Beginner's Guide to Shooting with M10 - Kindergarten Post

[Daedalus2000]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mike,

have a look at this channel where the guy has done some videos on how to use an M camera. He uses the M-D which is even more difficult to use as it has no screen and a film M camera, but the main lessons and points apply to your M10. I will link some videos for you below, but also have a look at his first videos for anything extra you may find interesting.

meter light https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmsPzvkLhyo

Manual iso    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJuNu-csxk

Manual exposure vs Aperture priority   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uogm9XOECFY

rangefinder focusing  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfD_yrGdV3Y

Edited November 15, 2020 by Daedalus2000

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

Sure - this will get you to the folder:   http://www/sgrid.com/2020/Leica    (capital L)

There currently is only one file in that folder, L1001064.DNG dated 11/14/2020

I use the program "Filezilla" to access files.

(Anyone who wants to try this is free to do the same.)

I cropped the image to show what I felt were the most important things in the image.  It wasn't a particularly good sunset, but for me it was just to try out things I've learned in this forum.  

I have Capture One, but rarely use it.  I have Lightroom, fully updated, but I've been trying to learn PhotoLab.  I have Photoshop for when I need to do more than Lightroom can do.  I also have Luminar, which I use for special effects - Photo Illustrations.  Finally I have the Nik Collection installed, both the latest version from DxO, and the original (free) version from Google.  The copy I downloaded was the original one from back when Nik Collection was free to the public.  

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

If it really was that yellow -one would expect some red-magenta too-it really is an improvement. However, I still don’t like the effect on the buildings on the horizon and I suspect that clear view filter. Could you link to a DNG ? 

Oops, my mistake.  My previous response should have been added here, after the quote.  I guess I'm sill pretty sleepy.

[MikeMyers]

51 minutes ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Mike,

have a look at this channel where the guy has done some videos on how to use an M camera. He uses the M-D which is even more difficult to use as it has no screen and a film M camera, but the main lessons and points apply to your M10. I will link some videos for you below, but also have a look at his first videos for anything extra you may find interesting.

meter light https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmsPzvkLhyo

Manual iso    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJuNu-csxk

Manual exposure vs Aperture priority   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uogm9XOECFY

rangefinder focusing  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfD_yrGdV3Y

Thank you for the links - will watch all four of them this morning.  

I have a question about the M10 and networking, but that will go in a new thread.

[MikeMyers]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

If it really was that yellow -one would expect some red-magenta too-it really is an improvement. However, I still don’t like the effect on the buildings on the horizon and I suspect that clear view filter. Could you link to a DNG ? 

I opened the original DNG file in Photoshop, and leveled the horizon, nothing more.

I then reduced it to 1008x672 pixels

(jaapv), is there something on the forum that explains how to get the optimum image size) to display here?

Maybe I should have just left the image alone, doing nothing more than cropping........  The Leica seems to have a great job of capturing the image, before I messed around with it.  Another lesson learned.

 

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!

Edited November 15, 2020 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

9 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Mike,

have a look at this channel where the guy has done some videos on how to use an M camera. He uses the M-D which is even more difficult to use as it has no screen and a film M camera, but the main lessons and points apply to your M10. I will link some videos for you below, but also have a look at his first videos for anything extra you may find interesting.

meter light https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmsPzvkLhyo

Manual iso    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJuNu-csxk

Manual exposure vs Aperture priority   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uogm9XOECFY

rangefinder focusing  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfD_yrGdV3Y

I've watched three of the videos so far, and other than for the one that about focusing, it's all very good explanations of things we need to know about using the M10 (or most cameras).  I disagree with the video that says with a wider angle lens, or smaller aperture, more things would be in focus.  Better to say that things at other distances might appear acceptably sharp.  I read things 50 years ago that explained all this, and they were hard for me to follow.  Here's a much better explanation:

https://photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field 

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took several new photos of today's sunset.  I ingested them into my iMac using Photo Mechanic.  I then copied the files into a folder where I planned to use Photo Lab 4,    >IF<   I was able to prevent it from messing up my images.  I can mess things up quite well on my own, I don't need my software contributing.  I noticed that as the images opened in PhotoLab, each image, one by one, got lighter and "different".  It turns out that PhotoLab was applying a Pre-Set to each image.  So, one by one, I undid things, until I had seven rather dark images.  So, I adjusted the horizon, did some cropping, and manually used the exposure compensation.

Also, 'jaapv', I found that the monitor calibration of my 27" monitor changed depending on my room brightness.  My iMac has a tool to calibrate the screen, so I used that.  Images look different on the iMac compared to the external ASUS monitor.

It wasn't a very beautiful sunset, but I'll post one of the images here anyway.  Hopefully it look reasonable to you guys - it does to me, but I've got a lot left to learn.  I could post more, but I'd like to hear if this one is at least acceptable.  NONE of the fancy PhotoLab tools got used.  The only things I know of that were done were straightening, cropping, and exposure adjustment to make it lighter.

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!

[Daedalus2000]

16 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I took several new photos of today's sunset.  I ingested them into my iMac using Photo Mechanic.  I then copied the files into a folder where I planned to use Photo Lab 4,    >IF<   I was able to prevent it from messing up my images.  I can mess things up quite well on my own, I don't need my software contributing.  I noticed that as the images opened in PhotoLab, each image, one by one, got lighter and "different".  It turns out that PhotoLab was applying a Pre-Set to each image.  So, one by one, I undid things, until I had seven rather dark images.  So, I adjusted the horizon, did some cropping, and manually used the exposure compensation.

 

I actually started using Photolab a lot more recently and I find it a very good raw processor. One problem I have with it is that is does not support some cameras I have (e.g. TL2) but I like the flexibility of applying different color profiles and also the noise reduction is quite good (prime and now Deep prime as well)

Every raw converted applies some kind of preset on your image, so you can decide what you want this to be. Just for sun, I played with the dng you shared in Photolab 4, this is what I got:

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!

[jdlaing]

Seeing as everybody is playing with it........

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!

[MikeMyers]

To 'jaapv'  -  This image is probably the closest I know how to make it, to what I actually saw.  I know the sky was blue towards the top, and as the sun vanished behind the buildings, it got less and less bright - at first I couldn't see anything, as I was looking into the sun.  I kept taking shots as the golden glow slowly went away.  There was this wonderful reflection in the water, which was best when more of the sun was showing, and while it's still here in this image, it's gradually vanishing.  I don't know what "split toning" is or does, but I liked the way it played slightly with the colors.  It was still pretty bright outside, but if I lighten the image, the gold in the sky starts to go away.  I struggled to see the buildings in the skyline, but as the sun was going away, they showed up again.  

This is easier to do on a Nikon, because I assume it's programmed to give me pretty results.  When I used Lightroom, the "preset" made a good looking image most of the time.  

This is with my 50mm lens, and I cropped it quite a bit.  If you think it looks realistic, I'll do future images in a similar manner.

Of the two images posted up above, made from my original DNG file, the one by    Daedalus2000 looks the most plausible, but it doesn't look "real" to me.  The one by jdlaing looks over-processed, I guess similar to the way I was over-processing my images.

This thread started out as me trying to get good (or at least better) with the M10.  I guess whatever I've gained in taking pictures with the M10 I've thrown away by ruining them with the processing.  The one good thing I can report, is that with all the help I've gotten here, the M10 is beginning to feel like a tool that I've learned how to use.  I haven't learned how to master it, but I'm gaining.

 

If it's pretty outside, I'll take a similar image in (hopefully) bright sunlight.

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!

Edited November 16, 2020 by MikeMyers

[frame-it]

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!

[MikeMyers]

frame-it  -  to my eyes, that looks very natural.  Thinking back on things, while it probably wasn't as dark as all of us have made it, as the sun was just setting behind the buildings, because of staring into the sun, maybe it really did seem that dark (compared to the bright sun).  Real or not, your version looks very plausible.

[Daedalus2000]

5 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

frame-it  -  to my eyes, that looks very natural.  Thinking back on things, while it probably wasn't as dark as all of us have made it, as the sun was just setting behind the buildings, because of staring into the sun, maybe it really did seem that dark (compared to the bright sun).  Real or not, your version looks very plausible.

If I understand well, you try to compare the picture to what you saw in real life. The issue is that your eyes can see a lot more than a camera, i.e. they can cope with a higher dynamic range (the range from dark parts to brightest parts in the scene) than the camera sensor. So, when you process the image, it is up to you how to do it in a way that either reflects what you saw or as an interpretation of the scene based on the feeling you want to express through it. For example in my version I wanted to allow any orange color to be visible in the whole scene to give this feeling of warm sunset colors. Other removed the orange from the dark parts... 

[MikeMyers]

2 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

If I understand well, you try to compare the picture to what you saw in real life. The issue is that your eyes can see a lot more than a camera, i.e. they can cope with a higher dynamic range (the range from dark parts to brightest parts in the scene) than the camera sensor. So, when you process the image, it is up to you how to do it in a way that either reflects what you saw or as an interpretation of the scene based on the feeling you want to express through it. For example in my version I wanted to allow any orange color to be visible in the whole scene to give this feeling of warm sunset colors. Other removed the orange from the dark parts... 

Yes, you wrote:  "You try to compare the picture to what you saw in real life".   

 

I highlighted something else you wrote, which hits the nail on the head.  That is exactly the problem, as I see it.  When I look through the viewfinder of the M10, I see what my eyes see, higher dynamic range and everything.  When I shoot with my Nikon, Canon, or Fuji cameras I almost instantly see a digital view of what the camera "saw", and I can adjust accordingly.  The Fuji does this the best of all my cameras, as it has a combined optical/digital viewfinder, and I see both "real" and "digital" instantly after I click the shutter.

I know that I can "chimp", and view the captured image on the M10, but I'm trying to use the camera without doing that.  Either I shoot it like I used my film cameras, or if I'm going to always chimp, why not use my other cameras which do this better than Leica?  

Ansel Adams saw what he wanted, took a photo at settings he knew would be appropriate, and then brought out the photo he imagined in his darkroom.  For reasons I can't really justify, that's what I'm trying to do.  Ansel's print shows what he saw/imagined when he took the photo, but you'd never know that from a direct print from his negative, without manipulating it.

 

In my opinion, photos I take with the M10 should look "plausible".  I don't want them to look "fake" or "phony".  I'd like them to show in the photo what I felt/thought I saw with my eyes/mind while taking the photo.

(I just took an early morning photo of the same scene, documenting what went through my head, how I set the camera, and why.  I'll post that in a while, along with a list of how I "manipulated" the M10 to do so. A few things surprised me a little, and I needed to re-take the photo to  correct them.  I did use the concepts you guys made me aware of, but I needed more.  I'll work on that image in a few hours - right now I want to shower and make breakfast.)

 

By the way, as "art" I very much enjoy your photo - it brings out and emphasizes the orange, and certainly looks "plausible", but that's not what I "saw".  With my eyes, the orange color was concentrated near the sun, and faded away the further away from the sun I looked.  At the furthest distance, the sky was starting to look blue again.  However you did what you did, it looks very believable, and pretty, but that's not what I saw.

 

Also......     the part of all this I am MOST interested in, how regarding how to use the M10.  Everything else is also important, but I understand that if I don't capture the best possible image to start with, anything and everything else I do is just putting a bandaid on the image.  I seem to constantly be learning more about how to use the Leica M10 to get the best possible image captured as a file.  Thanks to all of you, my "plan" for how to take a photo is constantly improving.   How to process the image is a different topic, also important, but I'm still working at "how to take the image".

Edited November 16, 2020 by MikeMyers

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

Yes, you wrote:  "You try to compare the picture to what you saw in real life".   

 

I highlighted something else you wrote, which hits the nail on the head.  That is exactly the problem, as I see it.  When I look through the viewfinder of the M10, I see what my eyes see, higher dynamic range and everything.  When I shoot with my Nikon, Canon, or Fuji cameras I almost instantly see a digital view of what the camera "saw", and I can adjust accordingly.  The Fuji does this the best of all my cameras, as it has a combined optical/digital viewfinder, and I see both "real" and "digital" instantly after I click the shutter.

I know that I can "chimp", and view the captured image on the M10, but I'm trying to use the camera without doing that.  Either I shoot it like I used my film cameras, or if I'm going to always chimp, why not use my other cameras which do this better than Leica?  

Ansel Adams saw what he wanted, took a photo at settings he knew would be appropriate, and then brought out the photo he imagined in his darkroom.  For reasons I can't really justify, that's what I'm trying to do.  Ansel's print shows what he saw/imagined when he took the photo, but you'd never know that from a direct print from his negative, without manipulating it.

 

In my opinion, photos I take with the M10 should look "plausible".  I don't want them to look "fake" or "phony".  I'd like them to show in the photo what I felt/thought I saw with my eyes/mind while taking the photo.

(I just took an early morning photo of the same scene, documenting what went through my head, how I set the camera, and why.  I'll post that in a while, along with a list of how I "manipulated" the M10 to do so. A few things surprised me a little, and I needed to re-take the photo to  correct them.  I did use the concepts you guys made me aware of, but I needed more.  I'll work on that image in a few hours - right now I want to shower and make breakfast.)

 

By the way, as "art" I very much enjoy your photo - it brings out and emphasizes the orange, and certainly looks "plausible", but that's not what I "saw".  With my eyes, the orange color was concentrated near the sun, and faded away the further away from the sun I looked.  At the furthest distance, the sky was starting to look blue again.  However you did what you did, it looks very believable, and pretty, but that's not what I saw.

 

Also......     the part of all this I am MOST interested in, how regarding how to use the M10.  Everything else is also important, but I understand that if I don't capture the best possible image to start with, anything and everything else I do is just putting a bandaid on the image.  I seem to constantly be learning more about how to use the Leica M10 to get the best possible image captured as a file.  Thanks to all of you, my "plan" for how to take a photo is constantly improving.   How to process the image is a different topic, also important, but I'm still working at "how to take the image".

If it makes you feel any better, Ansel also re-imagined some of his prints, including his iconic  ‘Moonrise’, which he continually reworked over a 34 year period, printing with increasingly darker and more dramatic skies.

https://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/arrington/arrington_adams.html

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

If it makes you feel any better, Ansel also re-imagined some of his prints, including his iconic  ‘Moonrise’, which he continually reworked over a 34 year period, printing with increasingly darker and more dramatic skies.

https://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/arrington/arrington_adams.html

Jeff

Thanks, that was an interesting read.  I wonder if Ansel envisioned the photo he was capturing as what he started printing, or was it a wonderful scene that afterwards he thought of how to bring out all the beauty.  Yes, timing is everything.  I've learned that long ago.  Don't think too much - capture the photo, and if you have time, then think of how to maybe improve it.  I believe back then, before he got famous, Ansel was already a very capable photographer, pushing the boundaries of what was possible.  Also interesting that while he didn't have his exposure meter, he knew enough to calculate an appropriate exposure.

[MikeMyers]

Early this morning, I went to take a similar image as what I captured last night, but in the early morning sunlight. I put the 90mm Summicron back on the camera.  I stopped the lens down to f/4 guessing that might be close to where the lens will give excellent results.  As for ISO, in the old days I think Panotomic-X or Kodachrome were what worked for the best quality, so I set my ISO at 100.  From what I've been reading here, 100 or 200 ISO create similar images - I don't think there is any advantage in going to 100, but why not.

(A)aperture priority suggested 1/750th of a second, so I set that manually, but the resulting image showed a few tiny “flakes” of flashing red indicating over exposure.  So I went to 1/1000th.  I rested my arms on my balcony railing anyway and supported the very end of the lens (which works best with long lenses on my Nikon.

The resulting image looked technically fine, but not “balanced”.  I can’t describe how I do it, but I move the camera around until the image I see looks “balanced”.  It's difficult to put this into words, but I know it when I see it.  In doing this, I missed my DSLR, with the huge image view in front of my eye.  (I know I can use “Live View” to do this, but I want to know and feel what it’s like using the rangefinder.  It took me three tries to get a capture with what I felt was a balanced composition.  During all this I was thinking to myself, and reminding myself, that the current goal was to learn how to use the camera in rangefinder mode, so this was one “solution” for one photo.

Place shutter dial on (A)......Decide which lens.....Select an ISO.....Select a good aperture.....Check the exposure, and if acceptable, set the shutter.....Compose image, and shoot.

(To anyone telling me to leave the shutter dial on (A), this means that as I take several different shots, I’m likely to end up with several slightly different exposures.  I prefer to lock in the shutter speed before shooting.)

All this was very early in the morning.  I got the image into PhotoLab, and again turned off any automatic processing.  This time I found where it was asking me to select automatic or manual correction, so I selected manual.

The image came out fine, technically, but the sky was a solid blue.  I left the camera for a while (had breakfast) and an hour later some fluffy white clouds showed up, which I consider essential.  I left the camera settings unchanged, and captured a new image which I'll post below.  I doubt it's a "great photograph", but I have a feeling that it's better than what I used to get from my Nikon or Fuji cameras.

 

It is my understanding that when I capture a JPG image, the camera and/or computer do their best to make the image look good, bringing out more contrast, perhaps changing the color slightly.  With a raw image, all that needs to be done manually.  I haven't done any of that yet - I see lots of things that I would normally do.  I would make the sky a little darker, I'd bring out the green in the foliage, I would add a little more "snap".  These are also the things that I used to get carried away with.  Instead of looking "real", the image would "stand out", maybe a little too much.  Look at Ken Rockwell's sample photos - that is the effect that I used to feel was my goal.  Now I'm not so sure.  (I think I need to play with the color balance, even if it's accurate, it looks too "blue", and it needs more "snap".  Later today I may try some of those modifications.  

You guys have helped me come up with a working procedure for using my M10.  If nobody points out anything I'm doing "wrong", I'll use the camera this way for a while.

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!

Edited November 16, 2020 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

If I was doing this image to submit it to someone, I wold probably personalize it with these settings.  

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

I wonder if Ansel envisioned the photo he was capturing as what he started printing, or was it a wonderful scene that afterwards he thought of how to bring out all the beauty.  Yes, timing is everything. 

Both.  Adams has written and talked extensively about his process, as well as the making of  specific photos, including Moonrise.  It’s a well known tale.
 

Just one example...

https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Making-Photographs-Ansel-Adams/dp/082121750X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ansel+adams+the+making+of+40&qid=1605556164&sr=8-1

What he neglected to say in the book was that he was still reinterpreting the print for 34 years thereafter. 
 

Jeff

Edited November 16, 2020 by Jeff S

[MikeMyers]

Back to camera settings.  Once again, I had a sunset, this time much prettier than last time.  I did everything in setup similar to before, but each time I captured an image, I reviewed it on the camera screen - and was rewarded with "flashing red" for areas that were burnt out.

Jeff - is it good practice to continue reducing the exposure until there is NO flashing red?  That's what I did tonight, saving maybe ten images as I gradually reduced the exposure.  

If I assume that the flashing red indicates areas that ARE completely burnt out, with no data, then it sounds logical to decrease the exposure until there are no more visible flashing red areas, regardless of how dark the rest of the image looks.  On the other hand, if the flashing red area is to show you're approaching the point where there will be no data, that leaves a little more "wiggle room".  I'll find out later tonight how it affected my image.  

Worded differently, is the flashing red a warning that you're approaching a point where data will be lost, or does it mean you've already reached that point?