24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Jeff S said:

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. 
 

Jeff

Jeff, can we see your photos anywhere online ? 
thanks 

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

Jeff, can we see your photos anywhere online ? 
thanks 

Prints.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

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. 🙂

[Steven]

43 minutes 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. 🙂

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

[Steven]

3 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

Indeed! So many beautiful images and some very nice videos on your instagram https://www.instagram.com/stev/   Of course I had to check that out 🤠 

The Summilux 35 ASPH (FLE) is a beautiful lens, full stop. I use it frequently. It's one of the first Leica Ms I purchased along with the latest version Summilux 50 too. 35/50 was my Leica M startup kit but adapting to the Sony cameras initially. The 35/50 kit was my gateway to buying the M10, a system I now admire very much even at a humble 24MP. 

So many great tools at our disposal, and if lucky the nuances among these tools are also an interesting subject in and of themselves--then when we get to mix and match this to me opens up even more possibilities to create.

Thank you for watching and for the compliment!

I only own 35mm lenses for my M at the moment, but next lens I buy will a 50 lux... After a 10 year break, I recently fell all over again with the 50 focal length. 

[Tom1234]

58 minutes 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. 🙂

Great post!  So two cameras different in time and construction and name but results are the same… please do not get mad at me if I do not pray to you… since I think your answer to me might disappoint.  Pardon me as I discuss below:   

Issue 1:  The above is hard to believe given the different sensor size of the  cell phone and camera and the expected DOF differences of the source sensors.  Maybe Photoshop is the limit here…

I remember back when film could not differentiate from digital since the digital film scanners limited the film to looking like the digital cameras.  This has been my question for years… are not the limits of digital capture and digital software making all things look the same? 

Would the people writing the software admit to this - no their marketing department would shut them up. 

Put slightly differently: I remember the talk of how film was no better than digital when in-fact the scanners being used were digital and limited the scanned film look to the digital scanner look.  How stupid this seemed to be, allowing the scanning to limit the film quality perception and then blaming it on the film, and not blaming it on the digital scanner that could not pull all the detail out of the film.  

So is Photoshop and other digital software and camera color electronics, which must use similar routines and file structures, taking all files and forcing them into some file structure that makes the files all look the same?  How would we as users know if this file quality dumbing down was happening or not?  The marketing departments are unlikely to tell us.

Issue 2: To argue with myself above, as a good intellect must do, as megapixels or film lines become higher and higher, there must be diminishing returns of improvements possible, and thus diminishing differentiation to be found, so at some level of technology all pictures should look the same, have we achieved that now? 

Put slightly differently: as the technology quality increases, at some level of megapixels, the quality is so high regardless of what type of equipment that produces it, that all pictures look the same.

At this "quality increase vanishing point", when the high level of technology has effectively made all camera outputs the same, camera makers resort to deliberately changing the picture's characteristics so as to claim they have something unique, making an artificial change, creating a brand name associated aesthetic.  

In audio this is called "house sound" or "company sound characteristic" which is the unique brand associated sound characteristic that a speaker or piece of electronics gives to all music played through it. 

FINAL PERSPECTIVE:  Well, maybe I do not want to know any of this…  the god's of product differentiation are letting me down.  

This is what we get for chasing perfection rather than different artistically modified recordings of reality.  By definition art is made when the look of a thing is reproduced yet somehow changed from normal.  But the camera industry has chased technical perfection, not art, and there is no picture differentiation when technical perfection is achieved by all.  

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Screen resolution... print size...two great equalizers.  Make a large(ish) print with the phone and see what happens. Post a phone pic online (as Tailwagger did) and you see what happens (to a degree... he didn’t attempt any significant PP). No great surprise, resolution wise.  That’s one of many issues already discussed.

Jeff

[Tom1234]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Digital post processing also needn’t be hard or tedious or time consuming. After 30+ years working in darkrooms, I find digital PP incredibly convenient and flexible.

I've heard others say the same.  Digital Dark Room is faster and makes more output possible.  Yet both are time consuming seeming to use up all available free time.

[Jeff S]

On 10/28/2020 at 8:46 AM, Jeff S said:

. A camera phone is sufficient for low resolution online display.
 

 

From many posts ago.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

I've heard others say the same.  Digital Dark Room is faster and makes more output possible.  Yet both are time consuming seeming to use up all available free time.

I’m just a photo enthusiast, not a pro, and always trying to learn. Time isn’t a problem; more an issue of priorities, and standards. I still have a life outside photography, much more now that I’m retired.  But show me a good musician, or any creative or artistic person, who doesn’t invest the time. Time also doesn’t ensure quality results. At the end of the day, the viewer doesn’t give a hoot how long or hard someone worked to make a picture; it either resonates or it doesn’t.  I’m happy when once in a while it all comes together.

Jeff
 

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

2 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...

No, I don't judge cameras by what they produce SOOC; nor do I think most people in this thread do so either, although some do. Those who do should be looking at cameras that have especially good JPG presets. For example, I like the High-Contrast B&W setting in the Ricoh GRIII: I use it, but set the camera for DNG+JPG and find that, sometimes, I can produce a better image (for what I want ) by making minor adjustments to the JPG than working with the DNG. However, with my M10 I don't bother with JPGs.

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:

M6 | DR Summicron 50 | Tri-X | Stand development in Rodinal 1:100

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!

Wiang Pa Pao

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/350 sec
Wiang Pa Pao

The look of the Tri-X shot above resulted from the lab having severely underdeveloped the negative by using too small a tank for the 1:00 Rodinal: while the dilution was was correct, there simple was not enough Rodinal developer for two rolls in the tank, which resulted in an extremely flat negative. Processing the flat scan — faint, really — in Lightroom was successful only when I made the right combination of slide movements, by extensive trial and error. This reflects the sometimes contingent nature of working with film. A darkroom print using the highest contrast paper would not have been successful. The M10 shot was processed in Silver Efex, in which I found it easier to get the look I wanted than processing in Lightroom.

In my view, neither of these shots would benefit from the higher resolution of the M10-R or the M10-M. Some people say that the latter two cameras have more dynamic, of which I'm skeptical. The following two charts from the Photons to Photos website, particularly the second one.

____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Great post!  So two cameras different in time and construction and name but results are the same… please do not get mad at me if I do not pray to you… since I think your answer to me might disappoint.  Pardon me as I discuss below:   

Issue 1:  The above is hard to believe given the different sensor size of the  cell phone and camera and the expected DOF differences of the source sensors.  Maybe Photoshop is the limit here…

I remember back when film could not differentiate from digital since the digital film scanners limited the film to looking like the digital cameras.  This has been my question for years… are not the limits of digital capture and digital software making all things look the same? 

Would the people writing the software admit to this - no their marketing department would shut them up. 

Put slightly differently: I remember the talk of how film was no better than digital when in-fact the scanners being used were digital and limited the scanned film look to the digital scanner look.  How stupid this seemed to be, allowing the scanning to limit the film quality perception and then blaming it on the film, and not blaming it on the digital scanner that could not pull all the detail out of the film.  

So is Photoshop and other digital software and camera color electronics, which must use similar routines and file structures, taking all files and forcing them into some file structure that makes the files all look the same?  How would we as users know if this file quality dumbing down was happening or not?  The marketing departments are unlikely to tell us.

Issue 2: To argue with myself above, as a good intellect must do, as megapixels or film lines become higher and higher, there must be diminishing returns of improvements possible, and thus diminishing differentiation to be found, so at some level of technology all pictures should look the same, have we achieved that now? 

Put slightly differently: as the technology quality increases, at some level of megapixels, the quality is so high regardless of what type of equipment that produces it, that all pictures look the same.

At this "quality increase vanishing point", when the high level of technology has effectively made all camera outputs the same, camera makers resort to deliberately changing the picture's characteristics so as to claim they have something unique, making an artificial change, creating a brand name associated aesthetic.  

In audio this is called "house sound" or "company sound characteristic" which is the unique brand associated sound characteristic that a speaker or piece of electronics gives to all music played through it. 

FINAL PERSPECTIVE:  Well, maybe I do not want to know any of this…  the god's of product differentiation are letting me down.  

This is what we get for chasing perfection rather than different artistically modified recordings of reality.  By definition art is made when the look of a thing is reproduced yet somehow changed from normal.  But the camera industry has chased technical perfection, not art, and there is no picture differentiation when technical perfection is achieved by all.  

Three different times, actually.  You forget, as I mentioned a few dozen posts ago, that a huge factor is the lens, which itself predates the other two.

Regardless, I take zero offense from anything you've penned in this thread.  I simply think you and perhaps others are over-rotating on this topic.   A cell phone can indeed produce worthy shots up to a point,  just like a Yugo can run just as fast as a Ferrari when the speed limit imposes itself.  But theres's a point after which, once the constraints are removed that the added performance leaves the other wanting. There is a definite speed limit imposed here, several in fact.  The shots were first scaled down to 2K and then, on the site, for a second time, down to 1K. And then there is the realities around dropping down to 8 bits and contemplating color fidelity.  

What you seem to see as a conundrum at this point,  is perhaps better viewed as an opportunity which requires learning and time to make the most of.  Solely for amusement purposes you might enjoy reviewing a few of the 100+ page threads made in the run up to and shortly after the arrival of the original M10.  You might find the inverted ethos entertaining. 

[Tom1234]

5 minutes 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:

M6 | DR Summicron 50 | Tri-X | Stand development in Rodinal 1:100

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!

Wiang Pa Pao

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/350 sec
Wiang Pa Pao

 

Nice atmospheric pictures and from one of my favorite lenses the DR Summicron

[Steven]

5 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

No, I don't judge cameras by what they produce SOOC; nor do I think most people in this thread do so either, although some do. Those who do should be looking at cameras that have especially good JPG presets. For example, I like the High-Contrast B&W setting in the Ricoh GRIII: I use it, but set the camera for DNG+JPG and find that, sometimes, I can produce a better image (for what I want ) by making minor adjustments to the JPG than working with the DNG. However, with my M10 I don't bother with JPGs.

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:

M6 | DR Summicron 50 | Tri-X | Stand development in Rodinal 1:100

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!

Wiang Pa Pao

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/350 sec
Wiang Pa Pao

The look of the Tri-X shot above resulted from the lab having severely underdeveloped the negative by using too small a tank for the 1:00 Rodinal: while the dilution was was correct, there simple was not enough Rodinal developer for two rolls in the tank, which resulted in an extremely flat negative. Processing the flat scan — faint, really — in Lightroom was successful only when I made the right combination of slide movements, by extensive trial and error. This reflects the sometimes contingent nature of working with film. A darkroom print using the highest contrast paper would not have been successful. The M10 shot was processed in Silver Efex, in which I found it easier to get the look I wanted than processing in Lightroom.

In my view, neither of these shots would benefit from the higher resolution of the M10-R or the M10-M. Some people say that the latter two cameras have more dynamic, of which I'm skeptical. The following two charts from the Photons to Photos website, particularly the second one.

____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Some words of wisdom. 

And two very beautiful shots. So much so that you made feel like going for some BW landscape photography in the morning. This is the type of photography that I love as well, and I continue to agree that too much MP might get in the way. Like I said before, I never managed to take picture I loved with the 61MP A7RIV, but I did with the 24MP A7III... 

[Steven]

Just now, Tom1234 said:

Nice atmospheric pictures and from one of my favorite lenses the DR Summicron

Without wanting to drift to much from the main topic, could you tell me a few words about that lens ? I love the render of these images... 

[Tom1234]

5 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Regardless, I take zero offense from anything you've penned in this thread.  I simply think you and perhaps others are over-rotating on this topic.   A cell phone can indeed produce worthy shots up to a point,  just like a Yugo can run just as fast as a Ferrari when the speed limit imposes itself.  But theres's a point after which, once the constraints are removed that the added performance leaves the other wanting.

There is a definite speed limit imposed here, several in fact.  The shots were first scaled down to 2K and then, on the site, for a second time, down to 1K. And then there is the realities around dropping down to 8 bits and contemplating color fidelity.  

Thank you for this information!  The scale downs are important and certainly affect the blind tests possibly invalidating the results.  Dropping to 8 bit color is death to color accuracy in my experience.  Sorry Steve if these effected the blind test!  Wonder what google scales down to in the blind test by Steve and what does his Instagram site do?  And what do the sights not tell us?  It they thin down i.e. desaturate the color, then that explains why Leica pictures looked like Sony to me.  

My TIVO digital recorder changes different parts of the picture depending on the size of the scale down it does.  First level of scale down drops out some color range and just a little sharpness.  Next level of scale down for even more extended recording time, drops out a lot of resolution and a little more color range but what color is left looks more saturated.  The last level of scale down looks like maybe 1,200 iso film grain, jagged.

 

[Tom1234]

13 minutes ago, Steven said:

Without wanting to drift to much from the main topic, could you tell me a few words about that lens ? I love the render of these images... 

The 50 Cron DR (without the goggles on, they are just for closeups) gives what might be called smooth sharpness or solid sharpness.  The images seem to be on a firm foundation.  Hard to explain.  Where other lenses may seem to thin out the density of the image making elements fade in strength of presentation, the DR gives all things a solid presentation, at least on my M8 or M9 can't remember which. It is hard to explain but things in focus seem to be "solidly" presented for lack of a better term.  I hope you think they same if you try it.  To me it is a hiding unsung hero of the Leica lens line.  It is easier to see at home on the monitor than in scaled down computer images. 

[Tom1234]

27 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

What you seem to see as a conundrum at this point,  is perhaps better viewed as an opportunity which requires learning and time to make the most of.  Solely for amusement purposes you might enjoy reviewing a few of the 100+ page threads made in the run up to and shortly after the arrival of the original M10.  You might find the inverted ethos entertaining. 

Thanks for the idea.

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Steven - It's the Dual Range Summicron 50mm. Mine is from 1965. It has goggles that one puts  on to focus closer than 1 m,  allowing focus down to 48 cm. It's high resolution but lower contrast than the Summicron IV, which is great for digital. I had the Summicron IV,  but sold it because I prefer the DR Summicron. The build quality is fantastic: current lenses are not built as well. It should still be a good deal: for years it's been selling for about $600, which is what I paid for the two I have. There is an almost identical lens without the close-up goggles, called the Rigid Summciron II.

The DR Summicron could not work with digital cameras before the M10 because of the cam configuration for the close-up range. On the M10 it usually works, but some copies will focus just short of infinity. Mine, like some others, needed to be filed down slightly to go to infinity on the M10. It's a trivial operation that you can do yourself: there is a thread on this in here in LUF. 

I have two DR Summcirons: on the first I had the cam filed down so that it could be used on the M9, which means that the close-up range can no longer be used. I should probably sell it. The second one is the one I described above, which I use on the M10. 

____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Raymondl]

@Steven Minor note, but if you were counting between camera A & B. You flipped them on a few occasions 6 & 11.

Also. Do you think you can convince someone to let you borrow a M10-R for evaluation purposes ? would like to see same lens, same camera manufacturer but different (model) with MP..