[skytomorrownow]

Seems like many people are saying that my "blacks are heavily crushed" like its a bad thing.

Why?

I can show you many photographers, particularly in street photography and fashion, that have the same sort of approach.

I don't think there is an aesthetic aversion to your choices, I think it was more about that you're trying to achieve a look like your Leica which doesn't have crushed blacks, while your 645Z shots do. I think the point is, that's a starting place. For example, the first image, if you look at the nose shadow, it's black. The Leica image that follows is also similarly contrasty, but the nose shadow isn't totally dark.

Personally, as an art director, I would choose your 645Z work over the Leica work. I think it expresses the look you are going for better than the Leica. It has the grunge and attitude that I would want for fashion (and is I assume why you like the front flash look), while remaining refined and elevated enough (due to the smooth tonality and resolution) to not be cheap or too punk rock (for high fashion).

The Leica shot looks like precision. The 645Z looks more like caviar.

[gavincato]

Seems like many people are saying that my "blacks are heavily crushed" like its a bad thing.

Why?

I can show you many photographers, particularly in street photography and fashion, that have the same sort of approach.

don't be so defensive. I never said anything about it being bad. goodness.

[bilbrown]

don't be so defensive. I never said anything about it being bad. goodness.

It's all good really, I just noticed people kind of looking at the fact when a photographer pushes their blacks in a photo it is obviously to isolate the subject. Some people do it other ways of course (fast glass, bokeh, shallow DOF).

It just hasn't seemed to get a very positive response here. Just wondering why?

Not everyone is going to use/need the 15 stops of dynamic range. To be honest, I'm not sure if I need it but there are other benefits.



Seems like you use some of the sharper manual glass out there, that may give me some options to play with. I'm not opposed to stepping outside of my box I am just doing a specific thing here.

---------- Post added 03-01-16 at 12:43 AM ----------

I don't think there is an aesthetic aversion to your choices, I think it was more about that you're trying to achieve a look like your Leica which doesn't have crushed blacks, while your 645Z shots do. I think the point is, that's a starting place. For example, the first image, if you look at the nose shadow, it's black. The Leica image that follows is also similarly contrasty, but the nose shadow isn't totally dark.

Personally, as an art director, I would choose your 645Z work over the Leica work. I think it expresses the look you are going for better than the Leica. It has the grunge and attitude that I would want for fashion (and is I assume why you like the front flash look), while remaining refined and elevated enough (due to the smooth tonality and resolution) to not be cheap or too punk rock (for high fashion).

The Leica shot looks like precision. The 645Z looks more like caviar.

I've been an art director myself, so I get what you are saying. Its funny, because I first noticed the difference with the medium format digital and BW with Hedi Slimane's work (I checked the EXIF, and he was of course using a Phase One in circumstances I would have used a more compact camera - go figure).



How about precision caviar

[Sperdynamite]

I would work on it in your post processing/profiling. Have you tried vsco presets? Also Mastin Labs Ilford pack has great profiles. The Nikon set works appropriately with Pentax for now. They will get you to a much better starting point for your B&Ws with one click. Seems like you want a P&S flashed look with good contrast. It's not your camera settings, it's your post processing.

Small variations in the contrast of individual lenses will not have as a dramatic an effect of what you're seeing. A Hasselblad lens will have a slightly different look but not a massive increase in SOOC contrast. Medium format digital is all about the file flexibility. You're meant to profile or work with profiles in LR.

[UncleVanya]

In my ignorance I will wade in. I think what you are missing is that no one is saying change the look of the shots. They are saying that if you want more nuanced blacks like the Leica seems to have - start by exposing differently and then batch process or manually process the files to a look closer to what you want. By exposing differently you will capture more detail - there is a tension obviously between highlights and shadows and I think they are of the opinion you have room for dropping your highlight headroom a bit to capture more details in the shadows - then when you crank it back to black you will have more nuance in the black than your have currently due to the 15 stops of dynamic range.

But I'm not shooting anything like this. So I'm just interpreting others.

[algrove]

Why not rent a 645D to see if that's the "look" you are after like the M8 or better yet the M9. Then again try renting the M246 to see how a B&W cam might work for you since you already have Leica M lenses.

[bilbrown]

Why not rent a 645D to see if that's the "look" you are after like the M8 or better yet the M9. Then again try renting the M246 to see how a B&W cam might work for you since you already have Leica M lenses.

Yes, thought of that.

What I was really looking for was a bit more of the MF file structure. I could get a M246 of course, but that would exclude 50MP files and larger sensors (which is literally the main reason I wanted a MF option at all).

In a bit I will post some of the Leica S files when I tested an S over a year ago. This was a S 006 body and CCD.

They required less processing, and yes, I typically start with VSCO PRESETS and tweak, but after I get it basically right in camera.

The only reason I went with a CMOS body, and the Z, was I thought the sensor may be a tad more dynamic if I decide to change it up.

---------- Post added 03-01-16 at 02:27 PM ----------

In my ignorance I will wade in. I think what you are missing is that no one is saying change the look of the shots. They are saying that if you want more nuanced blacks like the Leica seems to have - start by exposing differently and then batch process or manually process the files to a look closer to what you want. By exposing differently you will capture more detail - there is a tension obviously between highlights and shadows and I think they are of the opinion you have room for dropping your highlight headroom a bit to capture more details in the shadows - then when you crank it back to black you will have more nuance in the black than your have currently due to the 15 stops of dynamic range.

But I'm not shooting anything like this. So I'm just interpreting others.

I get it. Makes sense. I I'll shoot something today and tweak.

I just remember the CCD of the S was pretty much on top of it out of the box. Maybe I am expecting too much from the very dynamic CMOS Of the Z.

But maybe in time I will dig it more, like with the M240.

I like both looks really. And he CMOS is much better for a lot of things that the CCD isn't.

[bilbrown]

Here are some files from the Leica S 006 when I tested it awhile back.

I post this to compare. not exactly the same point but there is something interesting about the files that i can't put my finger on.

Thoughts (compared to the Z)?

[bilbrown]

And one more from the Typ 006, the headshot is from about 30 feet away and a 200% crop.

[bilbrown]

I have found some interesting file structures with the Pentax 55 and the Sony sensor in the 645Z. Here is one.


This is hard!! One Leica Forum participant said of a similar thread there, "I had a small M 240 System but sold it in order to buy my S007 System. I would say that the two CMOS sensors behave very, very similar, only one has more resolution, obviously. So if you have worked with the M, you know what will be waiting for you. I personally would prefer the Sony Sensor on the Pentax because it is much more malleable. This is not to say the Leica sensor is bad, it is not.

On the other hand the Leica S lenses are wonderful and I can't see any competition from Pentax. For me this was decisive, the lenses.

Obviously there are so many Leica M lenses with special character that if you have some favorites there (say Noctilux or older Mandler designs), it is not so easy/impossible to find the same in the S line-up. But the S line up is a real family with similar characteristics. Technically perfect but also with - difficult to describe - character, very natural, some say almost film like. Not at all clinical as some have stated."


Anyone here have used both systems???

[bilbrown]

One last one. I may be getting the hang of it.

This one was slightly underexposed with the Z, did this in post in Photoshop (not lightroom)

[Sperdynamite]

Honestly man you're all over the place. You can reproduce the look from those Leica images you're posting but it doesn't sound like you want to do the work, sounds like you want the camera to do it for you.

[bilbrown]

Honestly man you're all over the place. You can reproduce the look from those Leica images you're posting but it doesn't sound like you want to do the work, sounds like you want the camera to do it for you.

I shoot both JPG with the BW set to -3 Exposure Comp, and RAW (DNG) to both cards (or one in cameras that only have one). MOST times I would like to use the JPGs if I can, as it makes the process FASTER for things that need FAST turn around. My process is VERY little post processing time. Usually 20-30 seconds on each image and shift+sync in LR the rest of the time. IF I really like an image I will open it in PS and take a little more time.

There is a reason I light the way I light it. Skin looks better for the type of imagery I want, and the high F-Stop keeps the blacks HARD and when its GREAT lighting EVERYTHING mostly in focus.


I leave retouching to retouchers, whether I can do it or not.



So yep, you are pretty much correct. You spend a few grand on a camera, and it would be nice to have usable files out of the box.

[UncleVanya]

I shoot both JPG with the BW set to -3 Exposure Comp, and RAW (DNG) to both cards (or one in cameras that only have one). MOST times I would like to use the JPGs if I can, as it makes the process FASTER for things that need FAST turn around. My process is VERY little post processing time. Usually 20-30 seconds on each image and shift+sync in LR the rest of the time. IF I really like an image I will open it in PS and take a little more time.

There is a reason I light the way I light it. Skin looks better for the type of imagery I want, and the high F-Stop keeps the blacks HARD and when its GREAT lighting EVERYTHING mostly in focus.


I leave retouching to retouchers, whether I can do it or not.



So yep, you are pretty much correct. You spend a few grand on a camera, and it would be nice to have usable files out of the box.

But I think the files are quite usable - if not to your specific tastes right out of the camera. I think (and I could be wrong) that you can setup fairly simple batch adjustments to the files and produce what you are looking for since you are starting to get that look. But maybe I'm wrong.

[petrakka]

A lot of this has to do with the micro contrast that Leica lenses have. Leica lenses have their rep for a reason, even if you like other lenses better nothing really looks quite like Leica lenses. The sensors in Leica just render things more contrasty/sharp than the Sony sensors in the Nikons, Sonys and Pentax Z as well.
The CCD sensor I have in my 645D certainly has a different look than CMOS sensors, so that may be worth a shot. It does in some ways remind me of a way way better look that the Leica M8 had (which I owned for a short time).

I'm not sure you're going to get that 'look' than with anything other the tools that already give it to you.
I will say, if you haven't tried shooting your Contax G glass on your Sony, that has been one of my favorite ways to shoot lately. The 45 and the 90 on it in particular are great. Get a little Nissin i40 strobe and you can do a lot.
Like you I do a lot of direct flash, handheld stuff. I go for a different look, but there are similarities.