24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

You can "close" the thread for yourself by ceasing to read it. 
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Very true, but it is taking up valuable space that could be used for a more productive discussion. As jaapv has stated "To me this discussion has drifted  to be useless".

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

34 minutes ago, Steven said:

and the photo uploaded above doesn't do justice to the incredible sharpness im noticing on my screen, due to the compression on the forum. 

 

Because you are looking at the preview, not the uncompressed upload in the image box... also, you are uploading really small stuff - you have 2480 Pixels and (for sponsoring Members) 2.4 kB

[Tom1234]

5 hours ago, Steven said:

It's really too bad to run into aggressive people like you though, who think that because something doesn't please them it might not please anyone else. Some found my experiments useful. Many probably didn't, but they didn't bother to take the time to attack me. I thought these kind of forum participants belonged on Sony forums, sad to see some here in the Leicaverse, where I had found things to be more peaceful and understanding so far. 

It's sad because you are turning me off from posting and participating and sharing my journey with others... 

 

Come on Tailwagger be nice.  You do not have to bark so loud. 

Steve, please stay on and do not quit… just put those with a harsh bark on the ignore list, here is how, see images below.  

I have ignored like five asses but no dogs as yet but one has jumped onto the chopping block and the axe may fall!  

IGNORING: If they discourage thinking and destroy the heart, which is what all forums are about, then do not feel bad to drop them, they should not be there, you should be there, it is necessary to ignore some, the world becomes a better place, you will feel back at home, IMHO, yes I am sure of it, you can't imagine how good you feel on the forum when those entertaining themselves with anger are gone, There are not many "free lunches" in life and few win the lottery, but we all can "ignore", and it feels as good as nitrous oxide at the dentist office. Can I have an Amen!

.

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!

  

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Here is an example from a "real world" photo I took on a walk 10 minutes ago. Shot on the 12MP Sony A7SIII with a 55mm Zeiss 1.8. Upscaled from 12MP to 48MP, and then just for fun to 436MP! 

I won't upload that file as it is 1.3GB, compared to the original that was about 15MB. 

 

 

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!

 

1 hour ago, Steven said:

btw, this is the orignal photo, and the photo uploaded above doesn't do justice to the incredible sharpness im noticing on my screen, due to the compression on the forum. 

Detail is amazing in the closeup above taken from such a small area of the larger 12 MEG picture.  Hate when that happens!  I want to need 40 meg!  You are ruining my day… just joking, I love to learn. 

BACK TO THE 24MEG VS 40MEG QUESTION, AND ADDING THE 12MEG QUESTION:

But there must be a reason Leica has gone to 24meg and 40 meg.  The difference needs to be seen on the screen in a 4 x6" picture or 8x10" or why buy a new camera?  Can you see the difference in small pictures?  

I still maintain that without an aesthetic difference that no one would convert 24 to 40… since people like the M10-R I maintain that the 24 and 40 meg sensors do provide an aesthetic difference even though some have implied the sensor size does not give an aesthetic.  

And another issue, Photoshop'ers high off a big editing session that no doubt has flattened their rump (just joking guys, just joking), trying to defend the use of Photoshop as a sort of replacement for the aesthetic of different meg sensors, see less and less need for higher meg sensors it seems, they sure have implied so, even if not directly said it.  So are we not needing the greater meg?  Or should we move on past 12meg?  Or am I just reacting to old trolling, people defending their existence and technique who are easily offended and need to strike out?  Of course, I don't know since I blocked them, damn that feels good!  I apologize for what the rest of you must read if you have not blocked them. 

[Jeff S]

I don’t know if I’m blocked (don’t care), but Leica needs to sell cameras, and low MP cameras don’t sell... there are camera phones for that, all of which look fine on screen.  The practical benefits of added MP include greater ability to crop and/or print bigger.  Of course sensors are improving in other ways besides MP, and those changes may or may not address certain issues relevant to one’s photography.  Greater file malleability certainly makes some PP actions easier and more flexible.  But PP is already a breeze compared to darkroom days.

Jeff

[pgk]

This whole thread is bizarre. MPixels do not confer an 'aesthetic' to an image. They are a technical description of a sampling system. FWIW my undergraduate research topic involved an MTF and visual comparison of two lens systems (Leica and Minolta) and for evaluation purposes a 10" x 8" print was used at a set viewing distance (simply because this was a standard sized print often made from 35mm). There was an MTF variation (especially at higher frequencies) but when printed at 10" x 8" the images showed no discernible visual difference because these were not relevant - this is equally true of Pixels. Downsize them and the greater detail is not resolved, Uprez them and one can't provide the detail to make a comparison valid. Any differences can only be seen at different print sizes. So what does this prove? That higher Pixels resolve more detail? Obviously! But what 'aesthetic' can this in itself produce?

If you want to prove to yourself that this is the case then here's an experiment to try (ok it has its problems but its fair I think). Take a photograph of some sort of planar subject (try to avoid the pixel peeper's favourite brick wall though!). Next take two shots of the same subject using a lens of twice the focal length, in such a way that they can be stitched together to produce an image identical to the first but with twice as many pixels. Now compare them. Now tell me how the doubling of the MPixels has changed the 'aesthetic'. FWIW I photograph artworks and often have to stitch them together from multiple shots to produce huge files. If a small file will do I use one shot - there is NO aesthetic difference in doing so.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Matlock said:

Very true, but it is taking up valuable space that could be used for a more productive discussion. As jaapv has stated "To me this discussion has drifted  to be useless".

So, discussing camera bags and straps is more useful.

I find this thread is one of more enjoyable for a long time. My take is that aesthetics of picture has more to do with lens than camera, although we knew this, no harm reasserting this premise.

 

[Raymondl]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

So, I kept the M10R............................... 🙈 😇 ❤️

That is enough of a conclusion for me (personally). Congratulations on your new camera !

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

So, I kept the M10R............................... 🙈 😇 ❤️

When you are in the mood please try some older Leica M lenses and see how their "lens character" is shown.  This is what Steve Huff said, that the M10-R brought out more of what the Leica M lenses had individually rather than homogenizing them into one same digital based look (my paraphrase of Huff's comment).  

Edited November 10, 2020 by Tom1234
addition

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

But there must be a reason Leica has gone to 24meg and 40 meg.

In marketing one must keep up with the competition...

[Guest]

The great thing about the "ignore list" is you can make everyone whose opinion differs from you vanish and then you are always correct whatever you write on here.

Utopia!!

Make people disappear like stalin did.

[Tom1234]

I don't mind other points of view.  Just the abusers trying to ruin my day.

Competing ideas are fine.  Taking others out of the game as "the game" is not. 

[Matlock]

8 hours ago, mmradman said:

So, discussing camera bags and straps is more useful.

I find this thread is one of more enjoyable for a long time. My take is that aesthetics of picture has more to do with lens than camera, although we knew this, no harm reasserting this premise.

 

Not at all (I'm not too sure that I have contributed much on bags and straps). 

This thread started off in a very positive way but soon degenerated to point scoring. It started to return but then slipped back. It has not been helped by some rather abusive comments aimed mostly at Steven.

I agree with your view on aesthetics v lens/camera.

[mmradman]

7 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

The great thing about the "ignore list" is you can make everyone whose opinion differs from you vanish and then you are always correct whatever you write on here.

Utopia!!

Make people disappear like stalin did.

Agree with you.  Disappearing people is not the way to go however mentioning past leader of the USSR draws one attention to presence of dogma which can be evident in some discussions, after all Leica is sometimes viewed as a cult (or religion even) and cult has advocates, although people also come from other professions, and blind followers.

There are argued opposite views, something to be embraced as we can learn form the discussion and then there is negativity where poster simply doesn't agree without providing valid argument other than indication that he, it is usually he, got  up on the wrong side of bed that day.  LUF is pretty good forum and negatives are only occasional. 

 

[Matlock]

40 minutes ago, Steven said:

The thread is very interesting. 
It only drifts away when people stop by to tell us the thread is stupid and useless, instead of ignoring us and keep driving. It’s a pity. In this sense, Tom makes a good point with the ignore list. It’s not to shut up all the opposition, just the unnecessary noise. 

I agree that the thread is interesting, however it did become stupid and useless when some people started to "point score" and, worse still, when some started to make abusive remarks about you Steven. Ignore list is most certainly NOT the way to go.

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, mmradman said:

There are argued opposite views, something to be embraced as we can learn form the discussion and then there is negativity where poster simply doesn't agree without providing valid argument other than indication that he, it is usually he, got  up on the wrong side of bed that day.

Learning is only possible if people are willing to learn. Stating an erroneous opinion and saying that others who not only disagree with it but understand why it is not correct are simply bad tempered is pointless. If someone can give a reasoned argument backed up by examples and a technical explanation of how sensor pixel density interacts with an 'aesthetic' then I'm happy to hear it and explain why it is wrong. Otherwise we have 500+ posts on something which belongs in Hogwarts. As I said much earlier I am tired of misinformation, and opinion is not fact.

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, Steven said:

Some of us, at least myself, don’t care for the scientific explanations and argued demonstrations, I personally come here to hear a testimonies, and feelings about peoples experience in real life. ..... that being said, I don’t bother to take the time to attack those who care for details. 

I am not attacking you, I am simply trying to explain that technical shifts do not in themselves change 'aeshetics'. You are suggesting that one technical parameter  shift changes the 'aesthetic' of an image. If you want a reasoned discussion about this then that is fine, but simply wanting to ignore the 'details' because they don't correlate with your opinion isn't reasoned and 'feelings' based on a huge variation of potential ways images are taken cannot support a specific assertion. Over the years there have been many such discussions on the forum none of which come to any resolution because the 'believers' don't want to face the facts that cameras and lenses are tools and it is how we use them which creates an 'aesthetic' not the tools themselves.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

I redid it immediately with his own parameters and reposted, thinking it was the fairest compromise. 

Any such test needs to absolutely minimise all parameters except the one under question (so only differing sensors in this case) AND it needs appropriate subject matter. FWIW I think that using a higher Pixel sensor can be an effective way of enhancing an image (I'm really loath to use the 'aesthetic' word) if it reinforces the subject matter by adding for example a degree of smoothness of tonality not available from a lower MPixel sensor for the final output print size required. But this isn't anything new, its simply good technique which is selected because it is appropriate for the subject matter and its usage. It also means that a large enough print is required to show the differences in sensor density. On small prints there will be no discernible difference as I have explained before. Technicalities are essential for well thought out photography but should be secondary to the subject. lighting and composition. IMO technicalities should not be seen because they are so appropriate to the image that they allow just the image itself to be concentrated on by the viewer. Hence why a technicality such as sensor density (Pixels) cannot have an 'aesthetic' in itself, but can play a part in the myriad of parameters which go to make up a photograph, when appropriately used. Photography is at base very simple but has innumerable complexities which creep in.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Huh? Sharpening does not add detail - it only enhances edge contrast.

What I meant: Sharpening a original high res. file is easier than Sharpening after upscaling a low resolution file to high reolution for bigger prints. I dont know if this makes sense what I write here?

 

vor 23 Stunden schrieb Steven:

Which did you chose ? 

For me the advantages of cmos are bigger than the disadvantages.

Edited November 11, 2020 by tom0511

[Guest Nowhereman]

On the issue raised by the thread title, looks like the consensus — from a lazy reading — is that the output of the M10 and M10R don't represent a different aesthetic. In contrast, up to about 2006, in considering B&W film, people discussed online the "36mm aesthetic" (usually grainy Try-X) versus the "medium format look". That was compounded on the old Compuserve and photonet Leica forums by many people who argued that you "needed" medium format is you were going to print larger 8x10 or 11x14 inches.

I always considered that to be nonsense, of which I became convinced, as mentioned in an earlier post here, when I saw Moriyama Daido's retrospective exhibition at the Gallery of New South Wales in 2006, in which there were a large number of 150 x 100 cm (60 x 40) prints made from 35mm Tri-X negatives. The same year, I saw the Lee Friedlander retrospective at the Jeu de Paume in Paris: there was one room of Friedlander 6x6cm (Hasselblad SWC?) shots of landscapes that had been the subject of famous large format shots by Ansel Adams. I found this Friedlander work more engaging in its greater complexity, dynamism and, possibly, expression of inner turmoil, than the pristine photography of Adams, whose iconic images I also like.

But quality does not come from resolution, whether were talking about film size or sensor resolution.I think that it was Tom1234 who said was looking for the greater reality from 40MP. Judging the reality of photography can be a fraught exercise. First, for both painting of photography and painting reality is a challenge because the three-dimensional view of out eyes needs to be depicted in a two-dimensional image. Then, photography shows what a lens sees, which is hugely different of how our eyes see.

Another issue is surface and texture: in the 19th century, painters were affected by photography and did not want to show brush strokes — paintings by the Impressionists were called "unfinished" because they showed brush strokes. In mid-19th century Paris, William Adolphe Bougerau was the most famous and expensive painter. He could spend a year on one of his history paintings and sell it for price that allowed him to buy a hôtel particulier in Paris. The point is that resolution and smoothness is not what makes art. (The issues of reality in pictures, whether painting or photography, are discussed in the book, A History of Pictures: From the Cave to the Computer Screen, by David Hockney and Martin Gayford review by the Financial Times, here.) 

Reading this thread, I looked seriously for the first time at some photos I took ten years ago with an iPhone and Hipstamatic software. The limits imposed by the Hipstamatic software, which tries to create the look of some toy film cameras, including certain types of color rendition and color casts, can lead to interesting results. I've given a link to my Instagram earlier, and here are some of the same image on flickr. I don't care for either of these platforms, but if you have a need for Instagram you can see Instagram images on a Mac computer at full screen size using an app called "Grids": a lot better than seeing images on a smart phone.

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook