Dektol Dan
Well-known
Zones?
Zones?
Harry:
I can hear Ansel laughing from far away Valhalla.
BUT, you are on to something, imagine a mono digital camera that has a similar function to modern exposure mapping, but was pre-set for zones, real zones set by the photographer, or chosen from a group of presets. The thing I hate most about modern photography is that it isn't convenient to go manual. Imagine a camera that was designed to be driven, rather than a glorified point and shoot. The mono should not be criticized for what it is, but rather, what it can/could be.
Zones?
Harry:
I can hear Ansel laughing from far away Valhalla.
BUT, you are on to something, imagine a mono digital camera that has a similar function to modern exposure mapping, but was pre-set for zones, real zones set by the photographer, or chosen from a group of presets. The thing I hate most about modern photography is that it isn't convenient to go manual. Imagine a camera that was designed to be driven, rather than a glorified point and shoot. The mono should not be criticized for what it is, but rather, what it can/could be.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Huh? Not convenient to go manual???
. It is the easiest (and my preferred) way to use an M8/9/MM...Take them of " A" and they are an M6....
And zones - that is a very narrow interpretation of the zone system, that was a coherent system from exposure, through development to chemical printing, which has only very limited relevance in a digital workflow.
. It is the easiest (and my preferred) way to use an M8/9/MM...Take them of " A" and they are an M6....And zones - that is a very narrow interpretation of the zone system, that was a coherent system from exposure, through development to chemical printing, which has only very limited relevance in a digital workflow.
MCTuomey
Mentor
Dan, are you thinking of some kind of selective variability in the sensor's responsivity that the user could impose prior to making an exposure (versus just post-processing)?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
What's inconvenient about going manual? I can carry an incident or spot meter and work the manual settings with an X-pro or a D700 -- or a 5DIII or an M9M -- it's as easy as it is with my M6.
This portion of the discussion reminds me of the film threads where a crusty old-timer (or a crusty youngster) asks, usually with some bewilderment: "Doesn't anyone do film tests anymore? Doesn't anyone establish their own EI and development?"
The same is true of digital and it's not unique to the M9M. It's just that as with transparency film we expose for the highlights, and we then develop our RAW files for the mid-tones and shadows. It's even more true for the M9M since there's no hope of highlight recovery (again, just as with slides).
None of this is challenging or mysterious for anyone who got good at shooting Kodachrome or Astia.
This portion of the discussion reminds me of the film threads where a crusty old-timer (or a crusty youngster) asks, usually with some bewilderment: "Doesn't anyone do film tests anymore? Doesn't anyone establish their own EI and development?"
The same is true of digital and it's not unique to the M9M. It's just that as with transparency film we expose for the highlights, and we then develop our RAW files for the mid-tones and shadows. It's even more true for the M9M since there's no hope of highlight recovery (again, just as with slides).
None of this is challenging or mysterious for anyone who got good at shooting Kodachrome or Astia.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Dektol Dan
Well-known
On my M8 and M9.....?
On my M8 and M9.....?
Sorry, I don't own an M8 and M9, I wish I had either, and both is truly a luxury. I was referring to most (90%) commercial cameras.
Your take on Zones as related to chemical printing shows that you have no idea of what zone photography is. It has very little to do with printing, but rather establishing a 6 step gray scale so that exposure would yield the best detail in highlights and shade.
The photographer, by using his brain, experience and ability to make judgments within time restraints makes the best exposure to create an image within a set of grey scale latitudes.
If the exposure is correct, when the image is printed the zones are there without any dark room manipulation.
If you have ever practiced Zone system you understand why exposure meters with peep sights and exposure tables were invented.
On my M8 and M9.....?
Huh? Not convenient to go manual???
And zones - that is a very narrow interpretation of the zone system, that was a coherent system from exposure, through development to chemical printing, which has only very limited relevance in a digital workflow.
Sorry, I don't own an M8 and M9, I wish I had either, and both is truly a luxury. I was referring to most (90%) commercial cameras.
Your take on Zones as related to chemical printing shows that you have no idea of what zone photography is. It has very little to do with printing, but rather establishing a 6 step gray scale so that exposure would yield the best detail in highlights and shade.
The photographer, by using his brain, experience and ability to make judgments within time restraints makes the best exposure to create an image within a set of grey scale latitudes.
If the exposure is correct, when the image is printed the zones are there without any dark room manipulation.
If you have ever practiced Zone system you understand why exposure meters with peep sights and exposure tables were invented.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, my books by Ansel Adams pay great attention to printing. But that is neither here nor there. On a digital camera, and above all an MM you have a histogram that gives you an exact idea of the density distribution over the tonal range, so you are free to do good zone estimates very easily.
Anyway, AA is quoted - in a time that a good digital image was about 1 Mp (!) - to have said " If I were young I would go digital" He was a visionary, at the forefront of photographic technique and would have embraced all technological advances wholeheartedly.
Anyway, AA is quoted - in a time that a good digital image was about 1 Mp (!) - to have said " If I were young I would go digital" He was a visionary, at the forefront of photographic technique and would have embraced all technological advances wholeheartedly.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Here we go again
Here we go again
I'll be happy to to send you samples from my Quicktake, Ansel said what!?. (I also have some of the oldest film scanners on the planet too).
Look, histograms ARE NOT Zone equivalents, and I will repeat that I doubt you know how the Zone system works.
What I stated was that a digital camera, directed as a spot exposure meter, could have preset zones presented by simple programming (to do with away with all the chart arm waving). So, in theory, the photographer could punch in his selected exposure measurements, then the camera would cough up a picture based on those exposure samples. AND, if the camera had some presets that were a close match (saved in memory) then the photographer could choose to make his image based on a particular preset. REMEMBER, we are talking mono. Value scale is EVERYTHING.
The issue is that the camera does not average anything, and the photographer may make make as many a 6 exposure measurements, saved in the camera, and computed by the camera for the final exposure. This isn't point and click, it is methodical and time consuming. It is precise, and it is the Zone system. The photographer controls the whole show. There is no instant gratification, nor can there be.
Here we go again
I'll be happy to to send you samples from my Quicktake, Ansel said what!?. (I also have some of the oldest film scanners on the planet too).
Look, histograms ARE NOT Zone equivalents, and I will repeat that I doubt you know how the Zone system works.
What I stated was that a digital camera, directed as a spot exposure meter, could have preset zones presented by simple programming (to do with away with all the chart arm waving). So, in theory, the photographer could punch in his selected exposure measurements, then the camera would cough up a picture based on those exposure samples. AND, if the camera had some presets that were a close match (saved in memory) then the photographer could choose to make his image based on a particular preset. REMEMBER, we are talking mono. Value scale is EVERYTHING.
The issue is that the camera does not average anything, and the photographer may make make as many a 6 exposure measurements, saved in the camera, and computed by the camera for the final exposure. This isn't point and click, it is methodical and time consuming. It is precise, and it is the Zone system. The photographer controls the whole show. There is no instant gratification, nor can there be.
tstermitz
Well-known
I was very skeptical about the value of a monochrome digital camera, why not just convert from the M9-Color with the added benefit of digital color adjustments. Thorsten's article persuaded me that the M9M is a very capable camera, and would be better for B&W in most ways. I would really like to have M9M, unfortunately not at the offered price.
I got several take-aways from Thorsten's interesting articel (spelling intentionally wrong to distract the nit-pickers):
(1) M9M has 2-3 stops better performance than the M9, which is brilliant re-purposing of the M9's Kodak sensor. Night photography could be as good as with the latest Nikon sensors... in B&W.
(2) The 320 base ISO means 1/4000 is insufficient to use many lenses at their widest aperture, therefore NDs or color filters will be necessary for daylight shooting if you want to constrain depth of field.
(3) Thorsten references an article at reddot by David Farkas, uses direct side-by-side comparisons that persuasively demonstrates how much better the M9M is when compared with a B&W image converted from the M9 .
(4) Removing the anti-aliasing and Bayer array filters improves performance in multiple ways, which has a big impact on the effective resolution. Yes, the M9C uses the same lenses, and has the same number of pixels as the M9M, but the bayer color filter degrades the quality of each pixel, because the color at each pixel of the M9C is interpolated from adjacent pixels via an in-camera algorithm using information from adjacent pixels, and that DOES EFFECTIVELY DEGRADE RESOLUTION.
Look at it a different way: Up-sample an image from my Canon S100 and I can match the resolution of the M9C, based purely on number of pixels of , but the quality of the pixels degrades, and I don't really have the same resolution. Conversely, the high-ISO settings of my M9M makes fairly noisy images. I have to down-sample to match the noise appearance from the M9M. Did I reduce resolution, or did I really have 18M pixels of resolution in the first place?
In other words, resolution is not just number of pixels, it is a trade off with image quality, noise and image size.
Again, I'm persuaded to desire an M9M, but sadly, not at $8,000.
I got several take-aways from Thorsten's interesting articel (spelling intentionally wrong to distract the nit-pickers):
(1) M9M has 2-3 stops better performance than the M9, which is brilliant re-purposing of the M9's Kodak sensor. Night photography could be as good as with the latest Nikon sensors... in B&W.
(2) The 320 base ISO means 1/4000 is insufficient to use many lenses at their widest aperture, therefore NDs or color filters will be necessary for daylight shooting if you want to constrain depth of field.
(3) Thorsten references an article at reddot by David Farkas, uses direct side-by-side comparisons that persuasively demonstrates how much better the M9M is when compared with a B&W image converted from the M9 .
(4) Removing the anti-aliasing and Bayer array filters improves performance in multiple ways, which has a big impact on the effective resolution. Yes, the M9C uses the same lenses, and has the same number of pixels as the M9M, but the bayer color filter degrades the quality of each pixel, because the color at each pixel of the M9C is interpolated from adjacent pixels via an in-camera algorithm using information from adjacent pixels, and that DOES EFFECTIVELY DEGRADE RESOLUTION.
Look at it a different way: Up-sample an image from my Canon S100 and I can match the resolution of the M9C, based purely on number of pixels of , but the quality of the pixels degrades, and I don't really have the same resolution. Conversely, the high-ISO settings of my M9M makes fairly noisy images. I have to down-sample to match the noise appearance from the M9M. Did I reduce resolution, or did I really have 18M pixels of resolution in the first place?
In other words, resolution is not just number of pixels, it is a trade off with image quality, noise and image size.
Again, I'm persuaded to desire an M9M, but sadly, not at $8,000.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Err.. from your previous post I got the impression that this kind of automation was exactly your objection to digital cameras...
What you are describing is very close to the way matrix systems work.
What you are describing is very close to the way matrix systems work.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^---- Jaap and I are in total agreement. Wonders never cease
boomguy57
Well-known
Yeah, terms like "reinvention" and "revolution" get tossed around far too much. It's all just marketing mumbo-jumbo and hype.
T
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Well, the roots of this problem lies in the background of many of the engineers, who may have come from the world of video.
I work in movie production and over the past 10 years we have experienced the long march to digital cinema.
In the early days digital cinema cameras were glorified HD video cameras.
Then came a few more specialized attempts like the Thompson Viper etc. Again, mostly based on HD video cameras.
In addition to the lousy dynamic range of these early cameras one of the big problems was the distribution of the available stops above and below mid gray. For some reason video cameras tend to be set up by default with more stops available below mid gray and fewer above. Film works the exact opposite way. Lousy shadow detail, but never-ending highlights.
It really wasn't until recently with the arrival of the latest generation digital cinema camera, where we suddenly saw the distribution of stops flip back around to the way film works, where you have more headroom above gray. This is probably due to the 'video' engineers finally listening to the cinematographers.
We see a similar situation in digital photography, but there still is a long way to go.
In the case of the M9M is makes absolutely no sense if the distribution really is -6/+3. If there is a company on the planet that should know better, it should be Leica.
Permanently setting the exposure compensation to something like -2 stops for daylight shooting would shift the balance to be more film like. Some experimentation would be needed to discover just how the dynamic range is distributed and find the ideal settings. This does not mean that shadow detail would be totally lost. The M9M appears to have very low noise, so there would be no reason why you could not lift the shadows in the RAW processor and restore detail. If you were shooting at night you would probably want to leave it at the -6/+3 split, so you would have maximum shadow penetration.
The problem isn't that we are lacking in some zone mapping exposure feature. We really need two things.
A sensor that delivers 14 stops of range like film negative.
The engineers need to choose the distribution of the available dynamic range so it doesn't mimic a video camera. With 14 stops a -7/+7 split would be the most flexible.
Once you have that it is up to the photographer. They need to learn the exposure characteristics of the sensor, just like they would a specific film stock. I've shot thousands of rolls of Tri-X and know how it behaves like the back of my hand. It's the same with digital. You need to learn how the sensor operates and set exposure accordingly to get the results you want.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That is the key point. It's a truism for digital cameras in general and the M9M in particular.
willie_901
Mentor
All Overgaard was trying to do was please Solms. The resulting blog post is not the least bit surprising, interesting or useful.
Overgaard will be invited to the next Über Leica-Insiders's Event.
Overgaard got what he wanted; he succeeded.
Poor Dave got whacked for Overgaard's highly biased, incredible article.
Dave meant well - he always does - but Dave won't be invited to the next Über Leica-Insiders's Event.
This is how things often turn out.
Overgaard will be invited to the next Über Leica-Insiders's Event.
Overgaard got what he wanted; he succeeded.
Poor Dave got whacked for Overgaard's highly biased, incredible article.
Dave meant well - he always does - but Dave won't be invited to the next Über Leica-Insiders's Event.
This is how things often turn out.
skibeerr
Well-known
The most important thing I learned is that Herr Dr. Kaufmann is doing presentations in Apple/Jobs style.
leicapixie
Well-known
i am amazed at all the hype about the Leica Monochrom. A B/W only camera! When i first heard about it, i thought "They're kidding!". Indeed at $8000 plus taxes. The facts that are being spewed by a good photographer is simply making Leica happy.
i have a digital that is only good as B/W. An old Minolta point and shoot. The color is way too red, no matter how adjusted. Used in B/W it is seriously good. Perhaps Leica's NEW sensor has the same problem. No mention who made it.. Kodak, Phase-One..? The good news when i want B/W there is Film. If not De-saturate the color. If you cannot do any of the above, Buy the Monochrom.
i have a digital that is only good as B/W. An old Minolta point and shoot. The color is way too red, no matter how adjusted. Used in B/W it is seriously good. Perhaps Leica's NEW sensor has the same problem. No mention who made it.. Kodak, Phase-One..? The good news when i want B/W there is Film. If not De-saturate the color. If you cannot do any of the above, Buy the Monochrom.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
I was really hoping they would achieve what you describe - perhaps by replacing the RGB Bayer array with a GreyND / clear array.
That would have given extended dynamic range and maximum resolution in the mid tone areas where both darkened and full light elements can make a contribution.
BobYIL
Well-known
Insightful commentary… a few additional points to note:
- Elimination of a color filter array improves sensitivity however may affect dynamic range adversely.
- The concept of "monochrome" can be deceiving... The superiority of dynamic range of B&W films is due to their color sensitivity as each color has its own dynamic range (same as the R, G, and B on a sensor) contributing to the overall dynamic range of the B&W film in a combined way. The Tri-X exhibits more dynamic range by being panchromatic (sensitive to all colors) than all orthocromatic (sensitive to limited colors) or copy films.
- CMOS is the way to improve dynamic range in connection with higher sensitivity.
- As of today, the best full frame CCD sensor exhibits about 2-stops less dynamic range than the best full frame (or even APS-C) CMOS sensor. Trend is toward extending the dynamic range of CMOS sensors further, to match that of films.
Dynamic range is like being able to record the faintest rustle of the leaves together with the thunder of an approaching storm simultaneously. Shifting the sensitivity range on the gradation scale of tones does NOT help with the dynamic range; it is rather a manipulation, a palliative measure at the best. (We indeed need real 14 stops of dynamic range to start with.. i.e. information should be there..)
The following thread is a good example of what a photographer could accomplish with an excellent dynamic range:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1112956/0