This is why I bought an M10R

[mike3996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, 250swb said:

but I don't think photography should be about chasing your tail with every new development.

Shooting print film is great because the medium is flexible and allows to correct metering mistakes afterwards. And it's very hard to make highlights clip.

Need I go on... you get the point.

[jonoslack]

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

I take your point, but I don't think photography should be about chasing your tail with every new development. Put it this way, if you think the DR of the M10R is a game changer and worth spending many thousands of dollars on (or losing many thousands in trade in), where does that put everybody's older photographs? You, like many other 'influencers', are on the path to obliterate previous work done by photographers by implying it's not now good enough, but you can do better, buy the M10R. 

It's a disgusting attitude to take, and if it isn't then write a blog about why a photograph by HCB or Koudelka is crap given it clearly doesn't conform to your current expectations of where photography has a ceiling? Be bold, why was a grainy low tech photograph great, and why isn't it great anymore?

Hi There

I don’t think photography should be about chasing your tail with every new development either. My post was personal and about the benefit for me (high contrast scenes shot wide open). 

I didn’t for a second say, or imply, that it had any effect on anyone’s older photographs. What’s more I don’t think that either, so if that’s what you got from my piece then I apologise but would like to assure you that it isn’t what I think or meant. I have a mantra to try to keep grounded about this “If a photograph is interesting nobody cares whether it’s technically good. If it isn’t interesting nobody cares at all” 

I Quite agree that would be a disgusting attitude to take, but it isn’t and wasn’t my attitude, I didn’t say it or imply it! 

To be honest however, I wish I hadn’t posted this  because I prefer to be more measured in the things that I say (and some things are better not said anyway). If I have any excuse, then it was the understandable enthusiasm at having a new toy. It isn’t something which happens every day - never owned a Q of any description, the only monochrom I own is the M9 etc. 

So, as the thread is here, let’s hope it does at least engender some interesting discussions (it seems to be)

Let me reiterate that I don’t believe for a second that ‘advances’ in camera design has any effect on images made with older cameras (either in the past or in the future)

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The human eye doesn't take a scene in all in one go, all at one exposure. It looks at different bits at a time, adjusting exposure for each one. The camera has to take a shot at a single exposure. A camera still can't do the equivalent of what the eye does. So, next technological leap: variable exposures in one shot, on different parts of the sensor!

Well, our phones do that these days - well, they take lots of images to combine data to expand the dynamic range (which is pretty much what our eye and brain are doing). I guess that will come to a camera around here soon!

[tom0511]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Ko.Fe.:

Well, it is good M10R files are highly recoverable. Any digital M has not effective auto-metering by its metering limitations. 

I've been in trouble with street photos and M metering.  

IMO this is a valid point, and one I have experienced as well. As long as you do not shoot in lifeview mode metering of the M-cameras in contrasty light is quit tricky. I have some feeling developed for it over the years, but it is far from the accurancy I can achieve with the SL2 (just for example) or any other multi-point exp metering.

SO while a little more DR or good highlight-handling is appreciated, a better exposure metering that works without liveview would be a real step forward IMO. I dont know if it is possible in a technical way.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, mike3996 said:

Shooting print film is great because the medium is flexible and allows to correct metering mistakes afterwards. And it's very hard to make highlights clip.

Need I go on... you get the point.

Hah! That is because a sensor behaves the other way around, just like slide film. On print film it is easy to block the shadows - the dynamic range limitation applies in both cases. Flexibility comes from the technique of exposure, not from the medium. And dark- / lightroom skills, obviously. Once again it is up to the photographer,  not to the gear.

[mike3996]

36 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Hah! That is because a sensor behaves the other way around, just like slide film. On print film it is easy to block the shadows - the dynamic range limitation applies in both cases. Flexibility comes from the technique of exposure, not from the medium. And dark- / lightroom skills, obviously. Once again it is up to the photographer,  not to the gear.

Yeah I know but in practice if the sensor plus processing decides for an amplification level that leaves headroom, that'll be helpful with picture review and with post-processing.

Besides, is it up to the photographer how much my shadows will have noise once pushed +3  EV in post?

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by mike3996

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That depends how much you underexposed in the first place. Just as highlight detail in film depends on how far you are along on the curve. Both peter out.

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Hah! That is because a sensor behaves the other way around, just like slide film. On print film it is easy to block the shadows - the dynamic range limitation applies in both cases. Flexibility comes from the technique of exposure, not from the medium. And dark- / lightroom skills, obviously. Once again it is up to the photographer,  not to the gear.

I quite agree that it’s the photographer and not the gear, over-exposing in particular is always the photographer’s fault . . . But there’s no harm in having a little help from the camera!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Here's a question.  In the old days (Tri-X and Rodinal, Brovira papers), I would work on a print with local corrections.  It was magical, and great fun to wave little bits of cardboard over the image, even using my hands and fingers to bring out shadow detail or save the highlights from going full Robert Frank.  Nowadays the incantations that I make over a rendering are all global, with sliders.  Even though countless You Tube videos try to show me how to effortlessly mask off local areas and give them special treatment.  How many of us use the tools now available in LR and C1 for local corrections? 

Edited August 25, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[jonoslack]

Just now, scott kirkpatrick said:

Here's a question.  In the old days (Tri-X and Rodinal), I would work on a print with local corrections.  It was magical, and great fun to wave little bits of cardboard over the image, even using my hands and fingers to bring out shadow detail or save the highlights from going full Robert Frank.  Nowadays the incantations that I make over a rendering are all global, with sliders.  Even though countless You Tube videos try to show me how to effortlessly mask off local areas and give them special treatment.  How many of us use the tools now available in LR and C1 for local corrections? 

Hi Scott

I use them all the time - in Lightroom, and lightroom mobile. But I use the brushes rather than masking areas specifically

[jaapv]

Always, layers, blending and brush tools - mainly in PS CC. Has anybody used the new Topaz Mask AI plugin yet?

[Dr No]

Yes, "printing" the images is important to me.

 Much editing is done in Lightroom and then moved over to Photoshop for when I need more control and functionality, especially on final edits of favourites.

I do wish Lightroom or C1 had a lot more of Photoshop's functionality and there was a more cohesive interaction between the two in terms of working on multi layered PSD's that have been worked on in Photoshop.

Managing DNG and layered PSD's and PSB's for many thousands of images is rather difficult and the current process is quite laborious, inefficient and annoying.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Here's a question.  In the old days (Tri-X and Rodinal, Brovira papers), I would work on a print with local corrections.  It was magical, and great fun to wave little bits of cardboard over the image, even using my hands and fingers to bring out shadow detail or save the highlights from going full Robert Frank.  Nowadays the incantations that I make over a rendering are all global, with sliders.  Even though countless You Tube videos try to show me how to effortlessly mask off local areas and give them special treatment.  How many of us use the tools now available in LR and C1 for local corrections? 

For me, some of the most important improvements in LR over the years have been the expansion and refinement of local adjustment controls.  These have largely weaned me off Photoshop for most editing.  I have routinely refined prints, film and digital, since starting in the 80’s; only the tools have changed, and those tools are significantly more flexible and convenient today.  I don’t know why anyone serious about printing wouldn’t use them (or other editing tools like Silver Efex, etc. ImagePrint has also been a great help to me in print refinements.)
 

Jeff

Edited August 25, 2020 by Jeff S

[Ko.Fe.]

6 hours ago, tom0511 said:

IMO this is a valid point, and one I have experienced as well. As long as you do not shoot in lifeview mode metering of the M-cameras in contrasty light is quit tricky. I have some feeling developed for it over the years, but it is far from the accurancy I can achieve with the SL2 (just for example) or any other multi-point exp metering.

SO while a little more DR or good highlight-handling is appreciated, a better exposure metering that works without liveview would be a real step forward IMO. I dont know if it is possible in a technical way.

 It just works as spot metering with this kind of shutter and single incident (reflected) light sensor . Would it be digital M or Bessa R.

In situation like OP has shown in OP, I would meter the sky, middle ground and shadows and take the middle numbers exposure.

Sunny 16 also works great for still objects like in OP. F16, ISO 100, 1/125. But it was good example of what is happening with digital M metering. Sort of. In own my experience it is under exposing in situations like in OP. 

I knew one of the few remaining, old school professional who is using digital M for paid job and it is enough for living and who is taking a lot of pictures on Chicago streets. He is also not trusting M9M, M10 metering for it.  

Edited August 25, 2020 by Ko.Fe.

[jonoslack]

54 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

 It just works as spot metering with this kind of shutter and single incident (reflected) light sensor . Would it be digital M or Bessa R.

In situation like OP has shown in OP, I would meter the sky, middle ground and shadows and take the middle numbers exposure.

Hi There

Perhaps I wasn't clear about this - there wasn't a problem with the meter, and actually another shot stopped down metered the boat pretty accurately. The problem was that I'd asked the camera to shoot wide open on Aperture priority at f1.4 in bright sunlight - the camera quite rightly maxed the shutter out at 1/4,000 sec - it could do no more! Certainly, there was no way it could possibly under-expose. On the other hand I agree that given a possible exposure the camera is prone to under-expose (both the M10 and M10-R) and I'm pretty sure this is to avoid blown highlights.

For this impossible lighting situation (as per OP) the lower base ISO makes this a bit easier, and the fact that the highlights don't roll off so fast is the other component. 

I have to say I don't have much trouble with the M metering (M8 / M9 / M / M10) you have to understand what's happening and think a bit, but I very rarely get exposures wrong enough for it to matter . . . and yes, I do occasionally shoot paid jobs with it as well.

[Tailwagger]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

For me, some of the most important improvements in LR over the years have been the expansion and refinement of local adjustment controls.  These have largely weaned me off Photoshop for most editing.  I have routinely refined prints, film and digital, since starting in the 80’s; only the tools have changed, and those tools are significantly more flexible and convenient today.  I don’t know why anyone serious about printing wouldn’t use them (or other editing tools like Silver Efex, etc. ImagePrint has also been a great help to me in print refinements.)

+1, though I still use PS for a few of the tools it provides that LR doesn't. The difficulty in photography, AFAIC, is that outside the studio, we typically do not have very much control over the situation in the field. It is only in post that we get to exercise the option of lighting the scene as we might of wished as opposed to what circumstance provided. There is nothing new in availing oneself of this power other than the immense improvement in the speed and accuracy of the tools we can employ.

[Ko.Fe.]

5 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There

Perhaps I wasn't clear about this - there wasn't a problem with the meter, and actually another shot stopped down metered the boat pretty accurately. The problem was that I'd asked the camera to shoot wide open on Aperture priority at f1.4 in bright sunlight - the camera quite rightly maxed the shutter out at 1/4,000 sec - it could do no more! Certainly, there was no way it could possibly under-expose. On the other hand I agree that given a possible exposure the camera is prone to under-expose (both the M10 and M10-R) and I'm pretty sure this is to avoid blown highlights.

For this impossible lighting situation (as per OP) the lower base ISO makes this a bit easier, and the fact that the highlights don't roll off so fast is the other component. 

I have to say I don't have much trouble with the M metering (M8 / M9 / M / M10) you have to understand what's happening and think a bit, but I very rarely get exposures wrong enough for it to matter . . . and yes, I do occasionally shoot paid jobs with it as well.

Thank for clarification.

I used vND filter for this kind of exposures. Costs under 100 USD vs I don't even know the M10R price. 

[Dr No]

I have a feeling that some aren't seeing the point of this post. It's not about being a boat on a beach photographer, getting correct exposure or using filters. It clearly illustrates what the new camera is capable of that wasn't possible before. There are countless practical situations this would be useful when the lighting ratio is high and in many of these instances it's out of the photographers control. This means you can get a lot of quality detail back that you'd never be able to on an M10 or M9.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Here's a question.  In the old days (Tri-X and Rodinal, Brovira papers), I would work on a print with local corrections.  It was magical, and great fun to wave little bits of cardboard over the image, even using my hands and fingers to bring out shadow detail or save the highlights from going full Robert Frank.  Nowadays the incantations that I make over a rendering are all global, with sliders.  Even though countless You Tube videos try to show me how to effortlessly mask off local areas and give them special treatment.  How many of us use the tools now available in LR and C1 for local corrections? 

I use local adjustments on almost every image that makes it through the cull. The brush tool is by far my most used adjustment set after the basics tab.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SrMi]

On 8/25/2020 at 3:47 AM, scott kirkpatrick said:

Here's a question.  In the old days (Tri-X and Rodinal, Brovira papers), I would work on a print with local corrections.  It was magical, and great fun to wave little bits of cardboard over the image, even using my hands and fingers to bring out shadow detail or save the highlights from going full Robert Frank.  Nowadays the incantations that I make over a rendering are all global, with sliders.  Even though countless You Tube videos try to show me how to effortlessly mask off local areas and give them special treatment.  How many of us use the tools now available in LR and C1 for local corrections? 

In LrC and PS all the time. Local corrections is where the fun starts in post processing :).