Contrast and tonal range on the MM1

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes it is.  Some people bring their personal problems here, though.  I've found it best to ignore them and not get sucked into an online argument.

[dkmoore]

Good advice. There is so much talent that could be shared amongst us all, especially us amateurs (talking about myself only).

 

I will admit to also posting smart ass comments occasionally but I am going to refrain from doing so moving forward.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dkmoore]

If I didn't make it clear enough in my original post or the second post on page 2, the rocks picture is not an image I took. I should have linked to it rather than copy and paste as an example. The image belongs to Taosantamonica. 

 

 

This post is dedicated to 01AF. Instead of being a tough guy behind a computer, next time you should communicate the error and I would have been happy to make the correction. I shouldn't have to tell you this but it isn't what your saying, its the asshole way in which you communicate. 

 

 

*yes, I take copyright infringement seriously. If that offended you Taosantamonica I sincerely apologize. I'll read up on the rules.

[Jeff S]

Delete

Edited August 11, 2018 by Jeff S

[Jeff S]

I shouldn't have to tell you this but it isn't what your saying, its the asshole way in which you communicate.

 

 

Hilarious given immediately preceding exchange. I can see the restraint already.

 

Jeff

[Likaleica]

Maybe we can get this thread back on track.  Jaap, how do Monochrom files differ from film with respect to your original post in your opinion?  And do the film presets in SEFx2 address the issue sufficiently?

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am I on the right track with the tonal range or not at all? If not, what should I do differently? There are blown highlights for sure but they didn't bother me for this image.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Likaleica]

There are no rights and wrongs.  It's individual tastes but there are "norms" that appeal to most people.  White points, black points, etc.  Some people like flat photos, some people like contrasty photos.  Lambda is a great photographer who posts often and his motto is "F**k the midtones!"  Some people don't like his work, and I didn't at first, until I began to appreciate it for what he was trying to say.

 

I think what Jaap was trying to get at is that a lot of the images of Monochrom files that are posted look like no effort was made in post-processing.  I think that's a lovely picture of your little girl even if the highlights in the background are blown.  It's a "high key" photograph.  

[jaapv]

Maybe we can get this thread back on track.  Jaap, how do Monochrom files differ from film with respect to your original post in your opinion?  And do the film presets in SEFx2 address the issue sufficiently?

I don't think that one can really equate film with digital files. There is a good reason that people have a strong preference for one or the other.

Personally, I feel that it is a mistake to try and imitate film with a digital photograph as trying to make something into a copy of something it is not is simply kitsch. One of the reasons I dislike Efex film presets.

A Monochrom photograph should look like a Monochrom photograph in my book, just like a Tri-X photograph should look like a Tri-X one.

Having said that, the Leica engineers took the tonal scale of Delta 100 as a reference to determine the tonal rendering of the Monochrom.

 

And I like Dunk's photograph. Blown highlights are fine by me if they are meant to be blown. To me, exposure is perfect.

 

I might have treated it slightly differently, but we are in the realm of personal taste. Just as an example, here I dropped overall contrast by -10 and added this curve:

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

And this is Dunk's:

 

 

 

 

Notice how the manipulation of midtones affects the impression of sharpness? I didn't change anything in the sharpening and switched the export sharpening of LR off.

[jaapv]

There are no rights and wrongs.  It's individual tastes but there are "norms" that appeal to most people.  White points, black points, etc.  Some people like flat photos, some people like contrasty photos.  Lambda is a great photographer who posts often and his motto is "F**k the midtones!"  Some people don't like his work, and I didn't at first, until I began to appreciate it for what he was trying to say.

 

I think what Jaap was trying to get at is that a lot of the images of Monochrom files that are posted look like no effort was made in post-processing.  I think that's a lovely picture of your little girl even if the highlights in the background are blown.  It's a "high key" photograph.  

That is exactly what I meant. Far be it from me to dictate what a photograph must look like. But I am trying to get people to post photographs that look like they as creator think they should.

I get the impression that in some cases the camera and postprocessing software have decided, not the maker.

[01af]

I get the impression that in some cases the camera and postprocessing software have decided, not the maker.

Some photographers foolishly believe that the camera's and software's random decisions were the only legitimate way to get it right and any own decision will lead to adulteration.

Edited August 12, 2018 by 01af

[Jager]

That is exactly what I meant. Far be it from me to dictate what a photograph must look like. But I am trying to get people to post photographs that look like they as creator think they should.

I get the impression that in some cases the camera and postprocessing software have decided, not the maker.

 

+1.

 

It's also wise to remember that the striving for technical perfection - whether that be "it's gotta be tack sharp" or "this camera is better than that one because it has more dynamic range" or "I must NOT clip the highlights" - so often seen on internet forums... is usually the antithesis of good photography.  The world is awash in technically perfect images that are utterly devoid of emotional content.  And many of the classic, famous images of yore are technically deficient in one respect or another.  If HCB were alive and posting on the internet today I suspect he'd be taken out behind the wood shed...

 

Photography is first and foremost about artistic intent.  And artistic intent for most of us is about what we saw.  What moved us.  That's what our target should be.

 

The out-of-camera files and the imaging editing program(s) we use are just tools towards that end.  Like the darkroom, back in the day.

 

 

Sometimes we're more than happy to let the highlights go...

 

[dkmoore]

Jaapv,

 

Thanks for taking the time to post the examples above. 

 

I very clearly misunderstood the point of your original post.

[Likaleica]

Personally, I feel that it is a mistake to try and imitate film with a digital photograph as trying to make something into a copy of something it is not is simply kitsch. One of the reasons I dislike Efex film presets.

 

 

Jaap, I totally get this point of view.  It brought Selgado to mind, however, and his switch to digital.  So I did a little internet search and I apologize for the lengthy post and it's a little off topic.  

 

 

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/sebastião-salgados-genesis-how-did-he-do-it.104571/

What would you say to photographers who maintain that digital photography will never match the quality of analogue?

Previously, if you had an enlarger, to get a perfect print was very difficult. And today, well, you can have a perfect print from digital. What for me is a little bit scary, is just how realistic it is that these images will stay around forever. If you store them on hard disks, will they be accessible for a long time? So at this moment we create negatives for the most important pictures that I make with digital. We have a very nice process to transform an image into a negative in order to be able to store it. Because with negatives I’m 100% sure we can store the image for a very long time. But, the digital system is still in total evolution. ..... If I’d had this at the beginning of my life as a photographer, I tell you I’d have an incredible amount of nice pictures that I’ve lost. I’m very happy with the digital process, I believe that on average it’s much better in quality than analogue. It involves less pollution, because we don’t release chemicals from developing paper or a negative into the water system. We don’t have any more problems with x-rays in airports, which became hell for photographers. And the results now are fabulous. I’m very very happy with the results.

 

 

This article http://elrectanguloenlamano.blogspot.com/2015/11/genesis-by-sebastiao-salgado-black-and.html goes into much more detail about how his team worked to emulate Tri-X from his digital files for Genesis.  It sounds like they came up with their own recipe, rather than using Silver Effects.

 

Again, there is no right or wrong.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Likaleica

[Guest tofu_man]

 It sounds like they came up with their own recipe, rather than using Silver Effects.

 

 

 

"Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper."

 

https://www.dxo.com/us/user-testimonials/sebasti%C3%A3o-salgado

[Likaleica]

"Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper."

 

https://www.dxo.com/us/user-testimonials/sebasti%C3%A3o-salgado

 

Thank you.  I couldn't find this page.  Now I've bookmarked it.

[Ernstk]

"Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper."

 

https://www.dxo.com/us/user-testimonials/sebasti%C3%A3o-salgado

 

Thanks. The DxO FilmPack product looks very interesting.

 

Has anyone here used it?

 

Ernst

[Likaleica]

Lots of people on the forum have used it.  I use it but don't particularly like their film emulations.  I use it more for local control and adding a frame to the image.

[Ernstk]

Lots of people on the forum have used it.  I use it but don't particularly like their film emulations.  I use it more for local control and adding a frame to the image.

 

Do you feel that the emulation isn't very accurate?

 

Ernst

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I feel it is kitsch... My position is: if you want your image to look like film, use film.

That is not to say that things like adding a bit of grain to enhance sharpness, influence DOF or hide noise cannot be effective digital tools.