24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

^ Strange business. I have no care for how many Leicas, how many kilos of caviar or bottles of champagne people buy. My own perspective, as expressed earlier, is that the number of megapixels is irrelevant for picture image quality: what makes an image have quality is its graphic and emotional impact, these two aspects being inter-related. Not having much scope, during this plague, for taking the type of photos that interest me, I was looking over my past images and posting to Instagram (a platform that I don't really care for) some images taken with an iPhone and Hipstamatic software some years ago on a visit to Beijing.

I was there in August of that year, when the air-quality index was at a world-record pollution level. I didn't go anywhere except for meetings to which I was taken by air-conditioned car. I hadn't brought the M9 that I had at the type. Looking at the Hipstamatic image now, I like the crudity of the images and enjoy their expressionist look. The colors created by Hipstamatic reflect the sulphurous, polluted atmosphere. There is, of course, an artifice in the frames the Hipstamatic frames of the images: but I like the look. This made me think of the strictures that, Paulo Nozolino (a photographer who interests me) placed in the blurb for his Arles workshop: This workshop is not for digital photoshop liars, reportage, landscape or portrait photographers, conceptual artists or career seekers. It is a workshop for the unsure, the poets, the dreamers, all of those who feel they don’t fit in the system! 

I'm more interested in the image itself than in whether it has some Photoshop lies, although original French of the Nozolino text is less extreme: Les photographes de paysages, de reportage, les portraitistes et les artistes conceptuels s’abstiendront. Les carriéristes et les accros du photoshop passeront également leur chemin, ces journées n’étant pas pour eux. C’est aux incertains, aux poètes et aux rêveurs que s’adresse ce stage. A tous ceux qui quelque part se sentent inadaptés, hors du système.
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook 
 

[Guest Nowhereman]

9 minutes ago, Steven said:

...The bokeh on the 50 lux 1.4 ASPH is simply perfection...

Steven - Of course I agree with what you said in response to my post #404: it's the statement I've quoted above that I have reservations about. When the Summilux 50 ASPH came out, I was in Bangkok and rushed out together with a friend and we bought the last two Summilux 50 pre-ASPH lenses that were available there, because we both preferred their rendition to that of the ASPH, including what we considered to be the better bokeh...
____________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[pippy]

11 minutes ago, Steven said:

...I have to completely disagree with the term Photoshop liars......I could dress up a long list of painters that didn't depict what was in front of their eyes, but rather what was in front of their imagination......Same goes for every art, literature, cinema, etc..... Its ok not to like it, its not ok to dismiss them as unworthy....

The whole concept of 'Truth' in relation to what is produced once a camera is positioned and once its shutter is tripped is, paradoxically, inherently 'selective' and often patently false by the very nature of the act of capturing an image.

Philip.

Edited November 7, 2020 by pippy

[Tom1234]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

Too early to report on the M10R vs M10P yet, but here are my very first impressions. Please remember that my observation are always VERY PERSONAL, and very non scientific. I don't care for charts, and pixel peep. Im pretty sure that many of the things I claim could actually be scientifically argued, but I don't mind it. I am just telling you how I feel, because its the only thing that matters to me. Take what you want, leave. what you don't. 

Design: I love it. I prefer the red dot. To me the way the object looks means a lot. I had chosen the P because I wanted the silent shutter more than the red dot, but now im happy to have both. I feel good and therefore more inspired. 

Usability: yes, the frame rate is a little bit slower but it's only noticeable in few situation, cause It's an M, not an A9! When I shoot my kids for example. Regarding the focus, some people said its harder to nail with 40MP. I didn't feel this at all. Yes, precision matters, but only if you zoom in a lot in the image. But when you are zoomed out at look at it a normal scale, you don't need more skills at all to shoot with 40MP

Lenses: It is true what they say. It gives a new life to the lenses and produces a even nice look that we couldn't see before. The bokeh on the 50 lux 1.4 ASPH is simply perfection. When using my 35 1.4 Nokton, I use to think it was too creamy, but now with the extra resolution, it just looks so nice. It's the perfect balance. Looks very vintage, but very pleasing as well. 

And now finally to the Aesthetics question...: 

First of all, I have to say that the M10R sensor is much more pleasing to my eye than the SL2. I cant explain what it is about it, but just like the Mono, it renders absolutely beautiful.... Its true that compared to my M10R, the files look more neutral. A little flatter, but also the colours are just more "correct". The M10P has a sort of a look to it. But that can be fixed with sliders in LR. 

Besides that, I have to say that I cannot really see a difference between the two once ive edited the photos how I like. I needs a bit of adapting in the workflow, but that's normal I guess. For example, I usually apply 20% grain in my photos, now I need to bump it up, since its calculated by pixel. 

Several times throughout this thread, I said that there was a huge difference to me in aesthetics between 24 and 47mp... And I still think most of the time there is, but it might not be because of the extra level of detail you get. I used to compare my M10P to my A7RIV, my EOS R5, the SL2, and the Q2. But what all these cameras have in common is that they had modern lenses on. For example, I see a huge difference between my M10R and my Q2. Thats because I use vintage lenses on the M, while the Q2 is a very modern camera. I love the look of the Q2, but its really modern and sharp, not what I always want. And if you still think the image is too sharp, which it is not, there are other ways. You can downscale it in post and lose detail, or you can even snap on a 1/8 black pro mist on the lens and reduce the sharpness. But of course if you pair the M10R with for example the Cron 50 APO, you're in for a similar modern look like the Q2. 

That being said, I think that if you chose the right lenses with the M10R, the new sensor might actually be a great upgrade. 

The DR is great. 

The low light is, to my eye, a huge improvement. Shooting at night is handled way better than on the M10P. 

And the extra MP is actually amazing to have. On most camera, its an overkill. I don't need it for printing. And earlier in the thread ive proven that a 12MP sensors produces equal or better images than the M10P. But if there is one camera I would actually receive the extra pixel as welcome, its on the M. Because its harder to shoot on the M than any other camera, and the flexibility it gives you is game changing. On my M, the couple seconds that I spend focusing is wasted time that I use to compose on my Q2. But with the extra MP, I can fix things a bit better in post. I m enjoying this a lot. 

Will I keep the M10R and get rid of my M10P after having whined about the 40MP look so much in this thread ?!! I have not decided yet, but like I said in one of the first posts of the thread, I always NEED to have the last shiny new thing... So knowing myself and considering that the M10R is probably the best, most versatile M ever created, .............. to be continued... 

Great to know the sensor is an actual improvement and that a person can buy "the next Leica" and not feel they are stuck with a mistake.  If the browser pictures had been higher quality and now downsized, then we would have never been lead astray.

Steve Huff commented that more of the character of the lens would show on the M10-R which indicates an aesthetic difference. 

QUESTION: Still I would ask, you like it ok, but is there not an aesthetic difference M10 to M10R?  So how would you characterize both?

[Tom1234]

12 minutes ago, Steven said:

Indeed, the original text is less extreme. It says "photoshop addicts". 

I have to completely disagree with the term Photoshop liars, as I consider myself to be a photoshop addict. I would be happy to explain to you why I became addicted to photoshop, and how much it has change my photography, as well as my approach to life. 
But I don't think that people using photoshop to alter and enhance their photos, whatever level of extremism the decide to use, should be called liars. 

As you know, I could dress up a long list of painters that didn't depict what was in front of their eyes, but rather what was in front of their imagination. They are still in museums today.

Same goes for every art, literature, cinema, etc..... Its ok not to like it, its not ok to dismiss them as unworthy.... 

Hope I didn't misunderstand the sense of your comment. If I did, please accept my apologies in advance. 

I am positive on both sides of this issue.  

When appropriate Photo Shop is a lifesaver & new world creator.  

But there is another side of me that likes an accurate historical rendition of the scene without modification.

[Jeff S]

26 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

QUESTION: Still I would ask, you like it ok, but is there not an aesthetic difference M10 to M10R?  So how would you characterize both?

There are more differences than MP between the cameras.... new sensor technology (in many significant ways, as discussed by Leica execs and others), new color array (likely also derived from the S3), etc.  That’s before choosing a lens (necessity for actual pictures).  And that’s  before processing files and making any rendering choices (also a necessity, whether few or many).  
 

The premise of limiting aesthetics to MP count is simplistic and not very meaningful.  A camera is not a box holding a pile of pixels that magically produce inevitable picture rendering. There are myriad other variables, even before getting into subject matter, lighting, etc.

Jeff

 

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

There are more differences than MP between the cameras.... new sensor technology (in many significant ways, as discussed by Leica execs and others), new color array (likely also derived from the S3), etc.  That’s before choosing a lens (necessity for actual pictures).  And that’s  before processing files and making any rendering choices (also a necessity, whether few or many).  
 

The premise of limiting aesthetics to MP count is simplistic and not very meaningful.  A camera is not a box holding a pile of pixels that magically produce inevitable picture rendering. There are myriad other variables, even before getting into subject matter, lighting, etc.

Jeff

 

At this point, the mega pixel count designation of 24p represents more than the mega pixels, but also the generation of the sensor, as you note the new sensor technology of the M10-R CMOS camera is better.  

I would still like a firmware file designation to get the last generations sensor "look" even if forum people want to deny that the pictures can/do look different.  There must be a better or different aesthetic or Steve and others would not say that it is worth the upgrade.  If the new camera was no different visually than people would not say it was worth the upgrade since the operational features are not that different to cause the spending of $7,500 USD of hard earned coin.   

The last CMOS look might be achievable in the newer camera or not… if the color grid has changed then probably not, which places the m10 as a special camera in history, though maybe not as outstanding among those of its type as the M8 and M9 were with their CCD sensors.  

Time and comments will tell.   

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

At this point, the mega pixel count designation of 24p represents more than the mega pixels, but also the generation of the sensor, as you note the new sensor technology of the M10-R CMOS camera is better.  

I would still like a firmware file designation to get the last generations sensor "look" even if forum people want to deny that the pictures can/do look different.  There must be a better or different aesthetic or Steve and others would not say that it is worth the upgrade.  If the new camera was no different visually than people would not say it was worth the upgrade since the operational features are not that different to cause the spending of $7,500 USD of hard earned coin.   

The last CMOS look might be achievable in the newer camera or not… if the color grid has changed then probably not, which places the m10 as a special camera in history, though maybe not as outstanding among those of its type as the M8 and M9 were with their CCD sensors.  

Time and comments will tell.   

My pictures and prints don’t look alike even when using the same camera, and often even the same lens. That’s been true using the M8.2, M Monochrom, M240 and M10. I decide.  More MP and more modern tech may provide greater ability to crop, print larger, use higher ISO, provide more file malleability, etc. But it doesn’t mandate one and only one look, else we’d all produce the same output using the same gear.  That’s never been the case, film or digital.

”Time and comments will tell”?  Maybe for you. I rely on my own shooting and results; comments from others don’t affect my work. 

Jeff

[Tom1234]

5 hours ago, Steven said:

The DR is great. 

Are you trying the DR 50mm Leica M lens or some other "DR"?

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Are you trying the DR 50mm Leica M lens or some other "DR"?

Methinks DR = dynamic range

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

This thread is coming down to words and their meaning: I don't think anyone is arguing strongly that images from the M10 and the M10R look the same. Does that amount to a different "aesthetic"? If you called it a different "look" would it mean anything different? Or simply said that the M10R has a different colour science?

I have never owned the M10 or M10R, but I'm interested in how people use words.

Edited November 8, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

But there is another side of me that likes an accurate historical rendition of the scene without modification.

This chimera does not exist. Every image needs postprocessing, either automatically by the camera, or afterwards by the user - otherwise it will  remain a collection of bytes. In both cases it will render  an interpretation of the original scene. When the processing is done by the photographer chances are that the impression will match the way the scene was originally perceived; the camera will give the result that Leica preprogrammed without even seeing the original reality.

[LocalHero1953]

"An accurate historical rendition of the scene without modification" except for: a framing determined by the lens, the shape of the sensor, our eye and our chosen viewpoint; a frequent rendering in monochrome which is about as unhistorical as one can get; a compression of dynamic range that allows our eye to take in the image at a glance, rather than as happens with the real scene, which is piecemeal, while the eye continually adjusts for brightness and shadow; an unrealistic static view with people permanently frozen between steps, birds supported by nothing but the paper and an absence of the invisible, but sensed, environment (wind, temperature, noise).

I don't object to the aspiration - it is also mine when I photograph family and social occasions - but one has to recognise how far we are from achieving it, whether limited by choice or by technology/physics.

Edited November 8, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

I should tell a story of my recent photography. For the last nine months I've been photographing progress in the renovation of two eighteenth century town houses in this city, for an academic institution I am connected with. I have visited at the weekends, let myself in and wandered through the empty rooms photographing demolition of walls, ripping up floorboards, and gradual installation of new wiring, plumbing, heating, appliances etc, and now we are into decorating. A couple of weeks ago I happened to be passing through the entrance hall of the active institution, and saw some images displayed on a screen where visitors could see them. It took me a while to realise that they were my own, uploaded by the office manager each week. They looked strange to me because they had a very distinct character defined by the lenses (typically either very wide angle or close-up/macro), choice of scenes and objects depicted, and the rendition - I favour strong colours, respond to them in a scene and make sure they are shown as such. Although the images were mine, for a moment I saw them as if they were someone else's.

I thought I was taking photos for the historical record; I realised that my photos were infused with my choices and my viewpoint on the project. I was using a CL most of the time; but I believe I could have been using a good many other cameras without making a difference to the images that others saw.

Edited November 8, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

have never owned the M10 or M10R, but I'm interested in how people use words.

I have never owned the M10 or M10R, but I'm interested in how people misuse words. Anyway, 21 pages and I'm none the wiser about this topic.

[Tom1234]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

This chimera does not exist. Every image needs postprocessing, either automatically by the camera, or afterwards by the user - otherwise it will  remain a collection of bytes. In both cases it will render  an interpretation of the original scene. When the processing is done by the photographer chances are that the impression will match the way the scene was originally perceived, the camera will give the result that Leica preprogrammed without even seeing the original reality.

Sorry, but since Photoshop took over photography, pictures mostly look mechanical due to a fixed position pixel matrix and mathematically perfect photoshop modifications.  It is obvious that the photo is modified and not particularly historic.  That is okay for some photographers, but don't deny it.  

I dropped my subscription to the Leica Magazine when this digital look took over.  When this happened a 50+ year of proven aesthetic of beauty was lost. 

Leica as "reportage" photography, should have somewhere in its recording aesthetic that represents a less/not modified world, that of news and history.  There should always be a "photography as history" ability within the Leica aesthetics. To attack this is to attack 90 years of history and to attack Leica almost directly.  

Sure, all pictures are not a reality but just a representation of it, but please do not hide behind this concept. There is still such a thing as reportage and historic photography, though maybe not in the digital world, film and the traditional darkroom mostly owns it.  Crop and print is mostly but not always okay.  Changing contrast is mostly but not always okay.  But beyond that, reportage and history are gone. 

So if you want to use Photoshop, then use it, but don't deny its effects.  And don't say "but you have to use photoshop" when you don't - it exists as something that creates its own reality, it is not reportage or historic. Working in a traditional dark room, it was hard as hell to add & remove picture elements in the natural way that Photoshop does easily with a few clicks. 

There is still "reportage" photography that relies on a predictable sensor/film system that acts in a known way with minimal or no modification by what others call Photoshop fakery.  The use of the Maestro camera brain processor is mostly predictable and not significantly affecting the historic value of an image. I would call photoshop an attempt to "recover a clear picture" in its first application but only pure imagination as one continues with hours of pixel mods (modifications), additions and subtractions.  

Pre-digital old world photography has imperfections in it that can irritate, but of course, that is part of the reality of reportage historical photography recording the scene as it is. Photoshopping away details of the scene that you don't like is fine, but it is not reportage or historical photography.  If you are, A HEAVY Photoshop-er, then you do NOT HAVE ONE historical image in your database.  That is okay, but don't deny it. 

When film grain and minimal dark room modifications ruled, you normally had a believable reportage historic representation of a scene in a normal minimally modified photo.  Today you have no idea what was originally there since it is so easy to make changes.  That is okay, but don't deny it.  

It still stands that the 24meg and 40meg aesthetics exist as less detail and more detail - until you go into Photoshop to destroy them.  Leica has created two different cameras with valid and different aesthetics all their own.  Good day!

[LocalHero1953]

My great grandfather, who I remember well (he lived to 100), was Edward Gardner, who was instrumental in promoting the Cottingley Fairy photographs (I still have some of them), in which he believed till his death. So I do not share the view that the film era was a time when historical truth held sway and manipulation didn't happen!

[Tom1234]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My great grandfather, who I remember well (he lived to 100), was Edward Gardner, who was instrumental in promoting the Cottingley Fairy photographs (I still have some of them), in which he believed till his death. So I do not share the view that the film era was a time when historical truth held sway and manipulation didn't happen!

This is not an "all or none" question.  I agree film also had a wonderful post production imaginary aesthetic.

Please read my answer that concerns this subject on this same page that mentions reportage and historic photography. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, Tom1234 said:

This is not an "all or none" question.  I agree film also had a wonderful post production imaginary aesthetic.

Please read my answer that concerns this subject on this same page that mentions reportage and historic photography. 

I've read it. I think you misuse the word 'aesthetic'. Just my opinion.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tom1234]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

I've read it. I think you misuse the word 'aesthetic'. Just my opinion.

A previous poster was so right, as they mentioned that we are in a word definition discussion also, not just a photography discussion.  

Guess my use of the word is:  that photographs all modify reality, even if they are largely an attempt to accurately record the scene in a reportage and historic fashion.  To the degree that they modify reality, even if that is a small modification, they are artistic, thus they have an aesthetic.  

I realize, that as you seem to mention, that the word aesthetic, can be used fairly more narrowly.