24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

Resolution doesn't determine the look of an image. The whole concept of lower rez sensors looking better is daft. If that's what you really think then you might want to have a look at what the medium format world is doing. Then again if you're just scaling everything down to the same 4K monitor, don't bother. 

Once upon a time we shot film. And we had debates about how different films processed in different chemicals produced a different aesthetic. We'd argue whether Rodinal needed to be at 22.5 or 23 degrees and Kodak or Fujifilm and we were happy.

Then digital came along and for some bizarre reason we got this idea that all sensors were the same. You know the old chesnut.... "It doesn't matter. Shoot raw and make them look the same in post!" Which is a huge pile of bullsh##. I won't get into why you can't actually get a truly raw file from a consumer digital camera.

Any sensor that's got a change from another one will have a different aesthetic. Up down or sideways, if you change a CFA, microlenses, AD converter you get something different. Then there's the profiles. Both manufacturers and image processor. If you don't like the M10R in Lightroom then give C1 a try. Or something else. There's so many things going on in that pipeline. But the number of photosites? Nope. That 'aint it.

I loved the original Canon 5D sensor. Disliked the 5D2 a lot. Liked but didn't love the M8 or 240. Loved the M9 and M10. Love the M10R, as I think it's got better overall colour and needs less work with skin tones. But I use Lightroom. Someone else using C1 might see different. None are even close to the X1D, for me. The S is though. The S3 done right is something else.

Geeesus! you can even have exactly the same sensor and get different looks. Grab a Hasselblad X1D and a Fujifilm GFX 50R and put them side by side. Not even close and they have exactly the same silicon. We've got how a sensor and a lens interacts. Different flange distances. Different lens designs. Different in camera profiles, lens calibration data and raw output. Different colour science.

What's actually going on is that Leica has a different colour science, bayer array and microlens design on every damn camera they make. It's like shooting Acros, TMax and Neopan side by side. Absolutely you'll prefer one to the others. But it isn't resolution. Change cameras and you change the type of *film*stock you're using. Then you've got a new microlens design that's going to work differently with different lenses. A lens you like on the M10P might not float your boat on the M10R. But a lens you didn't like on the M10P might sing. Don't think much of my MATE on my M10. But on the M10M is fantastic. My favourite combo at the moment.

And finally, bias. We get to a place we understand and then we have to make changes and we don't want to. So you like the look of the M10P over the R. But how long have you spent dialling in the new camera? You have thousands of frames on the M10P. You know how it responds. You have the metering dialled in. You choose lenses based on what you like. Maybe all it will take is some time, learning and a Lightroom preset till you prefer the new camera. Earlier I said I liked but didn't love the M8 or 240 and loved the M9 and M10. That's because the M8 and 240 were the big changes. M8 to 9 was small. M240 to M10 was small. Didn't have to do a big shift in thinking or workflow. But when I go back and reprocess images now I vastly prefer the M240 to the M9. Whodathunkit???

Change a camera and you change much more than just the resolution. It's overly simplistic to think resolution is the main cause of an aesthetic change between cameras.

Gordon

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I thought the composition was amazingly well done here, especially 1, 2, 3, and 5.  The subject of #4 seems to be the figure person inside the window.  I know a B&W film photographer who would add light to highlight that figure in post production.  So many photos lack good composition, due to the situations people shoot in forcing them to the wrong camera position.  Great job! 

Thanks for the overly kind words.  My point in posting this particular grouping was in response to the notion earlier in the thread that the M10-R output was lifeless. 

The reality, AFAIC, is that with increased power comes increased responsibility.  While working with the R has not been an unfamiliar experience, enough has changed in terms of WB, color tendencies, and yes, pixel count, to have required a bit of a learning curve. Much as it was when moving from CCD to CMOS, moving to the R, IMO, requires a certain level of mental recalibration before the results begin to meet or exceed one's expectations. The camera has only been in our hands for a couple of months. I have little doubt that there is more to learn. 

Funny thing that figure in #4. I did consider a heavy crop to actually make it the subject.  In the end I did somewhat as you suggested... the surrounding light was pushed a couple of stops to create enough contrast to pull the silhouette.  But in my mind the figure was really an easter egg... only really seen if one was actually looking.  Perhaps, I should have lowered the contrast on that a bit to hide it more, but given the high contrast nature of the scene, treating it similarly seemed the best approach at the time.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

6 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

As always... thank you for the sanity Gordon.  Sometimes the word is worth a 1000 pictures. 

[Jeff S]

25 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

Resolution doesn't determine the look of an image. The whole concept of lower rez sensors looking better is daft. If that's what you really think then you might want to have a look at what the medium format world is doing. Then again if you're just scaling everything down to the same 4K monitor, don't bother. 

Once upon a time we shot film. And we had debates about how different films processed in different chemicals produced a different aesthetic. We'd argue whether Rodinal needed to be at 22.5 or 23 degrees and Kodak or Fujifilm and we were happy.

Then digital came along and for some bizarre reason we got this idea that all sensors were the same. You know the old chesnut.... "It doesn't matter. Shoot raw and make them look the same in post!" Which is a huge pile of bullsh##. I won't get into why you can't actually get a truly raw file from a consumer digital camera.

Any sensor that's got a change from another one will have a different aesthetic. Up down or sideways, if you change a CFA, microlenses, AD converter you get something different. Then there's the profiles. Both manufacturers and image processor. If you don't like the M10R in Lightroom then give C1 a try. Or something else. There's so many things going on in that pipeline. But the number of photosites? Nope. That 'aint it.

I loved the original Canon 5D sensor. Disliked the 5D2 a lot. Liked but didn't love the M8 or 240. Loved the M9 and M10. Love the M10R, as I think it's got better overall colour and needs less work with skin tones. But I use Lightroom. Someone else using C1 might see different. None are even close to the X1D, for me. The S is though. The S3 done right is something else.

Geeesus! you can even have exactly the same sensor and get different looks. Grab a Hasselblad X1D and a Fujifilm GFX 50R and put them side by side. Not even close and they have exactly the same silicon. We've got how a sensor and a lens interacts. Different flange distances. Different lens designs. Different in camera profiles, lens calibration data and raw output. Different colour science.

What's actually going on is that Leica has a different colour science, bayer array and microlens design on every damn camera they make. It's like shooting Acros, TMax and Neopan side by side. Absolutely you'll prefer one to the others. But it isn't resolution. Change cameras and you change the type of *film*stock you're using. Then you've got a new microlens design that's going to work differently with different lenses. A lens you like on the M10P might not float your boat on the M10R. But a lens you didn't like on the M10P might sing. Don't think much of my MATE on my M10. But on the M10M is fantastic. My favourite combo at the moment.

And finally, bias. We get to a place we understand and then we have to make changes and we don't want to. So you like the look of the M10P over the R. But how long have you spent dialling in the new camera? You have thousands of frames on the M10P. You know how it responds. You have the metering dialled in. You choose lenses based on what you like. Maybe all it will take is some time, learning and a Lightroom preset till you prefer the new camera. Earlier I said I liked but didn't love the M8 or 240 and loved the M9 and M10. That's because the M8 and 240 were the big changes. M8 to 9 was small. M240 to M10 was small. Didn't have to do a big shift in thinking or workflow. But when I go back and reprocess images now I vastly prefer the M240 to the M9. Whodathunkit???

Change a camera and you change much more than just the resolution. It's overly simplistic to think resolution is the main cause of an aesthetic change between cameras.

Gordon

Indeed, all that plus all the variables that influence an actual fine print, including inks, paper, print size, lighting and more.  All this nonsense about low resolution screen comparisons would be crazy enough even if we assumed that the monitors and related settings of the presenter and viewer magically matched identically.  😜

Jeff

Edited October 28, 2020 by Jeff S

[Tom1234]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

…  moving to the R, IMO, requires a certain level of mental recalibration before the results begin to meet or exceed one's expectations. The camera has only been in our hands for a couple of months. I have little doubt that there is more to learn. 

SUMMARY:  I started this mess so maybe I can finish it.  My apologies to all you life time Photoshop users that have heard it all before.

Hope you will post here what you learn about handling the M10-R increased resolution.  M10-R plus slider modifications may well meet and exceed M10 out of the camera box images.  One famous Leica photographer charges I think $600 USD for this information. 

To make sure we see the extra M10-R 40 meg resolution, the sharpness and contrast had to be adjusted by Leica to a certain high enough level, that obviously seems harsh to some of us, who prefer the 24meg file's aesthetic.  This may be a marketing tweak decision that causes unfair judgements about the camera's abilities compared to other cameras. 

If that sharpness and contrast is turned down a bit, that might make us love the M10-R above all others.  So the modern sensor aesthetic's come from some camera's files plus some set of slider modifications.  

Thus Leica has made a high resolution tool so great that we have yet to understand how best to use it. 

Yet cameras all get a reputation according to what file characteristics they initially put out.  We put a name on this initial reputation with the most convenient term, in this case 24 or 40 meg aesthetic.  Pardon me for patronizing my own Thread Title. 

BACKSTORY: Back in the film days when MTF charts were studied like pixels are now, I remember seeing pictures, the lightest-etchings, made by lenses pushed to their limits in the 40 line pairs segment (40 line pairs is of course 80 line).  These 80 lines had lower contrast that softened the extra resolution of the image in a beautiful way.  

Handling a lack of resolution- Back with 6 and 12 meg low resolution sensors, the approach might have been to INCREASE contrast-&-sharpness, and then, to be carful to NOT oversize the image to where you notice the jagged edges.  

Handling an excess of resolution- Now with the 40 meg plus resolution sensors, the better approach might be to LOWER the contrast-&-sharpness settings a bit to avoid too many high contrast edges that could irritate.  Here it is that M10-R sits proudly displaying its great resolving ability that needs for some of us only a slight softening to satisfy.

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

SUMMARY:  I started this mess so maybe I can finish it.  My apologies to all you life time Photoshop users that have heard it all before.

Hope you will post here what you learn about handling the M10-R increased resolution.  M10-R plus slider modifications may well meet and exceed M10 out of the camera box images.  One famous Leica photographer charges I think $600 USD for this information. 

To make sure we see the extra M10-R 40 meg resolution, the sharpness and contrast had to be adjusted by Leica to a certain high enough level, that obviously seems harsh to some of us, who prefer the 24meg file's aesthetic.  This may be a marketing tweak decision that causes unfair judgements about the camera's abilities compared to other cameras. 

If that sharpness and contrast is turned down a bit, that might make us love the M10-R above all others.  So the modern sensor aesthetic's come from some camera's files plus some set of slider modifications.  

Thus Leica has made a high resolution tool so great that we have yet to understand how best to use it. 

Yet cameras all get a reputation according to what file characteristics they initially put out.  We put a name on this initial reputation with the most convenient term, in this case 24 or 40 meg aesthetic.  Pardon me for patronizing my own Thread Title. 

BACKSTORY: Back in the film days when MTF charts were studied like pixels are now, I remember seeing pictures, the lightest-etchings, made by lenses pushed to their limits in the 40 line pairs segment (40 line pairs is of course 80 line).  These 80 lines had lower contrast that softened the extra resolution of the image in a beautiful way.  

Handling a lack of resolution- Back with 6 and 12 meg low resolution sensors, the approach might have been to INCREASE contrast-&-sharpness, and then, to be carful to NOT oversize the image to where you notice the jagged edges.  

Handling an excess of resolution- Now with the 40 meg plus resolution sensors, the better approach might be to LOWER the contrast-&-sharpness settings a bit to avoid too many high contrast edges that could irritate.  Here it is that M10-R sits proudly displaying its great resolving ability that needs for some of us only a slight softening to satisfy.

So perhaps we can bring this stupid nonsense to an end and get out and take photographs? 6 pages of utter drivel. 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey, this is an internet argument after all! I don't mind if someone has a notion they want to argue for, if it means something important to them. As longs as they don't try to tell me it is important for me as well, or that opinions are actually facts, I'm fine. I haven't seen the OP doing that, and I haven't been obliged to read this thread.

[Steven]

9 hours ago, Raymondl said:

Lovely shots @Tailwagger.

@Steven I did look through Tailwaggers Flickr feed, and this "test" shot with a older (1956) lens caught my eye... so much character... just look at the character (shot with a M10R) - I have linked the picture directly from Flickr below.

 

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!

 

Good find. This look much nicer already. 1 point for ugrading to the R. 

[Steven]

8 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I thought the composition was amazingly well done here, especially 1, 2, 3, and 5.  The subject of #4 seems to be the figure person inside the window.  I know a B&W film photographer who would add light to highlight that figure in post production.  So many photos lack good composition, due to the situations people shoot in forcing them to the wrong camera position.  Great job! 

Please Tailwagger put your photos back up… I want them in this thread I started.  I think Steve is younger than us and just into his own aesthetic at this time, so his statement may appear to be trolling, though usually he does not do that. 

Oops!  your pic's are back in… maybe my browser has a download problem because they re-appeared. 

I'm not trolling and I'm not young. I just expressed myself freely just like Tailwagger said. I speak my mind freely on a forum, I speak it freely at a diner. Im like this. Its my culture. 

And all I said is that while Tailwagger is an excellent photographer and his photos were beautiful and perfect, it is not what I am looking for when shooting with the M system. If I want a perfect landscape, tripod shot, id rather shoot with an A7RIV or an R5... But of course that's just my opinion. Everyone does what they want. All I meant to say was that the photos he posted was one more reason for me to be happy with my M10P. 

Later one, someone posted a photo of his taken on the M10R that I truly loved. 

@Tailwagger, you weren't offended by my comment, surely ? 

[Steven]

5 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Is it April? This thread has to be a prank, right?

Resolution doesn't determine the look of an image. The whole concept of lower rez sensors looking better is daft. If that's what you really think then you might want to have a look at what the medium format world is doing. Then again if you're just scaling everything down to the same 4K monitor, don't bother. 

Once upon a time we shot film. And we had debates about how different films processed in different chemicals produced a different aesthetic. We'd argue whether Rodinal needed to be at 22.5 or 23 degrees and Kodak or Fujifilm and we were happy.

Then digital came along and for some bizarre reason we got this idea that all sensors were the same. You know the old chesnut.... "It doesn't matter. Shoot raw and make them look the same in post!" Which is a huge pile of bullsh##. I won't get into why you can't actually get a truly raw file from a consumer digital camera.

Any sensor that's got a change from another one will have a different aesthetic. Up down or sideways, if you change a CFA, microlenses, AD converter you get something different. Then there's the profiles. Both manufacturers and image processor. If you don't like the M10R in Lightroom then give C1 a try. Or something else. There's so many things going on in that pipeline. But the number of photosites? Nope. That 'aint it.

I loved the original Canon 5D sensor. Disliked the 5D2 a lot. Liked but didn't love the M8 or 240. Loved the M9 and M10. Love the M10R, as I think it's got better overall colour and needs less work with skin tones. But I use Lightroom. Someone else using C1 might see different. None are even close to the X1D, for me. The S is though. The S3 done right is something else.

Geeesus! you can even have exactly the same sensor and get different looks. Grab a Hasselblad X1D and a Fujifilm GFX 50R and put them side by side. Not even close and they have exactly the same silicon. We've got how a sensor and a lens interacts. Different flange distances. Different lens designs. Different in camera profiles, lens calibration data and raw output. Different colour science.

What's actually going on is that Leica has a different colour science, bayer array and microlens design on every damn camera they make. It's like shooting Acros, TMax and Neopan side by side. Absolutely you'll prefer one to the others. But it isn't resolution. Change cameras and you change the type of *film*stock you're using. Then you've got a new microlens design that's going to work differently with different lenses. A lens you like on the M10P might not float your boat on the M10R. But a lens you didn't like on the M10P might sing. Don't think much of my MATE on my M10. But on the M10M is fantastic. My favourite combo at the moment.

And finally, bias. We get to a place we understand and then we have to make changes and we don't want to. So you like the look of the M10P over the R. But how long have you spent dialling in the new camera? You have thousands of frames on the M10P. You know how it responds. You have the metering dialled in. You choose lenses based on what you like. Maybe all it will take is some time, learning and a Lightroom preset till you prefer the new camera. Earlier I said I liked but didn't love the M8 or 240 and loved the M9 and M10. That's because the M8 and 240 were the big changes. M8 to 9 was small. M240 to M10 was small. Didn't have to do a big shift in thinking or workflow. But when I go back and reprocess images now I vastly prefer the M240 to the M9. Whodathunkit???

Change a camera and you change much more than just the resolution. It's overly simplistic to think resolution is the main cause of an aesthetic change between cameras.

Gordon

Great great post. 
I think I agree with EVERYTHING you said. 

Thanks so much for this contribution. This is why I spend time on this forum when I could use to take photos. To learn.... 

[Steven]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

So perhaps we can bring this stupid nonsense to an end and get out and take photographs? 6 pages of utter drivel. 

This is such a dumb comment, sorry to say mate, but statement like this are a real issue in this world. 

If you don't like it, don't read it, but to some of us its meaningful, and beyond your judgement, it helps us grow as photographer. 

Tonight, I am walking the red carpet at the Cannes film festival where the first feature film I produced will premiere on the world's biggest screen. 1000 people (instead of 2200 because of covid) will watch the film. Some will love it, some will not. And it's totally fine that they don't love it... But imagine if they came to me and said that because they didn't like the film we should not have made it, and that we wasted time, money and film roll ? How hurtful and unconsiderate would that be? People really need to make an effort to understand what they don't... 

 

I'll also add that this thread is particularly interesting IMO. It could have turned into a battle of the ones who bought the R trying to justify their purchase, against the ones who couldn't afford it and wanted to defend themselves and make it useless, but it didn't. There has been a real dialogue that personally thought me some stuff. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Steven

[Steven]

38 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Hey, this is an internet argument after all! I don't mind if someone has a notion they want to argue for, if it means something important to them. As longs as they don't try to tell me it is important for me as well, or that opinions are actually facts, I'm fine. I haven't seen the OP doing that, and I haven't been obliged to read this thread.

Well said mate. +1.

[Mikep996]

The beauty (?) of internet forums is that they allow people to make comments that, if made in person, could result in a black eye or missing teeth!  

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Mikep996

[Tom1234]

27 minutes ago, Steven said:

Tonight, I am walking the red carpet at the Cannes film festival where the first feature film I produced will premiere on the world's biggest screen. 1000 people (instead of 2200 because of covid) will watch the film. Some will love it, some will not. And it's totally fine that they don't love it...

But imagine if they came to me and said that because they didn't like the film we should not have made it, and that we wasted time, money and film roll ? How hurtful and unconsiderate would that be? People really need to make an effort to understand what they don't... 

Congratulations.  I went to film school myself in the USA.  

I study still photos as a study of art for filmmaking in the future. I study Leica due to its long history of different visual aesthetics. I  Long live Cannes!

What is the name of your film?  I will watch for it.

[Tom1234]

6 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

The beauty (?) of internet forums is that they allow people to make comments that, if made in person, could result in a black eye or missing teeth!  

 

 

 

So true! So true!

[Steven]

8 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

The beauty (?) of internet forums is that they allow people to make comments that, if made in person, could result in a black eye or missing teeth!  

 

 

 

Haven’t gotten a black eye yet. And trust me, what I say on the internet, I say in person. I don’t hide behind a username. 

[Steven]

3 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Congratulations.  I went to film school myself in the USA.  

I study still photos as a study of art for filmmaking in the future. I study Leica due to its long history of different visual aesthetics. I  Long live Cannes!

What is the name of your film?  I will watch for it.

Thanks. It’s called Beginning. 

[Mikep996]

35 minutes ago, Steven said:

Haven’t gotten a black eye yet. And trust me, what I say on the internet, I say in person. I don’t hide behind a username. 

Well, it is difficult to imagine that such could arise over an argument over "what camera is better," but I admit I got into a fight at a bar over who was better, The Beatles or Bob Dylan!   In my defense, I was in college at the time and nobody expected (expects) common sense from college age males!  

On the plus side, it was back then that I had my first experience with Leica (school-supplied M2) so I had SOME sense!  

Edited October 28, 2020 by Mikep996

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

This is such a dumb comment, sorry to say mate, but statement like this are a real issue in this world. 

 

Sorry to offend you Steve but I stick by what I said. However no offence to you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

SUMMARY:  I started this mess so maybe I can finish it.  My apologies to all you life time Photoshop users that have heard it all before.

Hope you will post here what you learn about handling the M10-R increased resolution.  M10-R plus slider modifications may well meet and exceed M10 out of the camera box images.  One famous Leica photographer charges I think $600 USD for this information. 

To make sure we see the extra M10-R 40 meg resolution, the sharpness and contrast had to be adjusted by Leica to a certain high enough level, that obviously seems harsh to some of us, who prefer the 24meg file's aesthetic.  This may be a marketing tweak decision that causes unfair judgements about the camera's abilities compared to other cameras. 

If that sharpness and contrast is turned down a bit, that might make us love the M10-R above all others.  So the modern sensor aesthetic's come from some camera's files plus some set of slider modifications.  

Thus Leica has made a high resolution tool so great that we have yet to understand how best to use it. 

Yet cameras all get a reputation according to what file characteristics they initially put out.  We put a name on this initial reputation with the most convenient term, in this case 24 or 40 meg aesthetic.  Pardon me for patronizing my own Thread Title. 

BACKSTORY: Back in the film days when MTF charts were studied like pixels are now, I remember seeing pictures, the lightest-etchings, made by lenses pushed to their limits in the 40 line pairs segment (40 line pairs is of course 80 line).  These 80 lines had lower contrast that softened the extra resolution of the image in a beautiful way.  

Handling a lack of resolution- Back with 6 and 12 meg low resolution sensors, the approach might have been to INCREASE contrast-&-sharpness, and then, to be carful to NOT oversize the image to where you notice the jagged edges.  

Handling an excess of resolution- Now with the 40 meg plus resolution sensors, the better approach might be to LOWER the contrast-&-sharpness settings a bit to avoid too many high contrast edges that could irritate.  Here it is that M10-R sits proudly displaying its great resolving ability that needs for some of us only a slight softening to satisfy.

The higher resolving, high dynamic range cameras like the M10-R tend to have flatter, not higher, contrast curves out of camera, requiring the user to add, not lessen contrast. I find many of the M10-R (and M10 Monochrom) pics here too flat and greyish, lacking rich blacks, bright whites or lovely mid tones due to the linear, flat out of camera contrast. (Film, on the other hand, has characteristic contrast curves built in, not flat contrast like a modern, high dynamic range camera.) In any case, I only judge results by my own prints, which ALWAYS require post processing adjustments, film or digital. A camera phone is sufficient for low resolution online display.
 

Jeff