24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/26/2020 at 9:49 AM, Tom1234 said:

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 thought the quintessence of Ansel Adams’ work was tonal scale. That his writings sometimes suggest that it would be about sharp prints only is probably because his main subjects were landscape, where sharpness from corner to corner is typically desired. Reducing his work to a quest for resolution is not only beside the point of his main contribution, the Zone System, but also beside the value of LF format analogue photography until today. 
This is not meant to be picky and is not off topic either. In MF and LF format analogue photography I can see very smooth transitions through tonal variations from black to white. And this is exactly what I think some responders here miss in 40Mp on a relatively small sensor of what they call ‘full format’ nowadays 🤨. I do not see that so much yet in results from the M10R here, but I certainly see that in the Leica SL2: overly crispy to an extent it that itches my eyes. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by otto.f

[Raymondl]

3 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

The original question was essentially around the effect of fewer versus more pixels on the 'aesthetic' of the shot... what ever that really means.  I assume it to mean that some folks are displeased with the SooC result when the image is downsampled to be viewed on a screen, particularly when using a more high contrast modern optic. And so they jump to conclusions, assuming a single variable, more pixels in the midsts of hundreds of other unknowns, is clearly the why of things. 

While it's not surprising when laying out this sort of coin some folks seem to expect a flavor profile befitting a third Michelin star produced at a McDonald's pace, the sad reality is that to produce a truly tasty dish is generally more complicated than just point and shoot. The idea that SooC comparisons, as on offer here, is what one should be concerned with as opposed to the malleability the files provide on the way to a satisfying result is frankly perplexing to me. It may be expedient, but it's not particularly relevant. 

But okay, it's a snow day and this whole discussion is so amusing, that I'll bite. Two minute experiment involving a two year old cell phone vs a two month old camera. No tricks, no BS, just go outside and see what 10(X) versus 10(R), 12 vs 36 MPx yields.  Both 28mm. One ISO 40 f1.4, the other ISO 1600, f5.6.  Focused same spot. Both raw, pulled into LR, slight color balance performed to one shot to make it closer to the other,  a crop from 2x3 to 3x4 to match the others native format, then both exported to the same output size. ie. effectively no image processing to help one way or the other.  Just a leveling of the playing field. Which is which should be immediately obvious. Or is it? And if so, in why and in what dimensions?

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!

What does this tell you? Dunno, draw what ever conclusions you dare. Just don't kid yourself. Comparing one form of clay to another wont tell you which clump will yield a child's mangled ashtray and which a Navaho craftsman's masterpiece.

I'm off to shoot some snow. Feel free to discuss. 🙂

I like your sense of humour @Tailwagger. 

dumbesttestever.jpg.d01261931a342409f3456214f9e48216.jpg - "two month old camera"

dumbesttestever-2.jpg.089b48728be73832b9698323f01bdaa8.jpg - "two year old cell phone"

 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, otto.f said:

I thought the quintessence of Ansel Adams’ work was tonal scale. That his writings sometimes suggest that it would be about sharp prints only is probably because his main subjects were landscape, where sharpness from corner to corner is typically desired. Reducing his work to a quest for resolution is not only beside the point of his main contribution, the Zone System, but also beside the value of LF format analogue photography until today. 
This is not meant to be picky and is not off topic either. In MF and LF format analogue photography I can see very smooth transitions through tonal variations from black to white. And this is exactly what I think some responders here miss in 40Mp on a relatively small sensor of what they call ‘full format’ nowadays 🤨. I do not see that so much yet in results from the M10R here, but I certainly see that in the Leica SL2: overly crispy to an extent it that itches my eyes. 

This is why one needs to make prints and judge accordingly.  It helps to have done this, as I have, with large format silver prints as well as 35mm and medium format silver and digital prints.  I never rely on screen shots to assess gear, let alone from others whose style and workflow, shooting and processing, may be radically different from mine.  

Jeff

[otto.f]

3 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

This is why one needs to make prints and judge accordingly.  It helps to have done this, as I have, with large format silver prints as well as 35mm and medium format silver and digital prints.  I never rely on screen shots to assess gear, let alone from others whose style and workflow, shooting and processing, may be radically different from mine.  

Jeff

Yes, one can also scan a fine analogue shot to pieces

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, otto.f said:

Yes, one can also scan a fine analogue shot to pieces

I don’t have scanning experience, but fortunately have a good friend (and terrific photographer/printer/computer expert) who  scanned a small bit of my film archives after I gave up the darkroom.  I prefer results from all-film/darkroom or all-digital print workflow.

Jeff

[Tom1234]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

But my photos were exported in high quality and uploaded to google drive (150MB). Anyway, I hope I didn't waste your time... Sorry guys I love gear but im not too techie... 

Steve, do not feel bad.  When studying any subject you go through a sort of personal R&D (research and development process).  There are mistakes along the way.  But eventually you get to destination.  Just keep studying.

I once worked with an audio engineer on product designs over a multi year period as an after work part time project similar to how we all do camera study now.  We actually worked on the design of two or three products, two of them were a stereo speaker and pre-Amplifier.  His job was the technical side picking parts and circuits, my job was the user side deciding how it would sound and be operated.  It was hard going at first, everything I learned was new to me, I felt about 1 mm tall as he and other associated engineers told me about things I did not know. But after a couple of years in which I also read a couple of books on the subject myself, I finally had as much Six Sense about the subject as the engineers did, and actually sent the design work in new directions they had never thought important, and I was right and it worked.  

So just keep studying, you obviously know a lot, and you will prevail.  You and I are, in this industry, in the position of "User Interface and User Outcomes" (my terms) which is an important design position.  When cameras and lenses were technically new and simpler, a single engineer could use-&-design it all.  But nowadays with all the technical options a User Interface and Outcomes person(s) is/are needed to test and try to create outcomes with the product since the engineer is busy more with a thousand math and physics details necessary to make the product work.  We have a design position as valid as the engineers.

In this position we may start without or missing some knowledge, as do purchasing new users, thus we learn how to best design-&-use a product for even a new user.  So even our mistakes are valid points that the design needs to consider.  I think that sums up the enthusiastic user's position in any industry.  

Everyone on a forum is one of these "user experience" people subject to the same learning process.  Trolls stop the learning process with static so I ground them in my reject list.  None of us are trolls on this thread (though there are three people I do not see) though we have all become frustrated at times and possibly expressed the frustration. 

Good day!

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, otto.f said:

I thought the quintessence of Ansel Adams’ work was tonal scale. That his writings sometimes suggest that it would be about sharp prints only is probably because his main subjects were landscape, where sharpness from corner to corner is typically desired. Reducing his work to a quest for resolution is not only beside the point of his main contribution, the Zone System, but also beside the value of LF format analogue photography until today. 
This is not meant to be picky and is not off topic either. In MF and LF format analogue photography I can see very smooth transitions through tonal variations from black to white. And this is exactly what I think some responders here miss in 40Mp on a relatively small sensor of what they call ‘full format’ nowadays 🤨. I do not see that so much yet in results from the M10R here, but I certainly see that in the Leica SL2: overly crispy to an extent it that itches my eyes. 

I have read more than one of Ansel's books.  

In one of them he goes on and on about mainly getting focus & detail.  True he was a master of aesthetics dealing with other important issues such as tonality.  It might have been this book that emphasized using camera to obtain sharpness, Ansel Adams The Camera:  

https://www.amazon.com/Ansel-Adams-Camera-Photography/dp/0821221841/ref=sr_1_2?crid=18P81OE8EUMGI&dchild=1&keywords=ansel+adams+zone+system&qid=1604104041&sprefix=ansel+adams+zone+%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-2

The other two books listed, The Negative and The print are likely his tonality books.

 

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 31, 2020 by Tom1234

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

Tailwagger - you posted, as Steven said, some beautiful and skillfully processed M10-R images earlier in this thread, but they are not the type of photography that I want to produce. For I want, the 40MP can get in the way, and the 24 MP of the M10, with its larger pixels, are likely to be more suitable. Here are two landscapes  of the type that interest me:

Well, I'm not going to try to chase or argue style, nor dispute that 24 MPx is more than enough in most situations. Not the point of any of my posts. I posted that first grouping as a reaction to several comments complaining that M10-R files are flat. Hence a selection of high contrast poppy sort of shots. Not what you're looking for. Check. But thinking a few photos from a singular photographer represent what the M10-R is all about is not giving Leica much credit, methinks. 

Having shot with the M10 for 3.5 years, I see the 10-R as a more flexible tool, particularly for color work. AFAIC, there is a set of lenses that have never, ever looked better, far smoother in transition to OoF areas, for example. With no reasonable T/S solution for the M, I place value on the increased ability to crop vertically, yet still be able to print with nearly the same number of pixels as if I had clambered up a ladder with the original. There are a host of other reasons some, no doubt, as yet undiscovered.  AFAIC, I've yet to encounter anything the M10 could do, the 10-R can not. This isn't to say their aren't noticeable differences SooC. There are. It's a matter of recalibrating how you go about treating the files to drag out what you happen to want. This remains an ongoing process for me at the moment.  My tendency so far has been to try to explore and exploit the new capabilities, rather than the familiar ones.  After 6 or 7 years of 24Mpx Leicas, I am (and I suspect others as well) looking for a different look. Over time perhaps some will re-embrace the more classical look, older glass will return into the rotation and as it does, you may begin to see work that alters your view a bit. But, as thats not what I'm interested in the moment, I have very little in the portfolio to convince you one way or the other.

But let's quickly try. This time two images taken roughly two years and 100 miles apart.  Chosen for no particular reason other than they share a similar motif coupled with the fact that my current catalog of B&W photos done with the R is limited at present. One with the 50mm 'lux, the other the 35mm Distagon.  One with the M10, one with the M10R.  Forget about whether or not you find the resultant style compelling, not the point. The point is that if I so desire I can make the same sort of photos from a tonality standpoint with the R as I did with the previous version. Yet again the resampling and downsizing does a measure of injustice to the originals in either case, but hopefully the pair convey some sense that these cameras are indeed siblings. The younger one, should you so choose to take advantage, being capable of a bit more 'tude. But if she oversteps, you can still send her straight to her room to contemplate the indiscretion. 

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!

 

Where I value having the added flexibility of the 10R, you might find no need for it. That, however, is an entirely different discussion. If you hate detail and are constantly having to tamp it down, the case for the R, or any higher resolution camera, certainly takes a hit.  But as always, the power to use or abuse rests within the mind of the photographer. I recall my initial reaction to all the early M10M/50APO shots was wow, astonishing, not even remotely for me.  Then I saw a few efforts elsewhere, using different glass and post treatments and decided that if I ever sell my beloved race car, I'm gonna get me one of 'em. Perhaps, if examined dispassionately, you might find as I did with the M10M that there are a few subtle aspects buried in one or two of the very limited set of samples available that might be relevant to what you want to achieve. Or not. My singular and only point for sharing a few of these shots here is, as an owner of the camera, to add to the pile so that others can make a slightly more informed judgment.  While it might not be satisfying, nor cheap, no amount of other people's work will ever replace having a real go with your own glass and sensibilities.

[Tailwagger]

5 hours ago, Raymondl said:

I like your sense of humour @Tailwagger. 

Can I quote you to the wife? Not sure she shares your opinion 😉

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Well, I'm not going to try to chase or argue style, nor dispute that 24 MPx is more than enough in most situations. Not the point of any of my posts. I posted that first grouping as a reaction to several comments complaining that M10-R files are flat. Hence a selection of high contrast poppy sort of shots. Not what you're looking for. Check. But thinking a few photos from a singular photographer represent what the M10-R is all about is not giving Leica much credit, methinks. 

Having shot with the M10 for 3.5 years, I see the 10-R as a more flexible tool, particularly for color work. AFAIC, there is a set of lenses that have never, ever looked better, far smoother in transition to OoF areas, for example. With no reasonable T/S solution for the M, I place value on the increased ability to crop vertically, yet still be able to print with nearly the same number of pixels as if I had clambered up a ladder with the original. There are a host of other reasons some, no doubt, as yet undiscovered.  AFAIC, I've yet to encounter anything the M10 could do, the 10-R can not. This isn't to say their aren't noticeable differences SooC. There are. It's a matter of recalibrating how you go about treating the files to drag out what you happen to want. This remains an ongoing process for me at the moment.  My tendency so far has been to try to explore and exploit the new capabilities, rather than the familiar ones.  After 6 or 7 years of 24Mpx Leicas, I am (and I suspect others as well) looking for a different look. Over time perhaps some will re-embrace the more classical look, older glass will return into the rotation and as it does, you may begin to see work that alters your view a bit. But, as thats not what I'm interested in the moment, I have very little in the portfolio to convince you one way or the other.

But let's quickly try. This time two images taken roughly two years and 100 miles apart.  Chosen for no particular reason other than they share a similar motif coupled with the fact that my current catalog of B&W photos done with the R is limited at present. One with the 50mm 'lux, the other the 35mm Distagon.  One with the M10, one with the M10R.  Forget about whether or not you find the resultant style compelling, not the point. The point is that if I so desire I can make the same sort of photos from a tonality standpoint with the R as I did with the previous version. Yet again the resampling and downsizing does a measure of injustice to the originals in either case, but hopefully the pair convey some sense that these cameras are indeed siblings. The younger one, should you so choose to take advantage, being capable of a bit more 'tude. But if she oversteps, you can still send her straight to her room to contemplate the indiscretion. 

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!

 

Where I value having the added flexibility of the 10R, you might find no need for it. That, however, is an entirely different discussion. If you hate detail and are constantly having to tamp it down, the case for the R, or any higher resolution camera, certainly takes a hit.  But as always, the power to use or abuse rests within the mind of the photographer. I recall my initial reaction to all the early M10M/50APO shots was wow, astonishing, not even remotely for me.  Then I saw a few efforts elsewhere, using different glass and post treatments and decided that if I ever sell my beloved race car, I'm gonna get me one of 'em. Perhaps, if examined dispassionately, you might find as I did with the M10M that there are a few subtle aspects buried in one or two of the very limited set of samples available that might be relevant to what you want to achieve. Or not. My singular and only point for sharing a few of these shots here is, as an owner of the camera, to add to the pile so that others can make a slightly more informed judgment.  While it might not be satisfying, nor cheap, no amount of other people's work will ever replace having a real go with your own glass and sensibilities.

Many thanks for two great examples.  I do like your subject matter and pictorial expression.

[Tailwagger]

8 hours ago, Steven said:

Don't most cellphone apply a lot of sharpening and other post processing tricks to the photos ? I'm asking serisouly... 

No clue. I'm not a dedicated iPhone X photog. But as we're all trying to learn something here, I just looked up .heic files and what I took for a raw format turns out to be something I suspect you, as a cinematographer might know more about than I as it relates to video formats.  The claim is that it is superior to JPG as it provides higher levels of compression, but preserves 16 bit color depth. You can read a short summary of it here. 

But is that whats in play here?  SooC doesn't mean unprocessed. It just means this is what you wind up with before you do any work to the image. Perhaps LR applies sharpening or other corrections/instructions contained within the format, dunno. But, I doubt this is the issue. Raise the pixel count of the iPhone image to equal that of M10R via a simple zoom and the differences are obvious. Perhaps a serious scaler might make this less so, but if we could simply interpolate a result from a few MPx, we'd all still be shooting Rebels.

Where we all accept that there are limits when we scale an image up, we seem to expect perfection when going in the opposite direction. If you've ever played with PS or other software to increase the pixel count, you know that some images, generated by the same camera and lens, fare quite a bit better others. ie. its content related. I'll freely admit to not having studied just how such visual compression operations are managed, but I'd wager, given there is significant information being disposed of, that there are significant compromises involved. And it strikes me that just as with upscaling, when downscaling, some images will yet again fair better than others.

IIRC correctly the final images I uploaded on the site were claimed to be shown at something around  1k by 768, so let's round to a meg. That means we've crushed the iPhone by 12x, the M10 by over 40x. And not in a single step mind you. Not enough of a crunch to create a black hole perhaps, but it certainly seems unreasonable to judge a camera capabilities too harshly when so much of the original information it labored to provide has been summarily ripped from it.  

[otto.f]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t have scanning experience, but fortunately have a good friend (and terrific photographer/printer/computer expert) who  scanned a small bit of my film archives after I gave up the darkroom.  I prefer results from all-film/darkroom or all-digital print workflow.

Jeff

+1

[Raymondl]

26 minutes ago, Steven said:

I just had another idea for this thread for a new test. 
 

https://topazlabs.com/gigapixel-ai/

 

Let me know if anyone is interested by this MP comparison and I can get on it. 
 

im bored. 

@Steven This is what I am interested in.. for a give 40MP file (i.e. Leica M10-R) that you don't find aesthetically pleasing, what would you do in post production to making it aesthetically pleasing "like" a 24MP file? Obviously it depends on the subject and what's in frame etc.. but I am just curious.. I know the obvious answer is to "do live photoshop" when you are taking a photo..so that means less post production work...

@Steven found a place where there are sample M10-R + raw download 

Gallery 1 - https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7410958786/leica-m10-r-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv

Gallery 2 - https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1022560946/leica-m10-r-sample-gallery

Edited October 31, 2020 by Raymondl

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I just had another idea for this thread for a new test. 
 

https://topazlabs.com/gigapixel-ai/

 

Let me know if anyone is interested by this MP comparison and I can get on it. 
 

im bored. 

The topaz example picture on the link above is poor on my screen discouraging buying their product but I am sure they do not mean it to look that poorly.  So I think we need to ask someone on the forum what the limits on browser visual quality are?

QUESTION TO ALL:  Do you know the limits of Mac Safari and Chrome and other browsers when they display pictures?  Like how many megs they will display?  And how the various sites diplay visual files?  

My TIVO home TV video recorder, if you select its first smaller file size, drops out color information making the picture have desaturated colors.

So what are the browsers and websites doing?  Does any website display visual product correctly?  Or do you have to download the files then display them in a viewer?  Does Apple's Preview degrade the displayed image?  

One user on this Leica Forum, indicated that pictures might be downsized to 1K and the color down to 8 bits which I would think is a loss of sharpness and certainly incorrect colors since that 8 bit drop destroys so much color information.

No wonder M10-R pictures look harsh to me if they are getting some kind of generic degrading to drop their file size before I see them.  How can we possibly make honest picture/camera comparisons with such modified dumbed-down files?  

Braintrust on Leica Forum… please send an answer.

[Tailwagger]

35 minutes ago, Steven said:

You've also shown me one more reason to get that 50 ‘Lux

With blind compare out of the way, just so there's no confusion...

Photo #1 M10/35mm Zeiss Distagon ISO 200 1/125" at f6.8 (reported, more likely 5.6 but too long ago to remember)  

Photo #2 M10-R/50mm Summilux BC ISO 100 1/250" at f1.4. 

Both shots converted to monochrom via SFex (the original version which astonishingly still soldiers on). 

 

[Tom1234]

3 hours ago, Raymondl said:

@Steven This is what I am interested in.. for a give 40MP file (i.e. Leica M10-R) that you don't find aesthetically pleasing, what would you do in post production to making it aesthetically pleasing "like" a 24MP file? Obviously it depends on the subject and what's in frame etc.. but I am just curious.. I know the obvious answer is to "do live photoshop" when you are taking a photo..so that means less post production work...

@Steven found a place where there are sample M10-R + raw download 

Gallery 1 - https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7410958786/leica-m10-r-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv

Gallery 2 - https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1022560946/leica-m10-r-sample-gallery

Downloaded DNG looks best.  Jpg's loose a little color saturation and a little color brightness but not much.  On DNG downloads there is slightly brighter rust above the blue baseline of the far ship and the red baseline of the closer ship is a darker red in jpg.  White of closest ship is just slightly darker in jpg. 

Overall:

The M10-R pictures are stunning at 40 meg downloaded.  The color is just a bit less saturated as the M10's I have seen on the internet but I can not tell for sure until I see 40 meg downloaded m10 files.  The M10-R apparently gives a file that you can take anywhere including down to 24meg or with unsharp for some softening.  I can only like & love these.  

I still might choose the M10 for its less detailed rendition and ease of getting that look I like yet I would like to see m10 downloaded 24 meg files first. 

Website downscaling does NOT do the M10-R files justice.

Pretty exotic model in the private downloads.  Wow!

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Tom1234

[Tailwagger]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

I love the M10R shot ! Another proof that lenses have a bigger impact than sensors on the final result. With the M10R, as you seem to describe it, the sensor is at the service of the lenses.. 

To be clear, while the lens selection IMO (the great strength of the M system... assuming your pockets are sufficiently deep to entertain the variety on offer) has a greater impact altering tonality than the sensor, by far the most crucial factor after the fundamentals of the capture is, as others have mentioned, the decision making done when the image is processed. But yes, the Zeiss is a far harsher taskmaster than the 'lux. Seemed appropriate to slip that differentiation in there given the context of the conversation. 

In this case, having an example or two courtesy of nowhereman,  I tweaked the image to what I suspected this particular target audience might enjoy.  A few minutes of work, nothing fancy mind you, redoing the image in B&W, lowering the contrast overall and in a specific spot or two, working the zones a bit by adjusting color luminance and slight tweak to the curve.  It's all just a matter of knowing what you want, don't want and how to reconcile the two.  As I mentioned, I'm trying to explore new and different looks at present, so as you can see there is a totally different vibe to the original color version from which the B&W was derived.  Fingers crossed you hate this version. The different treatments should suggest that despite what you might see from myself and others, you remain the master to your own destiny and can massage the files to your own taste.

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!

[Kwesi]

With all due respect, Steven and Tailwagger, you are placing waaaay too much emphasis on the sensor. Leica lenses are like fine art painter's brushes. There is the pre Mandler group, the Mandler group and the Karbe group to choose from. Investing in the the right (for you) mix of these will allow you to render any scene to your liking - regardless of which Digital M camera you choose to work with.

[Tailwagger]

50 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

With all due respect, Steven and Tailwagger, you are placing waaaay too much emphasis on the sensor. Leica lenses are like fine art painter's brushes. 

Huh? I think perhaps you should read what I wrote a little more closely. I've said precisely the opposite what to you're suggesting and done so several times in this thread.  Not more than a couple of minutes ago I reiterated this just above.

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

To be clear, while the lens selection IMO (the great strength of the M system... assuming your pockets are sufficiently deep to entertain the variety on offer) has a greater impact altering tonality than the sensor, by far the most crucial factor after the fundamentals of the capture is, as others have mentioned, the decision making done when the image is processed. But yes, the Zeiss is a far harsher taskmaster than the 'lux. Seemed appropriate to slip that differentiation in there given the context of the conversation. 

In fact, it was the first thing I bought up on this topic. 

Been a while, but over the years, I've contributed a number of images to the threads you referenced.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mikep996]

IMO, folks are worrying more about sensors than about photographs.  Does a photograph grab your attention or does it not?  If not, it doesn't matter what sensor was involved.  If it does, it still doesn't matter!