thighslapper Posted February 23, 2014 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The stuff inside the camera is basically the same. It's all lenses, firmware and post-processing....... ....and possibly the M users are better photographers .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here Interesting finding: M240 images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 23, 2014 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2014 It may be at a personal level, after all Japanese photographers can be very much freer in their style than the average Westerner and like to 'deconstruct' the image in directions that pixels peepers in the West don't often follow. They have a great liking for single coated lenses and old simple cameras for instance, and while the Leica myth does exist in Japan their preferences are for cameras that allow more organic image making (m4/3 etc) without needing to resort to counting pixels. Their visual language is an evolving aspect their culture, not visual mores that simply get re-recycled with a higher pixel count each time a new camera is released. But the essence of what you say above is questionable. In the digital age 'Olympus colour' (or color if you like) has been the aspirational goal of many other Japanese manufacturers, or at least their Western customers. 'Why can't I get the same colours with my Nikon as I had with my Olympus?' is the cry after a pointless 'upgrade'. If only the Leica M9 had 'Olympus Colour' I'd have one still, if only the M240 had 'Olympus Colour' I'd have one of those as well. And with the colour it's not just that Olympus get it right, but they get it right even at the expense of perfect accuracy. The scene looks how it should look rather than how it does look. They tickle the receptors in the eye with colour the brain wants to see, in the right balance, nothing glaring (like Leica red). Now this is a cross cultural thing, and Olympus have long prided themselves in doing it, and it doesn't mean other manufacturers can't do it, but it depends on priority. On to your 'sparkle'. I'm not having a go at anybody, but compared with an awful lot of serious Nikon or Canon photographers, Leica users tend to hold the brand in awe. And I mean they dare not deviate from the path, lenses need to be demonstrated, bodies need to justify all their pixels. But some guy with a Canon is liable to do a multi shot blend with three minute exposures to copy some other guy's wave crashing on the shore picture and believe it or not the lens and body are not the highest priority. This a sacrilege for a 35mm 'Lux, the money spent on it isn't being justified, you can't mess around with the picture! Which gets me to my point, the majority of Leica pictures I would say tend to simply hit 'Auto' in ACR, and lo and behold the shadows take a hike upwards and the highlights take a hike downwards and you have your sparkly shadows. It's just doing the minimum, it's trying not to mess up $10000 of 'investment' by having their own opinion about how the photo should look. So that's it, generally speaking sparkle comes from a lack of vision, wanting everything to be even, open shadows that demonstrate the lens and body are worth it, and no jeopardy in having somebody say they don't like a personal interpretation of a scene, neutral, void, even laziness describes it. It's an old cliché now, but the question 'how can I make it look more like film?' has more merit than it sounds. It is at least a jumping off point to a personal view, rebelling against stock JEPG's or Auto ACR and lifted shadows with detail you wouldn't have seen in real life. Sparkle is an irritating modern disease when used indiscriminately, wonderful when used intelligently, but it's not looking good generally for Leica health care when it's mostly down to awe and fear. Steve You ate some oysters yesterday, Steve?Seriously, I think you could make a similar argument the other way around against over-processed images. I really doubt that there is any brand correlation in gear fetishism, photographic vision or photoshop skills - although one could argue that the percentage of photographers that came from film recently might bias the proportion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 23, 2014 Share #23 Posted February 23, 2014 Thanks, what is your recommendations for the best viewing device? A colour matched screen, eg a apple 27" display, a dell U2713H, various eizo, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share #24 Posted February 23, 2014 Hi Steve, It may be at a personal level, after all Japanese photographers can be very much freer in their style than the average Westerner and like to 'deconstruct' the image in directions that pixels peepers in the West don't often follow. They have a great liking for single coated lenses and old simple cameras for instance, and while the Leica myth does exist in Japan their preferences are for cameras that allow more organic image making (m4/3 etc) without needing to resort to counting pixels. Their visual language is an evolving aspect their culture, not visual mores that simply get re-recycled with a higher pixel count each time a new camera is released. Thanks for contributing a discussion into Post-modernism (deconstructing image?). Perhaps, it is my age revealing itself but when it comes to image capturing, my eyes crave for composing hi-fidelity contents to show beauty, like the works of Ansel Adams, Yousuf Karsh, Mary Ellen Mark, Sebastião Salgado, Steve McCurry and the like. Yes, that's a limited view of the world of art. So, you are right, if lomography is what we have in mind, it's debatable whether we need a set of $10K+ gear to construct lomo art when one can just use plastic lenses to push the world of photography along the Post-modernist worldview. Also, some do suffer from severe indigestion and internal convulsion when handling the word Post-modernism. But the essence of what you say above is questionable. In the digital age 'Olympus colour' (or color if you like) has been the aspirational goal of many other Japanese manufacturers, or at least their Western customers. You raised a good point. I have not seen this before about Olympus being the leading edge (in terms of color management) in the digital world among the Japanese manufacturers. I thought Nikon and Canon are the leading edges in the world, just by looking at how the market forces rewarded them. Probably, I'm not the only one looking to read more about this if you can kindly provide some. On to your 'sparkle'. I'm not having a go at anybody, but compared with an awful lot of serious Nikon or Canon photographers, Leica users tend to hold the brand in awe. And I mean they dare not deviate from the path, lenses need to be demonstrated, bodies need to justify all their pixels. But some guy with a Canon is liable to do a multi shot blend with three minute exposures to copy some other guy's wave crashing on the shore picture and believe it or not the lens and body are not the highest priority. This a sacrilege for a 35mm 'Lux, the money spent on it isn't being justified, you can't mess around with the picture! Which gets me to my point, the majority of Leica pictures I would say tend to simply hit 'Auto' in ACR, and lo and behold the shadows take a hike upwards and the highlights take a hike downwards and you have your sparkly shadows. It's just doing the minimum, it's trying not to mess up $10000 of 'investment' by having their own opinion about how the photo should look. I agree with you about the passion of Nikon and Canon photographers editing and creating multi-image files. However, I can't really say for sure if Leica users are doing the same or not or only hitting the 'Auto' in ACR. As for myself, the last time I hit the 'Auto' in ACR was probably in Lightroom 1.1 or 0.1. So that's it, generally speaking sparkle comes from a lack of vision, wanting everything to be even, open shadows that demonstrate the lens and body are worth it, and no jeopardy in having somebody say they don't like a personal interpretation of a scene, neutral, void, even laziness describes it. It's an old cliché now, but the question 'how can I make it look more like film?' has more merit than it sounds. It is at least a jumping off point to a personal view, rebelling against stock JEPG's or Auto ACR and lifted shadows with detail you wouldn't have seen in real life. Sparkle is an irritating modern disease when used indiscriminately, wonderful when used intelligently, but it's not looking good generally for Leica health care when it's mostly down to awe and fear. I accept your opinion and I honor it. The word 'sparkle' is, indeed, as subjective as 'glow' as was suggested in an earlier post. Like you, I was just sharing my opinion and findings. Perhaps, my eyes are playing tricks on me but I wanted to see if the Leica community here have seen likewise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 23, 2014 Share #25 Posted February 23, 2014 \ It's just doing the minimum, it's trying not to mess up $10000 of 'investment' by having their own opinion about how the photo should look. I still have no idea what sparkly shadows are but this was a good post and thanks for putting the word "investment" in quotes. You always hear people on camera sites and politicians call spending "investing" when in fact the two activities are diametric opposites. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuyork Posted February 23, 2014 Share #26 Posted February 23, 2014 I would say that a Nec Spectraview or Eizo GC screen is a wholly different experience from a retina display. Not surprising, those are monitors designed with photography in mind, Apple caters to graphics professionals ( and the top end of the general marketFor one thing, the Retina display only renders 99% of sRGB, whilst Eizo and NEC come close to Adobe RGB. I agree 100% NEC Spectraview (I have) or Eizo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted February 23, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Peter Karbe said that everybody (and every lens) can photograph with light. The interesting thing is how to do it when there is little or no light. If you look at the newer lenses as the 50mm Summilux, the 35mm Summilux, 50mm Noctilux, 50mm APO-Summicron and even the new 21/3.4 and 21/1.4 you will see they see better in shadows than the eye. They pick up details. I would think the main reason is the lenses, the way the see light rays (which are Red, Green and Blue), and then having sensors and so forth that doesn't blur or obstruct it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share #28 Posted February 23, 2014 Here's one article that seems to conclude that slapping Leica lenses onto the SONY massive 36Mp sensor did not have the intended effect ... Leica M240 vs M9 vs Sony A7R Lens Combination Review » D!RK Perhaps, it was the Novoflex adaptor or camera shake but there were more than 10 comparison pictures in there. How could the camera shake only affect the SONY and not the M240? Was it the loud clank of the SONY shutter that gave the photographer a firing flinch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2014 Share #29 Posted February 23, 2014 I am very sorry, but we cannot publish copyrighted work without permission here. If you wish you can use links. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 23, 2014 Share #30 Posted February 23, 2014 So many words, and not a single picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 23, 2014 Share #31 Posted February 23, 2014 Here's one article that seems to conclude that slapping Leica lenses onto the SONY massive 36Mp sensor did not have the intended effect ... Leica M240 vs M9 vs Sony A7R Lens Combination Review » D!RK Perhaps, it was the Novoflex adaptor or camera shake but there were more than 10 comparison pictures in there. How could the camera shake only affect the SONY and not the M240? Was it the loud clank of the SONY shutter that gave the photographer a firing flinch? Sean Reid has carried out extensive tests with many different focal lengths on the A7R and M240. Below 50mm there is no competition between them with Leica lenses, the M240 is far superior. This does not mean the A7R is a bad camera, far from it, however the deep well Leica micro-lens design is the best way to deal with it own lenses, unsurprisingly perhaps. Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share #32 Posted February 23, 2014 So many words, and not a single picture. I'm going to try again but this time only links ... DISCLAIMER/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: these images are not mine but samples from Flickr. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7389/11620193505_f3cd196b44_c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/11405659573_b803b87ef6_c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2886/12716034783_4c269fb8dd_c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2814/12664462595_96054a3391_c.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3704/12664891304_402e801638_c.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5505/12648529944_1796a0da55_c.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5509/12652118825_58325bf159_c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/12509879044_4fdef25bd7_c.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/12267146864_0eb98ac5b7_c.jpg All sizes | Hardcore | Flickr - Photo Sharing! All sizes | Respect | Flickr - Photo Sharing! All sizes | Batavia Night 4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Here's one shot with an M240 using a 35mm 'Cron ASPH but it sure has the same feel as one of Brad Washburn's mountain images... http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3697/12622627524_1492c026fb_h.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightwrangler Posted February 23, 2014 Share #33 Posted February 23, 2014 Nice cats. Now onto some pictures of pianos, please. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 24, 2014 Share #34 Posted February 24, 2014 Nice cats. Now onto some pictures of pianos, please. Mike My previous career include image recognition software. Frigging cats fell into the same metrics as pussy pictures. Coincidence? I think not. Sent from my Etcha-sketch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 24, 2014 Share #35 Posted February 24, 2014 Reminds me of the CCD vs CMOS battle. Just take a good Japanese body, put Leica lenses on it and shoot RAW. Can you see significant differences colour wise? I can't with both my 5D and R-D1. The choice of different raw converters makes for far more difference IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 24, 2014 Share #36 Posted February 24, 2014 You ate some oysters yesterday, Steve?Seriously, I think you could make a similar argument the other way around against over-processed images. I don't think you could. Over processed by who's standards? Photographs have always been processed, but never in the history of photography have so many photographs been processed by so few people, they leave it to software and call it a day when their 100 keepers from 100 shots have been done. At least with 'over processing' as you call it somebody is having a go at generating something that stands as their own, not owing its 'sparkle' to ACR and an Adobe boffin. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 24, 2014 Share #37 Posted February 24, 2014 I still cannot believe I have read this thread and have not seen one example from the OP himself. Many good pros try Auto at first to see how the software would process the image, sometimes OK and sometimes not, but often it can save considerable time where you then use it as a base to then move forward and onto your own vision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 24, 2014 Share #38 Posted February 24, 2014 Thanks for contributing a discussion into Post-modernism (deconstructing image?). Perhaps, it is my age revealing itself but when it comes to image capturing, my eyes crave for composing hi-fidelity contents to show beauty, like the works of Ansel Adams, Yousuf Karsh, Mary Ellen Mark, Sebastião Salgado, Steve McCurry and the like. Yes, that's a limited view of the world of art. I agree it's an astonishingly limited view of the world of art. I'm glad you put yourself in such high company, false modesty is an annoying affectation, but then I suppose blind belief is as well. But if you ever knew you have obviously forgotten that even Ansel Adams did not come from a 'high fidelity' world. He grew up a Pictorialist because that is the way people saw photography, as an extension of painting. So are you saying the Pictorialists and their deconstruction of the image were Post Modernists before their time? I just don't think you've thought about that little conundrum have you...... And perhaps also consider your friend Sebastião Salgado who has recently started to use digital instead of Tri-X. His digital images are 'deconstructed' to show grain by using DxO Film Pack, so messing up ultimate fidelity for the mere personal whim that he likes grain. Is that another conundrum for you to ponder? Your high fidelity world is certainly high maintenance when it come to having ideas that get shot down. You see, both Ansel and Sebastião were/are followed/following their own path, not because it is prescribed by the laws of owning sharp lenses but because they made an intellectual decision. Ansel decided Pictorialism wasn't for him and wanted to make a break with painting altogether. And Sebastião because he can see there is more in grain than grain, it has an effect, an emotional effect, it is the mood enhancer as well as the substance that keeps the eye roving over areas of the print with little detail in them. I am sure you will find others in the Leica community that share your perception of 'sparkle', they have a high investment in something or other being 'better' than a Canon or Nikon for the money they spent, and are sure to see sparkle as the reason. But it is a contrivance, process a Canon or Nikon image a different way and you would get sparkle, it is simply down to how the RAW converter processes the default image. But one thing is certain, if the banal example's of image's you link to (and why not your own?) is an example of sparkle then sparkle should definitely not be something that is inspirational or aspirational, it should come with a warning! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2014 Share #39 Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think you could. Over processed by who's standards? Photographs have always been processed, but never in the history of photography have so many photographs been processed by so few people, they leave it to software and call it a day when their 100 keepers from 100 shots have been done. At least with 'over processing' as you call it somebody is having a go at generating something that stands as their own, not owing its 'sparkle' to ACR and an Adobe boffin. Steve Exactly. And "sparkle' by who's standards? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 24, 2014 Share #40 Posted February 24, 2014 Nice pictures, but I expected a more pragmatic comparison: same subject shot twice, first Canikon, then Leica, same focal length. Balance exposure and white, then point to the sparkle. ...Then mount the Canikon kit lens on the Leica, and see if the sparkle is still there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.