How would you describe the CL's Rendering ?

[miro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know !

I'll try to find where I read that and ask .

Maybe it means natural .

[miro]

while searching for the original use of organic in describing the CL rendering I came across another review that said :

"The images are crisp, and give me an organic look that you just fall in love with."

 

[miro]

I can't find where I first read that .

It may have been somewhere within the CL subforum here .

Edited February 13, 2018 by miro

[Jared]

Honestly, I don't know whether there is an easy way to describe the "rendering" of any camera, even when you are discussing OOC JPG's.  For example, with the CL you get five different "film styles" that come with the camera, and all five allow you to make adjustments to contrast, sharpness, and saturation.  So you can get a variety of looks.  Other cameras do the same thing.  So to a great extent, it really depends on how you setup the camera.  

 

As with all current digital cameras with a decent sized sensor, there is very little noise at most commonly used ISO's, so images are extremely smooth.  I think that's a big part of what people call the "digital" look, though it's usually intended as an insult, i.e., "plastic".  The typical emphasis of greens that I have seen in every digital Leica since the M9 is certainly there in the raw conversions.  I haven't checked the JPG's for that since I don't generally shoot in JPG as I don't need a particularly fast workflow.  

 

Want it to be like slide film?  Bump up the contrast and saturation a touch.  That will limit your dynamic range (common in slides) but give you a bunch of pop.  Want it to be more digital?  I think every current camera is already pretty digital looking, meaning it has very little grain or noise, but that's a good thing in this case not a bad one. I certainly haven't noticed too much noise reduction, but I haven't done much testing with JPG's at higher ISO's where this might become apparent.  Organic?  I don't know what that means.  Does it mean natural looking?  I might drop the saturation of the out-of-camera JPG a touch if that was what I was looking for, just as I would with most cameras.  I think most cameras are pre-set to give more vibrant colors than the natural world generally provides in an effort to add some pizazz.  

 

It captures plenty of detail.  The JPG engine is competent if not exceptional.  Images look good to me--equal to my SL and my M10 within the bounds of an APS-C sensor.

[Wenge]

Just made several prints from CL sooc jpegs, and getting excellent results, so I was certainly p/p raw files incorrectly and getting sub-par results. Am  afraid (and confident) if I re-rent CL +11-23, am gonna return GX8  in favor of CL. (Should've known better, since my XVario is the same way, printing good from jpegs.)

Edited February 13, 2018 by Wenge

[miro]

I was asking about SOOC JPEG in STANDARD setting .

I would say that the CL rendering is clean and crisp with a natural documentary rendering .

[miro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another reviewer says , "sharp images with real-life color" .

[Wenge]

CL, 18-56mm sooc jpeg, @18mm iso 100 (in-camera jpeg settings>sharp +2, contrast +2)

Edited February 13, 2018 by Wenge

[wlaidlaw]

I recently read the rendering described as "organic" .

 

Not holistic?  I started a thread on Barnack's bar about the inappropriate use of "organic", which should only be applied to chemistry of compounds with carbon atoms or farmers who use poo not artificial fertiliser and insecticides. 

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

There is an organic shape too.

[scott kirkpatrick]

One of our family has celiac intolerance.  Does anyone know how to shoot portraits which are gluten-free as well as organic?

[jaapv]

Just don't let him eat the prints.

[miro]

Writing about the SL , one reviewer said :

"In short, I know a good file when I see one, and I have to say that the Leica SL files look great, very “organic” rather than digital, for lack of better words."

[wlaidlaw]

Writing about the SL , one reviewer said :

"In short, I know a good file when I see one, and I have to say that the Leica SL files look great, very “organic” rather than digital, for lack of better words."

 

Maybe the word he was searching for but failed to find, was "Analogue" 

 

Wilson

[miro]

I think people are using the word organic as meaning natural .

[wlaidlaw]

I think people are using the word organic as meaning natural .

 

I think that is something which my old english teacher would have called "a terminological inexactitude" 

 

Wilson

[dfdann]

Not holistic?  I started a thread on Barnack's bar about the inappropriate use of "organic", which should only be applied to chemistry of compounds with carbon atoms or farmers who use poo not artificial fertiliser and insecticides. 

 

Wilson

As a retired Physical Chemist I agree with you 100%.

Thanks, Dan

[Jared]

One of our family has celiac intolerance.  Does anyone know how to shoot portraits which are gluten-free as well as organic?

 

 

I noticed in my Home Depot a few months ago when buying some sandbox sand for a project that it was advertised as gluten free on the package.  Really?  Sand?  Yeah, I would kind of have assumed that it didn't contain any wheat.

[Jared]

 

I think people are using the word organic as meaning natural .

 

The problem is, even in the context of photography, neither term is defined well enough to be meaningful.  The purpose of language is to help us communicate, yes?  What is a "natural" looking image as opposed to a "digital" looking image?  I don't think there is a camera on the market with low enough resolution that images will look pixelated, so that can't be what "digital" means.  So what is it?  Too much smoothing?  As in high ISO images?  I wouldn't expect that to be the case for any current camera--even an iPhone--if shot below ISO 800 or so.  Maybe "natural" or "organic" refers to the colors?  Nothing on the market today is actually all that natural looking in terms of colors.  We all seem to prefer pictures with a little more pizazz than the natural world generally provides, so saturation is almost always a bit higher than "natural".  Even on RAW conversions.  

 

I don't know.  I'm certainly not suggesting that all the camera managers treat colors the same way.  Reds are certainly different between Nikon and Canon.  Yellows are certainly different in Olympus cameras.  Most manufacturers seem to put a signature "look" into their color signature.  I think it's the greens in the case of Leica.  But I hate using terms like "natural" or "organic" or "digital" or "cinematic" or "film like" or even "sharp" to describe the look of a camera in one single adjective.  The meanings are not precise enough to be useful.  

 

Even words we all think we know can easily have their meanings eroded.  Here is one example.  I just scrolled through the lens reviews on "popular photography" and grabbed the first twenty or lenses and looked up their SQF (the acronym PopPhoto uses to describe "subjective quality factor" which they claim is a measure of resolution and contrast, though they even put the word "subjective" in the name).  Every single one of them--literally all of them--received an "excellent" rating.  How useful is the descriptor "excellent" when it is applied to every single lens?  Even the 20x super zooms?  If they really are all "excellent" PopPhoto needs to either update its rating scale or stop performing the evaluation altogether.  It stops being useful--and that's with a word we think we all know the definition to!  

Edited February 14, 2018 by Jared

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[miro]

Sorry I asked .