Digital Leica M questions

[qilpesen9]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey guys,

I've never shot a digital M outside of playing with one at a Leica store. I've never owned a digital camera. I have an M3 and MP and always have one at hand. I shoot probably 80% b&w, usually HP5 or TriX. I develop my own stuff and make prints and really love the b&w tones of film. Lately I've been flirting with the idea of getting a digital M as well, or at least trying one.

As I've never experienced a digital M, or digital still camera (lots of digital video experience though) for that matter, I have NO experience with setting a certain "look" for digital, shooting in raw vs JPEG etc. I understand all these concepts as I've done plenty of digital video work, but I've never been an editor, so my experience is just limited to operating the camera. I guess I have a few questions for you guys, and I'm sorry if they are amateur-ish. I know my way around the older M's backwards and forwards but the digital stuff is a little intimidating to me.

• How does the m10 compare to the monochrom in B&W?

• How many of you digital leica users shoot raw vs jpeg? If you use both, which scenarios would you use them for?

• When is the "look" applied? Is it a setting you can pre-set and have show up on photos automatically in preview mode?

• For B&W do you shoot raw and tweak each photo on a computer later, or JPEG and make changes to contrast in settings?

If you can see what direction I'm going here and I'm not asking the right questions, please let me know or fill me in!

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

M10(R)  excellent B&W but different from the Monochrom which has a more refined tonal range - but the M10 files are more flexible.

I would guess that 95% of us shoot raw exclusively or raw+jpg. Why waste all quality that Leica built in by throwing out half the data?

The "look" does not exist, except as  a fairy dust myth. You create it yourself by the lens you use, the aperture setting and your postprocessing technique.

There are a number of ways to convert to B&W. Simple desaturate  and contrast tweak is not one of them. For a beginner I would advise using Silver Efex Pro. Most postprocessing programs offer B&W conversion tools.

In general, in digital only half the quality you produce will be by the camera and your shooting skills. The other half will come from your postprocessing skills.

 

[michali]

1 hour ago, qilpesen9 said:

Hey guys,

I've never shot a digital M outside of playing with one at a Leica store. I've never owned a digital camera. I have an M3 and MP and always have one at hand. I shoot probably 80% b&w, usually HP5 or TriX. I develop my own stuff and make prints and really love the b&w tones of film. Lately I've been flirting with the idea of getting a digital M as well, or at least trying one.

As I've never experienced a digital M, or digital still camera (lots of digital video experience though) for that matter, I have NO experience with setting a certain "look" for digital, shooting in raw vs JPEG etc. I understand all these concepts as I've done plenty of digital video work, but I've never been an editor, so my experience is just limited to operating the camera. I guess I have a few questions for you guys, and I'm sorry if they are amateur-ish. I know my way around the older M's backwards and forwards but the digital stuff is a little intimidating to me.

• How does the m10 compare to the monochrom in B&W?

• How many of you digital leica users shoot raw vs jpeg? If you use both, which scenarios would you use them for?

• When is the "look" applied? Is it a setting you can pre-set and have show up on photos automatically in preview mode?

• For B&W do you shoot raw and tweak each photo on a computer later, or JPEG and make changes to contrast in settings?

If you can see what direction I'm going here and I'm not asking the right questions, please let me know or fill me in!

Thanks!

Welcome to the Forum.

Jaap's just about summed it all up. The other important aspect of digital post processing is the quality & type of screen or monitor that you're using to view & process images.

[Good To Be Retired]

2 hours ago, qilpesen9 said:

 

• How does the m10 compare to the monochrom in B&W?

• Proponents of the monochrome body agree that there is a special quality to the files it produces.  If you are pretty much a B & W only shooter this might be something that you would wish to investigate specifically.  Having said that, there is a large body of users who feel the ability to use software such as Silver Efex Pro and many others to create B & W elects from the color images gives such a large range of options that it is a desirable quality.  Personally, I fall into this camp.

•  

• How many of you digital leica users shoot raw vs jpeg? If you use both, which scenarios would you use them for?

• I rather suspect that the vast majority of users shoot raw only.  I certainly couldn't produce any evidence to this effect, but that's my speculation.

•  

• When is the "look" applied? Is it a setting you can pre-set and have show up on photos automatically in preview mode?

• I never have figured out what, exactly, people are talking about when debating the "look" as applied to digital Leica.

•  

• For B&W do you shoot raw and tweak each photo on a computer later,

• Yes

If you can see what direction I'm going here and I'm not asking the right questions, please let me know or fill me in!

If you have such an option, I strongly suggest you rent a body and see for yourself.  My opinion is only my opinion, but you're talking about a lot of money and if you can see for yourself where it's going, that's going to be hard to beat.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[Jeff S]

A good eye and good judgment crosses film and digital boundaries.  Anybody can learn the tools and techniques; there are loads of books, video tutorials, workshops, etc.  The most important part is determining when, where and to what degree to apply available tools or techniques to achieve your desired end result. We each carve our own path. If the tools determined the end result...hardware, software or other...we’d each produce the same output when using common tools.  Thankfully that’s never been the case, film or digital... or any other art form.  

Jeff

[adan]

You will do best to think of digital stills photography as more like your film Leica experience than like your digital video experience.

With only one frame to deal with at a time (instead of 24-60 fps), the creative control lies in the darkroom work (the post-processing), not camera settings (beyond the basics of lens selection, ISO sensitivity speed, shutter speed, and aperture). Just like it does when you develop your own M3/MP film, and go under the red light to make prints.

And in fact Leica keeps their camera settings rather limited compared to other digital-camera makers: no "film simulations" or other special effects available in the menus. Leica wants and expects you to use a digital M exactly like you use your M3 and MP: frame, focus, fire the shutter, and then go into the darkroom (your computer) to do the magic.**

This is where shooting raw makes the difference. (I have never shot any jpgs except in 2004-2006 with the original Leica/Panasonic Digilux 2).

A .jpg is like shooting color slides - you immediately end up with a finished, completed picture, but there is little room to make changes afterwards without "destructively editing" your precious original. A 35mm slide can be retouched with dyes and a brush, but it is no longer the original, and that is toothpaste that can't be put back in the tube.

A raw file does not (cannot) get overwritten in editing, any more than a film negative gets changed by putting it into the enlarger and making prints from it. This is why Adobe called their raw file format (which Leica uses) ".DNG", for "Digital NeGative." With a raw file, the original unprocessed data remains intact, always ready to be re-processed non-destructively for a different "look."

The apparent changes you make are stored more like a photographer's darkroom notes, simply a description (in 1s and 0s) of what was (temporarily) done with the picture data - without actually permanently changing the image pixels themselves. Sort of like "Made this print with grade 3 paper, exposed 30 seconds, and developed in Bromophen for 2 minutes. Face was dodged for 10 seconds, corners burned in for 2x the time," etc. The next time you want to work with that image - tomorrow or in ten years - you can make different use of the same unchanged original data in the .DNG or raw image.

Those of us who went through a "hybrid film/digital" stage - shooting and developing film, and then scanning it in place of darkroom printing - probably have a better sense of this. The original film neg remains safe and unchanged in its sleeve, potentially forever, and we can make all the changes we want at the computer stage, without touching the original.

As to Monochrom vs a color camera - the Monochrom versions will be 1) slightly sharper (no need to share color resolution between neighboring pixels), 2) have ~2x better light sensitivity (no color filter array blocking the light), and 3) because of 2), have slightly better dynamic range and less noise/grain at the same ISO. Pretty much like shooting TMax400 B&W film vs. ISO 400 color films - you gain a smidgen of image quality by giving up the color capability.

__________________

** So what is the advantage of a digital Leica, if you need to use it like a film M?

Quicker overall results with less muss and fuss; fast feedback (you can check the focus or exposure or expressions right now, although also note Leica makes the MD cameras with no rear display screen - even more like an MP or M3); usually lower noise/grain at most ISOs; higher ISOs (these days it's hard to find ISO 6400 color film, let alone ISO 10000), operating costs (the cameras are pricey, but the film and chemical costs are zero).

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The above comments are certainly the mainstream Leica user view, and are valid. However, don't automatically dismiss jpg as useless. I've been shooting film Ms since the 1960s, processing my own B&W, and used to enlarge to 20x30, etc. I still shoot and process a lot of B&W, but now I'm an old, retired engineer, not an artist, and have always concentrated more on capture of the image I want than trying to create something different in post processing. So I'm more in the "reportage" background.

The M9 was the first digital camera I liked, as I could use it exactly as I do my film Leicas. The jpgs to me were like shooting slides (which I still do), however, the M9 jpgs were somewhat limited - I guess because they expected most to shoot dng. However, I find the M10 jpgs to be much improved, and while I still tend to shoot in jpg + dng, I found I use the jpgs file a lot. But having worked decades developing software and designs on computer, I don't care to spend much time now post processing files and tweaking images. So lately I've just been happily shooting in jpg. I find the joy of photography in using the camera, not the computer. 

I usually use film for B&W, but even the M10 jpgs set to B&W in-camera are quite pleasing.

[Matlock]

7 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

The above comments are certainly the mainstream Leica user view, and are valid. However, don't automatically dismiss jpg as useless. I've been shooting film Ms since the 1960s, processing my own B&W, and used to enlarge to 20x30, etc. I still shoot and process a lot of B&W, but now I'm an old, retired engineer, not an artist, and have always concentrated more on capture of the image I want than trying to create something different in post processing. So I'm more in the "reportage" background.

The M9 was the first digital camera I liked, as I could use it exactly as I do my film Leicas. The jpgs to me were like shooting slides (which I still do), however, the M9 jpgs were somewhat limited - I guess because they expected most to shoot dng. However, I find the M10 jpgs to be much improved, and while I still tend to shoot in jpg + dng, I found I use the jpgs file a lot. But having worked decades developing software and designs on computer, I don't care to spend much time now post processing files and tweaking images. So lately I've just been happily shooting in jpg. I find the joy of photography in using the camera, not the computer. 

I usually use film for B&W, but even the M10 jpgs set to B&W in-camera are quite pleasing.

At last a common sense reply. There is a certain snobbery with those who seem to think dng is the only way to go. I too tend to shoot jpg + dng, there is a space for both.

[qilpesen9]

20 hours ago, qilpesen9 said:

Hey guys,

I've never shot a digital M outside of playing with one at a Leica store. I've never owned a digital camera. I have an M3 and MP and always have one at hand. I shoot probably 80% b&w, usually HP5 or TriX. I develop my own stuff and make prints and really love the b&w tones of film. Lately I've been flirting with the idea of getting a digital M as well, or at least trying one.

As I've never experienced a digital M, or digital still camera (lots of digital video experience though) for that matter, I have NO experience with setting a certain "look" for digital, shooting in raw vs JPEG etc. I understand all these concepts as I've done plenty of digital video work, but I've never been an editor, so my experience is just limited to operating the camera. I guess I have a few questions for you guys, and I'm sorry if they are amateur-ish. I know my way around the older M's backwards and forwards but the digital stuff is a little intimidating to me.

• How does the m10 compare to the monochrom in B&W?

• How many of you digital leica users shoot raw vs jpeg? If you use both, which scenarios would you use them for?

• When is the "look" applied? Is it a setting you can pre-set and have show up on photos automatically in preview mode?

• For B&W do you shoot raw and tweak each photo on a computer later, or JPEG and make changes to contrast in settings?

If you can see what direction I'm going here and I'm not asking the right questions, please let me know or fill me in!

omegle  xender
Thanks!

10 has ads. 10 forces updates (actually that alone doesn’t bother me that much but updates frequently break things), 10 sometimes removes apps you have installed at update time because it doesn’t consider them safe and doesn’t even tell you it did it.
 

[andybarton]

10 has ads?

I don’t think that you are talking about a Leica M10, here.

[Mikep996]

I am also one of those (few, I guess?) people that don't do a lot of post processing.  In the film days I shot slide film.  I could probably count on one hand the number of times I shot color negative film.  SO... as far as color shooting is concerned,  either I got it right in the camera or not...more often not!   But that has carried over to the way I shoot digital.

I just cannot see spending much time futzing around trying to make something good out of something that wasn't there.   I feel like if extensive processing is necessary then I'm essentially trying to improve a turd by spray-painting it gold...it's still a turd!   OTOH, I will admit that many of Ansel Adam's most famous pics are not impressive at all when viewing the initial contact print, it was his post processing that made the images!  But I just do not care for the idea of doing a bunch of post processing.  A bit of cropping and perhaps a bit of shadow lightening occasionally is pretty much all I do.  

As far as Leica Jpeg/DNG,  I find the M10 jpegs to be unsatisfactory if there is a contrasty scene.  The JPEG shadows are much darker than the DNG's if the brights are properly exposed.    By contrast, I used an Olympus M1 for a few years and I thought its Jpegs were excellent. Frankly, in most cases it took a fair bit of time to process the RAWs to look as good as the Jpegs did with no post processing.  I'm not saying that the raws didn't have the potential to produce a "better" image, only that I never saw any usefulness in bothering with it.  The M10 Jpegs are nowhere close to that, IMO.  But, as they say, opinions on the internet are worth exactly what you pay for them!  

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Mikep996

[andybarton]

I can’t see the point of paying £5,000 for a body and £4,000 for a lens, then only shooting 8-bit jpgs.

If you are prepared to have the price of a small car in your bag on your shoulder, I would have thought that you would be interested in getting the very best out of the files that your camera can produce. Otherwise, what’s the point? You’d be better off buying into a much cheaper system and spending the difference on going to new and fabulous locations to see the world [present situation excepted, of course].

That’s my opinion, anyway.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

I am also one of those (few, I guess?) people that don't do a lot of post processing.  In the film days I shot slide film.  I could probably count on one hand the number of times I shot color negative film.  SO... as far as color shooting is concerned,  either I got it right in the camera or not...more often not!   But that has carried over to the way I shoot digital.

I just cannot see spending much time futzing around trying to make something good out of something that wasn't there.   I feel like if extensive processing is necessary then I'm essentially trying to improve a turd by spray-painting it gold...it's still a turd!   OTOH, I will admit that many of Ansel Adam's most famous pics are not impressive at all when viewing the initial contact print, it was his post processing that made the images!  But I just do not care for the idea of doing a bunch of post processing.  A bit of cropping and perhaps a bit of shadow lightening occasionally is pretty much all I do.  

As far as Leica Jpeg/DNG,  I find the M10 jpegs to be unsatisfactory if there is a contrasty scene.  The JPEG shadows are much darker than the DNG's if the brights are properly exposed.    By contrast, I used an Olympus M1 for a few years and I thought its Jpegs were excellent. Frankly, in most cases it took a fair bit of time to process the RAWs to look as good as the Jpegs did with no post processing.  I'm not saying that the raws didn't have the potential to produce a "better" image, only that I never saw any usefulness in bothering with it.  The M10 Jpegs are nowhere close to that, IMO.  But, as they say, opinions on the internet are worth exactly what you pay for them!  

 

The lightness of your DNGs is neither here nor there. That is not created by your camera but by the settings of your  post processing program. The camera does a bit of processing and a lot of compression on jpgs  in the firmware. Ok for a preview or quick and dirty that is all. Andy is spot-on. Leica caters for this.  The DNGs are so full of data that they are flat without processing. and are conceived for users who want optimal IQ. The TL2 has a different approach and is more suited for those who want OOC results. 
The common misconception is that processing raw is to “save” an image. It is not; it is to extract the maximum quality from the available data. 
Maximum quality is what Leica is about. They tend to leave convenience to others. 

[Mikep996]

Well, that's interesting.  My understanding was that Jpg or raw was as it came from the camera (after whatever internal camera processing) and that pulling the images up in any program - whether a processing program or a display program simply "displayed" what came from the camera until you made a change using the program.  Heck, as far as JPEGS are concerned, I haven't seen any camera that produces a better Jpeg appearance-wise than an iPhone 11!  

Edited September 29, 2020 by Mikep996

[jaapv]

Yes the iPnone is amazing.
The display of your raw file is determined by the default settings of your post processing program and you can change them. For instance if you expose for the highlights it is useful to change the exposure default to, say, +⅔ stop. A raw file as such cannot be displayed on a monitor. It will always be converted to something your monitor can handle. 

[Mikep996]

Good info, thanks!  

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

I am also one of those (few, I guess?) people that don't do a lot of post processing.  In the film days I shot slide film.  I could probably count on one hand the number of times I shot color negative film.  SO... as far as color shooting is concerned,  either I got it right in the camera or not...more often not!   But that has carried over to the way I shoot digital.

I just cannot see spending much time futzing around trying to make something good out of something that wasn't there.   I feel like if extensive processing is necessary then I'm essentially trying to improve a turd by spray-painting it gold...it's still a turd!   OTOH, I will admit that many of Ansel Adam's most famous pics are not impressive at all when viewing the initial contact print, it was his post processing that made the images!  But I just do not care for the idea of doing a bunch of post processing.  A bit of cropping and perhaps a bit of shadow lightening occasionally is pretty much all I do.  

As far as Leica Jpeg/DNG,  I find the M10 jpegs to be unsatisfactory if there is a contrasty scene.  The JPEG shadows are much darker than the DNG's if the brights are properly exposed.    By contrast, I used an Olympus M1 for a few years and I thought its Jpegs were excellent. Frankly, in most cases it took a fair bit of time to process the RAWs to look as good as the Jpegs did with no post processing.  I'm not saying that the raws didn't have the potential to produce a "better" image, only that I never saw any usefulness in bothering with it.  The M10 Jpegs are nowhere close to that, IMO.  But, as they say, opinions on the internet are worth exactly what you pay for them!  

 

You might have a different opinion about DNG and post processing if you learned a few simple techniques like creating a camera profile, default import settings and/or preset actions to quickly get closer to your desired ‘look’.  The tone curve (contrast curve) alone is a powerful tool and starting point to transform a flat OOC file into one with a more appealing contrast characteristic.  There are many such approaches and options, many of which take seconds in the digital world.  Ansel never had it so easy.

Jeff

[Knipsknecht]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb andybarton:

[...] If you are prepared to have the price of a small car in your bag on your shoulder, I would have thought that you would be interested in getting the very best out of the files that your camera can produce. [...]

... at this pricepoint I would expect that I don't have to do any postprocessing😉.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pedaes]

19 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said:

... at this pricepoint I would expect that I don't have to do any postprocessing😉.

Are you serious?  At ANY price point - including Phase One- you will need to shoot in RAW and post-process to get the best possible image. What do you think happened to film when you removed it from the Hassleblad - was it not processed?

Edited September 29, 2020 by pedaes

[mujk]

On 9/28/2020 at 3:57 PM, qilpesen9 said:

Hey guys,

I've never shot a digital M outside of playing with one at a Leica store. I've never owned a digital camera. I have an M3 and MP and always have one at hand. I shoot probably 80% b&w, usually HP5 or TriX. I develop my own stuff and make prints and really love the b&w tones of film. Lately I've been flirting with the idea of getting a digital M as well, or at least trying one.

As I've never experienced a digital M, or digital still camera (lots of digital video experience though) for that matter, I have NO experience with setting a certain "look" for digital, shooting in raw vs JPEG etc. I understand all these concepts as I've done plenty of digital video work, but I've never been an editor, so my experience is just limited to operating the camera. I guess I have a few questions for you guys, and I'm sorry if they are amateur-ish. I know my way around the older M's backwards and forwards but the digital stuff is a little intimidating to me.

• How does the m10 compare to the monochrom in B&W?

• How many of you digital leica users shoot raw vs jpeg? If you use both, which scenarios would you use them for?

• When is the "look" applied? Is it a setting you can pre-set and have show up on photos automatically in preview mode?

• For B&W do you shoot raw and tweak each photo on a computer later, or JPEG and make changes to contrast in settings?

If you can see what direction I'm going here and I'm not asking the right questions, please let me know or fill me in!

Thanks!

As has already been said, there is no "Leica look" as such, only the sum of what the lens produces, the sensor captures and how the outputà is then interpreted, either in-camera processing to produce a jpg or post-processing in the computer, usually from the raw file (dng). What you see on the camera lcd is really a quite rough approximation of the end result.

There are many differences between creating a jpg in-camera and post-processing a dog in a computer. The latter provides much more flexibility, including the possibility to change color profile, white balance and noise reduction settings in post. This is not possible to the same extent with jpgs. And, as mentioned, most post-processing software has the possibility to apply a set of adjustments to a collection of images with a single command.

I don't think you should have any problems adapting to a digital M. After all, it is the closest you get to a film M in the digital world.