24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[eyeheartny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

You should be able to "crop and print" without any changes on many pictures.  If not then your camera shooting technique needs improvement or the camera's files are mediocre as delivered by its sensor-software-processor system. 

Hahahahahaha. I’m sorry, are you trolling? Have you even seen the test prints that great photographers in the pre-digital era made? Clearly not if this is how you think. The number of logical fallacies and outright counterfactual claims in this paragraph are just...I don’t even know where to begin. What a joke. 

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

You should be able to "crop and print" without any changes on some pictures.  If not then your camera shooting technique needs improvement or the camera's files are mediocre as delivered by its sensor-software-processor system. 

No. You are throwing half the creative process into the bin in that case and reducing photography to a copying of reality, nothing more - and the photographer to a mindless button-presser. 

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Yet, in a purely professional working environment, where you have multiple helpers and must turn out perfect product for a business, that is a different story.  Then the flattest (which might initially before manipulation look dull or excessively detailed) file that has the most data and can be manipulated the most is likely what you want.

Do you mean that it is impossible to master the whole photographic workflow? Speak for yourself, many photographers on this forum prove you wrong.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

There is also the question of  historic realism.  The more you modify the file the more of a computer concoction it becomes.  Sure it may look better but it has lost some or much of its historic value by being artificially produced and not a fair reflection of the original scene. 

This is a straw man argument. The whole process of postprocessing. is NOT MANIPULATING TO CORRECT.  It is the essential art of  creating the image that the photographer visualized when taking the photograph. Without this - or darkroom work a photograph can never be more than a mechanical reproduction created by a machine.

[Tom1234]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No. You are throwing half the creative process into the bin in that case and reducing photography to a copying of reality, nothing more - and the photographer to a mindless button-presser. 

 

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No. You are throwing half the creative process into the bin in that case and reducing photography to a copying of reality, nothing more - and the photographer to a mindless button-presser. 

My posts should show that I am interested in artistic modifications also and I do NOT mean to discourage them.  Yet that is no excuse for any camera to put out a poor initial file.  

I bet half of the users of Lieca equipment do not want to spend hours in post production.  Should not they have a camera to buy, that puts out a decent basic file not needing modifications?  If you are not carful there will be few users left except a few elitists and will  Leica needlessly loose sales. 

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, Steven said:

Completely false.

Some great photographers don't edit their photos one bit. It does not make them mindless button presser, quite the opposite. 

Which great  photographer takes completely unprocessed photographs? I have never seen an exhibition of negatives.

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For normal use, it doesn't matter whether it is 10MP, 18MB, 24MP or 50 ++ MP

A bad subject doesn't get better with 50 + MP. From my point of view, a picture stands or falls with the choice of object and the staging.

But I feel a difference between CCD and CMOS. For me, images that have been taken with CCD sensors are softer, more coherent in color and more like the film look. But that is MY feeling.

[jaapv]

56 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

 

My posts should show that I am interested in artistic modifications also and I do NOT mean to discourage them.  Yet that is no excuse for any camera to put out a poor initial file.  

I bet half of the users of Lieca equipment do not want to spend hours in post production.  Should not they have a camera to buy, that puts out a decent basic file not needing modifications?  If you are not carful there will be few users left except a few elitists and will  Leica needlessly loose sales. 

Spending hours shows lack of skill, not a flaw of the process. Once again you exhibit the fallacy that postprocessing, be it dark- or lightroom consists  of "correcting". It does not. It is the next step that leads to producing the. photograph. And yes, you. are right, Leicas, like Nikons and Canons etc. are machines that  are designed to produce the raw material to create a photograph. Snapshooters (and some photographers who have embraced the automated process artistically) are probably much better off with a smartphone that has automated a large part of the process.  (although, I use Snapseed routinely) The buying public realised that long before camera makers did - just look on the direction the market is taking.

[Tom1234]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you mean that it is impossible to master the whole photographic workflow? Speak for yourself, many photographers on this forum prove you wrong.

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

This is a straw man argument. The whole process of postprocessing. is NOT MANIPULATING TO CORRECT.  It is the essential art of  creating the image that the photographer visualized when taking the photograph. Without this - or darkroom work a photograph can never be more than a mechanical reproduction created by a machine.

I think you are being an elitist.  I think there should be more Leica photographers but your view seems to be a photographer has to be one of the best to deserve Leica, I don't.  

I think a great basic file should come out of their cameras and it does for M10 24meg  as artistic aesthetic and M10-R 40meg for a more technical aesthetic.  Disagreeing with this means your web browser is not passing you all the pictorial information or worse you just like to argue.

If the user has the time and inclination and money then get a post production program and go to it... make the changes you want.  

If you had a broader view of photography as existing for all, and not just for a small group of elitists, then my comments would not bother you.  Lighten up!  Really! 

Look at my posts... they are all aimed at solving problems to make the cameras more usable for all.  I honestly admit to short comings and look for ways to solve them. Without this broad view to help everyone, Leica will have no market.  Long live Leica!

[jaapv]

I wonder how you get  that impression. I advocate using the best of equipment to the best of its potential. If that is elitist in your view, so be it. I see it as perfectionism, which is indeed a driving force to obtain the best tools possible and learning to use them to the best of one's ability to create the best result one can. That comes with a regret of seeing them used inadequately, or of people falling into the fallacy of buying the wrong tool because they have fallen for the idea that it is "the best" - which it isn't for their intended use. 

 

[Tom1234]

28 minutes ago, Steven said:

Or like me, get an M10P for the "atmospheric" look, and the Q2 for "still life". These too have proven to be a VERY complementary setup so far. 

 

That will never happen. People wished for different RAW resolution on the A7RIV. Sony never gave it, and Sony gives more features than Leica. 

 

I still agree with this. The original poster of this thread expressed something I always felt and never dared to say out loud. It's true for many of us I think, this is why this thread is so successful. 

I am the OP (original poster) and I appreciate your honesty on the abilities of the M10-R camera.  It is a great camera. But from what I see of the different looking excellent M10 pictures, I would not sell the M10 to buy any other camera not even a m10-R.

I used to buy the different type films... now I carefully choose and buy the different camera-body-sensors.  Selling any of them is to sell a whole type of aesthetic and loose it for future use.  Selling a digital camera that produces great files, would be like deliberately neglecting to use a certain film that I liked - who would do that?  

I want to have all the aesthetics I like at my disposal, so I keep every camera body I buy that creates an identifiable pleasing aesthetic.  

Cheers! Long Live Leica!  Can I have an Amen?

[Raymondl]

20 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

I am the OP (original poster) and I appreciate your honesty on the abilities of the M10-R camera.  It is a great camera. But from what I see of the different looking excellent M10 pictures, I would not sell the M10 to buy any other camera not even a m10-R.

I used to buy the different type films... now I carefully choose and buy the different camera-body-sensors.  Selling any of them is to sell a whole type of aesthetic and loose it for future use.  Selling a digital camera that produces great files, would be like deliberately neglecting to use a certain film that I liked - who would do that?  

I want to have all the aesthetics I like at my disposal, so I keep every camera body I buy that creates an identifiable pleasing aesthetic.  

Cheers! Long Live Leica!  Can I have an Amen?

Would you consider (later on) buying a M10-R (higher resolution M) to complement your M10 ?

that way you have a choice to choose which M to shoot with.  

[LBJ2]

Zooming with Megapixels !

Overall a very interesting thread with some eye opening and entertaining blind tests and smart phone vs camera presentations! 

I don't believe the number of MPs has anything to do with an image appearing to be flat or not. To be flat is more about harsh lighting, and image composition. Remember the old foreground/mid-ground/back ground formula ? We have to give the eye a reference to perceive depth and dimension. And there is of course optical formula; some lenses are better at creating "pop" than others but that's another thread topic. Get the first two right: lighting and composition, and say goodbye to flat looking images. 

To me more MPs:

1. The ability to realize high quality crop during post ( this much more relevant in digital 2020 IMO than the often quoted print size benefits) 

2. Multiple compositions in one image 

3. Many commercial clients want/need as many MPs as can delivered because often the file is manipulated to such a high degree and reused as a composite for other projects.

Less MPs:

1. Can mean bigger eyes, larger light buckets = see in the dark compared to more densely packed sensors

*Pre post editing,  I've yet to see a low light imagine that did not look light a low light image regardless oh how few MPs. 

2. Good light is the equalizer. 

 

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

 Remember the old foreground/mid-ground/back ground formula ? We have to give the eye a reference to perceive depth and dimension.

And there is of course optical formula; some lenses are better at creating "pop" than others but that's another thread topic. 

Get the first two right: lighting and composition, and say goodbye to flat looking images. 

2. Multiple compositions in one image 

You have been around the picture art for a while… not everybody knows all these!  

Thanks for a great list!

[dkmoore]

4 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I think you are being an elitist.  I think there should be more Leica photographers but your view seems to be a photographer has to be one of the best to deserve Leica, I don't.  

I think a great basic file should come out of their cameras and it does for M10 24meg  as artistic aesthetic and M10-R 40meg for a more technical aesthetic.  Disagreeing with this means your web browser is not passing you all the pictorial information or worse you just like to argue.

If the user has the time and inclination and money then get a post production program and go to it... make the changes you want.  

If you had a broader view of photography as existing for all, and not just for a small group of elitists, then my comments would not bother you.  Lighten up!  Really! 

Look at my posts... they are all aimed at solving problems to make the cameras more usable for all.  I honestly admit to short comings and look for ways to solve them. Without this broad view to help everyone, Leica will have no market.  Long live Leica!

It is simply jpeg versus raw. If you don’t want to edit shoot in JPEG. 
 

I would not use raw files SOOC. The file will be flat, and that is by design. 
 

the above points are true regardless of camera brand. 
 

the M10R Sensor is much improved as has been discussed many times already. This improvement is not about the MP only. The images in general look better to me but certainly not technically so. 
 

I only know of one pro photographer that doesn’t edit there personal work but still highly edits professional works.
 

Can you name any photographers that don’t edit their files for any brand?

Edited November 1, 2020 by dkmoore

[Guest Nowhereman]

5 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

You should be able to "crop and print" without any changes on some pictures.  If not then your camera shooting technique needs improvement or the camera's files are mediocre as delivered by its sensor-software-processor system...

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

...I bet half of the users of Lieca equipment do not want to spend hours in post production.  Should not they have a camera to buy, that puts out a decent basic file not needing modifications?  If you are not carful there will be few users left except a few elitists and will  Leica needlessly loose sales. 

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

...I bet half of the users of Lieca equipment do not want to spend hours in post production.  Should not they have a camera to buy, that puts out a decent basic file not needing modifications?  If you are not carful there will be few users left except a few elitists and will  Leica needlessly loose sales. 

Apart from the drivel about elitism, which ignores how the best photographers have worked with negative film and digital — and even with transparency film printed by internegatives or dye transfer or Cibachrome — you're saying, in effect, that you want a camera that produces great JPGs that you can use straight out of the camera, or with minor adjustments in post. That is not what Leica-M digital cameras have: you'd be better off getting a camera that does produce great JPGs. The FujiFilm digital cameras have a reputation for great JPGs. As I have no experience with that, I can only speak of the Ricoh GR III, which I use. The GR III allows you to make extensive adjustments to their JPG presets, including (to list them all):
Saturation
Hue
High/Low Key 
Contrast
Contrast (Highlight)
Contrast (Shadow)
Sharpness
Shading
Clarity
And for B&W presets:
Toning
Filter Effect
Grain Effect

In addition to customizing the various JPG presets (e.g., Standard, Vivid, Positive Film, Bleach Bypass, Cross-Process, B&W, Soft B&W, Hard B&W, High-Contrast B&W, etc) you can also apply the above adjustments in-camera to the JPG you already shot. 

I normally shoot DNG+JPG with the GRIII and find the High-Contrast B&W to very good and often difficult  to reproduce in post-processing on a computer. You can also process the DNG in-camera. For example, if you've shot a DNG plus a High-Contrast B&W,  you can process the DNG in-camera by applying, say, the Positive Film preset, as well as further in camera adjustments. Great flexibility, if you don't want to process the DNG in computer post-processing software.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 

[dkmoore]

16 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Apart from the drivel about elitism, which ignores how the best photographers have worked with negative film and digital — and even with transparency film printed by internegatives or dye transfer or Cibachrome — you're saying, in effect, that you want a camera that produces great JPGs that you can use straight out of the camera, or with minor adjustments in post. That is not what Leica-M digital cameras have: you'd be better off getting a camera that does produce great JPGs. The FujiFilm digital cameras have a reputation for great JPGs. As I have no experience with that, I can only speak of the Ricoh GR III, which I use. The GR III allows you to make extensive adjustments to their JPG presets, including (to list them all):
Saturation
Hue
High/Low Key 
Contrast
Contrast (Highlight)
Contrast (Shadow)
Sharpness
Shading
Clarity
And for B&W presets:
Toning
Filter Effect
Grain Effect

In addition to customizing the various JPG presets (e.g., Standard, Vivid, Positive Film, Bleach Bypass, Cross-Process, B&W, Soft B&W, Hard B&W, High-Contrast B&W, etc) you can also apply the above adjustments in-camera to the JPG you already shot. 

I normally shoot DNG+JPG with the GRIII and find the High-Contrast B&W to very good and often difficult  to reproduce in post-processing on a computer. You can also process the DNG in-camera. For example, if you've shot a DNG plus a High-Contrast B&W,  you can process the DNG in-camera by applying, say, the Positive Film preset, as well as further in camera adjustments. Great flexibility, if you don't want to process the DNG in computer post-processing software.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 

Well, if a photographer is ok with raw leica files OOC i would argue that Leicas JPEG will in fact be an improvement to their current images. 

I rarely use JPEG but they aren’t bad for M10 cameras. They are much improved from the M240 JPEGs. 

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Steven said:

 

Jeff, 

On a side note, you always bring things back to printing, which I understand is an art to master of it's own. However, I feel confident to say that 90% of us don't (unfortunately) have the chance to make it to that stage of the art of photography. Most of what we do probably stays on a screen. 

That being said, I love reading your contributions. 

thanks. 

Probably more like 99+ % in the age of phone cameras. And still a small minority here.  I love prints... and paintings and drawings... and real books (not e-readers).  A fine print of a worthy picture has always been my objective, film and digital.  I have also collected vintage prints (and first edition photo books) over many years, and have spent countless hours in museums, galleries, exhibitions, and meeting privately with dealers, curators and others to see and discuss the work. Screen viewing, and social media, have their place, but photography for me is all about the print.  So, yes, I’m increasingly becoming a dinosaur.  Shame, though, as I think others are missing out, including those who not only don’t print, or don’t outsource, but those who haven’t taken the time to see some marvelous work up close and personal. Like looking at original paintings on a screen; a poor substitute.  
 

Thanks for the end note.

Jeff

[Guest Nowhereman]

9 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

...And still a small minority here.  I love prints...and real books...So, yes, I’m increasingly becoming a dinosaur...

Not really a dinosaur, if you consider that many feel that we are in the golden age of the photobook, in which self-publishing is no longer considered as "vanity publishing": many of the best contemporary photobooks have been self-published, notwithstanding some people's inclination to call this elitist — but that has been the case of much contemporary art through the ages.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Not really a dinosaur, if you consider that many feel that we are in the golden age of the photobook, in which self-publishing is no longer considered as "vanity publishing": many of the best contemporary photobooks have been self-published, notwithstanding some people's inclination to call this elitist — but that has been the case of much contemporary art through the ages.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Yes, an encouraging trend.  But still a tiny segment, with inconsistent quality in my experience.  But some nice work out there.

Jeff