Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 36 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Why “fault”? Different preferences, different approaches, disagreement is fine. Fault is a little pejorative, don’t you think? Even if you know your approach is right ... He draws conclusions about the camera’s performance based on compressed JPEGs from others, and without knowledge of their PP, plus saying that M10M files would have to be clipped in highlights and shadows to match M9M files, among other things. The M10M didn’t require a reinvention of basic digital PP principles...setting black and white points, adjusting the tone curve and other controls to taste, etc. There are countless rendering options, as always. I imagine that the Phase true medium format 150 MP Bayerless back would eat its lunch resolution and tonality-wise, but even then the same processing principles would apply. So, yes, I find fault with the leap to conclusions, but if softening matters, I strongly disagree. And that’s even before getting into all this recent nonsense about having to click on ‘lightbox’ to achieve ‘faithful’ rendering. Who knows what we’re seeing, let alone when comparing to older M9M pics? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here M9M VS M10M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted February 23, 2020 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) While your overall point about processing is well made, your comment (apart from being rude) inferred in context that anything less than a comparison from a print (preferably done yourself in a dark room?) was the only way to test the difference between the M10M & M9M. For over 99% of photography, I’d hazard, this is quite untrue. Let me put it this way, if you don’t print is your photography any less valid? And, if you shoot off thousands of images a year, and the only measure is a print, what on earth do you do will all that paper? I like printing, but it’s less than one in a thousand that warrant the time and expense; and then it is never the resolution, dynamic range or any other technical evaluation that warrants the decision. It’s almost entirely composition (assuming no glaring technical faults). So, yes I do think your comment was overly harsh - live and let live, maybe? It’s not a competition ... Edited February 23, 2020 by IkarusJohn 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirubadanieru Posted February 23, 2020 Author Share #23 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) People, chill lol we're all here because we like photography & Leica. If we can't be nice even to people who share the same interests then I really see no point in a community / forum. Especially MM users are a minority within a minority of Leica users, let's all be nice to each other : ) M9M files, due to having less DR may appear less flat, that's why the comment to push blacks/whites to make the M10M closer to the M9M output. That sounds ok to me. And those who do prefer to print, that's great too actually I want to start printing my photos so any advice on how to best prepare M10M files for printing would be greatly appreciated : ) Edited February 23, 2020 by shirubadanieru 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2020 Share #24 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jeff S said: And I'm just as free to comment on your conclusions, with which I find fault. Jeff I wasn't suggesting otherwise. You're free to say whatever you want. My suggestion about starting another thread to discuss differences in prints made from the M9M and M10M was sincere. There was absolutely no reason for you to take offense. As for my comment about the differences in appearance between images posted here from M9M and M10M files, the opinion I expressed was based on both what I've seen in the image threads for both cameras and on my own experience. If your results working with M10M files have been different or for some reason have more validity, I'd be more than happy to read all about it. Edited February 23, 2020 by fotografr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #25 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) That would be difficult as I don’t own the camera, and would not rely on online pics from others to draw conclusions. The M9M, as I’ve said, meets my needs, apart from the old M9 platform deficiencies compared to the M10, which I do own. The benefit of a Monochrom, for me, relates primarily to the b/w mindset that it allows. The M10 is also perfectly capable of superb b/w print results when I do my part well, with the added benefit of color channel tweaks if desired. We have an embarrassment of riches in terms of gear options these days, none of which suffer from IQ limitations, at least for my demanding needs. YMMV, as they say. Jeff Edited February 23, 2020 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 23, 2020 Share #26 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) vor 5 Stunden schrieb fotografr: [...] As for my comment about the differences in appearance between images posted here from M9M and M10M files, the opinion I expressed was based on both what I've seen in the image threads for both cameras and on my own experience. If your results working with M10M files have been different or for some reason have more validity, I'd be more than happy to read all about it. When comments on the perceived difference between the IQ of different cameras based on web images are accompanied by links to download the corresponding RAW files then people get really ticked off. And it's not just on this forum. I once posted links to α7R IV ARW and SL2 DNG files on the Sony forum and people were all over me. 🤣 Edited February 23, 2020 by Chaemono Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2020 Share #27 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Sure we all have different preferences as to how we work, and why not? But I’m with Jeff in this in that all of my personal work is directed towards printing the image, there’s nothing like the tactility of holding a finished print in the hand, viewing what you’ve shot in that way. It closes a circle for me.The web, keeping one’s work just as a digital image is too “dangerous “, which of us has never lost a file due to a digital hiccup? When you’ve a print in hand you have something that’s harder to have evaporate. I wouldn’t, haven’t, spent as much as I have on an M without spending a little more on a decent printer too so I can physically hold and keep the images I like......Anyway, it’s all personal choice, different strokes etc etc. Edited February 23, 2020 by petermullett Spelling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted February 23, 2020 Share #28 Posted February 23, 2020 Everyone should do what makes them happy. And we should all be delighted that there is enough interest in Leica that they're able to continue putting out amazing cameras and lenses. That said, there's something terribly ironic when technical judgments of high-end photographic equipment are made when the reference medium is a small jpeg rendered on a web page somewhere... for that medium is largely incapable of displaying the nuance that is at the heart of what we paid for. Frankly, if jpegs on a web page is our scientific measuring stick, any smartphone of the last half-dozen years will suffice. Web forums are wonderful for conversation, for dialogue, and for representing artistic intent in our imagery. But they fail miserably in showing the difference that an expensive camera or the next uber expensive lens can provide. And, yes, there's a second irony in that a dedicated photography forum - like this one here - continues to provide nothing but that kindergarten-basic medium for the display of images. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #29 Posted February 23, 2020 25 minutes ago, Jager said: Everyone should do what makes them happy. And we should all be delighted that there is enough interest in Leica that they're able to continue putting out amazing cameras and lenses. That said, there's something terribly ironic when technical judgments of high-end photographic equipment are made when the reference medium is a small jpeg rendered on a web page somewhere... for that medium is largely incapable of displaying the nuance that is at the heart of what we paid for. Frankly, if jpegs on a web page is our scientific measuring stick, any smartphone of the last half-dozen years will suffice. Web forums are wonderful for conversation, for dialogue, and for representing artistic intent in our imagery. But they fail miserably in showing the difference that an expensive camera or the next uber expensive lens can provide. And, yes, there's a second irony in that a dedicated photography forum - like this one here - continues to provide nothing but that kindergarten-basic medium for the display of images. +1 Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted February 23, 2020 Share #30 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Jager said: Frankly, if jpegs on a web page is our scientific measuring stick, any smartphone of the last half-dozen years will suffice. There are many parts of your discussion that I agree with but I do not understand (nor agree) with any comment arguing above. I’ve not seen one iPhone 11 Pro photo on my smallish 15” MacBook screen that I’d even consider posting on the forum. Those photos are for family share only. I have seen some amazing iPhone work but I can’t imagine how much software and time was committed after the fact. I would love to see an example that anyone feels, even JPEG on our screen, that can’t be easily differentiated from a Leica Monochrom image. Maybe just exaggerating for point emphasis? Edited February 23, 2020 by dkmoore Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2020 Share #31 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jager said: That said, there's something terribly ironic when technical judgments of high-end photographic equipment are made when the reference medium is a small jpeg rendered on a web page somewhere... for that medium is largely incapable of displaying the nuance that is at the heart of what we paid for. Frankly, if jpegs on a web page is our scientific measuring stick, any smartphone of the last half-dozen years will suffice. I don't think anyone, on this thread or any other, has ever implied that viewing images on a web forum was the final judging platform for determining a camera's technical performance. That inference seems to have been drawn by one member purely for the sake of argument. This, however, happens to be a WEB forum where people post images that are examined and judged in relation to other photos posted here. Yes, they are compressed jpegs, but they are what we have. I will suggest again that perhaps some people would have a more satisfying discussion about the IQ of one camera versus another by starting a thread in which these differences can be discussed on the basis of prints that have been made from each camera. Edited February 23, 2020 by fotografr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #32 Posted February 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, fotografr said: I don't think anyone, on this thread or any other, has ever implied that viewing images on a web forum was the final judging platform for determining a camera's technical performance. That inference seems to have been drawn by one member purely for the sake of argument. Post #13 was the basis for my initial comments. Even if I never printed, I would still disagree with the conclusions. Jager expressed it better than I. So I guess that makes at least two here. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2020 Share #33 Posted February 23, 2020 18 minutes ago, Jeff S said: Post #13 was the basis for my initial comments. Even if I never printed, I would still disagree with the conclusions. Jager expressed it better than I. So I guess that makes at least two here. Jeff I think it was clear in that post that my comment was based on viewing web images. If it's your contention that no conclusions can be drawn from viewing web images, then we might as well just shut down this entire forum. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #34 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, fotografr said: I think it was clear in that post that my comment was based on viewing web images. If it's your contention that no conclusions can be drawn from viewing web images, then we might as well just shut down this entire forum. I use the forum regularly, but don’t post pics. Works fine for me. Even if I did, one could comment on my abilities compositionally and such, or perhaps my processing style and abilities, but it would not be evidence of the camera’s overall or nuanced ability to perform, at least not with most any current quality gear. Again, Jager (another Jeff) expressed my sentiments. To each his own. The forum can handle opinions of all kinds, at least within the rules. Jeff Edited February 23, 2020 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2020 Share #35 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jager said: Web forums are wonderful for conversation, for dialogue, and for representing artistic intent in our imagery. But they fail miserably in showing the difference that an expensive camera or the next uber expensive lens can provide. And, yes, there's a second irony in that a dedicated photography forum - like this one here - continues to provide nothing but that kindergarten-basic medium for the display of images. If you are talking about viewing a single web image in isolation, I completely agree. But that's not what we're talking about. At least, it's not what I was talking about. I made reference to having gone through the entire threads of both MM1 and M10M images and noticing consistent overall differences. I still maintain that is an acceptable means for drawing certain conclusions. In my opinion, one can make perfectly valid determinations about noise, particularly at higher ISO levels, shadow detail and tonal range by comparing a large number of images posted in the respective threads for each camera. Edited February 23, 2020 by fotografr 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2020 Share #36 Posted February 23, 2020 We see things differently, in more ways than one. So be it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 23, 2020 Share #37 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) Am 22.2.2020 um 16:39 schrieb fotografr: I've spent a lot of time looking through the M9M images posted here and comparing them to the M10M images. The most obvious difference is that the M10M images seem to lack the "pop" that has traditionally been part of the appeal of b&w photography. I think the reason for this is that the M10M produces images that have considerably more detail in both the highlight and shadow areas, so there isn't that sharp jump to clean white and deep black that comes with M9M photos. It's possible to produce the same look with M10M images, but doing so often requires clipping both highlight and shadow areas... [...] Inference - you’re starting with a conclusion, and then guessing a premise that would produce that conclusion as a necessary consequence, if the premise is true. A perfectly correct way of reasoning and you’re offering a somewhat subjective but possibly valid point of view. Edited February 23, 2020 by Chaemono Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 23, 2020 Share #38 Posted February 23, 2020 vor 5 Stunden schrieb Jager: [...] That said, there's something terribly ironic when technical judgments of high-end photographic equipment are made when the reference medium is a small jpeg rendered on a web page somewhere... for that medium is largely incapable of displaying the nuance that is at the heart of what we paid for. [...] Deduction - you’re drawing a conclusion that is required by the premise (that “a small jpeg rendered on a web page somewhere...is incapable of displaying the nuance that is at the heart of what we paid for”) and that can be shown to be logically necessary if the premise is true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 23, 2020 Share #39 Posted February 23, 2020 Inductive reasoning - “a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying someevidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning fotografr’s inductive argument is saved by Wikipedia. 😁 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2020 Share #40 Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jeff S said: We see things differently, in more ways than one. Jeff On that, we are in complete agreement. Edited February 23, 2020 by fotografr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now