thoughts on the Q2M

[nico4444]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, nwphil said:

It probably could be said the same in the M10M picture thread

I am still trying to grasp the seeing in b&w mode, but would appreciate some critique:

and a few others down in the thread.

Thanks

I mean, I don't want to sit here criticizing others, because I'm in no position to do so, but a lot of folks seem to misuse the lighting that makes B&W interesting to me and the vast majority of the photos posted reflect that. For example, out of the photos you posted, the one of the room with tools in post#45 I find is your best application of light, although there is some overexposure (probably clipping) that could have been fixed with different camera settings, in hindsight, of course. According to the metadata, you used ISO 100, f4, and 1/30s to achieve neutral exposure, but you could have easily raised the ISO value to 3200 to allow for a larger depth of field (the table is out of focus) and retrieve information of shadows by underexposing by 1-2 stops.

This is just mere conjecture, but it does make me question the choices of some photographers.

[Advertisement]

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

[nwphil]

52 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I mean, I don't want to sit here criticizing others, because I'm in no position to do so, but a lot of folks seem to misuse the lighting that makes B&W interesting to me and the vast majority of the photos posted reflect that. For example, out of the photos you posted, the one of the room with tools in post#45 I find is your best application of light, although there is some overexposure (probably clipping) that could have been fixed with different camera settings, in hindsight, of course. According to the metadata, you used ISO 100, f4, and 1/30s to achieve neutral exposure, but you could have easily raised the ISO value to 3200 to allow for a larger depth of field (the table is out of focus) and retrieve information of shadows by underexposing by 1-2 stops.

This is just mere conjecture, but it does make me question the choices of some photographers.

I asked for it, so I do appreciate it as long as it is in a constructive way, that makes me again at what I did and see if I can improve...or not.

Saying that because in some shots, I really wanted the dark, ridding the clipping thing, and I understand that is not everyone's cup of tea. That one in particular, was very difficult to shot, as it was literally dark inside despite being very bright out, and I think I did uplift the shadows a bit in post.

and you are right, should had bumped that iso a  bit - my justification is ...weeds, broken glass, and other stuff all over the ground and not sure if I was trespassing or not  in this 10+ house roadside community ( there  are several abandoned building in town), along with first day using a Q and my own - ok, yes, I messed up a bit, and should have set the iso for auto or correct it on the spot - sounds corny if I say that was not entirely focused....

That brings then to another habit I have, which is an addiction of sorts, and as such brings bad results...sometimes. I like to shot wide open and with wide angles, and yeap, the results are what they are and show.

Looking back at the shot, indeed a higher DOF was needed and the Q would have handled higher iso with no problems - maybe even a filter to overcome the windows light a bit, as there was so much...errr ...detail inside.

Thanks for the critique

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by nwphil

[nwphil]

55 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

 

This is just mere conjecture, but it does make me question the choices of some photographers.

interesting and could lead to mindful conversations - on one side there is the established acceptable, usual and conventional - will skip other related issues of technique, composition, etc - and then what one might envision that will capture with the pressing of the button. In the last one, sometimes there is a  mismatch, and in the first one often a misunderstanding, as one can read the exiff for sure, but not the photographer's mind.

I shoot for myself, trying to capture what I think I can see/imagine or it's going to result. Rules are guidelines, and meant to be broken, and I would be the last to say that I am above or don't need them.

me too, guilty as charged, look at some pictures and don't appeal to me in any way. Does not mean they are bad - they might excellent technically and yet...not be  appealing to a given person.

and that's great, because otherwise would be no need frog Forums or they would be very boring

 

[nico4444]

18 minutes ago, nwphil said:

interesting and could lead to mindful conversations - on one side there is the established acceptable, usual and conventional - will skip other related issues of technique, composition, etc - and then what one might envision that will capture with the pressing of the button. In the last one, sometimes there is a  mismatch, and in the first one often a misunderstanding, as one can read the exiff for sure, but not the photographer's mind.

I shoot for myself, trying to capture what I think I can see/imagine or it's going to result. Rules are guidelines, and meant to be broken, and I would be the last to say that I am above or don't need them.

me too, guilty as charged, look at some pictures and don't appeal to me in any way. Does not mean they are bad - they might excellent technically and yet...not be  appealing to a given person.

and that's great, because otherwise would be no need frog Forums or they would be very boring

 

My post can hardly be considered a critique - I was trying to give an idea of how I would leverage a monochrom in that situation, but obviously it comes mostly in hindsight and not in the spur of the moment. 

Also, I should have said it clearer: I’m questioning the purchase of the Q2M and not taking advantage of the strong points of the sensor - I wasn’t questioning setting choices, composition and whatnot. That picture could have been taken with an iPhone with similar results to yours, given how advanced HDR AI is currently, so I’m questioning whether the people who bought the Q2M have any idea of what it is actually capable of. Shooting B&W with purpose Vs. shooting B&W for the sake of it as I said earlier.

[nwphil]

13 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

My post can hardly be considered a critique - I was trying to give an idea of how I would leverage a monochrom in that situation, but obviously it comes mostly in hindsight and not in the spur of the moment. 

Also, I should have said it clearer: I’m questioning the purchase of the Q2M and not taking advantage of the strong points of the sensor - I wasn’t questioning setting choices, composition and whatnot. That picture could have been taken with an iPhone with similar results to yours, given how advanced HDR AI is currently, so I’m questioning whether the people who bought the Q2M have any idea of what it is actually capable of. Shooting B&W with purpose Vs. shooting B&W for the sake of it as I said earlier.

indeed - fully aware of not extracting the camera's potential. Not even fully able to use the interface yet. A lot to learn about the tool, and explore the camera's  ability. weather I will ever be able to make it shine, that's a different story...

The promotional Leica shots, were taken by highly qualified photographers, with plenty of time to learn and explore the camera's abilities, and then the best of the best were selected - not complaining, just aware of myself.

Not to say only the best drivers in the world can by Ferraris or Porches - likely often not the case, but I believe they are enjoying the drive nerveless

Edited December 9, 2020 by nwphil

[nwphil]

7 hours ago, nico4444 said:

I mean, I don't want to sit here criticizing others, because I'm in no position to do so, but a lot of folks seem to misuse the lighting that makes B&W interesting to me and the vast majority of the photos posted reflect that. For example, out of the photos you posted, the one of the room with tools in post#45 I find is your best application of light, although there is some overexposure (probably clipping) that could have been fixed with different camera settings, in hindsight, of course. According to the metadata, you used ISO 100, f4, and 1/30s to achieve neutral exposure, but you could have easily raised the ISO value to 3200 to allow for a larger depth of field (the table is out of focus) and retrieve information of shadows by underexposing by 1-2 stops.

This is just mere conjecture, but it does make me question the choices of some photographers.

still at iso 100, but a bit closer to how much light the shop had inside

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 December 10, 2020 by nwphil

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/9/2020 at 9:45 PM, nwphil said:

interesting and could lead to mindful conversations - on one side there is the established acceptable, usual and conventional - will skip other related issues of technique, composition, etc - and then what one might envision that will capture with the pressing of the button. In the last one, sometimes there is a  mismatch, and in the first one often a misunderstanding, as one can read the exiff for sure, but not the photographer's mind.

I shoot for myself, trying to capture what I think I can see/imagine or it's going to result. Rules are guidelines, and meant to be broken, and I would be the last to say that I am above or don't need them.

me too, guilty as charged, look at some pictures and don't appeal to me in any way. Does not mean they are bad - they might excellent technically and yet...not be  appealing to a given person.

and that's great, because otherwise would be no need frog Forums or they would be very boring

 

Rules are just that rules. I agree, to break them can be liberating. On Big Sur, I have several applications that I find are not able to process Q2M images. Affinity Photo does but I find slow with several images to process. I discovered 'Raw Power' for Mac and IOS. This has all the Meta data and does an excellent job of processing to my eyes, which is the important thing for me.

These are my first images, some are straight out of the camera JPG, and others have been modified using RAW Power: 

http://spbch.jalbum.net/Fasnacht-Faces-2021/index.html