24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[eyeheartny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I detect trolling!! 🤪

With all due respect though, while you seem to be an excellent photographer, I personally don’t love the photos you just posted. 
Beyond your obvious talent, these photos are too clean for me. They lack character and emotion. They look like these landscape photos you see featured every Sunday on Sony forums. They look like they were shot on an a7riv with GM lens. Beautiful. Just not my style. And this proves exactly our point. I haven’t been impressed at all so far with the results of the m10r. 

But how much of that is due to the lens selection, aperture, and post-processing? 

[eyeheartny]

Just now, Steven said:

I would say 80% the above, 20% the 40MP

Ball park figure. 

Right. And so my sense is that with lenses that have more character and less modern rendering, you'd notice the difference less, especially if the person processed in a way that was more conducive to the look you're after. For me, I think I'd rather have the option. It's like raw materials. Give a sculptor a huge block of marble and they can work wonders, but give them a smaller piece and they are more constrained. 

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

As far as I’m concerned, I suppose I would need to try before I can fully make my mind. 

Yup.

P.

[Raymondl]

14 minutes ago, Steven said:

I detect trolling!! 🤪

With all due respect though, while you seem to be an excellent photographer, I personally don’t love the photos you just posted. 
Beyond your obvious talent, these photos are too clean for me. They lack character and emotion. They look like these landscape photos you see featured every Sunday on Sony forums. They look like they were shot on an a7riv with GM lens. Beautiful. Just not my style. And this proves exactly our point. I haven’t been impressed at all so far with the results of the m10r. 
these kind of results are at least not what I’m personally looking for with the M system/philosophy. 

Lovely shots @Tailwagger.

@Steven I did look through Tailwaggers Flickr feed, and this "test" shot with a older (1956) lens caught my eye... so much character... just look at the character (shot with a M10R) - I have linked the picture directly from Flickr below.

 

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!

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Raymondl

[Dennis]

IMHO, if one is not in the large-printing business, 24meg is more enough for everything. And it looks better aesthetically for me, that look. 6000x4000 (approx) file, taken with Ricoh GRIII, M10, Nikon D780, doesn't matter. It's a fantastic file size... A few years ago (before mirrorless), with a DSLR for example , you didn't have to worry about the next camera to come, MP or so. Because we were happy with what we have and no need for more. Now, with so many choices, our approach is changed. GAS or not, needs or not, we all love to know more about specs and new cameras/lenses to come. But the paradox of choice nowadays it's almost insane. I read and ask a lot, I'm a curious guy, and I prefer to know and prevent, rather than not know and buy. But I'm also an old school; I love to shoot, doesn't matter which device I have on my hands at that moment. I really enjoy shooting a lot, rather than compare cameras. I don't do it, but I do read what you're saying 😂 It's fun. But besides my curiosity and the time I spend to read on line, I have to tell you a secret. I have never taken so many photos like this and always carried the camera with me until I entered the Leica world two and a half years ago. And for me, a tilting/flipping screen doesn't give me the same emotion than shooting with an M system.

About sharpening, I do prefer more modern looks. Also, in PP, you can remove contrast. If you photos are soft, try to add it, good luck. But it's up to each one of us to know what It feel right and honest for our signature style. Steven, you have beautiful storytelling images in your IG feed, congrats. And I perfectly understand what you are saying about the images above. They are not just right for you. "De gustibus no est disputandum". It's another perception, concept, mood and style. And I enjoyed both Tailwagger photos and yours. 👏👏👏  

My two cents.

[Tailwagger]

19 minutes ago, Steven said:

I detect trolling!! 🤪

With all due respect though, while you seem to be an excellent photographer, I personally don’t love the photos you just posted.

This whole thread is a troll.  And I'm a hack, no where near excellent.  

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

There are nearly 8 years of 24MPx M shots floating around.  Every single one is brilliant.  I know I was getting far better results when I was shooting with the 240 and 10.  The R has been a total disappointment.  I call Bags every day begging him to sell me my old M10 back.  I mean look at these boring, live-less, flat crap images this pile of junk has produced in the last week or two. Woe is me. I should have waited for an iPhone 12. 

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!

 

I thought the composition was amazingly well done here, especially 1, 2, 3, and 5.  The subject of #4 seems to be the figure person inside the window.  I know a B&W film photographer who would add light to highlight that figure in post production.  So many photos lack good composition, due to the situations people shoot in forcing them to the wrong camera position.  Great job! 

Please Tailwagger put your photos back up… I want them in this thread I started.  I think Steve is younger than us and just into his own aesthetic at this time, so his statement may appear to be trolling, though usually he does not do that. 

Oops!  your pic's are back in… maybe my browser has a download problem because they re-appeared. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Tom1234

[bags27]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

There are nearly 8 years of 24MPx M shots floating around.  Every single one is brilliant.  I know I was getting far better results when I was shooting with the 240 and 10.  The R has been a total disappointment.  I call Bags every day begging him to sell me my old M10 back.  I mean look at these boring, live-less, flat crap images this pile of junk has produced in the last week or two. Woe is me. I should have waited for an iPhone 12. 

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!

 

It just goes to show that a great photographer can create great photos even with a crappy camera.

And yes, I'll sell you your M10 back. How about an even swap for the 10R?

[Herr Barnack]

24 mp is good. 

40 mp is better - for making large prints. 

Both are overkill for posting images on social media and emailing photos to people.

JMHO.

 

[Tailwagger]

41 minutes ago, bags27 said:

It just goes to show that a great photographer can create great photos even with a crappy camera.

And yes, I'll sell you your M10 back. How about an even swap for the 10R?

I would, but this whole M10-R experience has shaken me. I simply don't have the emotional strength to risk jeopardizing our friendship. 

[Tailwagger]

10 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Both are overkill for posting images on social media and emailing photos to people.

JMHO.

100%. The print (and carrying fewer lenses for equal coverage) is the primary point of moving to the R.  Making definitive or expensive decisions on the basis of what one sees here, given all the up and downsizing, lens selection, processing style, etc is a perilous path.  What evidence there is, is mere suggestion. Far better to reserve judgment until you can hold it your hand. That said, I truly look forward to reading similar threads a few years from now when 8K displays are the norm and 16Ks turn 24mpx files into icons. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

Resolution doesn't determine the look of an image. The whole concept of lower rez sensors looking better is daft. If that's what you really think then you might want to have a look at what the medium format world is doing. Then again if you're just scaling everything down to the same 4K monitor, don't bother. 

Once upon a time we shot film. And we had debates about how different films processed in different chemicals produced a different aesthetic. We'd argue whether Rodinal needed to be at 22.5 or 23 degrees and Kodak or Fujifilm and we were happy.

Then digital came along and for some bizarre reason we got this idea that all sensors were the same. You know the old chesnut.... "It doesn't matter. Shoot raw and make them look the same in post!" Which is a huge pile of bullsh##. I won't get into why you can't actually get a truly raw file from a consumer digital camera.

Any sensor that's got a change from another one will have a different aesthetic. Up down or sideways, if you change a CFA, microlenses, AD converter you get something different. Then there's the profiles. Both manufacturers and image processor. If you don't like the M10R in Lightroom then give C1 a try. Or something else. There's so many things going on in that pipeline. But the number of photosites? Nope. That 'aint it.

I loved the original Canon 5D sensor. Disliked the 5D2 a lot. Liked but didn't love the M8 or 240. Loved the M9 and M10. Love the M10R, as I think it's got better overall colour and needs less work with skin tones. But I use Lightroom. Someone else using C1 might see different. None are even close to the X1D, for me. The S is though. The S3 done right is something else.

Geeesus! you can even have exactly the same sensor and get different looks. Grab a Hasselblad X1D and a Fujifilm GFX 50R and put them side by side. Not even close and they have exactly the same silicon. We've got how a sensor and a lens interacts. Different flange distances. Different lens designs. Different in camera profiles, lens calibration data and raw output. Different colour science.

What's actually going on is that Leica has a different colour science, bayer array and microlens design on every damn camera they make. It's like shooting Acros, TMax and Neopan side by side. Absolutely you'll prefer one to the others. But it isn't resolution. Change cameras and you change the type of *film*stock you're using. Then you've got a new microlens design that's going to work differently with different lenses. A lens you like on the M10P might not float your boat on the M10R. But a lens you didn't like on the M10P might sing. Don't think much of my MATE on my M10. But on the M10M is fantastic. My favourite combo at the moment.

And finally, bias. We get to a place we understand and then we have to make changes and we don't want to. So you like the look of the M10P over the R. But how long have you spent dialling in the new camera? You have thousands of frames on the M10P. You know how it responds. You have the metering dialled in. You choose lenses based on what you like. Maybe all it will take is some time, learning and a Lightroom preset till you prefer the new camera. Earlier I said I liked but didn't love the M8 or 240 and loved the M9 and M10. That's because the M8 and 240 were the big changes. M8 to 9 was small. M240 to M10 was small. Didn't have to do a big shift in thinking or workflow. But when I go back and reprocess images now I vastly prefer the M240 to the M9. Whodathunkit???

Change a camera and you change much more than just the resolution. It's overly simplistic to think resolution is the main cause of an aesthetic change between cameras.

Gordon

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I thought the composition was amazingly well done here, especially 1, 2, 3, and 5.  The subject of #4 seems to be the figure person inside the window.  I know a B&W film photographer who would add light to highlight that figure in post production.  So many photos lack good composition, due to the situations people shoot in forcing them to the wrong camera position.  Great job! 

Thanks for the overly kind words.  My point in posting this particular grouping was in response to the notion earlier in the thread that the M10-R output was lifeless. 

The reality, AFAIC, is that with increased power comes increased responsibility.  While working with the R has not been an unfamiliar experience, enough has changed in terms of WB, color tendencies, and yes, pixel count, to have required a bit of a learning curve. Much as it was when moving from CCD to CMOS, moving to the R, IMO, requires a certain level of mental recalibration before the results begin to meet or exceed one's expectations. The camera has only been in our hands for a couple of months. I have little doubt that there is more to learn. 

Funny thing that figure in #4. I did consider a heavy crop to actually make it the subject.  In the end I did somewhat as you suggested... the surrounding light was pushed a couple of stops to create enough contrast to pull the silhouette.  But in my mind the figure was really an easter egg... only really seen if one was actually looking.  Perhaps, I should have lowered the contrast on that a bit to hide it more, but given the high contrast nature of the scene, treating it similarly seemed the best approach at the time.

[Tailwagger]

6 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

As always... thank you for the sanity Gordon.  Sometimes the word is worth a 1000 pictures. 

[Jeff S]

25 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

Resolution doesn't determine the look of an image. The whole concept of lower rez sensors looking better is daft. If that's what you really think then you might want to have a look at what the medium format world is doing. Then again if you're just scaling everything down to the same 4K monitor, don't bother. 

Once upon a time we shot film. And we had debates about how different films processed in different chemicals produced a different aesthetic. We'd argue whether Rodinal needed to be at 22.5 or 23 degrees and Kodak or Fujifilm and we were happy.

Then digital came along and for some bizarre reason we got this idea that all sensors were the same. You know the old chesnut.... "It doesn't matter. Shoot raw and make them look the same in post!" Which is a huge pile of bullsh##. I won't get into why you can't actually get a truly raw file from a consumer digital camera.

Any sensor that's got a change from another one will have a different aesthetic. Up down or sideways, if you change a CFA, microlenses, AD converter you get something different. Then there's the profiles. Both manufacturers and image processor. If you don't like the M10R in Lightroom then give C1 a try. Or something else. There's so many things going on in that pipeline. But the number of photosites? Nope. That 'aint it.

I loved the original Canon 5D sensor. Disliked the 5D2 a lot. Liked but didn't love the M8 or 240. Loved the M9 and M10. Love the M10R, as I think it's got better overall colour and needs less work with skin tones. But I use Lightroom. Someone else using C1 might see different. None are even close to the X1D, for me. The S is though. The S3 done right is something else.

Geeesus! you can even have exactly the same sensor and get different looks. Grab a Hasselblad X1D and a Fujifilm GFX 50R and put them side by side. Not even close and they have exactly the same silicon. We've got how a sensor and a lens interacts. Different flange distances. Different lens designs. Different in camera profiles, lens calibration data and raw output. Different colour science.

What's actually going on is that Leica has a different colour science, bayer array and microlens design on every damn camera they make. It's like shooting Acros, TMax and Neopan side by side. Absolutely you'll prefer one to the others. But it isn't resolution. Change cameras and you change the type of *film*stock you're using. Then you've got a new microlens design that's going to work differently with different lenses. A lens you like on the M10P might not float your boat on the M10R. But a lens you didn't like on the M10P might sing. Don't think much of my MATE on my M10. But on the M10M is fantastic. My favourite combo at the moment.

And finally, bias. We get to a place we understand and then we have to make changes and we don't want to. So you like the look of the M10P over the R. But how long have you spent dialling in the new camera? You have thousands of frames on the M10P. You know how it responds. You have the metering dialled in. You choose lenses based on what you like. Maybe all it will take is some time, learning and a Lightroom preset till you prefer the new camera. Earlier I said I liked but didn't love the M8 or 240 and loved the M9 and M10. That's because the M8 and 240 were the big changes. M8 to 9 was small. M240 to M10 was small. Didn't have to do a big shift in thinking or workflow. But when I go back and reprocess images now I vastly prefer the M240 to the M9. Whodathunkit???

Change a camera and you change much more than just the resolution. It's overly simplistic to think resolution is the main cause of an aesthetic change between cameras.

Gordon

Indeed, all that plus all the variables that influence an actual fine print, including inks, paper, print size, lighting and more.  All this nonsense about low resolution screen comparisons would be crazy enough even if we assumed that the monitors and related settings of the presenter and viewer magically matched identically.  😜

Jeff

Edited October 28, 2020 by Jeff S

[Tom1234]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

…  moving to the R, IMO, requires a certain level of mental recalibration before the results begin to meet or exceed one's expectations. The camera has only been in our hands for a couple of months. I have little doubt that there is more to learn. 

SUMMARY:  I started this mess so maybe I can finish it.  My apologies to all you life time Photoshop users that have heard it all before.

Hope you will post here what you learn about handling the M10-R increased resolution.  M10-R plus slider modifications may well meet and exceed M10 out of the camera box images.  One famous Leica photographer charges I think $600 USD for this information. 

To make sure we see the extra M10-R 40 meg resolution, the sharpness and contrast had to be adjusted by Leica to a certain high enough level, that obviously seems harsh to some of us, who prefer the 24meg file's aesthetic.  This may be a marketing tweak decision that causes unfair judgements about the camera's abilities compared to other cameras. 

If that sharpness and contrast is turned down a bit, that might make us love the M10-R above all others.  So the modern sensor aesthetic's come from some camera's files plus some set of slider modifications.  

Thus Leica has made a high resolution tool so great that we have yet to understand how best to use it. 

Yet cameras all get a reputation according to what file characteristics they initially put out.  We put a name on this initial reputation with the most convenient term, in this case 24 or 40 meg aesthetic.  Pardon me for patronizing my own Thread Title. 

BACKSTORY: Back in the film days when MTF charts were studied like pixels are now, I remember seeing pictures, the lightest-etchings, made by lenses pushed to their limits in the 40 line pairs segment (40 line pairs is of course 80 line).  These 80 lines had lower contrast that softened the extra resolution of the image in a beautiful way.  

Handling a lack of resolution- Back with 6 and 12 meg low resolution sensors, the approach might have been to INCREASE contrast-&-sharpness, and then, to be carful to NOT oversize the image to where you notice the jagged edges.  

Handling an excess of resolution- Now with the 40 meg plus resolution sensors, the better approach might be to LOWER the contrast-&-sharpness settings a bit to avoid too many high contrast edges that could irritate.  Here it is that M10-R sits proudly displaying its great resolving ability that needs for some of us only a slight softening to satisfy.

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

SUMMARY:  I started this mess so maybe I can finish it.  My apologies to all you life time Photoshop users that have heard it all before.

Hope you will post here what you learn about handling the M10-R increased resolution.  M10-R plus slider modifications may well meet and exceed M10 out of the camera box images.  One famous Leica photographer charges I think $600 USD for this information. 

To make sure we see the extra M10-R 40 meg resolution, the sharpness and contrast had to be adjusted by Leica to a certain high enough level, that obviously seems harsh to some of us, who prefer the 24meg file's aesthetic.  This may be a marketing tweak decision that causes unfair judgements about the camera's abilities compared to other cameras. 

If that sharpness and contrast is turned down a bit, that might make us love the M10-R above all others.  So the modern sensor aesthetic's come from some camera's files plus some set of slider modifications.  

Thus Leica has made a high resolution tool so great that we have yet to understand how best to use it. 

Yet cameras all get a reputation according to what file characteristics they initially put out.  We put a name on this initial reputation with the most convenient term, in this case 24 or 40 meg aesthetic.  Pardon me for patronizing my own Thread Title. 

BACKSTORY: Back in the film days when MTF charts were studied like pixels are now, I remember seeing pictures, the lightest-etchings, made by lenses pushed to their limits in the 40 line pairs segment (40 line pairs is of course 80 line).  These 80 lines had lower contrast that softened the extra resolution of the image in a beautiful way.  

Handling a lack of resolution- Back with 6 and 12 meg low resolution sensors, the approach might have been to INCREASE contrast-&-sharpness, and then, to be carful to NOT oversize the image to where you notice the jagged edges.  

Handling an excess of resolution- Now with the 40 meg plus resolution sensors, the better approach might be to LOWER the contrast-&-sharpness settings a bit to avoid too many high contrast edges that could irritate.  Here it is that M10-R sits proudly displaying its great resolving ability that needs for some of us only a slight softening to satisfy.

So perhaps we can bring this stupid nonsense to an end and get out and take photographs? 6 pages of utter drivel. 

[LocalHero1953]

Hey, this is an internet argument after all! I don't mind if someone has a notion they want to argue for, if it means something important to them. As longs as they don't try to tell me it is important for me as well, or that opinions are actually facts, I'm fine. I haven't seen the OP doing that, and I haven't been obliged to read this thread.

[Mikep996]

The beauty (?) of internet forums is that they allow people to make comments that, if made in person, could result in a black eye or missing teeth!  

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Mikep996

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tom1234]

27 minutes ago, Steven said:

Tonight, I am walking the red carpet at the Cannes film festival where the first feature film I produced will premiere on the world's biggest screen. 1000 people (instead of 2200 because of covid) will watch the film. Some will love it, some will not. And it's totally fine that they don't love it...

But imagine if they came to me and said that because they didn't like the film we should not have made it, and that we wasted time, money and film roll ? How hurtful and unconsiderate would that be? People really need to make an effort to understand what they don't... 

Congratulations.  I went to film school myself in the USA.  

I study still photos as a study of art for filmmaking in the future. I study Leica due to its long history of different visual aesthetics. I  Long live Cannes!

What is the name of your film?  I will watch for it.