Leica M-D: Pure for the sake of . . . purity?

A set of six from this past Saturday's morning walk:













all: Leica M-D + Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4​

enjoy! G
 
I like your portraits, Vince, but there seems something a little odd in the rendering of these last two. Can't quite put my finger on it.

G
 
I'm working off my small laptop on the road, so I will likely have to tweak them when I get home and am in front of my large desktop computer.

Do the highlights look 'solarized'?
 
I'll fix them when I get home. I've always had issues working on photos with this laptop, despite my many screen calibrations.
 
These seem to suffer from a high degree of tone compression. I often see on single images this when I push selectively push shadow regions and pull highlights with raw files.
 
willie_901 said:
These seem to suffer from a high degree of tone compression. I often see on single images this when I push selectively push shadow regions and pull highlights with raw files.
Click to expand...

x2, agree.
This is effect also seems to be exacerbated due to the somewhat limited tonal range in these photos, i.e. the exposure doesnt seem to include any luminance information much beyond what I would call Zone ~6-7.
 
jsrockit said:
I think he gets it guys.
Click to expand...

Yes I get it. And once more -- when I get home from being on the road, I will do them again on my desktop. I probably shouldn't bother working on photos on this laptop, as I usually end up having to go through them again on my desktop. I appreciate the feedback!

Just consider these 'placeholders' :)
 
sorry if it seemed as if I was trying to "rub Vince's nose in it".

I only thought it worthwhile to expound on what willie said since I know for sure I've seen that first hand and that i know Vince has had many similar comments/suggestions such as this in the past. While I know the histogram isnt the be all end all, I think it can be helpful when dealing with a known quantity of a crappy laptop screen. That's where I was coming from regarding my zone comment here and also in the monochrom pictures thread regarding silver efex I made a week or two back.

I was also thinking about suggesting that maybe Vince just not post anything from his laptop, but I'm sure I speak for a few others when I say that we're appreciative of him sharing his work with us here. I would hate to discourage him from doing so in the future, however, I think I might also speak for a few others when I say that we wouldnt mind waiting for the "final product" rather than to get an "early draft" either.

So sorry again if I upset anyone, I was only trying to be helpful.
 
Kids we're all good - I know what I need to do to the photos when I get home (I actually might just start from scratch with the DNG files). I think the reason I work on these on my laptop when on the road is that I have time on my hands, and each time I try to convince myself that this time will be different than the last time. Well it never is! Ah well, someday I'll learn -- or get a new laptop :)
 
It's annoying to black and white photo enthusiasts that every different device has a tonally different screen. My MacBookPro has a really blue and contrasty screen, which I made my own profile by guesswork to try and tame. Funnily enough, the screen I think is closest to showing black and white photos at their best is my iPhone 6S Plus. To my eyes it is neutral in colour and a lovely tone range with strong blacks and good white detail but not dull.
 
mcfingon said:
It's annoying to black and white photo enthusiasts that every different device has a tonally different screen. My MacBookPro has a really blue and contrasty screen, which I made my own profile by guesswork to try and tame. Funnily enough, the screen I think is closest to showing black and white photos at their best is my iPhone 6S Plus. To my eyes it is neutral in colour and a lovely tone range with strong blacks and good white detail but not dull.
Click to expand...

This is why screen calibration and profiling, along with embedding profiles into the files you post, is advantageous. Most LCD displays are delivered set to a 'native' color temperature around 6500°K and about 2.2 gamma, which to my eye is very blue and actinic. The Apple MacBook Pro is no exception, although it seems a little more stable than some of the other laptops I've used over the years.

My desktop image processing system is calibrated to targets 120 Luminance, 1.8 gamma, and 5600°K white point, a warm-white, softer contrast curve that gives me excellent fidelity modeling a typical exhibition wall and excellent screen to printer output match. I embed profiles and use Safari, which honors profiles, so that my photos show little shift when displayed on MacBook Pro/Air laptops or iPad/iPhone devices.

Unfortunately, laptop displays and drivers are rarely as stable as desktop systems and are much more sensitive to eye point, shifting color, gamma, and brightness with the angle you view them at. I used to calibrate and profile them too, but gave up: you just have to do it too often to be sensible. So some shift is inevitable and they're only really useful for editing when you want to see a quickie in the field.

There's no definitive resolution to these issues ... there are simply too many devices on the market with all kinds of variant display characteristics to achieve the kind of normalized fidelity across the board that a print has. The best you can do is a reasonable compromise using a properly calibrated and profiled reference system, and embedding profiles that try to minimize the drift.

G
 
Another one from my lunch with my friend Rick McGinnis -- think I prefer this one:


Rick 2016-3 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

If you're from Toronto, you may know Rick. He's a pretty well-known photographer in the city. Did a Gordon Lightfoot CD cover, among many other things!
 
wow...

I seriously LOVE this Camera
just from what I 'see'

Godfrey: 167 / 'shine' is Beautiful in it's Simplicity & Rendering

Everyone here has done Fantastic with Miss 262
if you remember, possibly put which lens you shot with PLEASE

I have to start saving for this camera !
though I have a terrible track record of commitment to digi :eek:
 
Yes Helen it is a great camera -- hate to admit it, but I've been reaching for the M-D more often than the Monochrom 246.

As far as lens info goes, most of my shots are taken either with a 50/1.4 Summilux or a 35/1.4 Summilux (both ASPH 6-bit). I do also have the 75/2.5 Summarit, but it doesn't get used that often. So really it's just those two lenses.

This one was taken with the 50 Summilux @ ISO 400, f/4.5:


York2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom