scaryink Posted June 16, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have noticed that many of the images displayed on this forum have had extensive manipulations to the original image capture. I purchased the kit for the form factor, but more importantly the image capture which is unique and film-like. The quality of the image is comparable to any MF back, just smaller in pixels. Now I'm all for image manip when needed, (translated, used rarely and subtle), but on this forum, so many of the images are funked up, that I frankly cant see the reason for spending so much on camera that has such image processing. I mean heck a little panny or olympus would work just as well for image processing purposes. I have even noticed Mr. Huff in his review of the Zeiss sonnar manipulated the very first image in his article. To me any software manip when reviewing hardware is a strict no-no (No disrespect to Mr. Huff, just an observation). But the point is this why do so many M8 shutter clickers feel the need to over/under saturate, over under contrast, funk up the image? Is it because the captured data is simply not up to par or simply because you can manipulate it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2009 Posted June 16, 2009 Hi scaryink, Take a look here Funking the M8 image. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sm23221 Posted June 16, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 16, 2009 It's because we have the ability to turn a good photograph into a great one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted June 16, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 16, 2009 I try to keep my processing to a minimum--though I consider running everything through Alien Skin Exposure based on what film I would've shot the images on back in the day a minimum of processing. That said, plenty of people in both narrative and documentary film spend far more on cameras (or use cameras that costs a lot more than the M8) and then funk up the image for creative purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 16, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 16, 2009 It is simple. I see the image before I take it. The M8 is a tool, the file a half product, the postprocessing helps me to instill what I saw into the final print. I do not regard this as funking up, but as producing what I wanted to produce in the first place.Just like I used to try in my darkroom. I am very happy with the extended possibilities we have in digital (and with not having to breathe fumes any more )I did not buy a digital camera to imitate film, in that case I would still be shooting film, so "film-like", although it is normally used in a most positive sense, to me is not an accolade. Having said that, I agree that the M8 files are for me very pleasing, second only to the DMR and that only by a small margin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted June 16, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2009 There are different degrees of post-processing and there is a big gap between image enhancement and photo manipulation. Why do we do it? The simple answer is because photography is both an artistic and scientific medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 16, 2009 But the point is this why do so many M8 shutter clickers feel the need to over/under saturate, over under contrast, funk up the image? Is it because the captured data is simply not up to par or simply because you can manipulate it? Could you point us towards some examples? Personally I seldom do more that a minor curves adjustment and Alien Skin Exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted June 16, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree on the hardware review bit, but in Steve H's defense there are also some unmanipulated images side by side. The first images are usually just eye candy. Does B/W conversion count as image manip? In a technical sense it is extremely destructive after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Sfeir Posted June 16, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 16, 2009 I do not see why we should not work on digital images. In the old times of film, we did the same, but it was more complex and time consuming chemistry. Who says that what the CCD records and how the picture ends up printed should be an automatic process. Why should I trust my CCD color look up table? Why should I keep the contrast the same? After all, the whole process from lens, to CCD to demosaicing, to color balance, to sharpening, to denoising, to priniting is all artificial. To me a great camera is not the one that does things automatically according to my taste, but rather one that produces the file with which I can create the image I had in mind when I pressed the shutter release. And so far, the M8 [and great lenses] is that kind of camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted June 16, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 16, 2009 But the point is this why do so many M8 shutter clickers feel the need to over/under saturate, over under contrast, funk up the image? Is it because the captured data is simply not up to par or simply because you can manipulate it? There is a quote I like to use.... "the eye altering, alters all" For many reasons, the advent of digital image has produced expectations from viewers and photographers that are vastly different from the audience of film days from the past. What you may percieve as a "problem"....other's may percieve as a "look" or "style"....Their eyes have been altered to accept these things as normal....and now their eye alters all Yes, you're correct that the majority of posted images are too contrasty and poorly exposed...often oversharpened. But this is not unique to the M8 experience....DSLR users and digital MF in general are guilty. I've come to the conclusion that these things that you and I consider problems are what other's consider to be the digital "look"...The vast majority of digital shooters like these things. There is an entire generation of digital shooters that actually believe these mistakes are image qualtiy. Too contrasty (because of reliance on histograms) bad color (reliance on AWB) poor focus (reliance on AF or sharpening in post) There are a myriad of technical problems that have arisen with digital but the majority of users aren't capable of solving...so instead...they just make these mistakes over and over again until the mistakes become normal...and then an entire culture develops around the mistakes until they are no longer mistakes and just become an accepted "look" or "style" I've tried mentoring several students that are digital shooters and they absolutely are commited to macro-contrast and over-sharpening. THey simply have learned to view the world in those terms and can't break free of the look. There was nothing I could do to teach them otherwise, their eyes had been altered and they are committed to a POV. IF a person really want to be scared....Spend some time reading digital photography tutorials and how-to-books and it won't take long before realizing that many of these instructors are making the same mistakes too...and teaching that it's normal. IF these things really bug a person then my suggestion is to GO BACK TO FILM LOL..Im serious. Because I finally gave up trying to fight this culture that has sprung up around digital. The only way to get away from it is to go back to film. Sad but true....much of the current digital culture is based on repeating the same set of technical mistakes over and over and over again....and it is not going to change anytime soon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 16, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 16, 2009 {snipped}IF these things really bug a person then my suggestion is to GO BACK TO FILM LOL..Im serious. Because I finally gave up trying to fight this culture that has sprung up around digital. The only way to get away from it is to go back to film. Sad but true....much of the current digital culture is based on repeating the same set of technical mistakes over and over and over again....and it is not going to change anytime soon Yeah--go back to film-! Things like colour balancing, mask sharpening, contrast, dodging and burning, grain adding, vignetting, copying and pasting, weird colours (a la x process), leveling, exposing, englarging and reducing--not to mention a host of errors--Just Doesn't Exist!! Er,,, wait a minute... Digital just gives more people the ability to screw up more quickly for less money. All of the so-called errors were--and are--present in film. It's just that most people take film processing as "then a miracle happens!" when they get their prints back. Not to mention, of course, that as a medium film has had 100+ years to develop (sorry for the pun!) compared with digital's going on what? 10? 15? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted June 16, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 16, 2009 As one of the original "suggesters" for a digital post processing forum page (mouth full, I know), I'm sure I can't stay out of this discussion It's worth thinking over your actions from time to time and this seems like a good moment. So thanks for starting it! To the point: in the end I don't understand your question. I have to choose between the M8 not being "up to par" and fiddling because I "can manipulate it". What kind of choice is that? And what is your deeper thought behind it? The answer would be yes and yes. I take almost all photos in DNG and so have to do some DPP iot get a picture that has the right toning, depth, sharpness, etc. I'm sure M8 does a good job at JPG, but in the end it is "in the middle", like all other (expensive) cameras. The camera doesn't see what I see and, amongst others, transforms everything according to given algorithms. I see DPP as a chance to go from good to great (or at least I try to reach that level one day). Going to B&W is a no no in camera, anyway. A lot of photos on this forum are, whatever the DPP, not "great" and often not even "good". No DPP will help you to to get there, or at least to get there by more than a lucky chance. And a lot of people really don't take the time to read the manual and so over saturate, over sharpen or just let the machine do something "automatically". On the other hand, it's a learning process. This forum helps getting to that higher level, at least, if you're open for serious comment. The best one I got untill now was "work harder" (thanks Ben!) , because that's what it's all about. Still I'm sure people love their M8 and get a special warm feeling out of using it. For me, my M8 is something that brings back the slowness and deeper thought before I pop that button. I had a DSLR (Canon 30D), but it was much to fast for me. Should an M8 be so good, that it does it all? Why? I like to fiddle and twist after the shot. It's a completely different moment in the whole timeline from going out there with a camera to hanging that perfect print on the wall. Out there I feel the world around me, I focus and watch, sometimes even see. Back behind my Mac I start thinking about where I want to go with that image. OK, I'll stay away from pasting in things or doing all kind of tricks. But I'll surely twist some knobs to get the picture I want. Why not? If you have some time, I'm sure I can whip up a list of famous photographers (Leica shooters too), who ALL have fiddled during their negatives to print process. Was it Ansel Adams who said that the negative is only the beginning? Or something like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted June 16, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 16, 2009 I'm with Scaryink on this as regards personal taste/preference, but I'm afraid that's all it is. One reason is that many photographers have turned to 'web values' instead of old-fashioned 'print values' in their work. No wonder, since we're posting on the Web! So instead of staying within the bounds of what would make a good print (which is still my criterion for successful processing), they're using effects that go over well at a resolution of 72 on a monitor. A certain digital-looking gaudiness (by older standards!) is even enhanced by the monitor's transmitted light. Typically the old-fashioned BW printmaker or the digital pigment-print maker would view these newer Web styles as over-contrasty, over-saturated, & oversharpened. So what is virtue to some is vice to others. I can tell that some posters' work hasn't kept in close contact with a printing process, because they're not making an image that would look good *both*on the web & in a print. But the latter is my standard & not one that they're not at all obliged to share. And for all I know, when they do get around to printing they dial things down quite a bit. Steve asked, what would be some examples? I would say that among folks whose work I enjoy, Big Louis & Jaap sometimes reach out beyond what would IMO (emphasis on IMO!) print well, particularly with pigment inks. This is not to say they shouldn't do just what they're doing; may each aim at his or her chosen effects! Similarly IMO Ivan's contrst looks *great* on the Web, but might drop too much shadow & highlight detail to impress me in a print. That's his style, & I'm always happy to see it. I've adjusted to these styles as ways-of-working that come across very well on the Web. On the other hand Sharookh & Brett are consistently offering postings that in exposure & tonal range look great on the Internet and also show every sign of yielding a really beautiful full-toned print. That's not to say they're 'better,' it's to say they're operating in a range that's never-ever over-contrasty, over-saturated, or over-sharpened from a print-maker's standpoint. And their highlights glow! Another variable is previous (pre-digital) taste & habit: those who nursed their negatives through a Focomat onto Portriga are going to be less accepting of high color saturation & strong sharpening - though they may like high contrast. Those who liked Kodachrome or Velvia are going to like high saturation more than those who used Vericolor & later Portra. Those who liked Cibachrome prints are going to go for a lot more saturation & contrast than those who've adjusted to the gentler palette of pigment inks. So I'm with Scaryink in personal taste, & will always be thinking of the print as primary outcome & the Web as secondary. I post what were originally printing files & don't modify them for the Web - just change the mode to 8 bit, the profile from ProPhoto to sRGB, & the size-resolution to the forum standard. These images may look less 'punchy' - lesscontrasty & less staurated - than some other peoples posts. If I think I'll end up with a reallyweak Web post I'll add some saturation. That's my way of working. But with the Web as the way that many of us get most of our viewing & feedback, there's no reason that this aversion to 'funking' should apply to everyone. Kirk PS, I'll add 1 more thing: I do wonder why Leica users would go into overtly recognizable manipulation e.g. painter programs or many of the PS filters), because they've presumably bought the equipment that would profit least from it. I think I'd use a DSLR or pocket camera if I liked 'special effects,' & not undo what I hope are the recognizable advantages of my lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 16, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 16, 2009 This debate has been going on since the early stages of photography. Contact print or enlarge?...straight print or dodge and burn? Shot as framed or crop? And, on and on. There are great photographers in the history of the medium who fell on either side of all these questions (See Edward Weston vs Walker Evans). As a long time film and darkroom user...and a recent convert to digital...I have to admit that the ability to easily manipulate (enhance, one hopes) an image after capture (without fumes!) is a blessing...but can also be an evil temptation. Just the ability to decide on color or black and white...after the fact...is a wonder. My own philosophy...then and now...remains to try and print (not so much upload for web...at least for now) the image the way I saw it in my head when the shutter clicked. And, given my sometimes imperfect camera skills (and quick moving subjects, etc), will gladly crop or enhance to achieve the look I want. When no changes are needed, so much the better...but I'm not a slave to the "purist" ethic. And, in the end, it's all about the image (for me, the print)...not how I got there, i.e., does it work or not? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 16, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2009 {snipped}PS, I'll add 1 more thing: I do wonder why Leica users would go into overtly recognizable manipulation e.g. painter programs or many of the PS filters), because they've presumably bought the equipment that would profit least from it. I think I'd use a DSLR or pocket camera if I liked 'special effects,' & not undo what I hope are the recognizable advantages of my lenses. Look--no matter what post-process you use or no matter what you do, it helps to start with the best image and best file you can get. The DMR and M8--along with Leica's lenses--provide great files. If you don't get a great shot to start with, it's your fault, not the camera's From there, I've seen lots of post-processing that enhances the image, even 'painting' type things. It all depends who does it. Post-processing--any post-processing--will never make a mediocre shot anything more than mediocre. But it can make a great shot even better! The same was true for film. Getting to a print is a process of manipulation, and if anything, digital may be less manipulated--even with PS--than film (because the manipulation has been hidden by chemistry and third-party processing). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted June 16, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 16, 2009 Yeah--go back to film-! Things like colour balancing, mask sharpening, contrast, dodging and burning, grain adding, vignetting, copying and pasting, weird colours (a la x process), leveling, exposing, englarging and reducing--not to mention a host of errors--Just Doesn't Exist!! Er,,, wait a minute... Digital just gives more people the ability to screw up more quickly for less money. All of the so-called errors were--and are--present in film. It's just that most people take film processing as "then a miracle happens!" when they get their prints back. Not to mention, of course, that as a medium film has had 100+ years to develop (sorry for the pun!) compared with digital's going on what? 10? 15? you completely missed the point. Of course film has it's difficulties too...that is just plain obvious I'm talking about a cultural difference that exists between film shooters and digital shooters. This cultural difference is apparently not so obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 16, 2009 Share #16 Posted June 16, 2009 Steve asked, what would be some examples? I would say that among folks whose work I enjoy, Big Louis & Jaap sometimes reach out beyond what would IMO (emphasis on IMO!) print well, particularly with pigment inks. This is not to say they shouldn't do just what they're doing; may each aim at his or her chosen effects! Similarly IMO Ivan's contrst looks *great* on the Web, but might drop too much shadow & highlight detail to impress me in a print. That's his style, & I'm always happy to see it. I've adjusted to these styles as ways-of-working that come across very well on the Web. I see what you mean, but maybe I should explain that I process primarily for print, and if I decide to publish on the Web, I process further with that output in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted June 16, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 16, 2009 I have noticed that many of the images displayed on this forum have had extensive manipulations to the original image capture. I purchased the kit for the form factor, but more importantly the image capture which is unique and film-like. The quality of the image is comparable to any MF back, just smaller in pixels. Now I'm all for image manip when needed, (translated, used rarely and subtle), but on this forum, so many of the images are funked up, that I frankly cant see the reason for spending so much on camera that has such image processing. I mean heck a little panny or olympus would work just as well for image processing purposes. I have even noticed Mr. Huff in his review of the Zeiss sonnar manipulated the very first image in his article. To me any software manip when reviewing hardware is a strict no-no (No disrespect to Mr. Huff, just an observation). But the point is this why do so many M8 shutter clickers feel the need to over/under saturate, over under contrast, funk up the image? Is it because the captured data is simply not up to par or simply because you can manipulate it? I'm sorry but I entirely disagree with the sentiment. For me, the camera takes me half the way there. The processing, especially the new creative possibilities in CS3 or similar applications takes me the other half. Personally, I always shoot RAW, visualing what I might be able to achieve in post processing. Why wouldn't I use the absolute best possible lenses to ensure that I capture light with absolute clarity and sharpness for my RAW images? Your post does not make sense. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted June 16, 2009 Share #18 Posted June 16, 2009 Re: Funking up M8 images. A number of questions come to mind. First, considering you are viewing work on what I am guessing is probably a poorly calibrated monitor, how can you even be certain that what you are seeing is, in fact, manipulated via post-processing? Much of the processing I do is to compensate for the effect my camera (M8)--as good as it is--and lenses--have on the image when captured. Every digital camera I've used--from Canon high-end DSLR's to the M8 and lots of others in between--has a profound "dumbing down" effect on the image. Generally, you are taking a scene from real life and dumbing it down to fit the dynamic range that the camera and lens can capture. And with the M8, you've got the added issue of the UV/IR filter. I've always found that the original .dng file is far dirtier, less saturated, and far less sharp than what I know I saw with my own eyes. So while you may feel what you are seeing is exaggerated, how can you be sure that it isn't actually a very true representation of reality? Also, being in the printing business for 25 years, it is startling how much people's color perception varies, and how many males, in particular, are entirely color blind and somewhat so. In a sense, I think I understand what you're saying. People do oversharpen, oversaturate, and over-manipulate what they have captured with their cameras and lenses, but it is an extremely difficult thing to assess without having seen something with your own eyes, and/or are viewing through a calibrated monitor that itself isn't showing oversaturated color and extreme contrast ratios. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 16, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 16, 2009 What I would find very enlightening is if someone could take the trouble to explain these processing aspects with some examples (which is a bit weird if you view them on the web I guess). Presumably this would be better in the digital processing subforum. What should I beware of when preparing for print & what look good for web publishing? Stuff like that which takes more exprience than I have. I guess Jaap and Kirk would be able to do that but possibly not willing considering the effort involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 16, 2009 Share #20 Posted June 16, 2009 you completely missed the point. Of course film has it's difficulties too...that is just plain obvious I'm talking about a cultural difference that exists between film shooters and digital shooters. This cultural difference is apparently not so obvious. Well, we could seriously debate who completely missed the point, but I won't. What you mean to say really is that the people who have access to digital technology are doing things that a film process wouldn't let them do as easily. And you don't like the results (because compared with a *normal* and *optimal* film workflow the results are often poor, at best). IOW, the shift in media to digital has let people do things that Kodak or Agfa or someone in a lab would have done for them (or not). They're completely untrained, often, in print techniques or of what film has accomplished as a medium. As a result, they often overwork digital to the point where it can't be printed (which isn't always a problem for this medium anyway). But to pretend that film doesn't have *the same* issues with contrast, saturation, colour balance, film choice (white balance), and artistic choices such as local contrast (developer choices) and print matching or dodging and burning, is just wrong. It's just harder to make most of those choices poorly with film than with digital (and a heck of a lot more expensive, too ). As someone who straddles both cultures, having been trained in printing in the darkroom, but who also works with digital (and with other photographers and students today who've never seen a darkroom), I don't actually see a large cultural gap at all. When they see a great print, they know it. They don't know how to get there, most of the time, but I didn't in the darkroom when I was their age either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.