MP btw is way, way outdated nowadays) and stop drooling over a fantasy where you could squeeze those sensors into something entirely else, breaking it in the progress? You know, toasters are for toasting sliced bread - they work marvelously at that one simple task. Sure you could build a 40" flatscreen into them to also watch the news while waiting for your bread to pop, but will it not be inconvenient to squeeze that abomination into a small kitchen? … grabbing my staff and robe to be going back into my cabin in the woods now … I like your contributions to this forum. On this occasion I find it quite perplexing though because it doesn't seem you know wether you are coming or going. On one hand you say you want the M to remain limited, yet on the other you tell me my 60MP is outdated. On one hand you ridicule those SUV Starbucks drinking "kids" who want high res yet you cry about being challenged and ridiculed on the matter and talk about druids. Wether you like it or not, MP is going up. Deal with it. It's not a case of me drooling over a fantasy, it's technological gain and it's already here. When camera design catches up, and it really will soon, we are going to be able to harness use more and more resolution. IBIS, Global shutter, nano dampening, it's just the beginning. 20 years time what we have now is going to seem primitive because we are still using the same designs we have been for decades. New technology has and always will freak people out, but once it has been around for a while it becomes accepted, and then some point later becomes dated. I don't care what's in the camera, I just care about my pictures and making something amazing. My P65 is older than my M9. It is not outdated. The latest IQ260 uses the exact same sensor. It's ridiculously capable. When you have experienced shooting with this sort of resolution there is a very good chance you want it as much as you can because you are aware of what you can do with it. I want my M to be more capable, that is all. If you can't see why, or don't have a need then I'm not out to try and make you see it. As for the toaster and tv analogy, I'm not even going there. It has no relevance to the matter and IMO, it is simply naive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Hi Paul J, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted February 9, 2015 Share #742 Posted February 9, 2015 Large artwork is not a trend. Take a walk through any national gallery and this very quickly becomes evident. I remember the first time I visited the Louvre; all those years I had being studying art, with small pictures in text books, as good it is, can not prepare you for the unmistakable and overwhelming awe you feel standing in front of the Raft of Medusa…. (snip) Wether you are bothered or not, photography is a viewer experience. I don't mean that negatively, some people really don't care about anything other than shooting, and that is fine. But displaying images is about creating an experience to say something. For me, big prints can be a big part of that. It's not about creating something satisfactory. It's about creating something amazing. Just to comment on a couple of your points… I wrote about the trend toward bigger prints, not bigger painting (and the additional reference to bokeh frenzy, etc). We're talking about photography here….the 'art' direction was snipe at how people think big prints are 'arty'…like some big painting. The current trend is clearly evident in galleries and shows, and even in people's homes. As far as caring about prints and display, you're preaching to the choir. I've been studying art and photography for 5 decades, collecting photos and books for 4 decades, and printing on my own (darkroom and digital) since the 80's. I regularly attend exhibits….painting, photography and other…and have met privately with curators and dealers worldwide to see inventory not available to the public. You and I have different preferences as far as the viewing experience. I can be blown away by 8x10 vintage prints from Strand and Weston (I've both owned and seen elsewhere), including unbelievable contact prints. The beauty resides not as much in detail and in the wonderful content/composition, which shows best for me when the entire image can be seen at once, as well as the lustrous texture, tonality and presence. That's different than resolution, which is the discussion here. I don't need some 'mural' to 'wash over me'. And digital hasn't changed my tastes and preferences as it has for others. Just because it's possible doesn't make it desirable…for me. Yes, some works demands to be larger, and I can appreciate that too, but big for big's sake….the current trend…with resolution/detail as the inspiring factor; that doesn't resonate with me in the least. Different strokes… Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 9, 2015 Share #743 Posted February 9, 2015 I will take pixel level sharpness over high megapixel count any day. Look at the files of the Monochrom, the M8, the Sigma Merrill etc. and you can see a "bite" to the pictures that gets lost with higher megapixel count and filters over the sensor. Photographs become smoother but they lack crispness. I have a 40x60inch print from the M9 that looks just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 9, 2015 Share #744 Posted February 9, 2015 This assumes an increase in pixel density will result in an actual reduction in measured (rather than relative) performance in the corners, rather than a lack of improvement. I would be very surprised if an increase in pixels were to have such a dramatic backward step, especially as there would be at least some countermeasures available to Leica. If older lenses see no improvement, the issue of excessive pixels is easily fixed with a lower MRAW option. The issue oulined by pop would be a loss of quality, not just missing improvements. And it would not go way by scaling down or doing pixel-binning. That doesn’t say this issue could not be overcome; stacked sensor designs, for example, are showing some promise in this regard. But as of now, shrinking the pixel area without also shrinking their depth would create some severe issues, especially with an M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 9, 2015 Share #745 Posted February 9, 2015 Some of my most successful images that have showed in museums and exhibits have been 70 inch prints from a 60mp camera by the way. People always comment on the level of detail. I trust they were not only or mostly commenting about the level of detail … If my pictures did garner positive comments mostly about their level of detail, I would regard that kind of praise as damning. Because it implied that the image such didn’t work; only if one took a closer look would one stumble upon the vast amount of detail shown and be impressed. I have seen lots of pictures that were immediately striking, even when they didn’t show lots of detail and upon closer inspection weren’t even particular sharp. I have found that I don’t really care – if an image speaks to me that is enough; lots of detail is nice, but usually inessential. If the amount of detail was all there was to recommend it I might be impressed on a technical, but not on an artistic level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #746 Posted February 9, 2015 Just to comment on a couple of your points… I wrote about the trend toward bigger prints, not bigger painting (and the additional reference to bokeh frenzy, etc). We're talking about photography here….the 'art' direction was snipe at how people think big prints are 'arty'…like some big painting. The current trend is clearly evident in galleries and shows, and even in people's homes. As far as caring about prints and display, you're preaching to the choir. I've been studying art and photography for 5 decades, collecting photos and books for 4 decades, and printing on my own (darkroom and digital) since the 80's. I regularly attend exhibits….painting, photography and other…and have met privately with curators and dealers worldwide to see inventory not available to the public. You and I have different preferences as far as the viewing experience. I can be blown away by 8x10 vintage prints from Strand and Weston (I've both owned and seen elsewhere), including unbelievable contact prints. The beauty resides not as much in detail and in the wonderful content/composition, which shows best for me when the entire image can be seen at once, as well as the lustrous texture, tonality and presence. That's different than resolution, which is the discussion here. I don't need some 'mural' to 'wash over me'. And digital hasn't changed my tastes and preferences as it has for others. Just because it's possible doesn't make it desirable…for me. Yes, some works demands to be larger, and I can appreciate that too, but big for big's sake….the current trend…with resolution/detail as the inspiring factor; that doesn't resonate with me in the least. Different strokes… Jeff So it's different strokes now, I see. Well I can live with that. I like my music really loud too. But this stems from you telling me I need to visit more art galleries. Because I want higher res? C'mon man. You could assume a lot less. I've seen wonderful big prints from both Paul Strand and Edward Weston so I don't quite see your point there, sorry. "lustrous texture, tonality, and presence" is exactly what high res gives you more of. That is what that era were chasing in large format, and what high res digital is getting closer too. Better colour, hue gradation and transition too. As I've said, it's not just about big prints. There is no need to clarify re art, I understood you. I equate big prints to my experiences of big art. I'm assuming you did actually read my post so won't reiterate. I see art not through the medium but through the content, I don't see a painting as different to a photo in that sense. Artists have painted big because they could and I believe for the same reason we will see for more large prints than the past has permitted. Big is not a substitute for content. Infact, big prints are far worse if the picture is weak. It takes a lot more technical skill to pull off a big print, far more than a small one, although I appreciate what you said, in the sense that the essence of a great image can be seen in a small print. I don't believe it's a current trend to print big. I've been attending photographic exhibitions with enormous prints for decades. I do agree that technology allows us to print bigger and cheaper now, so there is a lot more happening, but It's not a trend in the temporary sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 9, 2015 Share #747 Posted February 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pixel level sharpness is no different to pixel level noise. Neither are good yardsticks, as one should normalise the print size between two cameras to allow for an 'end product' comparison. On this basis, on print or on screen, the A7R holds more detail with good lenses than even the Monochrom. Many lenses are not there yet for the A7R, but the principle remains. Resolution is of course not everything and artistic merit undoubtedly more important, but some earlier posts suggests you have to choose one or the other. People can admire a print on its artistic merits, but also be pleased that it holds detail they may wish to see. Alternatively you can throw that detail away as you see fit in post, for creative reasons. This is much easier than adding it. And for some alternative perspectives on some issues raised: I agree that plenty of Leica users shoot wide open, but this an other forums seem to contain far more posts on how much sharpness or resolution there is at the point of focus than there isn't (bokeh is a different issue, as its about what is not in focus). Its not that one approach is more valid than the other - its personal - just my take on what people seem to talk about. I also think resolution remains a significant driver in the market overall and, like it or not, Leica is part of that. If Leica considers its market to be only consisting of existing long time users, it has no future. To bring in new customers, I'm not sure that eliminating banding at 6400, better high ISO and other chassis improvements are going to cut it. Even if the next M is still 24MP, I can't help but feel there will be immense market pressure to jump up in MP after then, when they can solve technological hurdles. My personal interest above 36MP is very limited, but I have little doubt the market will eventually drive FF beyond (with the Canon 5Ds setting the precedent). Any loss of pixel resolution as a result of camera shake with a higher res sensor is brought back when files are downsized. Sure, you have to deal with a larger file without the detail it could hold, but that's about the only disadvantage I can see. Once you get past the desire to pixel peep at 100% and focus on output quality at various sizes, the paying field changes. Also, as someone said earlier, a shutter speed good for 24 MP will still be good for 24 MP on a 36MP camera. I think its important to think about maximum potential and personally I am comfortable recognising that circumstances will not always permit me to reach it. All I end up with is some wasted pixels, which I can live with. Maybe Leica cannot produce a higher resolution sensor with good performance in the corners even if they wanted to, due to technological restrictions/limitations. With other manufacturers edging up in resolution, I don't think Leica can afford to fall too far behind and this will become even more critical if Zeiss manages to produce some superb wide angles for the FE mount. When film was the great equaliser, Leica M was not just sold on the basis of great form factor and the 'window view'. Amazing lenses were a huge part of the pitch. With other platforms improving their lenses and sensors, the M platforms image quality superiority is very much under attack and, perhaps naively, I think 'final output resolution' gains are unlikely to be considered surplus to requirements by the wider marker for at least another coupe of generations. I'm going to be really interested to see what Leica chooses to do, not just with the next M, but beyond. I will take pixel level sharpness over high megapixel count any day. Look at the files of the Monochrom, the M8, the Sigma Merrill etc. and you can see a "bite" to the pictures that gets lost with higher megapixel count and filters over the sensor. Photographs become smoother but they lack crispness. I have a 40x60inch print from the M9 that looks just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #748 Posted February 9, 2015 I trust they were not only or mostly commenting about the level of detail … If my pictures did garner positive comments mostly about their level of detail, I would regard that kind of praise as damning. Because it implied that the image such didn’t work; only if one took a closer look would one stumble upon the vast amount of detail shown and be impressed. I have seen lots of pictures that were immediately striking, even when they didn’t show lots of detail and upon closer inspection weren’t even particular sharp. I have found that I don’t really care – if an image speaks to me that is enough; lots of detail is nice, but usually inessential. If the amount of detail was all there was to recommend it I might be impressed on a technical, but not on an artistic level. You don't know me, so I guess the first sentences are fair. I don't know you either but they certainly feel like an attempt at a back handed slap. I'm not going to go into that; you can believe or assume all what you like. However I agree with the rest, wholly. 'Technically impressive' is mostly useless without a great image, I would have thought that goes without saying...But when an image has both, then it becomes something else, it transcends. Artistic and technical mastery is the goal and while high res is not going to change the content, it certainly adds a quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 9, 2015 Share #749 Posted February 9, 2015 ... 'Technically impressive' is mostly useless without a great image, I would have thought that goes without saying...But when an image has both, then it becomes something else, it transcends. Artistic and technical mastery is the goal and while high res is not going to change the content, it certainly adds a quality. There certainly are (or ought to be) photographs where the resolution is an overriding consideration. However, I don't quite see why an artist would choose a camera which struggles with that respect over one which is much superior to begin with. I.e., by the time Leica cranks up the M to 50MP, the MF cameras which are there today will have reached 200MP or so which is, of course, much more desirable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #750 Posted February 9, 2015 There certainly are (or ought to be) photographs where the resolution is an overriding consideration. However, I don't quite see why an artist would choose a camera which struggles with that respect over one which is much superior to begin with. I.e., by the time Leica cranks up the M to 50MP, the MF cameras which are there today will have reached 200MP or so which is, of course, much more desirable. It's just a simple matter of available technology and the same is to be said for now. I would love my M9 to be 50 or 60MP but of corse it isn't, I have my blad for that for now. But that does come at a price and I almost always prefer using the M9 as a camera, for many reasons. If I had a 60MP Leica M, I would use my Blad even less. So currently I use my M9 for a lot of things, mostly for those projects that I know will have an output less than 16x20, but If I know it's going bigger, if a commercial commission requires it, or if there is a technical need it for like leaf shutter, then I use the Blad. I can't imagine we'll ever see a 200MP Leica M being launched at the same time as a Phase One back, so it's always going to be that way and I currently don't have a need for much more than 100MP anyway. Of corse when it is available I may think differently though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 9, 2015 Share #751 Posted February 9, 2015 I've seen wonderful big prints from both Paul Strand and Edward Weston so I don't quite see your point there, sorry. "lustrous texture, tonality, and presence" is exactly what high res gives you more of. Strand's larger works include his early platinum abstractions, such as this, which is under 10x13. There are others somewhat bigger….but hardly 4 feet wide, which is in vogue (I disagree with your premise on trends, be that as it may). More importantly, the point is that the work would not benefit an iota by higher resolution IMO, which IS different than the already wonderful subtlety, texture and tonality from these early works. Much the same could be said about Weston's larger works. Where we differ, I suppose, is that I find higher resolution, as a key trait, to be the rare exception rather than the rule in most every print I admire….past or present. If it could benefit from that, it's probably of little interest to me in other critical respects. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 9, 2015 Share #752 Posted February 9, 2015 There certainly are (or ought to be) photographs where the resolution is an overriding consideration. However, I don't quite see why an artist would choose a camera which struggles with that respect over one which is much superior to begin with. I.e., by the time Leica cranks up the M to 50MP, the MF cameras which are there today will have reached 200MP or so which is, of course, much more desirable. What you say seems sensible. However, underlying your statement is the belief that more resolution is the most important factor with regard to digital capture. I look at, say, a Hasselblad with a digital back. There is lots of resolution. However, to my mind, Leica lenses produce a more favorable image than Zeiss lenses. I find Zeiss lenses more contrasty and colder. And, Leica lenses are the opposite. Again, to me, the images from the Leica lenses are warmer (in tone, not simply in color), more friendly, and reveal the "roundness" of the objects. So, this is all to say that I really like the way Leica lenses "draw" the image (this use of draw come from Sean Reid). In other words, resolution is not a truth. Regards to all, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted February 9, 2015 Share #753 Posted February 9, 2015 I think we go back to my previous argument here. Digital looks very good up to its native resolution. But resample it too far, and it starts to look fake (cartoonish?) and show artefacts. This was not a problem for film. Film enlarges much more gracefully at large sizes, and an image from film can maintain an integrity when stretched. A lot of museum / fine art was done on film. And even if those images lack "resolution" (which is I don't have a issue with at all), they still have a grace and photographic integrity at bigger sizes. I don't need high MPs for resolution per se - rather, it is to avoid a "fake" look at very big print sizes. The masters of the past didn't have to worry about their image looking "real life", even if those images were grainy and lower resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #754 Posted February 9, 2015 Strand's larger works include his early platinum abstractions, such as this, which is under 10x13. There are others somewhat bigger….but hardly 4 feet wide, which is in vogue (I disagree with your premise on trends, be that as it may). More importantly, the point is that the work would not benefit an iota by higher resolution IMO, which IS different than the already wonderful subtlety, texture and tonality from these early works. Much the same could be said about Weston's larger works. Where we differ, I suppose, is that I find higher resolution, as a key trait, to be the rare exception rather than the rule in most every print I admire….past or present. If it could benefit from that, it's probably of little interest to me in other critical respects. Jeff I would never say that Paul Strands work was lacking in, or would benefit from resolution. It is what it is and I wouldn't want it to be any different. I would say it represents the era and it is an artful use of the medium. Emulating the look Paul Strand's work today, sure, it can look nice, but it is mostly irrelevant. That is not what photography and art is about. You have me down wrong - I don't judge an image by it's resolution, it is not a key trait at all. It's a vehicle of expression, and one that has been used for quite a long time. To me, what matters is the art, the message, the composition, technical comes later down the list. It's both important and not important. In terms of technical hierarchy, yes, resolution is up there for me, but I also love creating a lo-fi aesthetic with high resolution equipment. Look at my signature, it's been there since I joined here. Perception. Not Perfection. When you have resolution you can take it away with various means and methods, preferably in-camera. However there is no way to add it, if you don't have it. I want as much as I can have at my disposal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 9, 2015 Share #755 Posted February 9, 2015 You have me down wrong - I don't judge an image by it's resolution, it is not a key trait at all. Well, I can only interpret some of what you've written here, including… "Some of my most successful images that have showed in museums and exhibits have been 70 inch prints from a 60mp camera by the way. People always comment on the level of detail." That's an awful lot of commenting on a non-key trait…without exception, even. I don't know what exhibits displaying modern work you attend, but various ones I've seen have included (besides some forgettable work) some terrific work ….not emulating past masters in any way…where audiences are impressed without dwelling on the level of detail. In your words, that's not what photography and art is about. You want the most resolution your camera can offer; I understand. But I and many others already have as much resolution as we need, from a multitude of cameras, to use in an overall workflow to create wonderful prints. By analogy, I don't need a car that can go 200 mph, even though I can take my foot off the gas when speed isn't needed. As I said, different strokes…doesn't make either of us a bad person. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 9, 2015 Share #756 Posted February 9, 2015 Well, I can only interpret some of what you've written here, including… "Some of my most successful images that have showed in museums and exhibits have been 70 inch prints from a 60mp camera by the way. People always comment on the level of detail." That's an awful lot of commenting on a non-key trait…without exception, even. I don't know what exhibits displaying modern work you attend, but various ones I've seen have included (besides some forgettable work) some terrific work ….not emulating past masters in any way…where audiences are impressed without dwelling on the level of detail. In your words, that's not what photography and art is about. You want the most resolution your camera can offer; I understand. But I and many others already have as much resolution as we need, from a multitude of cameras, to use in an overall workflow to create wonderful prints. By analogy, I don't need a car that can go 200 mph, even though I can take my foot off the gas when speed isn't needed. As I said, different strokes…doesn't make either of us a bad person. Jeff Of corse I've commented on the level of detail because it's relevant to the conversation about extra megapixels. We are talking *solely* about resolution here. Do you expect me to say — everyone says I'm a content and compositional god, oh and they also mention the detail? Yes, I go to a lot of galleries, every month, sometimes every week, sometimes more. My work shows in them too. It's how I spend my life and how I earn a living. I live in London but work in Paris and New York too, I have shot all over the world. I obsess about details, I obsess about aesthetic, and process, it's an important part of my job and work but not more so than the art and the image. I dwell on it when I watch a movie, when I read a poem or a book, when I'm looking at a painting, I care and am interested in form. Dwelling on these details IS what art is about for the artist. It certainly may not be for a viewer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 10, 2015 Share #757 Posted February 10, 2015 But it's not a key trait for you. You obsess about it. You can't get enough of it. But you're only focusing on it here because that's the topic. Now I get it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 10, 2015 Share #758 Posted February 10, 2015 Nice hijacking boys. I think the original post was "What do you want in the next M". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 10, 2015 Share #759 Posted February 10, 2015 Nice hijacking boys.I think the original post was "What do you want in the next M". Aren't you paying attention? LOTS MORE MEGAPIXELS Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 10, 2015 Share #760 Posted February 10, 2015 Aren't you paying attention? LOTS MORE MEGAPIXELS Jeff See how easy it is to say that without all the it long winded I am right and you are wrong goofy discussions that took the OP's post way off tangent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.