m10p Zone focusing not sharp (enough) vs focusing to infinity

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And then there is the issue of non-postprocessing, which is most dire with the Monochrom cameras. I see so many images, often well-seen and composed, but due to the large DR of the Monochromes totally flat No white point, no black point, no contrast curve... All those beautiful tones that the camera can produce drowned in a sea of mud.🥵

[irenedp]

14 hours ago, hepcat said:

Quite frankly, I've seen a lot of technically perfect images that are real yawners.  Having used Phase One gear for years, and belonging to a couple of Phase One groups where ONLY images using the 150mp back, XF or XT camera, and blue-ring lenses are accepted, I've seen some amazingly boring technically superb images. Frankly, I've never seen such uninspired use of amazing technology.   Using the most corrected lens on the largest MP sensor and having THE sharpest focus all do absolutely nothing to "perfect our craft."  Way too much time is spent discussing these issues, and not nearly enough time is spent discussing what actually makes "good" photos.  I'm not sure they have any importance at all past advertising to sell more new cameras and lenses.   I think that's a problem in all discussion groups such as these.  Too much time is spent on MTF charts and pixel peeping at the trees in images where the forest is the focus.  Regardless of the technical perfection, the images just don't matter if the subject of the image isn't interesting or presented in an interesting way.  If I never see another perfectly executed flower photo or "cute" cat photo I will die a happy man. 

Any photograph can be boring -or not-. That depends on the subject, the composition, the light... and mainly, the skill of the photographer to make the image interesting. I work with an IQ4, and with lesser leica and Nikon equipment. Most if not all of my IQ4 and Nikon photography is for work, and some of what I do with the Leicas (particularly the Ms) is personal. When you have a work brief, you have fewer degrees of freedom than when your brief is not particularly precise or you have no brief at all. And that might influence also on boredom. Some of my work images are, for sure, very boring.

I do focus always, even when I want an image to be slightly blurry. I must say I never use 'zone focusing'. Zone focusing with an M camera and a 35 to 50 mm lens and upwards, without stopping it down, is a lottery. Sometimes you may even forget to focus and get something pleasing, but a better result can always be obtained when you have control of what you do.

I understand that for some people doing street photography and shooting from the hip it won't do to take the camera to the eye and focus or measure the distance and dial it on the lens. I'm not intending on getting here into any controversy, just pointing out the risks.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, irenedp said:

I understand that for some people doing street photography and shooting from the hip it won't do to take the camera to the eye and focus or measure the distance and dial it on the lens. I'm not intending on getting here into any controversy, just pointing out the risks.

Shouldn't that be the territory of an AF camera?

[KFo]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Shouldn't that be the territory of an AF camera?

Ah that's the rub.  What the camera finds for focus isn't always what the photographer wants focused.  This is a big reason I walked away from Fuji; I didn't want argue with the camera any longer.

Edited December 25, 2023 by KFo

[irenedp]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Shouldn't that be the territory of an AF camera?

i would agree

Edited December 25, 2023 by irenedp

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, KFo said:

Ah that's the rub.  What the camera finds for focus isn't always what the photographer wants focused.  This is a big reason I walked away from Fuji; I didn't want argue with the camera any longer.

That is understandable. But do you have control with zone focusing? I would say not. Modern AF cameras do have effective face recognition.

[KFo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is very easy to have many circumstances where faces aren't the subject yet present as a contextual element.  Point of focus beyond or short of faces on another object.

Edited December 25, 2023 by KFo

[hepcat]

47 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That is understandable. But do you have control with zone focusing? I would say not. Modern AF cameras do have effective face recognition.

With pre-set focus, yes you have control by knowing where your plane of focus is, and working with that...  either shoeleather zoom, or waiting for the subject to enter the plane of focus. The Fuji X-Pro1 was the camera that drove me back to Leica with it's unpredictable autofocus using the optical viewfinder. 

 

Edited December 25, 2023 by hepcat

[jaapv]

Sure, I wrote somewhere in this thread that preset and walk-in focus are just fine, but I doubt that posters who have to ask about zone and hyperfocal focus have the experience to make it work.

And preset focus is not zone focus. That carries the assumption "everything is sharp"

[rtai]

I don’t shoot landscapes and the OP’s discovery surprised me. While I wouldn’t make 1.5 meter my focus point and would place it somewhere between the horizon and the foreground, I would think the dof would mean what is in focus should be sharp. Learn something new everyday. I shoot man made structures with large format and always focus on the subject and with the lens stopped down to include what I wanted within that range of focus.

[hepcat]

19 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sure, I wrote somewhere in this thread that preset and walk-in focus are just fine, but I doubt that posters who have to ask about zone and hyperfocal focus have the experience to make it work.

And preset focus is not zone focus. That carries the assumption "everything is sharp"

I think that's the point of the thread:  to draw distinctions among the types of focusing, help those who struggle to understand the differences, and help them learn how to make the various methods work to their advantage.   Leica rangefinder cameras, of course, don't have zone focus although through the use of preset focus using hyperfocal distance they can be used as a "zone focus" camera.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

22 hours ago, jaapv said:

Yes and no - It makes no sense to recommend an Apo-Summicron to someone who is still on the learning curve for focusing, nor a Noctilux for someone who is not interested in understanding exposure.  First build the skills before investing the yearly income of somebody on the lower end of the income scale.

I would never recommend a Noct to someone who can't afford it. Regardless of skill level.

I could have been clearer. I would prefer to recommend gear based on where someone would like to be as a photographer. Not where they are. Generally I say you should buy the best you can afford, while not putting yourself in difficulty.

Gordon

[Al Brown]

On 12/24/2023 at 7:30 PM, hepcat said:

Having used Phase One gear for years, and belonging to a couple of Phase One groups where ONLY images using the 150mp back, XF or XT camera, and blue-ring lenses are accepted, I've seen some amazingly boring technically superb images. Frankly, I've never seen such uninspired use of amazing technology. 

Indeed. Tons of well-off hobbyists and very rich Youtubers are living proof that money can buy everything but talent.

[pluton]

Depth of field is an illusion.  The illusion only works if you limit the reproduction (print) size. You can, to some degree, hide the illusion by directing the attention of the viewer to certain things, away from other things. You want the viewers to think that it looks sharp.  In the end, the photo is interesting or not. Just because someone said that the little lines on the lens define what's gonna be sharp doesn't mean that the lines actually do that. They don't.  Kinda like telling kids that there is an actual Santa Claus.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sure, I wrote somewhere in this thread that preset and walk-in focus are just fine, but I doubt that posters who have to ask about zone and hyperfocal focus have the experience to make it work.

And preset focus is not zone focus. That carries the assumption "everything is sharp"

Everyone has to start somewhere. Asking a question is a pretty logical place to start. If not, how does one gain that experience? Ask lots of questions and then go out and practice. Practice often. Experiment and record your findings until you hone those skills.

Zone focusing is not only a useful technique to use on an M. It can also be fun and challenging. It also helps you to get to know better, the gear you're using. You'll be better with RF focusing if you're better at zone focusing. Check out Alan Schaller's shooting from the hip video.

Gordon

[jaapv]

You must have noticed that I answer each and every newbie question seriously.

[jaapv]

27 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I would never recommend a Noct to someone who can't afford it. Regardless of skill level.

I could have been clearer. I would prefer to recommend gear based on where someone would like to be as a photographer. Not where they are. Generally I say you should buy the best you can afford, while not putting yourself in difficulty.

Gordon

But that will lead to disappointment is some cases.

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, rtai said:

I don’t shoot landscapes and the OP’s discovery surprised me. While I wouldn’t make 1.5 meter my focus point and would place it somewhere between the horizon and the foreground, I would think the dof would mean what is in focus should be sharp. Learn something new everyday. I shoot man made structures with large format and always focus on the subject and with the lens stopped down to include what I wanted within that range of focus.

No, I've said it before. DOF is the zone of acceptable unsharpness and it is a gradient.

[Harpomatic]

On 12/24/2023 at 6:17 PM, jaapv said:

 "If you want" ...😵‍💫 If you like unsharp photos, that is your absolute privilege, which makes my post non-applicable to you. However, most members on this forum lack the artistic  ability of the luminaries you mention to make a technically flawed image superb. Thus, perfecting our craft is of interest. I wonder how many of these best photographers would have embraced AF, had it been available in their time, BTW.

I certainly don’t “want unsharp photos”, let’s not put words in my mouth.

I’m absolutely positive that those masters would have embraced AF and the latest technology, and they would have produced spectacular results with them.

We don’t choose to shoot a FR system for practicality or efficiency, we choose it for the experience and because we like the tools.

My choice of shooting the Leica RF system as a professional photographer (meaning that I shoot for money and have to deliver to the client no matter what), form a purely practical perspective, is idiotic. There are much better systems out there that will deliver many more keepers thanks to technology and AF. But for me enjoying myself when photographing, even professionally, is non negotiable, hence the choice. I absolutely love shooting my Leica Ms.

Having said that, lacking the artistic ability or the skills of the masters is no excuse for not striving towards their standards, and that is what I aim for. I will never reach the level of HCB, Winogrand or Eugene Smith, but I will certainly work to get as close as possible! And to do that I have to be out there shooting and developing my vision and skills in visual language and communication through my images. Not zooming into a screen at 200%

The basic skills are necessary and certainly needed, but we all reach a stage when we know more than enough of them and need to improve our actual photography. Many on this forum are into photography because of the gear, and that’s absolutely ok. but let’s stop knocking photographs because they don’t meet the technical standards of a digital era gear-head mentality. Let’s look at the images and see if they communicate something: if they do tell something about the photographer and why that image was shot or they move an emotion, or simply stops you to look at it longer, that’s a success. Is it technically pin sharp? Who cares?

My images are very sharp most of the time, but at times they might not be bleeding sharp. So? If they are good, nobody will ever notice: nobody will have their nose to the screen/print/book. I certainly had nobody commenting on the sharpness of my images, but they comment on the content of them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

 I would suggest that the part of the skillset of the masters that is unattainable for the vast majority of us is the artistic and talented bit. Matching or even surpassing the technical side is much easier, especially with present day tools.

I agree that judging a photograph by its technical excellence in place of its content is downright silly.. But all too often decent or even excellent content drowns in technical failure.