The impact of Leica's sensor technology on aesthetics

[Dante_Stella]

This is a question that someone of Bill's experience would be well-put to answer.

Do you think that Leica's relatively slow progress in sensor technology and (absent) progress in image stabilization uniquely force a certain sense of visual aesthetics on photographers who use digital M cameras?

I would specifically reference the need, in low light, to use high-speed lenses. The necessary aesthetic consequence would be seriously diminished depth of field relative to what would be obtained with a high-ISO DSLR.

Regards,
Dante

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dante,

Possibly.

But far more important is Leica users' pre-existing sense of aesthetics: small, light, fast handling cameras under the control of the photographer rather than a firmware designer

Tash delek,

R.

[Nikon Bob]

It seems like that wide open low light look was a fav with film M shooters so little would change. That is making a virtue out of necessity imposed by the constraints of film. There was simply no other way to get the shot. You could, arguably achieve the same wide open look with a modern DSLR as far as DOF is concerned with the option to stop down if that is what you want to do. You did not have that option before in a lot of cases. Throw some form of image stabilization in to boot and that would allow even more options in a wider range of situations in low light. I don't think it is a unique look as far as DOF is concerned but agree it is forced on you.

Bob

[250swb]

I would specifically reference the need, in low light, to use high-speed lenses. The necessary aesthetic consequence would be seriously diminished depth of field relative to what would be obtained with a high-ISO DSLR.

Regards,
Dante


You can argue it the other way around. That high ISO and slow lenses force a certain aesthetic on your average DSLR photographer.

The point is that in either case the photographer chooses the way they mainly want to go, shallow DOF or deep, small hand holdable camera or one that needs high ISO and IS to stop the trembling photographer. In both cases there are compromises if you want to deviate from the essense of the camera.

Steve

[Merkin]

I think their slow progress on any sort of technological advance is due to the aesthetics of the cameras themselves. The last time Leica tried any sort of even remotely timely upgrade for the purposes of making the M series easier to use, it (the M5) was a flop, largely IMO because it looked so much different from the previous M cameras. Even then, built in metering was certainly not new. They didn't try to put a meter in their cameras again until 13 years after the M5's introduction. Aperture Priority mode, which was pretty well standard in other cameras since the seventies, didn't show up until 2002. Leica was one of the last major players to introduce a digital system camera, and the m8 and 8.2 were nowhere near up to normal Leica standards. It is only in 2009 that Leica has finally made a good digital M. Now you are talking about image stabilization? They haven't even gotten around to autofocus. I would expect to see image stabilization somewhere around the year 2035. To me, all of this adds up to my opinion that the most important aesthetic to Leica is the aesthetic of their camera bodies, not the usefulness to the users or a certain aesthetic to the work produced with their cameras. I am not saying that a Leica isn't useful, because it certainly is. It is not, however, much more useful than it was 50 years ago, whereas most other companies have managed to squeeze a good bit of innovation in to their cameras in that time period.

As to high ISO and slow lenses forcing a certain aesthetic on a DSLR photographer, I disagree. The DSLR shooter certainly has the option available to use a high iso slow lens combination, but fast lenses are certainly available, and there is no requirement to use high ISOs. If a DSLR shooter avails him or herself of the aesthetic broght about by high ISOs and slow lenses, he or she does so by choice.

[furcafe]

I would disagree to the extent that most dSLR users I've encountered @ least start out using zooms & they are invariably slower than equivalent primes.



As to high ISO and slow lenses forcing a certain aesthetic on a DSLR photographer, I disagree. The DSLR shooter certainly has the option available to use a high iso slow lens combination, but fast lenses are certainly available, and there is no requirement to use high ISOs. If a DSLR shooter avails him or herself of the aesthetic broght about by high ISOs and slow lenses, he or she does so by choice.

[Nikon Bob]

I would disagree to the extent that most dSLR users I've encountered @ least start out using zooms & they are invariably slower than equivalent primes.

The point is that whether beginner DSLR shooters realize it or not they do have an option, fast primes, while the M9 option is fast primes or fast primes. The M9 way is not a drawback if you want shallow DOF all the time in low light situations.

Bob

[Pickett Wilson]

I actually prefer the DOF provided by f/2.8 apertures in low light, so the ability to shoot at ISO 1000 without noise is critical, which the Canon 50D or 5D will easily do. While I have fast lenses, I rarely use them at maximum aperture.

[FPjohn]

Is an Image Stabilized image equivalent to one taken on a tripod?

yours
FPJ

[Brian Sweeney]

Leica Digital Cameras strike me as preserving the essence of their film based cameras. It's nice to see that.

From a system-level Design Engineering point of few, fast primes means not having to use super-sensitive sensors and image stabilization. The high-sensitivity sensors being used in the high-end DSLR's must add to the size of the package. You have to be very careful about introducing electronic noise into the image. The more sensitive the sensor, the more sensitive it is to noise from the surrounding electronics. Bigger package.

[Livesteamer]

This discussion reminds me of the old Japanese proverb, "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I love my Leicas, (film) and do 98% of my work with them but sometimes you just need a slr. Joe

[Dante_Stella]

Roger:

Those things don't preclude the use of higher sensitivities or stabilized sensors. Are you saying that it's a perception issue on the part of Leica users?

Dante

But far more important is Leica users' pre-existing sense of aesthetics: small, light, fast handling cameras under the control of the photographer rather than a firmware designer

[Brian Sweeney]

I'm not sure that the use of super-sensitive sensors can be done in "as small" of a package. The packaging is very important, and more shielding and physical separation might be required for higher-sensitivity sensors.

One of the custom sensors at work just ran into that problem. More sensitive sensor in the previously used package picked up much more noise and yielded unacceptable performance.

[FPjohn]

So IS is 100%?

yours
FPJ

[Pickett Wilson]

IS is magic! I can consistently get sharp photos handheld with my 70-200 IS at 200mm at 2.8 and 1/15 second. Kind of scary, really. :)

[Ronald M]

There is an archaic device made to sharpen longer exposures. 4x5 and 8x10 users use them all the time. Ries, Gitzo, and others still make them. They com with aluminum tubes, cahannels, carbon fiber, end even wood.

Perhaps yuo could learn to creatively add flash so it does not look like flash.

I suppose you think manual focus is cramping they style too.

If you feel cramped, I suggest a Nikon D3S and some fast auto focus primes. The package is neither small or light, but is cheap at least compared to Leica.

[Brian Sweeney]

Tyler Gyro-Stabilized Camera Mount.

Also produces sharper images. It was very big. Looked cool in the P3 Orion.

[Nikon Bob]

IS is magic! I can consistently get sharp photos handheld with my 70-200 IS at 200mm at 2.8 and 1/15 second. Kind of scary, really. :)


I would go along with that. If you have never used a camera/lens with some form of image stabilization the experience is a real eye opener. Being lazy I would prefer not to use a tripod and image stabilization goes a long way to making tripod use a distant memory.

Bob

[photogdave]

They haven't even gotten around to autofocus.
The S2 system has autofocus.

[Mephiloco]

IS is great, even on point and shoots. My girlfriend has a canon P&S which I had very little faith in since the max aperture is something like 3.2 and highest iso is 1600 (supposedly it'll be 3200 on auto, but I've never seen it go that high). 3.2 at 1600 leaves a lot to be desired, on my film cameras when shooting 2.8 I usually need 3200 (2.8 at 1/15th), but with IS, I can shoot on my girlfriend's cheap little P&S at 3.2 at 1/6th or 1/8th of a second, at 1600, with no issues what so ever.

I have a 50/1.5 which isn't so bad, but it would be nice to not have to shoot wide open, especially when it's dark and hard to focus. The 2-3 stops really makes focusing easier.

I won't get a M9 because the only advantage it seems to have over other full frame cameras is that it accepts M mount lenses. As far as features etc go I see no reason to get an M9. If i wanted to fondle a camera, I guess I'd get an M9

(also they're very expensive)

[aizan]

i think the overall gestalt of the m9 is slower and more brightly lit than its dslr counterparts, even though its performance is the same as a film leica, or better.

[Roger Hicks]

Roger:

Those things don't preclude the use of higher sensitivities or stabilized sensors. Are you saying that it's a perception issue on the part of Leica users?

Dante

Dear Dante,

Yes.

I'd also suggest (though I am not a camera designer and don't know) that image stabilization (and possibly higher ISOs, as Brian suggests) might add weight, bulk and power consumption to an extent that is unacceptable to most users. It is the minimalism of a Leica that attracts many people.

Cheers,

R.

[furcafe]

True, though @ some point we're talking about a chicken (or today, turkey) v. egg situation. Even before the advent of digital, heck even before the advent of autofocus, RFs were limited tools in comparison to SLRs. So I think most folks actually buying M9s would be already pretty committed to a particular style of photography (no macro, nothing longer than 135mm, etc.). In Dante's specific low-light situation, I think there is a split between those users who are happy to accept the old, narrow DoF, look & those who want better high ISO performance. Personally, I'm in the 2nd camp, but realize that Leica is under significant economic & engineering constraints & that probably only a small minority of Leica M users are low-light shooters to begin with.

Otherwise I would say that an M9 user's best solution to the high ISO problem is to get a dSLR w/appropriate glass as an auxiliary body.

The point is that whether beginner DSLR shooters realize it or not they do have an option, fast primes, while the M9 option is fast primes or fast primes. The M9 way is not a drawback if you want shallow DOF all the time in low light situations.

Bob

[ZeissFan]

I didn't think Leica had sensor technology. I thought Leica used sensors made by a third party.

[furcafe]

They do get their sensors from elsewhere (Kodak, currently), but in the digital era, camera makers are responsible for supplying the consumer w/a permanent supply of "film." So regardless of where they get their sensors, or other electronic components, the sensor is an integral part of the Leica "experience." And, clearly, Leica is not able to offer the latest & greatest in comparison w/the major Japanese camera makers. This isn't solely due to Leica's corporate conservatism, but also due to the fact that they're located in Germany, which isn't exactly a hotbed of consumer electronic innovation; Nikon doesn't make their own sensors, either, but is obviously more able to tap into the larger Japanese electronic industrial supply chains.

I didn't think Leica had sensor technology. I thought Leica used sensors made by a third party.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Seeing how many more pixelated images make it to mainstream printed media, I think that no matter what is done by the camera companies, we will see the "who cares!" mentality and lack of technological prowess (mainly coerced by bean-counters dictating level of competence at their companies) force their "aesthetics" in a most impacting matter more and more.

Like the frog in the slowly-boiling pan.

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, if you do a two page spread with photos stolen from flickr, they are gonna look a little pixelated! ;)

[Pickett Wilson]

Leicas are a matter of the heart as much as the mind. Who can argue with that?

[Roger Hicks]

Can't that also be said of Nikon v Canon v Pentax, or for that matter Ford v Chevy or Porsche v Ferrari?

Not really. Canon/Nikon and Ford/Chevy is more like comparing refrigerators or washing machines. You want something good, but it's hard to get excited about the choice. And to many people, Porsche/Ferrari is a simple question of reliability. I've never owned either but I have a modest number of friends and acquaintances who have had both.

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

With the Nikon- The Nikon F2 is my SLR of choice. For Nikon RF's, the Nikon SP invokes the same sense of aesthetics as an MP does for Leica fans. The Nikon F3 is a good camera, I use it, just not the same "look and feel".

After the F3- I never bothered with the "pro" line. Bought a D1x for work, an N8008s and N70 for grab shots. Last new Nikon that I bought is the S3-2000. I could pick up a D3-"whatever it is now". If the D1x dies, I will.

[wgerrard]

Can anyone speak to the impact of software on all this?

Microsoft and Apple buy their chips from the same people. The parts in a Mac are pretty much the same as the parts in a Window machine. Yet the software that controls that hardware certainly provides a different aesthetic for each brand.

Software controls digital cameras. Does it affect what we see from camera to camera?

[MCTuomey]

I don't know about Leica-enforced aesthetics, but the decision to design, produce, and market very high-priced very fast glass in a large range of focal lengths for cameras with less than best-in-class ISO performance seems very consistent with a high margin, lower volume operating strategy. The new summarits seem to suggest Leica wants to offer a more modestly priced alternative, via parts commonization and other design features, and participate in the less elite segments of the RF-buying market. They want revenue growth and boutique margins at the same time, I think. Who wouldn't if one were in charge of the Leica organization?

Practically, I shoot my dSLRs and M8 the same way in low light, assuming no flash is going to be used. Fastest glass I own coupled with the highest iso setting the camera can manage. I do this to be able to shoot with the highest shutter speed possible. IS is interesting, but shooting subjects that may and do move at 1/8 or 1/15 sec will still result in a blurry photo. IS is really only worthwhile for subjects that are motion-free. Subject stabilization, anyone?

[Merkin]

Practically, I shoot my dSLRs and M8 the same way in low light, assuming no flash is going to be used. Fastest glass I own coupled with the highest iso setting the camera can manage. I do this to be able to shoot with the highest shutter speed possible. IS is interesting, but shooting subjects that may and do move at 1/8 or 1/15 sec will still result in a blurry photo. IS is really only worthwhile for subjects that are motion-free. Subject stabilization, anyone?

So what you are looking for is a sort of Digital ICE-nine? ;)

[Bill Pierce]

First off, thanks to Dante for starting this thread. I hope this answers his original question.

I'm a working stiff. I use a lot of tools. I used to use Leicas for a variety of photographic tasks, but they surely stood out when you were shooting in dim light. In most situations you could use any number of different camera types. But when it came to manual focus with wide angles and normal lenses used wide open in dim light, the rangefinder was simply better.

That's simply not true any more. Between high speed primes that throw a lot of light into the camera and great improvements in autofocus technology and high ISO performance, modern DSLR's do very well in dim light.

Leica has chosen a sensor system that gives outstanding results at low ISO's. But it doesn't do very well at high ISO's. So, in the digital world, one of my big uses of the Leica doesn't exist. It's no longer the "available darkness" camera. A DSLR with f/1.2 and 1.4 primes (and a few f/2 lenses in longer focal lengths) does a better job.

The Leica is an incredibly good camera for daylight "street" shooting. The problem in that arena is that there are other cameras that do it well that are smaller, quieter and cheaper. As to image quality, the Leica is better. But when I show prints on 17x22 inch paper to folks they don't notice the relatively small difference. Sometimes, even I have trouble seeing the difference. And as these little cameras keep rapidly improving, there's soon going to come a time when I don't see the difference in shots made in good light.

Sadly, and I truly mean sadly, I am using my Leicas less and less. For the most part it's most often a couple of DSLR's with fast primes in the available darkness and the same DSLR's with slow zooms or a little pocket digital in the good light.

[Nikon Bob]

Bill

From my POV you just hit the nail on the head and like you I was just a little saddened when that realization dawned on me.

Bob

[Harry Lime]

I believe the aesthetics of Leica M photography are dependent on two things. How we focus (scale focusing vs AF) and ISO.

Given the iso performance of the M9, it does force you to still shoot a lot like we did (do) with the film bodies. Wide open and with slow shutter speeds in low light. Therefore I do not see the aesthetics changing radically.

I also think it is a good thing to keep Leica's current approach to RAW in mind.

Obviously they do not have access to a sensor with the high ISO performance that Canon/Nikon do, so were getting images that are simply noisier.

But I also think that Leica's approach is to RAW is exactly what it means; RAW. I think Leica tries to output a RAW file that is as virgin off the sensor as they dare to. From what I understand Leica doesn't perform nearly as much in camera noise reduction and voodoo as Canon or Nikon do. A RAW file from most other camera makers isn't all that untouched.

I prefer Leica's approach, because you get to work with a clean slate. You as the photographer can decided how much noise (detail) you want to sacrifice etc in post processing etc.

That said I am willing to predict that this will be a non issue in a few years, when high performance FF sensors become a commodity item.

[digitalintrigue]

The choice of the CCD in the M9 had a lot to do with time to market. I don't recall who was quoted, but a Leica exec stated if they had gone with CMOS it would have been significantly longer development time. He should have been asked if the development times had been the same, would they had chosen CMOS with its higher ISO capabilities.

[gnarayan]

There is an archaic device made to sharpen longer exposures. 4x5 and 8x10 users use them all the time. Ries, Gitzo, and others still make them. They com with aluminum tubes, cahannels, carbon fiber, end even wood.

Oh for Pete's sake - this sort of attitude shows up here all the time whenever anyone suggests any thing slightly different from what the M3/M2 was.

Sensor IS doesn't hurt anything. You still keep the camera the same size - they've got in everything from tiny point and shoots to full frame DSLRs (the Sonys), it lets you get a couple of extra stops. It is absolutely brilliant.

There are enough and more older posters on the Oly DPreview forum who tell you how much of a benefit it is to them. One I know has Parkinsons. It wasn't great but IS along with better high ISO let him start shooting again. It doesn't drain that much battery life. Doesn't add much to the cost (well for everyone else at least - I'd imagine it would on a Leica but c'est la vie). It is completely passive. And its a heck of a lot smaller than a tripod. Yes, its absolutely not as good as stable tripod. But it works! I've got a very nice Manfrotto. That sits at home all the damn time.

Sure you might argue that its a slippery slope because oh dear what will Leica do next - autofocus! Heaven forbid! But its a slippery slope that is easily avoided. Define the things than make the M - the size and design and build, the rangefinder experience, the lenses and then add things that don't affect that. Like IS. Part of the essence of the M system is small and light. Not carrying a tripod around is very much in line with that.

Yes, you didn't need it when you were 20 and you were a real man and shot with film and developed yourself, pushing ISO 400 to 1600 and made wet prints and it's bloody wonderful that you know your D76 from your HC10. The world moved on. Leica ought to as well. Particularly given what they charge for the damn thing. Now, I'm pretty sure that Leica will survive anyway as a niche manufacturer. But I cannot think of a single reason not to demand that they do what they do well better and give *you* better value for your money.

There is a real danger if a company gets to the point, where it can't actually think of anything new to add to an existing product. I'd dearly love to mail them a snippet of one of my favourite songs, buts its just as applicable to the total traditionalists here -


"You better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'."

Cheers,
-Gautham

[Nikon Bob]

Gautham

Very well said.

Bob

[sig]

Based on the assumption lower ISO forces you to take better pictures I guess the M8 is a better camera than M9?

Anyways if the low ISO and no IS limitations forces you to take different/better pictures, it is not unique to Leica. You can turn off IS and set ISO on many if not most digital cameras.

[Harry Lime]

Based on the assumption lower ISO forces you to take better pictures I guess the M8 is a better camera than M9?

Anyways if the low ISO and no IS limitations forces you to take different/better pictures, it is not unique to Leica. You can turn off IS and set ISO on many if not most digital cameras.

Having to use lower ISO with the M8/M9 (in comparison to N/C) does not guarantee or force you to take better pictures. But it will place restrictions on how you can shoot and still make a useable picture and therefore will result in a certain aesthetic.

As an example, if anything over 1600 on the Leica is too noisy you will end up shooting a lot at f1.4 and 1/30th or 1/60th. That right there will restrict your shooting style and preclude certain things about your image. In this case you will end up with shallow DOF and anything moving quickly will be blurred.

[Merkin]

I would question the assumption that being forced to use a lower ISO leads to better pictures. If anything, good high ISOs allow you to more accurately execute your vision regardless of lighting conditions. If you see a night time shot where a large depth of field, frozen motion, or both would be required to accurately capture what you see, you simply won't be able to get the shot without a high ISO. The thing that causes photographic quality to suffer, IMO, is the photographer's overreliance on things like program AE, not because of things like IS or high ISO capability.

[MCTuomey]

If anything, good high ISOs allow you to more accurately execute your vision regardless of lighting conditions .... The thing that causes photographic quality to suffer, IMO, is the photographer's overreliance on things like program AE, not because of things like IS or high ISO capability.

+1 Better tools + trained operators = better products

I shoot rangefinders because I like them. The small amount of work I do for pay I do with DSLRs. Because I need high ISO, autofocus, high frame rates, etc. It's that simple, for me.

[quadtones]

Yes, sensor stabilization, fast lenses, CCD vs CMOS--take a look at the photos now being published as part of the documentary project of the Gene Smith NY Loft photos [catch some of the music, too]. There was no Acufine, no f1.2 lenses, the light was whatever was "available," and some of this work, besides documenting a remarkable period of creativity on the part of large numbers of musicians, is also a reminder of the image content superseding the absolute image qualities that we have come to expect with digital.

Yes, we can argue the merits of a D700 w/ 85 1.4 vs an M8 w/ say, 50 Summilux, but look at Smith's work, and realize that, for him, it wasn't just available light, but sometimes available gear....Of course the gear has affected our way of portraying the subject matter, but without the subject that moves us...

http://jazzloftproject.org/

Cheers,
Norm

www.normsnyderphoto.com

[Al Kaplan]

Don't forget Gene Smith's post processing skills with potassium ferracyanide or his previsualization in the darkroom fascilitated by the influence of Scotch.

[kuzano]

My understanding woul d be that Leica does not have or develop any sensor technology. Don't they buy their technology from Kodak? Furthermore, considering Kodak's notable achievements in sensor technology, it seems clear that Leica is NOT purchasing the best that Kodak has to offer.

[peterm1]

I think there is a certain aesthetic associated with fast lenses shot wide open but would not agree that this is necessarily anything to do with Leica. Just go to Flickr and type in Nikkor 85mm f1.4 (or a similar fast lens) and you will see that the use of fast lenses wide open to produce a shallow depth of field and nice bokeh is a widely accepted technique in many genres of photography. Indeed Nikon makes lenses specifically for this (I am thinking of the 105 and 135mm f2 AF DC lenses which allow you to accentuate bokeh by fiddling with a control on the lens.)

[Dante_Stella]

Peter,

I have used a 105mm f/2D DC Nikkor a lot - and that lens allows spherical aberration control even at f/5.6 - so there is nothing to suggest that it is designed to be shot wide-open all the time. If anything, its design (like the 135mm) suggests that it is designed to preserve background blur when stopped down to get more of the main subject in focus.

Be that as it may, using a Nikon DSLR, you have the option to shoot stopped down because the ISO capability would more readily support it.

Plug that lens into a digital M (if you could focus it), and you would be shooting wide-open all the time - because you can't jack the ISO through the roof. This is, I think, where the shallow DOF is effectively being forced on users.

Dante



I think there is a certain aesthetic associated with fast lenses shot wide open but would not agree that this is necessarily anything to do with Leica. Just go to Flickr and type in Nikkor 85mm f1.4 (or a similar fast lens) and you will see that the use of fast lenses wide open to produce a shallow depth of field and nice bokeh is a widely accepted technique in many genres of photography. Indeed Nikon makes lenses specifically for this (I am thinking of the 105 and 135mm f2 AF DC lenses which allow you to accentuate bokeh by fiddling with a control on the lens.)

[flip]

While I think that the impact of images seen as a whole (including those from SLRs) has a greater impact, within the RF world, I think that the sensor technology has probably had an effect.

RF users at the transition period to digital have had limited options for a few years. And those options have been cropped-sensor cameras. After shelling-out cash for one, many folks simply had to learn to use their existing lenses within a narrower crop - effectively forcing them to play more within a longer focal length aesthetic. Alternately, they swap/sell/etc...

On that front, manufacturers have an incentive to focus efforts on wides that compensate for the cropped sensors. Well, now those with the cash have a FFS in the M9. Likely, they now have some nice wides, because they (almost by definition, having an M9) have the cash. Will they find that the lenses at their disposal entice them towards wider shooting?

I guess my point is that the yo-yo of film to crop to FF likely encourages the early-adopters - who are likely pros and leaders within the aesthetic of the RF community - to more-often shoot further outside the dominant 35-50mm aesthetic because they have been forced to live with a longer equivalent focal length (using the lenses they already love) and / or purchase wider lenses (to have the focal length they love under the R-D1, M8).

Broadly-speaking, one might say that ANY sensor technology with the Leica name has an aesthetic impact by making digital images - the digital look - less of a naughty notion to many formerly film-bound Leicaphiles.

[quadtones]

Phil--I've been going back and forth between the 35 Summicron on the M6, and the 28 Summicron on the M8. M9's not in the budget right now, and I actually still prefer the "drawing" of my 35 [v.4], even on the cropped sensor. The images that I've been getting are pretty comparable, but I still, at the shooting distances I tend to use for club photos [i.e. jazz club performance in poor light] the 35 seems to have the same "look" regardless of whether I'm shooting film or reduced frame on the M8. This is independent of the camera, because often the shooting distance is limited by the configuration of the club [or how well I know the musicians--and how used they are to have a camera nearly in the bell of their instrument]. The depth of field of the 35mm f2 Summicron will be the same regardless of whether it's mounted on the M2, 6 or 8--only the field of view will change, given the same shooting distance. Only the "space" around the subject might change, and that's very dark, a good part of the time in these photos.

Al--which one was it that was responsible for the highlights in those large, dark areas anyway, the Ferricyanide or the scotch?

[Al Kaplan]

The ferricyanide brightens the highlights. The Scotch tells you how much they need to be brightened and when they're bright enough. It's safest if the ferricyanide is in a beaker and the Scotch is swigged directly out of the bottle. They'll look about the same under an OC safelight, and after the fourth or fifth shot of Scotch they might not taste all that different either, so don't put them both in beakers or store your dilute ferricyanide solution in an empty whisky bottle.

I doubt if Gene's swigging techniques were ever filmed for posterity but if you don't know the fine art of swigging you might locate a Janis Joplin live concert video showing her techniques with a bottle of Southern Comfort. Actually, swigging from a bottle is rather easy to teach yourself.

[quadtones]

If you have two beakers in the darkroom, when one gets full and the other gets empty...you can switch them.

[quadtones]

Oops, I guess you need three beakers.

[jke]

I think that aesthetics shift in a pattern that first seeks to replicate the thing it replaces. Since exact replacement is impossible (or effectively so due to expense and the market's willingness to bear that expense,) manufacturers slowly give up and, through marketing or feature benefit incentives, massage an acceptance for a new aesthetic into the market - an aesthetic that operates comfortably within the capabilities of the technology as it exists at that moment. Once that aesthetic is accepted, then the companies begin figuring out how to build their market for the technology, sometimes by adding features and sometimes by improving quality.

So in terms of digital camera manufacturers, I think the initial aesthetic target was film. Every camera review of the early DSLRs talked about the look of the files and how close they were to the look of shots on film. More importantly, the conversation was focused on how these cameras failed to duplicate the look of film. Eventually, however, those comparisons fell away as the prices came down on technology, cameras offered more and more features of convenience, first megapixels became a marketable asset, then ISO became a marketable asset, while steadily the market grew for DSLRs. Now, DSLRs have their own aesthetic, referring to but separate from film. And that aesthetic is largely accepted as the standard for what a photograph looks like these days. And the aesthetic of a film image has taken on an element of nostalgia, in look and in process. It is what photographs used to look like.

There are of course variations in this digital aesthetic from camera manufacturer to camera manufacturer (and perhaps from model to model) much the same way Provia didn't look like Kodachrome. But I don't think Leica is doing anything different from what other digital camera manufacturers are doing on a basic level. They aren't so much as forcing the aesthetic to go a particular way as they are admitting the impossibility for an exact duplicate of a preceding aesthetic and then creatively or artfully persuading the market to accept an aesthetic shift that will allow for a much more productive approach (for them) to product development, given the parameters of a specific technology and the demands for profit.

Which is admittedly a nice way to say forcing.

[Dante_Stella]

Bill,

Thanks... My feeling is that Leica M photography is stuck in a time where shooting Kodachrome 64 at night with a Noctilux was the latest parlor trick (I wasn't there but was informed it is about 1974). At least in the film sphere, Leica users could benefit from almost annual advances by Kodak, Fuji and Agfa in low-light films; as it stands now, with sensor a permanent part of the camera body, Leica's development choices leave users at an immediate and permanent disadvantage in low-light performance compared to cameras now selling at 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

Regards,
Dante



First off, thanks to Dante for starting this thread. I hope this answers his original question....

* * * * *


Sadly, and I truly mean sadly, I am using my Leicas less and less. For the most part it's most often a couple of DSLR's with fast primes in the available darkness and the same DSLR's with slow zooms or a little pocket digital in the good light.

[quadtones]

Dante'--Sorry for my digression into the realm of Gene Smith, and how many "beakers" were needed. I agree, Leica is at a permanent disadvantage, especially in low light photography in terms of the absolute quality of files, at least in contemporary terms. Does this mean that it's now a "vintage" or "alternative process" [when referring to the M8 in low light]? It does have a "look." I also know that many times I've chosen to use a specific film and a specific lens to obtain a kind of "look." An example might be using pushed Tri-X, rather than T-max, and shooting with, say, a 50mm Summitar or a 35 Pre-aspheric Summilux, to obtain a kind of vision that suited the subject. I've certainly done this for some photos of jazz musicians in clubs, in poor light. I used an uncoated Elmar to shot in a train station at night--the flare fit the image I wanted to achieve. I guess I'll be using the M8 with certain optics for a representation of a particular subject that pleases me.