24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone find the 40meg aesthetic too harsh and technical looking verses the 24meg aesthetic that seems more smooth and calm and normal similar to what the eye sees?  

From pictures on the web the 24meg shots look more artsy and the 40meg have an exciting impact but are more technical in nature.  I am preferring the 24meg myself.

Has anyone gone to 40meg camera then gone back to the 24meg?  Or just set the 40meg camera to a lower resolution to get back to the lower resolution look?

I own a 32" Benq Calibrated Color Photography monitor so I think I am seeing correctly what is there for a comparison. 

[Advertisement]

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

[tom.w.bn]

I don't think this exists. Do you have an example for that? You probably see a difference in post processing of different people (e.g. use of clarity slider).

[Tom1234]

I just assumed everyone saw this since all the 40meg shots I've seen look sharper on my high end monitor and you can zoom into more detail.  I have searched and can not find a site comparing the two though I have been on about three before. If you are not seeing it then it could be browser and monitor and processing differences.  Maybe users who have owned both will add an answer on this thread since forum members will know for sure.

[Mikep996]

I'm sure that in a couple of years, when 80MP becomes "normal," no one will understand how 40-some was ever considered adequate for photos. 24 MPwill be what people think they must have used back when 'adjusting the humors' was the latest high tech medical treatment.  

[Matlock]

22 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I'm sure that in a couple of years, when 80MP becomes "normal," no one will understand how 40-some was ever considered adequate for photos. 24 MPwill be what people think they must have used back when 'adjusting the humors' was the latest high tech medical treatment.  

I found my old Leica digilux zoom the other day and decided to take it out for a spin. 1MP and the results were quite good. Do you think I should keep using that and get rid of my M10-R? 🤣

[elmars]

I was a beta tester of the M10-R and I made some comparisons: Same subjects photographed with both cameras (tripod). Of course You can see differences in sharpness in the 100% view. But they are subtle. Printed on A2 they are hardly visable. And definitifly there is no other look.

[astrostl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, I don't. And I've also never seen consistent A/B comparisons of lenses and/or sensors that were "too clinical" even though that is *conceptually* discussed a lot too.

[Jeff S]

What I notice (as little as one can discern based on screen shots) is that the higher dynamic range of more recent cameras suggests that many users don’t appreciate that the resultant flatter out-of-camera files could benefit from contrast/tone curve adjustments or other PP actions.  Resolution differences might translate to larger prints and/or more cropping, but I wouldn’t expect to notice that on screen at normal viewing.

Jeff

[Tom1234]

52 minutes ago, Steven said:

Sorry to be going against the stream here, but I actually completely agree with you mate. 
Resolution has a huge impact on aesthetics. 
I think it might be more noticeable on portraits and landscape but it’s on portraits that it’s the most annoying. it’s too sharp. Too clinical of course ! 
With 24pm, you get a softer image, and for some of us that are nostalgics (not trying to offend anyone this is why I don’t say all of us nostalgic photographers), and who look for a vintage look in our photos, too sharp is too harsh, I think. 
I shoot both on the q2 and the m10p, and while I love my q2 so much, I find the file more pleasing and soft on my m10. 
The truth is that I’m itching to upgrade my M10 to the M10R. That camera look like a little masterpiece. The only thing holding me back, besides the red dot design, is that I fear to get an image to sharp with the 40 mp. 
of course, it also changes everything with your post processing workflow, but I won’t get started on that. 

I totally agree.  Maybe the M10-R 40meg has a lessor file that can be saved to... less meg.  Not jpg which I find insulting after spending on an expensive camera.  There is a famous photographer on the web that revels in jpg saying all should use it (he shall go nameless) but his commercial work needs that "punch" of the narrower color range with the color intensity turned up, so it makes sense to him.  I like the fine art abilities of DMG myself.

[Marac]

I have an S1R 47mp and I'd swap it in a heartbeat for an M9P even though it is only 18mp, I'm the crazy man with a funny hat.

[Tom1234]

I am not trying to hurt anyones feelings on high resolution cameras.  

Also for those wanting an aesthetic of so called "super realism", also called "American Realism", an aesthetic which one book claimed was the only, or one of a very few, American invented art forms - high resolution can be a key to this form.  

High resolution certainly has its place in Landscape photography and wide angle photography.   Ansel Adam's technical books on how to use a large format camera are mostly devoted to "how to get a sharp print" i.e. high resolution. 

Am I being nice enough?  

Actually I really like the American Realism aesthetic which is a sort of "still life" with lots of detail. 

[tom.w.bn]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Tom1234:

I am not trying to hurt anyones feelings on high resolution cameras.  

Also for those wanting an aesthetic of so called "super realism", also called "American Realism", an aesthetic which one book claimed was the only, or one of a very few, American invented art forms - high resolution can be a key to this form.  

High resolution certainly has its place in Landscape photography and wide angle photography.   Ansel Adam's technical books on how to use a large format camera are mostly devoted to "how to get a sharp print" i.e. high resolution. 

Am I being nice enough?  

Actually I really like the American Realism aesthetic which is a sort of "still life" with lots of detail. 

I'm sure, you can also create blurry and unsharp photos with an M10-R, not only with a 24MP camera.

[tom.w.bn]

When I only look at cameras that I used that are pixel sharp (you can use a 100% crop) then I used 10, 12, 18, 21, 24, 50 MP. The only difference is the resolution and dynamic range. I can't see an aesthetic difference.

[eyeheartny]

On 10/25/2020 at 12:56 AM, tom.w.bn said:

I don't think this exists. Do you have an example for that? You probably see a difference in post processing of different people (e.g. use of clarity slider).

Same question on my side. @Tom1234, can you provide some examples of what you're describing? 

[250swb]

On 10/25/2020 at 7:37 AM, Tom1234 said:

Does anyone find the 40meg aesthetic too harsh and technical looking verses the 24meg aesthetic that seems more smooth and calm and normal similar to what the eye sees?  

 

I'd say the 24mp images look more interesting generally speaking, and 18mp images more than that. I'm not seeing harsh 40mp images, just flat boring bland images. 

[wizard]

Saying that less mp look more interesting equates to saying that images taken with a 400 or 800 iso film look more interesting than those taken with a 50 or 100 iso film, as 400 or 800 iso films have less resolution than 50 or 100 iso films. But why would less resolution render images more interesting, at least in general? I am waiting for someone to say that images are more interesting if they are less sharp ...

I do acknowledge that technical perfection (sharpness, resolution etc.) does not render images interesting per se, but neither is the opposite true, at least in my humble opinion.

[Anakronox]

Also think about how the new M10-R’s DNGs are different and that you will also have to adjust your post processing to get the look you are used to from say an M10. I went from a M9M to a M10M and had to really relearn y workflow in Lightroom 

[Rupert Greenwell]

This is a interesting topic, I have a M10 and I have been watching the M10 R threads with interest. I moved from a Q to a Q2, I feel that the Q2 has lost some of the Q's charm in the look of the images to my eyes. I slightly prefer the images from the M10 to the Q2. Before the M10 I used a M262 and only at higher iso's did the M10 seem to perform image wise better than the 262.

I also have a M10 M and it is early days but the improvement over the M246 is at times hard to tell. This is all very personal, I don't examine my images for minor details or worry too much about sharpness, it is the overall look of my images that please me. For me a M10 R is not going to make me a better photographer , I now realise to be happy with what I have already.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, Steven said:

Images are more interesting if they are less sharp 

Sharp is not a technical term.  A linear contrast curve often yields pictures that appear flat, less crisp. That’s a common issue with high dynamic range camera output, made worse by lack of PP understanding (including excess use of software ‘sharpening’). For screen shots a camera phone gives plenty of resolution.  Boring subject matter is also likely exacerbated by pandemic conditions.  A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Jeff
 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Jeff S

[Tom1234]

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sharp is not a technical term.  A linear contrast curve often yields pictures that appear flat, less crisp. That’s a common issue with high dynamic range camera output, made worse by lack of PP understanding (including excess use of software ‘sharpening’). For screen shots a camera phone gives plenty of resolution.  Boring subject matter is also likely exacerbated by pandemic conditions.  A lot of issues seem to be conflated here.

Jeff
 

 

The dilemma:  Should a camera company give the flattest color/brightness curve (dull looking picture) or a color/brightness curve that excites?  

The flattest gives the most differentiated data but needs fixing in post production.  An exciting saturated color Euro Look of some kind probably makes the camera sell.  

Me thinks… both should be selectable.  Both should be retrievable from the other.  

Could the saturated Euro Look be a software tweak-file-of-settings applied to a flat DNG file?  Yes but that would give it away for all to know.  Yet don't the insiders all know what these tweaks are?  So really a camera maker may be giving very little away except a few secret tweaks.  It is obvious that Nikon's Color science is similar to Leica's.  So in the name of preserving corporate secrets, marketing edge, and product differentiation - we may not see this information give-out by the camera companies but only by the post product photo software providers.