S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
Not sure if everyone has seen these yet:
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/leicas2_samples/
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/leicas2_samples/
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Georgl,
Let's try to be fair and more realistic. The posted S2 shots on DPReview are JPEGs straight from the camera with no post processing or retouching, as far as we know. They are just the way Leica handled them, plus any artifacts and other image quality degradations that may occur as a result of posting through that site. The images posted by Farkas were processed from DNG files and have had some additional post processing, as admitted by David himself. His blog display is also of bit different quality than the other forum. So, we are really not getting an apples to apples comparison. That does not mean the S2 files presented on DPReview are the best we could see coming from the camera, but they are what came from the camera as is, good or not. Many of those could probably have benefitted from good processing and handling, but that was not the objective of that review. So one should bake that into their evaluations.
Bottom line.....folks need to get their hands on RAW DNG files and run them through their own processing and evaluation. In a few weeks, we will have more samples and options to discuss. I am not prepared to dismiss nor overly praise the stuff coming from the S2 at this point, as we just have too little, nothing to make direct comparisons, and some bias in both directions coloring things. I think we will start seeing how things shake out shortly.
LJ
+2Georgl,
Let's try to be fair and more realistic. The posted S2 shots on DPReview are JPEGs straight from the camera with no post processing or retouching, as far as we know. They are just the way Leica handled them, plus any artifacts and other image quality degradations that may occur as a result of posting through that site. The images posted by Farkas were processed from DNG files and have had some additional post processing, as admitted by David himself. His blog display is also of bit different quality than the other forum. So, we are really not getting an apples to apples comparison. That does not mean the S2 files presented on DPReview are the best we could see coming from the camera, but they are what came from the camera as is, good or not. Many of those could probably have benefitted from good processing and handling, but that was not the objective of that review. So one should bake that into their evaluations.
Bottom line.....folks need to get their hands on RAW DNG files and run them through their own processing and evaluation. In a few weeks, we will have more samples and options to discuss. I am not prepared to dismiss nor overly praise the stuff coming from the S2 at this point, as we just have too little, nothing to make direct comparisons, and some bias in both directions coloring things. I think we will start seeing how things shake out shortly.
LJ
I don't quite understand this thinking. By definition any image PROCESSED in a raw converter has been altered. It is processed using a recipe developed (in this case) by the raw converter manufacturer. But it is changed.
Let's be clear that Mr Farkas' review currently seems to be the only one with halfway useful insight on the capabilities of the S2 (despite missing DNGs), while dpreview shows misleading sample-quality of a 20k$-camera which makes the first readers already whine about artifacts, high-ISO-quality, colors...
Most of these images are unsharp, have artifacts, they used ISOs beyond specifications (without the necessary firmware) - they didn't even clean the sensor... Some photographers already had the chance to test the S2 more extensively but only Mr. Farkas created a useful review - kudos to him.
But of course, Leica finally has to deliver useful samples - that's their job (beneath delivering the camera itself...).
Well said. Thank you for the "straight shooting".When we actually shoot samples with the S2 at our Open House (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11674) we will have a better feel for the high ISO capability. That said, I am not surprised by what DP Review showed. My expectation is that the S2 will be a push for any commercial work above ISO 400/640. I hope to be wrong. But in my experience, "final firmware" does not create miracles from so-so high ISO results.
What this means to me is that I will likely be recommending the S2 to my customers as a product that handles like a dream, (indeed I think it may be the nicest feeling camera in my hand I've ever held) is fast and responsive, and delivers sharp, detailed images that look outstanding at ISO 80 - 400. While some "final firmware" may improve things a bit, my initial impression is that 640 and higher ISO will involve some limitations. There's no getting around that it's a CCD and my expectations reflect that reality, the samples I've seen so far seem to support it.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with that, but until I see results that prove otherwise - which is how we do things at Capture Integration - I won't be shouting high ISO solution from the rooftops...at least not until December 3...
Steve Hendrix
LJLWoody,
If I may interject something..... There is a difference between processing an image with a conversion algorithm and customized camera profile, and then doing things beyond that to enhance the appearance of the image. That is the post processing. Things like local/regional exposure control (dodging and burning), color enhancements, skin smoothing, etc. Those go beyond what the conversion provided. It is good to know just how malleable some of the files are to tolerate this sort of treatment, but that is a completely different aspect for evaluating what the file the camera produces really looks like.
Personally, I think files should be processed (RAW conversion) with the best algorithms and using a camera profile that is able to bring out as much of what the camera is capable of producing. From there, it is good to see just what is needed or how things could be enhanced to create the art one may want to achieve. But additional treatments should be noted, as those are post processing actions.
LJ
P.S. RAW conversion is not "changing" the file, as you suggest. It is "interpreting" the data that is provided and reconstructing the image from that data. Some algorithms do this better than others, being able to extract and use more information once they are tuned to work with a specific camera's output. Doing stuff beyond that is really post processing as mentioned.
LJL
I don't want to use semantics to prove a point.
But whether you want to call it interpretation or change is, I believe mute. The fact is that no image exists unless and until it is processed in the raw converter. And getting "the most" out of the camera is, again, subject to your interpretation. Not everyone agrees on the recipe which is why so much is written and taught about raw conversions.
So I expect that David's will be different from Guys and so on and so on. None of this is based on right or wrong, just different views based upon what is important to you.
As pertaining to true post processing e.g. dodging and burning etc I am in violent agreement with you. If the purpose of the image is to show what the camera can do such post processing tricks obviates the purpose of the exercise. For me, creating the best profile for the converter, based on how you view the image is totally fair game. Where possible, I would still rather use the GMB color checker to get the correct white balance than just eyeball the image and decide what I think is best. Doesn't help others unless their biases agree with mine.
So perhaps we are not that far apart. There are no gold standards as it relates to converting the image but best practices would minimize the number of subject interpretations of the variables where possible.
At this point I will bow out of the subject of profiling a camera. It is an art at best and thus very subjective. It would be an interesting exercise someday to have 10 people take a new camera and build their own raw profile for it. I suspect the end results would be all over the place.
Anyway, cheers and thanks for the discussion.
Best
Woody