supernoob reporting for duty

[surfside]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

first off, i'm a noob here (first post!!)....as a noob, i realize i should probably go read 500 posts, and report back with a more refined line of questioning. so if these questions have been answered 100 times elsewhere, please just respond with something like this:

 

 

anyways, i've just taken the plunge for my first leica (d-lux 4), which will be my first experience with anything other than a cheap point & shoot camera. so i'm pretty much clueless about aperature, iso's or depth of field (i'm serious -- i couldn't give you a coherent one sentence explanation of any of those), not to mention digital post-processing.

 

now i have no false illusions that i'm going to turn into jim radcliffe overnight, but i'd really like to learn the basics of taking high quality pictures. now one of the things that really attracted me to leica was the "warm" quality of pictures taken with leica cameras that everyone talks about it. i think the picture below from a thread at dpreview forums is a perfect example:

 

the photographer that took this picture indicated that it was taken with "the M8 + Noctilux f1 and 90 Summicron preasph", so i realize there is certainly a difference in equipment (btw i have no idea what a summicron preaph is), but i figured there might be some things to learn about how to achieve a picture with the qualities of the one above, which is the purpose of this thread.

 

the photographer went on to say (italics mine):

 

"I think the M8 and Noctilux certainly give the first image a dreamy look to it, since it was shot at f1. I guess the greatest advantage of the Leica lenses is that they tend to be lower contrast, thereby preserving more detail in the shadows, without any compromise in sharpness or tonal rendition."

 

my first question is regard to the italics above -- why does the photo being shot at f1 give it its dreamy quality?

 

later the photographer commented (italics mine):

 

"Honestly, I think you can make your images with a certain feel with any camera with decent IQ, matched to a nice lens and sensor. I guess if the shallow depth of field is something you want to achieve, then no compact camera will suffice, except perhaps the Sigma DP2, which I also use. But if you are simply referring to the tones, contrast and texture of the b & w, then you have cheaper options besides the M8"

 

my second question is with regard to depth of field -- how does it relate to the picture above? i'm presuming the picture above has shallow depth of field? how does this affect the picture?

 

my third question is regard to the photographer's last comment about tones, contrast and texture of the b&w photo. what kinds of methods (whether they related to camera settings or post production changes) are used to achieve the tones, contrast and texture of the photo?

 

my final question is with regard to good reading material to get me started on better understanding my new camera and all of the questions/topics outlined above -- any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

please feel free to tell me if i'm fooling myself in thinking i could take pictures that look anything like the one above with the d-lux 4, why i'm getting it all wrong and what i should be thinking about instead -- i'm all ears.

 

thanks in advance,

surfside

[joppepop]

Generally speaking, the higher the aperture (f/2 > f/4, btw, since it is a fraction), the narrower the depth of field (dof). A picture where everything between 14 and 16 metres is sharp has a narrower dof than a picture where everything is sharp between 10 and 20 metres, that counted from the point where you take the picture.

 

The image sensor plays into this as well by increasing the dof the smaller it gets. Compacts usually have very small sensors, but I'm not sure about the dlux-4. If that's the case, I assume a picture as the one in your post is hard to capture with that camera. The dof seems to be very narrow in it... But there are hundreds of dlux4 enthusiasts here on the forum, they must be able to provide an answer on this.

 

I suggest a Google search on basic camera theory, there must be zillions of pages just about this, with illustrative pictures and everything. Its actually hard to describe this in words only.

[dkCambridgeshire]

first off, i'm a noob here ...

my final question is with regard to good reading material to get me started on better understanding my new camera and all of the questions/topics outlined above -- any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

please feel free to tell me if i'm fooling myself in thinking i could take pictures that look anything like the one above with the d-lux 4, why i'm getting it all wrong and what i should be thinking about instead -- i'm all ears.

 

thanks in advance,

surfside

 

You could try reading your D-Lux4 instruction manual ... and did you ask the photographer's permission before posting the picture here?

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[ASpes]

... [long post snipped] ... please feel free to tell me if i'm fooling myself in thinking i could take pictures that look anything like the one above with the d-lux 4, why i'm getting it all wrong and what i should be thinking about instead -- i'm all ears.

 

thanks in advance,

surfside

 

Guess that Mark Won would not mind for your posting, but I believe you should have given him the credit for the picture, unless you're the same person of course, which, let me say, I doubt as Mark is already registered on this forum.

 

Apart from that, your questions are good ones, but again, why not first ask Mark himself as you think his image is a master work? I'm sure he would gladly explain.

 

Anyway, generally speaking the Leica glass has some intrinsic quality that shows in the pictures it is used for, call it signature, call it glow or whatever you like. This does not mean it must show in all pictures but it often does in the successful ones. If you look in the forum you will find a few threads that are still quite alive and debate just that.

 

Having said this, an answer to your first question could be that no small sensor P&S will let you have that short DOF, short of simulating it in Photoshop or the like.

 

Your second and third questions sound to me more about aesthetics than being able to apply a sophisticated worklow in post processing.

 

My suggestion is to look at a lot of good images from some good masters and try to replicate those you like most, and that you are likely to meet in your life. The main point becomes to understand/analyse why maybe you cannot get something comparable.

 

As with most things, this means training your eye/mind first and your technique second. At first it's like being in front of an orchestra without being able to tell what instrument is playing, but the more you understand of music the more you will appreciate it.

Practice makes the master. IMO there's no reason why you shouldn't succeed, if your are willing it bad enough ... and this might be the answer to your final question about "fooling myself".

 

Now, if you let me a second suggestion, talking about the theory is good as it makes you aware of what is involved in an certain activity, but at the same time dare to expose yourself and post a few pictures of yours and ask for C&C from other members. Just do not let you put off by negative comments ... or even getting too excited by positive ones, try to find your own path.

 

In short, train you eye/mind by looking at images from other photographers, and train your knowledge by enhancing your technique. The latter is definitely the easiest part.

 

Last but not least, hardware is important, but less than your eye. I mean, having an M8 with a Noctilux won't let you have by default good pictures, but in good hands it can do wonders. Make yours so.

 

Just my 2(euro)cent of course.

[surfside]

You could try reading your D-Lux4 instruction manual ...

truth be told, i'm waiting for my d-lux 4 to arrive. when i get it, you can bet i'll be reading the manual cover to cover...

 

did you ask the photographer's permission before posting the picture here?

i did not; i was not under the impression that posting another person's photo that they had posted in another forum was a problem, particularly given i gave him credit for the photo through providing a link to his thread on dpreview forum where he posted it. based on all of the questions i had about how to create it, clearly the photo is not mine!

 

anyways, thanks a bunch for the warm welcome.

 

surfside

[surfside]

@ASpes, thanks for the thoughtful response -- i really appreciate it.

 

Guess that Mark Won would not mind for your posting, but I believe you should have given him the credit for the picture, unless you're the same person of course, which, let me say, I doubt as Mark is already registered on this forum.

as i mentioned above, i certainly didn't intend to misrepresent that mark won's photo was mine. i figured providing a link to his thread on dpreview forum where he posted it was reference enough; hopefully he will forgive my poor photo etiquette.

 

Apart from that, your questions are good ones, but again, why not first ask Mark himself as you think his image is a master work? I'm sure he would gladly explain.

very good point. i originally conceived of this thread as a "hey i'm new to photography" thread, but after seeing mark's photo, i felt like it was a good jumping off point to try to ask some simple questions that i had about some of the seemingly more technical aspects of photography that i was wondering about. if you'll check the thread over at dpreview, you'll see that after posting my thread here, i posted a response to mark's photo, and he replied with a very helpful response.

 

anyways, i really appreciate your thoughts below on trying to train my eye to see great pictures and learn how to create them myself -- good advice that's worth re-reading:

 

My suggestion is to look at a lot of good images from some good masters and try to replicate those you like most, and that you are likely to meet in your life. The main point becomes to understand/analyse why maybe you cannot get something comparable.

 

As with most things, this means training your eye/mind first and your technique second. At first it's like being in front of an orchestra without being able to tell what instrument is playing, but the more you understand of music the more you will appreciate it.

 

Now, if you let me a second suggestion, talking about the theory is good as it makes you aware of what is involved in an certain activity, but at the same time dare to expose yourself and post a few pictures of yours and ask for C&C from other members. Just do not let you put off by negative comments ... or even getting too excited by positive ones, try to find your own path.

 

In short, train you eye/mind by looking at images from other photographers, and train your knowledge by enhancing your technique. The latter is definitely the easiest part.

 

Last but not least, hardware is important, but less than your eye. I mean, having an M8 with a Noctilux won't let you have by default good pictures, but in good hands it can do wonders. Make yours so.

 

 

thanks again,

surfside

[Tenor1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome to the forum Surfside,

 

Photography has many aspects to it similar to painting. What are you trying to create with your camera and what type of shooting do you want to do? I think you CAN achieve a picture of similar quality to the one you chose in your example, but not with the same subtleties. I'm a classical pianist and will give a musical example.

 

Steinway and Yamaha both make excellent pianos. The tonal range of the Steinway, in my opinion, is greater than the Yamaha. It takes a well-experienced pianist to be able to create those differences. The M-8 and DL4 is somewhat similar. The more you learn about photography, the more you can do with the M8, whereas the DL4 will show it's limits.

 

Just to be fair to Yamaha pianos, there are some VERY fine ones around, but most pianists would choose the Steinway.

[earleygallery]

Surfside,

 

To add to the comments above... whilst the Dlux is a superb camera (from the results I've seen from it here) it is in the same catagory as the cheaper Point & Shoot cameras, albeit with RAW files and manual control should you wish to use it.

 

The key factor here is sensor size and lens focal range, aperture range, and the effect that has on depth of field. The Noctilux you mention is a very expensive lens and the f1 maximum aperture means it has a very limited depth of field wide open hence the out of focus background. So, in short no you can't get the same result as a Noctilux image, with a Dlux4, although maybe similar if the Nocti was stopped down to f11!

 

That said, you need to concentrate on how best to use your camera to suit your purposes - any camera/lens is a tool and there isn't such a thing as the 'best'. As others have advised look at plenty of other photographers work, visit exhibitions, find out what inspires you and shoot shoot shoot! There are plenty of books and websites which will take you through the basics of composition and exposure and post your images on the photo forum here - ask for critical feedback.