Digital M

Jaap,
Thanks for the insight. Sounds as though digital allows for a lot more subtlety in the image processing. What would be the time investment in the procedure you've described (to bring out the window frames in the highlights)? I don't do wet darkroom anymore, but I can imagine spending 20 minutes or so on that shot and perhaps four sheets of paper to burn in the window frames just right, along with some of the other blown-highlight areas.

I too am a big believer in digital. It'sjust that, for the time being, I happen to be using a traditional film negative as my RAW file.
 
Time investment- don't ask my wife, there are moments that I fear to see the computer fly through the window..... Seriously, I think a professional who has his workflow just right would do it in five minutes, I myself would be nearer your 20 minutes I suppose. As it is, I find scanning and working my film captures the most timeconsuming part. It is the "plastic look" of especially CMos sensors of Canon that I don't like, though it is fine for wildlife photography. Canon use taught me Photoshop skills. It has spoilt me so much though, that I tend to remove the grain from blue skies in film scans..That is the reason I'm so excited about the Leica contribution to Digital Photography, as they get the right look without too much postprocessing.The comments on the DMR are "It brings Kodachrome to digital" Those people obviously haven't seen the results of the Digilux2. It pointed the way in a more modest sense that the DMR, but it was, together with the RD1 the only option for digital "film look" I can't wait to see what they will make of the M8dig. :)

Cheers-Jaap (off to my early and long weekend-let's hope the weather holds :cool: )
 
Last edited:
VinceC said:
Okay. I officially don't get it. Isn't it okay to blow highlights sometimes? That's what determining exposure is all about. I guess a histogram is helpful to confirm they're blown out, and I have used it on my wife's Canon G2, which has software comparable to a Canon EOS.

Here's a picture of my grown daughter moving into her new place a few weeks ago. Nikon S3, 28mm Nikkor wide open at f/3.5, 15th of a second shutter (no exposure meter; my handheld one broke in the late 1990s). Film: Kodak B&W C41. Scanned by the one-hour photo folks and file size reduced by Microsoft photo editor (ie., the image hasn't been processed by PhotoShop and so it more or less raw). It's not clear to me what value a histogram would be in this situation.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that a histogram would have been helpful at all in that situation. But I also think that digital would not have been able to capture that shot with the amount of detail you have in the window areas. A significant amount of blooming would have taken place rendering most of the window areas unusable. In fact, I do not even think that your lab did all that well getting everything that it could out of the negative you supplied them. I have very similiar shot in my gallery of my mother. When I first had that photo printed by our local lab all the details outside the window were non-existant. After I bought my scanner I went back and started scanning the negatives and found allot more detail in the negative then what they printed for me. The digital sensors usually do not have the dynamic range to capture all the detail in a scene unless they are at least 16bit capable.

Glenn
 
egpj said:
I do not believe that a histogram would have been helpful at all in that situation. But I also think that digital would not have been able to capture that shot with the amount of detail you have in the window areas. A significant amount of blooming would have taken place rendering most of the window areas unusable. In fact, I do not even think that your lab did all that well getting everything that it could out of the negative you supplied them. I have very similiar shot in my gallery of my mother. When I first had that photo printed by our local lab all the details outside the window were non-existant. After I bought my scanner I went back and started scanning the negatives and found allot more detail in the negative then what they printed for me. The digital sensors usually do not have the dynamic range to capture all the detail in a scene unless they are at least 16bit capable.

Glenn
Click to expand...


No it would not be defaced by blooming, this shot is even far more contrasty taken with a Digilux2, using the histogram. Where is the blooming? The spots beside the sun are not flare or such, they are a natural appearance called sundogs.
 
Last edited:
Very cool sun dogs and faint circle!

Clearly, the Earth's atmosphere is a gigantic, magnificent Sonnar lens.
 
jaapv said:
No it would not be defaced by blooming, this shot is even far more contrasty taken with a Digilux2, using the histogram. Where is the blooming? The spots beside the sun are not flare or such, they are a natural appearance called sundogs.
Click to expand...


Jaapv, take it easy. It is my opinion that his shot would have had allot of blooming if it had been shot digitally. That the area around the window frame especially the wood framing that separates the panes would have been totally lost. He was shooting in interior light with windows showing an exterior view.

The well captured example you showed was captured outside and pointed into the setting sun. I think that they were two very different types images. And can not be compared for illustrative purposes.

I'll just say that I do not believe digital has the same dynamic range as film in the original example that was displayed.
 
aw hell, how about an evf? live histogram and a ttl image that can show you what hilights are being clipped. just give it higher resolution, dynamic range, and refresh rate.
 
I'd love to see a Full Frame sensor CCD or CMOS at around 13MP similar to the Canon 5D. Considering Canon has put out a FF camera at around $3,000 Leica can surly do the same for maybe $2,000 more?
I would sell my soul, my girlfriend, and all my gear for a Full Frame M6/7

Josef
 
Josef Isayo said:
I would sell my soul, my girlfriend, and all my gear for a Full Frame M6/7
Click to expand...
You would probably be better off just waiting until you could buy one used...
 
Last edited:
egpj said:
Jaapv, take it easy. It is my opinion that his shot would have had allot of blooming if it had been shot digitally. That the area around the window frame especially the wood framing that separates the panes would have been totally lost. He was shooting in interior light with windows showing an exterior view.

The well captured example you showed was captured outside and pointed into the setting sun. I think that they were two very different types images. And can not be compared for illustrative purposes.

I'll just say that I do not believe digital has the same dynamic range as film in the original example that was displayed.
Click to expand...


:p I anticipated this answer, so I shot ( digitally again) a scene with about the same exposure that Vince had, straight out of camera and Jpeg, just resized and sharpened for the web. Note that not only there is no blooming whatever, not even on the brass doorknob, which is a notorious situation for blooming,but the sensor handles the contrast excellently , even if I exposed the shot for the shadows and totally blew out the windows, which is the wrong way to go about it in digital. To compare I shot a "compromise"exposure, mostly for the highlights,, which shows that the dynamic range is at least as good as film, and certainly better than the final medium, be it print or monitor. And again no blooming. :) Had I not been lazy :rolleyes: and shot this one in RAW I would have gained another stop or more in the highlights,and been able to balance the exposure in the conversion and post-processing for 100%. That that would have spoilt the atmosphere is another thing.
Sensor blooming is more a fault of the Cmos sensors, as used by Canon. CCD sensors, like Leica/Kodak use seem to be far more stable. This leads me to suspect that it is less the neighbouring pixels being influenced by burnt-out ones, but flare in the AA filter. I am sure there will be no problem in the Digital M.

For film-shooters on this thread: Sensor blooming occurs in very high contrast situations, like for instance bright highlights on polished metal and shows up as pink or purple fringing around these highlights. The theory is that blown-out i.e. grossly overexposed pixels excite the neighbouring pixels. I have never seen proof of this theory, but maybe some electronics expert could comment on this. At any rate, the solution is simple: don't blow out the highlights, just like slide-film. And if it happens, it is usually acceptable, because the eye accepts some flare or similar around extreme highlights on the print, even thinks of it as "sparkle". Some types of sensor are more affected than others and it also depends to some extent on the lens used.
P.S. If my prevoius post read irritated :mad: , this was not the case, I was just in a tearing hurry.... :)
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
For film-shooters on this thread: Sensor blooming occurs in very high contrast situations, like for instance bright highlights on polished metal and shows up as pink or purple fringing around these highlights.
Click to expand...

Probably the easiest way to observe the phenomenon (i.e. blooming) is to shoot the the sun reflecting off of water.

(I uploaded an example to my gallery for those interested. Look at the lower right arm of the spectral highlight and you will see exactly what Jaap described.)
 
Last edited:
I beileve with the release of the digital M, it'll somewhat dilute the special nich that the M has always enjoyed over these years. The digital sensor will no doubt be anything revolutinary, and the image it produces will likely be no better, if worse, than the current offerings from Canon or Nikon. At least for me personally, a main attraction of the current M is the quality of image it produces, which is inherient in film. <- That might be somewhat counter-intuitive since all film bodies will produce images of identical quality(given comparable lenses), but some qualities of the film M are simply intangible. The digital M's image sensor will no doubt be its lowst common denominator, where the sensor quality will be stacked up directly against the other professional digi-cams(be it RF or SLR). The digital M will not fair well here.

A good idea for Leica to distinguish itself would be to design an image processor that treats the image so it resemebles various types of film, in grain, contrast, etc.. but that might be too much to ask..
 
Last edited:
Jaap,
Thanks for the examples. The second exposure does seem to bolster the idea that digital should be exposed much more like slide film (for the highlights) whereas negative film is usually exposed for the shadows.
 
ywenz said:
I beileve with the release of the digital M, it'll somewhat dilute the special nich that the M has always enjoyed over these years. The digital sensor will no doubt be anything revolutinary, and the image it produces will likely be no better, if worse, than the current offerings from Canon or Nikon. At least for me personally, a main attraction of the current M is the quality of image it produces, which is inherient in film. <- That might be somewhat counter-intuitive since all film bodies will produce images of identical quality(given comparable lenses), but some qualities of the film M are simply intangible. The digital M's image sensor will no doubt be its lowst common denominator, where the sensor quality will be stacked up directly against the other professional digi-cams(be it RF or SLR). The digital M will not fair well here.

A good idea for Leica to distinguish itself would be to design an image processor that treats the image so it resemebles various types of film, in grain, contrast, etc.. but that might be too much to ask..
Click to expand...


Did you read the Guy Manusco thread on the Leica Digital Module R on FM-forums?
In his opinion the Leica sensor tested as good or better than the Canon 1DsII technically and was far superior in creating photographically pleasing shots, notably comparable to Kodachrome. Most reviews of the DMR agree. The digital M will use similar sensor-technology and will obviously use M lenses. It should be able to surpass all competitors by a fair margin and produce photo's that will be as good or better than film from an artistic point of view.
 
I'll believe it when I see it... but I've stated my case.


=======================
I just read your post again and saw this part "It should be able to surpass all competitors by a fair margin and produce photo's that will be as good or better than film from an artistic point of view."

There is no way this digital-M will surpase film in the way that the current top of the line digital sensors could not. Mainly... dynamic range.

I understand brand loyalty, but you're being a bit too optimistic here. Leica is dead broke and you're telling me they will somehow squeeze out enough research dollars to develop a sensor that is superior to Canon's ? This digital thing is a totally new game for Leica. Seeing how they've failed to stay with the curve in previous attempts, there's no way they'll catch up or surpass the more established players.
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
HOLY S@*#

OMGOMGOMG.
Click to expand...

Yawn... another fixed-lens, EVF-only Playstation-cam. As usual, the techno-dweebs think everything Sony does is a paradigm shift. (Remember when the F-808 was going to drive Canon, Nikon, etc. out of business?)

In terms of facilitating serious photography, it's a non-event.
 
Hi jlw,

...except that this new Sony marks the first time an APS-C sensor has been matched with (what I believe may be) a nearly silent shutter. That's interesting and could be a useful combination. Unfortunately, the lens is quite slow and there is no optical finder. Still...I find the direction itself to be promising. F/2, ISO 1600+, silent shutter and optical finder would be very useful to me.

Cheers,

Sean
 
As for the histogram discussion. When I shoot for myself with the R-D1, I often work for hours w/o using the histogram. If I miss exposure now and again, it's not the end of the world. But the LCD is there when I want it and is very valuable at those times.

When I do work for clients, however, I check the histogram frequently. For architecture I check it on almost every frame. At weddings, I check it any time I'm not sure about my exposure call. Imagine those bright white dresses in sunlight and shadows and you can imagine why. My friend George Weir (http://www.georgeweir.com/index2.htm), who shoots weddings primarily with three Leica Ms and a couple Nikon D70s also checks the histogram quite often when he's working. Weddings are tough because things move quickly and exposure really has to be nailed.

Leica needs the professional market for the digital M (and they're well aware of that). For that market, an LCD is pretty much essential.

Sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom