My RSS Feed

24 or 47 Mp?

2020-12-13T15:59:27+01:00

Heel wat jaren geleden was er een website waarin de makers schreven dat zes miljoen pixels genoeg was voor de meest ambitieuze fotografie. Die stelling werd weggelachen door de betweters die alsmaar meer willen. Een 20x 30 cm beeld met drukklare 300 pixels per inch heeft 8 miljoen pixels nodig. Dan is zestien miljoen zeker genoeg en 24 miljoen is zelfs overkil. Toch schreeuwt de markt naar meer. En 50 miljoen pixels zijn nu de norm. Ook Leica kan zich aan die trend niet onttrekken en biedt nu in de diverse modelreeksen 47+ miljoen pixels. De product manager van Leica zei mij in een van onze laatste gesprekken dat inderdaad 24 miljoen meer dan genoeg zijn, maar dat hij er geen zin in had om maar steeds te moeten blazen tegen de wind in. Die 50 miljoen pixels zijn echt niet nodig voor de foto’s die de meeste mensen maken. Alleen voor uitvergrotingen is het handig. Maar ja wie doet dat nog.
Leica heeft zich zelf in de voet geschoten met de aankondiging van de L-bayonet. Nu heb je naast elke Leica die nog meetelt in de race der volkeren een Panasonic die hetzelfde biedt voor veel minder geld. En dus komt Leica met de SL2-S voor een schappelijke prijs, maar dan met 24 miljoen pixels. Dat krijg je als je ondoordacht beslissingen neemt en eigenaar bent van de fabriek en geen tegenspraak wil hebben.
Ik ben er ook achter gekomen na lange jaren van analyse en vergelijking dat de klassieke kleinbeeld objectieven niet hun beste kanten laten zien op digitaal: de verbetering van scherpte ligt aan de programma’s en niet aan de sensor. De actuele super volumineuze objectieven zijn wel afgestemd op het digitale proces, maar de prijs is niet zozeer geld, als wel ongemak. Wie wil er nu met dit type monster objectieven op weg gaan. Maar we zijn allemaal gewend aan grote vario objectieven. En die zijn bescheiden in vergelijking met de actuele vast brandpunt objectieven. Ik begrijp nog steeds niet waarom product managers aan de ene kant de ISO gevoeligheid opjagen en en aan de andere kant de meest lichtsterke objectieven uit de geschiedenis presenteren.
Dus wil je klein gaan en slow dan is de film variant interessant.

Many years ago there was a website in which the members wrote that six million pixels was enough for the most ambitious photography. That proposition was laughed away by the know-it-all who want more and more. A 20x 30 cm image with print ready 300 pixels per inch needs 8 million pixels. Sixteen million is certainly enough and 24 million is even overkill. Yet the market is crying out for more. And 50 million pixels are now the norm. Leica cannot escape this trend either and now offers 47+ million pixels in the various model series. Leica's product manager told me in one of our last conversations that indeed 24 million are more than enough, but that he didn't feel like having to keep blowing against the wind. Those 50 million pixels really aren't necessary for the photos most people take. It is only useful for enlargements. But who still does?

Leica shot itself in the foot with the announcement of the L-bayonet. Now next to every Leica that still counts in the race of the attention of buyers you have a Panasonic that offers the same for much less money. And so Leica comes with the SL2-S for a reasonable price, but with 24 million pixels. That's what you get when you make ill-considered decisions and own the factory and don't want any comment.

I also found out after long years of analysis and comparison that the classic 35mm lenses don't show their best sides when used in the digital workflow: the improvement of sharpness lies in the programs and not in the sensor. The current super voluminous lenses are indeed tuned to the digital process, but the real cost is not so much money as inconvenience. Who wants to go on the road with this type of voluminous lenses. But we are all used to large vario lenses. And they are modest in comparison with the current prime lenses. I still have to understand why product managers claim super high sensitivities and also super luminous lenses.
So if you want to go small and slow then the film version is interesting.

A new book

2020-12-03T10:48:42+01:00

Mislukte foto’s bestaan niet! Wie deze uitspraak van de Nederlandse fotograaf Fieret niet gelooft, moet dit boek lezen, geschreven door foto-deskundige Erwin Puts. Fotografische conventies, technische of esthetische, zijn net recepten in een kookboek: het zijn maar regels en je kan ervan afwijken als je dat wil. De heersende maatstaven bepalen of een foto mislukt is. Dat wil de ambitieuze amateur niet: controle is nodig om het toeval te beheersen. De digitalisering van de techniek heeft daarmee een heel ander beeld opgeleverd van de fotografie: wél controle, geen toeval meer. Er worden vaak digitale bewerkingen toegepast die een mislukte foto alsnog verfraaien. Het probleem is niet verdwenen: de vijand van de fotografie is de conventie, of die nu in het hoofd of in de programmatuur zit! Eigenzinnige foto’s maken kan alleen als je de werkelijkheid met een nieuwe kijk beziet. De conventionele beeldproductie is toe aan een fundamentele verandering. Welke dat is, lees je in dit tot nadenken stemmende boek.

Failed photos do not exist! If you don't believe this statement of the Dutch photographer Fieret, you should read this book, written by photo expert Erwin Puts. Photographic conventions, technical or aesthetic, are like recipes in a cookbook: they are just rules for ingredients and you can deviate from them if you like.
The prevailing standards determine whether a photograph has failed. The ambitious amateur doesn't want that: control is necessary and chance is bad.
The digitization of technology has produced an entirely different picture of photography: control is everything, no more chance. Often digital manipulations are applied that improve a failed photograph. The problem has not gone away: the enemy of photography is the convention, whether in the head or in the software!
Making interesting pictures is only possible if you take a new look at reality.
Conventional image production is in need of a fundamental change. Which one this is, you can read in this thought-provoking book.

moderne fotografie

2020-11-02T17:15:36+01:00

Wat doen moderne fotografen?
Moderne fotografen hebben nog maar een probleem: hoe controleer je een camera die alles automatisch doet? Sommigen gaan voor de nabewerkings programmatuur op de computer. Met enige oefening kun je er visueel spectaculaire resultaten mee bereiken. Je moet dan wel kennis van zaken hebben: er zijn talloze boeken en blogs die daarbij een helpende hand bieden. Op dit terrein zet de moderne fotograaf in. Noemen we dit digigrafie? Omdat het licht er niet meer toe doet? De klassieke amateur en vakman waren trots op de totale beheersing van het fotografisch proces: niets ontsnapte aan de aandacht en het toeval was geheel buiten gesloten. Dat toeval regeerde in de richt-en-schiet cultuur van de snapshot fotograaf en die werd niet serieus genomen door de ambitieuze amateur. Alleen voor sociologen (het gedrag) en etnografen (de foto) was de snapshooter interessant.
Een fotograaf is niet een persoon, maar fotograferen is een sociale activiteit
Laten we duidelijk zijn: de fotograaf is niet een persoon, maar een activiteit, die door die persoon wordt uitgeoefend om met een fototoestel bepaalde doelen te bereiken. Een snapshooter wil herinneringen vastleggen van gebeurtenissen uit het dagelijks leven. Fotograferen is voor de gelegenheids fotograaf een onderdeel van het dagelijks bestaan: het fototoestel is een gebruiksvoorwerp net als een stofzuiger of een televisie. Als er een belangrijke gebeurtenis in het dagelijks leven (nieuw huis, geboorte, vakantie) plaats heeft, dan is er een fotograferend persoon die dit vastlegt voor het familie album. Dit album dient als doel de herinnering levendig te houden van zo een belangrijke gebeurtenis. Het is een vorm van communicatie (“zo was het toen”) Met de alomtegenwoordige mobiele telefoon met ingebouwde camera is het doel vooral de snelle en vluchtige communicatie van dagelijkse momenten die de moeite waard zijn om te delen (“dit ben ik nu aan het doen”).
De verschillende rollen van de hobbyist
De ambitieuze amateur heeft een dubbelrol. De ene rol is die van het vasteggen van de te delen ervaring, net als de snapshooter doet met de mobiele telefoon. De andere rol is die van de echte hobbyist voor wie de camera een instrument is, vergelijkbaar met de aanpak van de ambachtsman. Dan kom je al snel terecht bij de vakman die in opdracht foto’s maakt. Amateurs noemen zich tegenwoordig graag prosumer, waarbij het ‘pro’ niet staat voor producent, maar voor professioneel. Dat geeft al aan dat de serieuze amateur streeft naar foto’s met professionele kwaliteit. De vakman maakt traditionele beelden met een onberispelijke kwaliteit, die vooral in de smaak vallen van het betalend publiek.
De serieuze amateur van nu maakt om verschillende redenen foto’s: als bewijs voor het technisch kunnen, als inzending voor een foto wedstrijd, als expressie middel en als getuige van esthetische smaak.
De lokale fysieke fotoclub en de globale virtuele ‘vrienden’ groep
In alle gevallen heeft de amateur slechts een doel: er bij horen. Dat gold vroeger al toen de lokale fotoclub nog bestond en dat is nu het geval met de digitale beelden die gedeeld worden op een van de talloze foto platforms. De commentaren op die platforms maken duidelijk welke beelden populair zijn en hoe ze gemaakt moeten worden. De camera industrie doet (via brochures, toejuichers (influensers) en advertenties in de fotobladen) daar nog een schepje bovenop door aan te geven dat alleen met de nieuwste camera deze indrukwekkende beelden gemaakt kunnen worden.
Dit levert een krampachtige gedrag op: enerzijds beweren de industrie en de deskundigen in koor dat alleen de eigen visie telt (de camera als potlood); anderzijds wordt beweerd dat het fototoestel plus objectief plus sensor plus programma bepalend zijn (de camera als instrument).

Het dilemma van de serieuze amateur
Is het fototoestel een passief en objectief registratie middel of een creatief hulpmiddel voor het artistieke individu. Dit dilemma heeft de fotograferende persoon al sinds de Kodak camera rond 1900 met het Kodak moment en het enthousiaste Kodak meisje. De richt-en-schiet techniek die de camera industrie na 1950 introduceerde (wie kent nog het begrip van het Electric Eye?) deed er nog een schepje bovenop: er konden geen verkeerde foto’s meer gemaakt worden. Vooral de glamour foto werd gepropageerd (het Kodak meisje stond nu echt voor de camera!).
Het dilemma kreeg gestalte in de keuze tussen de gewone dagelijkse foto of de kunstzinnige salon foto, gemaakt naar analogie van de kunst in musea.
Waarneming is een cultureel proces
De waarneming van de werkelijkheid is een cultureel proces, niet iets wat het biologische oog bepaalt.
Bij de keuze van een motief en de manier waarop dit vastgelegd moet worden is het sjabloon en het visueel stramien van belang dat geldend is voor de cultuur van alledag. Al lang geleden werd duidelijk dat de foto een bepalend element was voor de manier waarop naar de werkelijkheid werd gekeken. Sinds kort weet iedereen dat het brein bepaalt wat er waargenomen wordt via twee kanalen: van onder op en van boven af. Het onder op kanaal wordt gevoed door de kale indrukken die door het netvlies worden geregistreerd. Die indrukken zijn betekenisloos en worden door het proces van boven af geïnterpreteerd. Dit interpretatie mechanisme wordt gestuurd door culturele invloeden, die voor een belangrijk deel sjablonen zijn van eerdere visuele structuren.
De rol van het iconische beeld
Veel foto’s zijn vergelijkbaar met de belangrijke iconische beelden uit de geschiedenis van de fotografie. dan speelt de controle weer een belangrijke rol. Het meerendeel van de foto’s die nu met miljarden op het internet belanden, zijn spontane moment opnames, weinig anders dan de gewraakte snapshots van de kiekjesmaker, alleen technisch beter en er zijn er veel meer van.
De keuze van de amateur
De ambitieuze amateur heeft een vervelende keuze: cliché beelden produceren (de beruchte zestig miljoen zonsondergangen) en de handen op elkaar krijgen van kritische mede amateurs of alle conventies doorbreken en teruggaan naar de spontane moment opname van voorwerpen en gebeurtenissen uit het dagelijks leven. Dat lijkt verdacht veel op het gedrag van de mobiele telefoon bezitter, die ook alles vastlegt, omdat het gratis is en gemakkelijk.
Wat is het verschil?
De mobiele telefoon bezitter accepteert de werkelijkheid zoals die wordt waargenomen.en legt dat ook vast als vorm van communicatie. Die maakt spontane foto’s omdat een foto dat zegt wat niet met woorden is uit te drukken of in ieder geval niet zo snel. Probeer maar eens binnen tien seconden te beschrijven wat er op je bord ligt tijdens de maaltijd.
De echte amateur zal de werkelijkheid als uitgangspunt nemen en er zijn eigen visie aan toevoegen al dan niet met behulp van computer programma’s of bewerkingen door de camera. Het is moeilijk om een unieke foto te maken. De vele manipulaties met sjablonen worden dan een prestatie component. Het cliché gehalte van motief en techniek is herkenbaar: niet de scherpte is van belang (met autofocus, beeldstabilisatie en veel pixels is dit geen thema), maar de onscherpte ( bokeh) is nu bepalend voor de waardering, in welke vorm dan ook.
De rol van het surrealisme en de nieuwe zakelijkheid
De nieuwe amateur accepteert de werkelijkheid die wordt vastgelegd, maar die wordt niet verfraaid of vertekend. Het zien en niet-zien van de waarneming wordt het belangrijkste element net als het toeval: de nieuwe fotograaf wordt een detective die in de foto speurt naar opmerkelijke zaken. De spontane moment opname registreert de dynamiek van de werkelijkheid in een fractie van een seconde. Dat was ook de opzet van de surrealisten die de mobiele kleinbeeld camera met opzet gebruikten om ‘achter de werkelijkheid te kijken’. De kale werkelijkheid heeft een poetische charme: de filmers van de Franse nouvelle vague en het Italiaanse neorealisme wisten dit als geen ander. Wat ontbreekt aan het sober accepteren van de werkelijkheid is de emotionele betrokkenheid bij het voorwerp en onderwerp. Fotograferen is vaak gezwoeg: je moet je onderwerpen aan het dictaat van kunst en de foto wereld. De gelegenheidsamateur maakte foto’s voor het eigen plezier, zonder na te denken over de mogelijke commentaren.
De lange weg van de nieuwe amateur
Het lijkt gemakkelijk om een foto te maken waar je persoonlijk plezier aan beleeft.Het lijkt ook eenvoudig om de werkelijkheid te accepteren zoals die is: dat was de drijvende kracht achter het modernisme sinds 1850. Er aan toe te voegen is de bewondering voor techniek, die het dagelijks leven is gaan beheersen.
Wil je techniek en werkelijkheid op gelijke basis waarderen, dan is de keuze voor een mechanische camera onontkoombaar.
Dat is het thema voor de volgende blog

English translation by Deepl

What do modern photographers do?
Modern photographers have only one problem: how to control a camera that does everything automatically? Some go for the post-processing software on the computer. With some practice you can achieve spectacular results visually. There are numerous books and blogs that can help you with this. This is an area in which the modern photographer makes an effort. Do we call this digigraphy? Because the light doesn't matter anymore? The classic amateur and professional were proud of the total mastery of the photographic process: nothing escaped attention and coincidence was completely out of the question. That coincidence reigned in the aim-and-shoot culture of the snapshot photographer and was not taken seriously by the ambitious amateur. Only for sociologists (the behavior) and ethnographers (the photo) was the snapshooter interesting.
A photographer is not a person, but photographing is a social activity.
Let's be clear: the photographer is not a person, but an activity that is performed by that person in order to achieve certain goals with a camera. A snapshooter wants to capture memories of everyday life events. For the occasional photographer, photography is a part of everyday life: the camera is a utensil just like a vacuum cleaner or a television. If there is an important event in daily life (new house, birth, vacation), there is a photographer who captures it for the family album. This album serves the purpose of keeping the memory of such an important event alive. It is a form of communication ("that's how it was then") With the ubiquitous cell phone with built-in camera, the goal is above all the fast and fleeting communication of daily moments that are worth sharing ("this is what I'm doing now").
The different roles of the hobbyist
The ambitious amateur has a double role. One role is that of fixing the experience to be shared, just like the snapshooter does with the cell phone. The other role is that of the real hobbyist for whom the camera is an instrument, similar to the approach of the craftsman. Then you soon end up with the craftsman who takes pictures on commission. Amateurs nowadays like to call themselves prosumer, where the 'pro' does not stand for producer, but for professional. This already indicates that the serious amateur strives for photos with professional quality. The professional makes traditional images with impeccable quality, which are especially appreciated by the paying public.
Today's serious amateur takes photographs for a variety of reasons: as proof of technical ability, as an entry in a photo competition, as a means of expression and as a witness of aesthetic taste.
The local physical photo club and the global virtual 'friends' group
In all cases, the amateur has only one goal: to belong. This used to be the case when the local photo club still existed and this is now the case with the digital images that are shared on one of the countless photo platforms. The comments on these platforms make it clear which images are popular and how they should be made. The camera industry (via brochures, acclaimers (influensers) and advertisements in the photo magazines) adds to that by indicating that only with the latest camera these impressive images can be made.
This results in a convulsive behavior: on the one hand the industry and the experts in chorus claim that only their own vision counts (the camera as a pencil); on the other hand it is claimed that the camera plus lens plus sensor plus program are decisive (the camera as an instrument).
The dilemma of the serious amateur
Is the camera a passive and objective means of registration or a creative tool for the artistic individual. This dilemma has the photographing person since the Kodak camera around 1900 with the Kodak moment and the enthusiastic Kodak girl. The aim-and-shoot technique introduced by the camera industry after 1950 (who still knows the concept of the Electric Eye?) added another layer to the dilemma: no more wrong pictures could be taken. Especially the glamour photo was propagated (the Kodak girl really stood in front of the camera!).
The dilemma took shape in the choice between the normal daily photo or the art salon photo, made by analogy with art in museums.
Perception is a cultural process
The perception of reality is a cultural process, not something that determines the biological eye.
In the choice of a motif and the way in which it is to be recorded the template and the visual pattern which is applicable to everyday culture are important. A long time ago it became clear that the photograph was a determining element for the way in which reality was looked at. Recently everyone knows that the brain determines what is perceived through two channels: from the bottom up and from the top down. The bottom on channel is fed by the bare impressions registered by the retina. Those impressions are meaningless and are interpreted by the process from above. This interpretation mechanism is guided by cultural influences, which are for the most part templates of earlier visual structures.
The role of the iconic image
Many photos are similar to the important iconic images from the history of photography. then control again plays an important role. The majority of the photos that now end up on the internet with billions, are spontaneous snapshots, little else than the challenged snapshots of the snapshot maker, only technically better and there are many more of them.
The choice of the amateur
The ambitious amateur has an annoying choice: to produce cliché images (the infamous sixty million sunsets) and get the hands of critical fellow amateurs or break all conventions and go back to the spontaneous moment recording of objects and events of everyday life. This is suspiciously similar to the behaviour of the cell phone owner, who also records everything because it is free and easy.
What is the difference?
The cell phone owner accepts reality as it is perceived.and also records it as a form of communication. It takes spontaneous photos because a photo says what cannot be expressed in words, or at least not so quickly. Try to describe within ten seconds what is on your plate during a meal.
The real amateur will take reality as a starting point and add his own vision to it, with or without the help of computer programs or operations by the camera. It is difficult to make a unique picture. The many manipulations with templates then become a performance component. The cliché content of motif and technique is recognizable: not the sharpness is important (with autofocus, image stabilization and many pixels this is not a theme), but the blur ( bokeh) is now decisive for the appreciation, in whatever form.
The role of surrealism and the new professionalism
The new amateur accepts the reality that is recorded, but it is not embellished or distorted. Seeing and not seeing becomes the most important element, just like coincidence: the new photographer becomes a detective who searches for remarkable things in the photograph. The spontaneous snapshot registers the dynamics of reality in a fraction of a second. That was also the intention of the surrealists who deliberately used the mobile 35mm camera to 'look behind reality'. Bald reality has a poetic charm: the filmmakers of the French nouvelle vague and Italian neorealism knew this better than anyone else. What is lacking in the sober acceptance of reality is the emotional involvement with the object and subject. Photography is often a toil: you have to submit to the dictates of art and the photographic world. The occasional amateur made photographs for his own pleasure, without thinking about the possible comments.
The long way of the new amateur
It seems easy to take a photo that you personally enjoy. It also seems easy to accept reality as it is: that was the driving force behind modernism since 1850. To add to this is the admiration for technology, which has come to dominate everyday life.
If you want to appreciate technology and reality on an equal basis, the choice for a mechanical camera is inescapable.

The new directive for optics design

2020-10-04T21:26:19+02:00

De nieuwe richtlijn voor optiek ontwerp

Nog niet zo lang geleden gold als regel dat een kleinbeeld objectief met een grootste diafragma opening van f/2 kon worden ontworpen met zes lens elementen en een f/1.4 objectief kon goede prestaties leveren met zeven of hooguit acht lens elementen. Dit aantal elementen kon nog in een kleine vatting worden gepast. De norm was een kleine omvang, laag gewicht en behoorlijke prestaties. Olympus en Leica objectieven golden als voorbeeld en ook Canon en Nikon objectieven waren ontworpen met deze richtlijnen. De Zeiss ontwerpers, vaak al trendsetters (zie de MTF discussie) gooiden een knuppel in het hoenderhok met het Otus project: een rampzalige naam, maar zo is de marketing tegenwoordig. Het eerste objectief in de Otus lijn was de Otus 1,4/55 mm twaalf elementen en ook nog Autofocus, althans voor sommige camera modellen. Dat kunnen we nu negeren. De aandacht gaat uit naar het optisch ontwerp. In het verleden gold de stelling dat een scherptevlak maar op een plek mogelijk was en dat je bokeh kon krijgen als je rondom het scherptevlak een uitgerekte positie had waar de scherpte wel van plaats veranderde, maar niet van kwaliteit. De kwaliteit moest dan naar beneden maar dat was geen probleem voor hoog-lichtsterke objectieven. Dit is het kaustisch oppervlak, een soort parabool rondom het scherpte punt. Meer was niet mogelijk met het begrensde aantal elementen. Sinds de constructie van vario objectieven die veel lens elementen hebben, en een behoorlijk volume, werd duidelijk dat veel meer lens elementen twee oplossingen beiden: hoge scherpte in het beeldvlak en een prettige bokeh. De onscherpe achtergrond en voorgrond kon visueel aangenamer gemaakt worden door de onscherpte cirkels te voorzien van een andere lichtverdeling, lees andere beeldfouten. De nadruk op bokeh is mijns inziens volkomen overbodig maar het is nu eenmaal een trend bij het ontwerpen van objectieven, die niet meer weg te denken is.
een tweede trend is ook overduidelijk: meer lens elementen en meer volume geven de ontwerper meer speelruimte om een hoge optische kwaliteit te combineren met andere eigenschappen, zoals bokeh. Bovendien is een deel van de beeldkwaliteit verlegd van de optische kant naar de software kant. Zelfs Leica erkent dit. Een nieuw probleem doet zich nu gelden: een enkele ontwerper kon nog zeven of acht lens elementen overzien, met de hand berekenen en recent manipuleren in de computer. Met de vijftien elementen die nu standaard zijn voor de Japanse industrie is een variatie mogelijk van brandpunt-afstanden van 28 tot 90 mm. De grootte maakt het ook niks meer uit: dat is handig voor de vereenvoudiging van de fabricage. Maar eenaspect wordt vaak over het hoofd gezien: er is een team nodig om zo een complexe lijn van objectieven te ontwerpen! weg zijn de dagen dat je een objectief nog kon koppelen aan een ontwerper. Nu is een team van ontwerpers bezig om een reeks objectieven te ontwerpen. Vermoedelijk is er nog een regisseur die het overzicht heeft en de randvoorwaarden vastlegt. Die worden overigens in toenemende mate door de marketing afdeling bepaald.
We gaan een periode tegemoet waarin de kwaliteit van de objectieven steeds eenvormiger wordt, de grootte ook steeds zal groeien en uniform worden (wie ziet nog het verschil tussen een Zeiss, Leica of Sigma objectief) en de vingerafdruk die de vroegere objectieven kenmerkte wordt vervangen door een standaard die door de computer wordt voorgeschreven.

Engels/English

The new directive for optics design

Not so long ago, the rule was that a 35mm lens with a largest aperture of f/2 could be designed with six lens elements and an f/1.4 lens could perform well with seven or at most eight lens elements. This number of elements could still be fitted in a small mount. The standard was small size, low weight and decent performance. Olympus and Leica lenses were used as examples and Canon and Nikon lenses were also designed with these guidelines. The Zeiss designers, often already trendsetters (see the MTF discussion) threw a bat in the coop with the Otus project: a disastrous name, but so is marketing nowadays. The first lens in the Otus line was the Otus 1.4/55 mm twelve elements and also Autofocus, at least for some camera models. We can now ignore that. Attention is focused on the optical design. In the past, it was stated that a focus plane was only possible in one place and that you could get bokeh if you had a stretched position around the focus plane where the sharpness changed, but not of quality. The quality then had to go down but that was not a problem for high-light lenses. This is the caustic surface, a kind of parabola around the sharpness point. More was not possible with the limited number of elements. Since the construction of vario lenses that have a lot of lens elements, and a considerable volume, it became clear that many more lens elements have two solutions both: high sharpness in the image plane and a pleasant bokeh. The blurred background and foreground could be made more pleasant visually by changing the light distribution of the blurred circles, read other image errors. In my opinion, the emphasis on bokeh is completely superfluous, but it is a trend in lens design that cannot be ignored.
A second trend is also abundantly clear: more lens elements and more volume give the designer more room to combine a high optical quality with other properties, such as bokeh. Moreover, part of the image quality has shifted from the optical side to the software side. Even Leica recognizes this. A new problem now arises: a single designer was able to oversee seven or eight lens elements, calculate them by hand and manipulate them recently in the computer. With the fifteen elements now standard for the Japanese industry, a variation of focal lengths from 28 to 90 mm is possible. The size doesn't matter any more: that's convenient for the simplification of manufacturing. But one aspect is often overlooked: it takes a team to design a complex line of lenses! Gone are the days when you could still link an objective to a designer. Now a team of designers is working on a series of objectives. Presumably there is still a director who has the overview and determines the preconditions. Incidentally, these are increasingly determined by the marketing department.
We are approaching a period in which the quality of the objectives will become increasingly uniform, the size will also grow and become uniform (who can still see the difference between a Zeiss, Leica or Sigma objective) and the fingerprint that characterized the former objectives will be replaced by a standard prescribed by the computer.

2020-10-04T21:26:17+02:00

Leica financial info for 2018

2020-08-06T14:03:12+02:00

In het meest recente financiële overzicht van Leica (Bundesanzeiger Geschäftsbericht 4/2018-4/2019), die dus eigenlijk het jaar 2018 omvat, staat dat de firma een omzet heeft behaald van 299 Miljoen Euro (tov 2017: 313). De licentierechten bedragen 49 (54 Miljoen). De systeemcameras en de compactcameras hebben een omzet van 140 en 74 (147 en 76) behaald.De systeemcameras zijn terug op het niveau van 2102/2013 en de compactcameras staan op het niveau van voor 2010. Zonder licenties zou de omzet terugvallen op een niveau van 2011. De uitspraken van het management geven aan dat er een teruggang van 8-9% wordt verwacht voor 2019 en voor 2020 worden geen uitspraken gedaan, maar het Covid-19 virus heeft voor alle bedrijven in heel Duitsland een teruggang van 10% betekent.
+++++++++++++
Leica's most recent financial statement (Bundesanzeiger Geschäftsbericht 4/2018-4/2019), which therefore actually covers the year 2018, states that the company achieved a turnover of 299 Million Euro (compared to 2017: 313). The licensing rights amount to 49 (54 Million). The system camera group and the compact camera group have a turnover of 140 and 74 (147 and 76). The system camera segment is back at the level of 2102/2013 and the compact camera segment is at the level before 2010. Without licences, turnover would fall back to a level of 2011. The management's statements indicate that a decline of 8-9% is expected for 2019 and no statements are made for 2020, but the Covid-19 virus represents a 10% decline for all companies throughout Germany.

When is a lens modern?

2020-07-25T13:11:36+02:00

Wanneer is een objectief modern?
Die vraag kwam op nadat Stefan Daniel in een interview gezegd had dat alle moderne Leica M objectieven geschikt zijn voor de M10R. Modern staat voor nu en dat zou betekenen dat alleen de meest recente objectieven van de derde generatie (die met floating elementen en asferische vlakken, aldus Peter Karbe) geschikt zijn. De verwijzing van Daniel dat hij een ‘modern’ objectief als de originele Noctilux 1.2/50 mm geschikt vindt (met uitzondering van de hoeken dan) is daarmee in tegenspraak.
De oplossing is te vinden in het ontwerp proces. De klassieke objectieven werden berekend met de hand en de rekenlineaal. De formules waren bekend en de ontwerper plaatste de getallen in de formule en zo werd een straal berekend. Uiteindelijk werd via allerlei vuistregels de beeldkwaliteit bepaald.
De computer loste veel op: de formules werden in het rekentuig gestopt met de uitgangspositie en de uitkost waren weer getallen die met dezelfde vuistregels werden beoordeeld. Echt modern werden objectieven pas toen de MTF werd gebruikt als maatstaf om de vuistregels te vervangen en de computer voorzien werd van regels die naar een optimum, veelal de hoogste MTF waarden over het beeldveld, streefden. Dit is het belangrijkst: de optimalisatie regels die er van uit gaan dat er een bepaald getal te vinden is, dat aangeeft hoe de verschillende beeldfouten kunne worden gereduceerd tot een bepaalde waarde en kunnen worden gebalanceerd zodat ze elkaar opheffen. Als je deze regel toepast zijn alle Leica objectieven voor de M die na 1975 zijn gemaakt, ‘modern’. Japanse objectieven zijn dat al sinds 1965.
Let erop dat het ontwerp proces enkele jaren in beslag neemt en dat veel objectieven van een vorige generatie in productie blijven ook lang nadat er een nieuwe versie berekend is.
Samengevat
Objectieven van de eerste generatie: met de hand berekend door een ontwerper: M objectieven voor 1950
Objectieven van de tweede generatie: computer ondersteunde berekening door team: M objectieven voor 1975
Objectieven van de derde generatie: computer ondersteunde optimalisatie technieken en inzet van nieuwe technieken zoals floating elementen en asferische oppervlakken
Objectieven van de vierde generatie: ontwerp teams, die computer ondersteunde optimalisatie technieken gebruiken met inzet van veel lens delen, computer gestuurde assemblage techniek: nog niet voor M, maar wel voor SL/2

English version
When is an objective modern?
That question came up after Stefan Daniel said in an interview that all modern Leica M lenses are suitable for the M10R. ‘Modern’ stands for ‘now’ and that would mean that only the most recent third generation lenses (those with floating elements and aspherical surfaces, according to Peter Karbe) are suitable. Daniel's reference to a 'modern' lens like the original Noctilux 1.2/50 mm (with the exception of the corners then) contradicts this.
The solution can be found in the design process. The classic objectives were calculated by hand and the calculation ruler. The formulas were known and the designer placed the numbers in the formula and so a radius was calculated. In the end, the image quality was determined using all kinds of rules of thumb.
The computer solved a lot: the formulas were put in the calculator with the starting position and the results were again numbers that were judged with the same rules of thumb. Lenses only became really modern when the MTF was used as a yardstick to replace the rules of thumb and the computer was equipped with rules that aimed at an optimum, often the highest MTF values over the image field. This is the most important thing: the optimization rules that assume that there is a certain specified number, that indicates how the various image errors can be reduced to a certain value and can be balanced so that they cancel each other out. If you apply this rule, all Leica lenses for the M made after 1975 are 'modern'. Japanese lenses have been since 1965.
Note that the design process takes several years and that many lenses of a previous generation remain in production long after a new version has been calculated.
Summarized
Objectives of the first generation: calculated by hand by one single designer: M objectives for 1950
Objectives of the second generation: computer supported calculation by team: M objectives for 1975
Objectives of the third generation: computer assisted optimization techniques and use of new techniques such as floating elements and aspherical surfaces.
Objectives of the fourth generation: design teams using computer assisted optimization techniques, and use of many lens parts, computer-controlled assembly technique: not yet for M, but for SL/2.

De zwanenzang van de foto industrie

2020-07-19T16:47:55+02:00

De fotografische industrie is al lang niet meer eerlijk in technische zin (als ze dat al ooit is geweest!). Er is nu vooral sprake van een technologisch determinisme: gisteren had je 20 megapixel sensor, vandaag heb je 40 Mp en morgen heb je 100 Mp. Dat zie je op alle terreinen: wie heeft er nu echt behoefte aan 3000 autofocus punten. Of 40 Mp? Het lot van de Kodak Technical Pan (kleinbeeld film) ligt nog vers in het geheugen: een lage gevoeligheid, maar een spectaculair vermogen tot weergave van details.
Met alle geweld van technologische verbeteringen,blijft de belangrijke vraag: maak je er betere foto's door en wie heeft er nu zo een behoefte aan aan al die technische speeltjes. Onder invloed van de industrie zal het spraakmakende deel van de camera bloggers en vloggers wel beweren dat er nu eindelijk de mogelijkheden zijn om X te kunnen (vul X zelf maar in!!). Het is onbegrijpelijk dat we daar met z'n allen nog intrappen. vele jaren geelden was er een beweging die beweerde dat 6miljoen pixels voldoende zouden zijn voor A4 foto's in tijdschrift kwaliteit. De nieuwste Leica M-10-R is duidelijk een product dat aleen door marketing lieden is bedacht om de verkoop aan te zwengelen. De fotoindustrie zit nu echt in een dalende lijn: er worden nog maar (dat is tussen aanhalingstekens te zetten) minder dan 20 miljoen hoogwaardige camera's met en zonder spiegel gemaakt (tov meer dan 120 miljoen in de piekperiode rond 2007). De Canon R-lijn en de Nikon Z-reeks moeten bij de massa presteren en de Leica probeert hetzelfde te doen in het luxe segment. Achtduizend Euro voor alleen het camera huis is toch echt wel veel geld. Maar zelfs oudere sensor-gevulde behuizingen kosten nog een hoop geld. Daar koop je een nieuwe Canon voor als je tenminste het blauwe blazer gedrag voorbij bent. De snobs onder de amateur fotografen zullen wel een andere mening hebben. Je hoeft maar bij een van de vele fora te rade te gaan om te weten waar de kennis zit. Niet in de hersenen denk ik dan.
=============

The photographic industry has long ceased to be fair in a technical sense (if it ever has been!). Now there is mainly a technological determinism: yesterday you had 20 megapixel sensor, today you have 40 Mp and tomorrow you have 100 Mp. You can see that in all areas: who really needs 3000 autofocus points. Or 40 Mp? The fate of the Kodak Technical Pan (35mm film) is still fresh in the memory: a low sensitivity, but a spectacular ability to display details.
With all technological improvements, the important question remains: do you make better pictures and who has a need need for all those technical toys. Under the influence of the industry, the main part of the camera bloggers and vloggers will claim that there are now finally the possibilities to be able to take X (fill in X yourself!!). It is incomprehensible that we are all still falling for that. for many years there was a movement that claimed that 6million pixels would be enough for A4 photos in magazine quality. The latest Leica M-10-R is clearly a product that was only conceived by marketing people to boost sales. The photographic industry is now really in a downward trend: less than 20 million high quality cameras with and without mirrors are still being produced (compared to more than 120 million in the peak period around 2007). The Canon R-line and the Nikon Z-series have to perform at the masses and the Leica tries to do the same in the luxury segment. Eight thousand Euros for just the camera house is a lot of money. But even older sensor-filled housings still cost a lot of money. You can buy a new Canon for that as long as you get past the blue blazer behavior. The snobs among amateur photographers will have a different opinion. You only have to go to one of the many forums to know where the knowledge is. Not in the brain, I guess.

Juli 2020

2020-07-12T11:28:10+02:00

Olympus

De argumenten, die aantonen dat Olympus zijn camera divisie (netjes genoemd als imaging division) moet gaan verkopen, zijn een beetje vreemd. Afsplitsing leidt tot nieuwe impulsen, heet het. Hete chte argument is natuurlijk geld: de imaging divisie leidt al drei jaar verlies en een andere investeerder stopt er wellicht meer geld in dan de Olympus bazen willen. Na het succes met de halfkleinbeeld Pen camera reeks, heeft Olympus steeds de boot gemist. Ten onrechte! De poging om met de OM spiegelreflex serie de beste handzame camera te maken, liep uit op een fiasco. Maitani, de hoofdontwerper wilde de eigenschappen van de meetzoeker camera, de Leica M, vertalen naar het veelzijdige spiegelreflex concept. De fabriek die er speciaal voor gebouwd werd, kon een productie van 60.000 eenheden per maand aan, toendertijd een normale hoeveelheid voor de grotere fabrikanten, waartoe ook Olympus zich (nog) rekende. Het werden er enkele honderden per maand. Dat de camera dertig jaar in productie is gebleven, kan toegerekend worden aan de schare liefhebbers, die er nog steeds is. De OM serie is een afgeleide van de Pen F, maar zou een heel ander ontwerp krijgen, meer een Hasseblad dan een SLR.
De optiek was compact, net als bij de Leica M, en bijna net zo goed. Toch geloofde niemand dat een zo kleine camera goed zou kunnen presteren. Met de digitale omslag probeerde Olympus nog eens het concept van de compacte camera toe te passen, maar nu met de digitale techniek. De Olympus E-1 en het Four-Thirds formaat waren geboren. Ook dat was geen succes en de OM-D serie heeft problemen om het op te nemen tegen de gevestigde namen. Toch is er een zekere elegantie in ontwerp en functies te zien in de OM-D serie en zeker de Pen-F serie.
Het zou jammer zijn als de Olympus cameras gaan verdwijnen, maar dat gold ook voor de Leica cameras

Leica

Leica is aan een wedergeboorte bezig, dank zij de geldstroom die de eigenaar, miljardair Kaufmann, er naar teo heeft geleid. Uit eigenbelang en niet omdat het merk zo interessant is.
Van de vele initiatieven (brillen, horloges, cinematografie, samenwerking met Huawei (daar heb je Pompeo weer!)) hoor je nog weinig. De royalties van Huawei houden het bedrijf overeind, volgens de laatste financiële gegevens, die echt ondoorzichtig zijn. Ook Leica ontkomt niet aan de pixel race, die de gehele fotowereld in zijn greep houdt. Veertig megapixels zijn wel het nieuwe minimum, lijkt het. De aangekondigde M10-R(esolution) zou de vaandeldrager van de M lijn moeten worden, naast de SL2. Wie kent nog de S-camera, die weer terug naar zijn oorspronkelijke taak lijkt te gaan: als technologie platfrom waarop de andere modellen kunne teren.

Canon

Canon timmert aardig aan de weg, sinds de spiegelloze toekomst wenkt. De strategie van Canon is helder, uitsluitend naar de toekomst gericht. Die van Leica is tweeledig: toekomstgericht en nostalgisch. De Canon R-modellen zijn heel slim bedacht:met een behoudend uiterlijk dat de kopers en gebruikers aanspreekt en met voldoende functies om zelfs de meest veeleisende consument tevreden te stellen

ISO waarden

Alle moderne digitale cameras pronken met gigantische ISO waarden. Dat is net zo fake als de wereld van Trump. De IS-norm was ooit bedacht om fabrikanten van film emulsies en belichtingsmeters een houvast te geven. Er werden strenge eisen aan gesteld, de beruchte zwartingsgraad van D = 0,10 aan de voet van de curve, is er een van. Sinds de matrix belichting is de ISO waarde slechts een aanknopingspunt, dat met de digitale techniek nog verder is verwijderd van een norm. De sensor produceert na een aantal omzwervingen door de software en hardware alleen nog getallen, die simpelweg gemanipuleerd kunnen worden en dus ook vermenigvuldigd. Als een tint een waarde heeft van x, dan is het niet moeilijk om daar de waarde 10x van te maken. Dan heb je een tien maal hogere gevoeligheid dan de basis waarde van de sensor. Je kan dit natuurlijk herhalen en dan krijg je waardes als ISO 51200 of nog hoger. Maar dat heeft niets te maken met de gevoeligheid van de sensor en de gradatie krommes, die er van afgeleid worden.

English translation

Olympus
The arguments, which show that Olympus has to sell its camera division (neatly called imaging division), are a bit strange. Splitting off leads to new impulses, it's called. The hottest argument, of course, is money: the imaging division has been making losses for three years and another investor might put in more money than the Olympus bosses want. After the success with the half-sized Pen camera series, Olympus has always missed the boat. Wrongly! The attempt to make the OM SLR series the best handheld camera ended in a fiasco. Maitani, the chief designer wanted to translate the characteristics of the finder camera, the Leica M, into the versatile SLR concept. The factory that was specially built for it could handle a production of 60,000 units per month, at the time a normal quantity for the larger manufacturers, which Olympus (still) counted on. It turned out to be a few hundred per month. The fact that the camera remained in production for thirty years, can be attributed to the multitude of enthusiasts, who are still there. The OM series is a derivative of the Pen F, but would have a completely different design, more a Hasseblad than an SLR.
The optics were compact, just like the Leica M, and almost as good. Yet no one believed that such a small camera could perform well. With the digital cover, Olympus once again tried to apply the concept of the compact camera, but this time with digital technology. The Olympus E-1 and the Four-Thirds format were born. That wasn't a success either, and the OM-D series has problems taking on the established names. Still, a certain elegance in design and functions can be seen in the OM-D series and certainly the Pen-F series.
It would be a pity if the Olympus cameras were to disappear, but so were the Leica cameras.

Leica
Leica is in the process of rebirth, thanks to the flow of money that the owner, billionaire Kaufmann, has led to teo. Out of self-interest and not because the brand is so interesting.
Of the many initiatives (glasses, watches, cinematography, cooperation with Huawei (there's Pompeo again!)) you don't hear much yet. Huawei's royalties keep the company afloat, according to the latest financial data, which are really opaque. Leica can't escape the pixel race either, which holds the entire photo world in its grip. Forty megapixels are the new minimum, it seems. The announced M10-R(esolution) should become the standard-bearer of the M line, next to the SL2. Who remembers the S-camera, which seems to go back to its original task: as a technology flatfrom which the other models can use.
Canon
Canon has been working hard since the mirrorless future beckoned. Canon's strategy is clear, forward-looking only. Leica's strategy is twofold: forward-looking and nostalgic. Canon R models have been cleverly conceived: with a retaining look that appeals to buyers and users, and with enough features to satisfy even the most demanding consumer.
ISO values
All modern digital cameras show off gigantic ISO values. That's as fake as the world of Trump. The IS standard was once invented to give manufacturers of film emulsions and exposure meters a foothold. There were strict requirements, the infamous density of D = 0.10 at the base of the curve is one of them. Since the matrix exposure, the ISO value is only a starting point, which with digital technology is even further away from a standard. After some wandering through the software and hardware, the sensor only produces numbers, which can simply be manipulated and thus multiplied. If a hue has a value of x, then it is not difficult to make the value 10x. Then you have a ten times higher sensitivity than the base value of the sensor. Of course you can repeat this and then you get values like ISO 51200 or even higher. But that has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the sensor and the gradation curves that are derived from it. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Getallen/numbers

2020-06-14T21:11:42+02:00

Getallen fixatie

We leven in een tijd van getallen. We kennen mensen aan de hand van getallen: hoe lang, hoe veel gewicht, hoe hoog is het salaris, hoeveel verkeersboetes, hoeveel ex-en en hoeveel fototoestellen. We weten helemaal niet of die persoon ook aardig is voor poezen en behulpzaam op straat voor ouderen.
We denken dat een camera beter is als ie meer functies heeft (150 focus punten zijn veel beter dan 15!) en meer pixels is automatisch ook meer beeld kwaliteit. In de meest recente uitgave van FotoMagazin staan de top 35 camera’s van dit moment, die allen een beeldkwaliteit hebben van meer dan 80. De bandbreedte loopt van 81 tot 88 op een schaal van 1 tot 100. Nu heb ik al vaker gezegd dat dit resultaat een schijn nauwkeurigheid voorstelt. Je kan tegenwerpen dat alle camera’s meer dan 70 scoren en dat de top dus op meer dan 80 zit. Vaak wordt beweerd dat die getallen niet de werkelijke beeldkwaliteit weergeven: niet het onscherpte verloop, niet de bokeh werking en ook niet de drie dimensionele weergave. Je meet wat je kan meten en dat hoeft helemaal niets te betekenen.
Maar er is nog een ander aspect. Je koopt een camera voor het plezier dat het bezit en gebruik geeft. Kijk maar naar de Leica kopers. Dat is de homo ludens gedachte. Stel nu dat de tests in FM kloppen. dan geeft 80 of 85 of 88 geen indicatie van het plezier dat het gebruik geeft. Als je nu in die getallen gelooft, dan zit je goed fout met een camera die maar 85 scoort. Je kan nog een andere versie kopen die op 88 staat. Maar geeft die meer plezier? Als je heel mooie beelden maakt met een Olympus MFT en heel gelukkig bent met de ergonomie en de uitstraling van het apparaat, waarom zou je dan gelukkiger worden met een Nikon Z7, of een Panasonic S1, die veel lomper overkomen en veel zwaarder zijn, laat staan de omvang van de objectieven.
Net zo goed als IQ testen niks zeggen over iemands mate aan sympathie voor dieren of de natuur, zegt een score op prestaties (objectief + software + sensor) niks over het plezier. En ook niet, laat dat voorop staan, over de werkelijk waarneembare beeldkwaliteit.

++++++++++
++++++++++

Number fixation

We live in a time of numbers. We know people by numbers: how long, how much weight, how high is the salary, how many traffic fines, how many ex-en and how many cameras. We don't know at all if that person is also nice to cats and helpful on the street for the elderly.
We think a camera is better if it has more functions (150 focus points are much better than 15!) and more pixels is automatically more image quality. In the most recent issue of FotoMagazin you will find the top 35 cameras of this moment, which all have an image quality of over 80. The bandwidth runs from 81 to 88 on a scale of 1 to 100. Now I've already said several times that this result represents a spurious accuracy. You can object that all cameras score more than 70 and that the top is therefore more than 80. It is often claimed that these numbers do not represent the actual image quality: not the unsharpness gradient, not the bokeh effect and also not the three-dimensional representation. You measure what you can measure and that doesn't have to mean anything at all.
But there is another aspect. You buy a camera for the pleasure of owning and using it. Just look at the Leica buyers. That's the homo ludens idea. Now suppose the tests in FM are correct. Then 80 or 85 or 88 gives no indication of the pleasure of use (no Leica in this top segment!). Now, if you believe in those numbers, you will be unhappy with a camera that only scores 85. You can buy another version that scores 88. But is it more fun? If you shoot very pleasant images with an Olympus MFT and are very happy with the ergonomics and the appearance of the device, why would you be happier with a Nikon Z7, or a Panasonic S1, which looks much more clumsy and much heavier, let alone the size of the lenses.
Just as IQ testing says nothing about a person's level of sympathy for animals or nature, a score on performance (lens + software + sensor) says nothing about fun. And neither, let's put that first, does it say anything about the actual perceptible image quality.

Ontspanning/relaxation

2020-05-22T16:04:27+02:00

Around Utrecht (where I live) there is a long stretch of defensive structures, the well-known Dutch Inundation Area. (water linie). A few days ago, when the sun was shining, I went to one of the spots (on my e-bike) and had with me the Leica M-A, loaded with Adox CMS-II (ISO 12!!), the famous Gossen Mastersix and the Leica Apo-Summicron-M 50mm. While ISO 12 may be quite low, the Sunny Rule states that I should use f/16 with 1/15 sec or 1/250 at f4, quite suitable for this lens (in darker shadow areas I could use f/2 and 1/125). Today I developed the films (I had two of them) in a special developer (Adotech IV). The development process was quite easy: dilute the developer solution, check the temperature and use the TAS tool. At the same time I made myself a cup of coffee and waited for ten minutes. Washing was easy with the Ilford advise that is eco friendly.
The negatives were well exposed (at least most: should not have guessed the exposure and try to use the meter!)
Now the darkroom waits for printing the best negatives.

Rondom Utrecht (waar ik woon) ligt een lange strook verdedigingswerken, het bekende Nederlandse Overstromingsgebied. (waterlinie). Een paar dagen geleden, toen de zon scheen, ging ik naar een van de plekken (op mijn e-bike) en had ik bij mij: de Leica M-A, geladen met Adox CMS-II (ISO 12!!), de beroemde Gossen Mastersix en de Leica Apo-Summicron-M 50mm. ISO 12 mag dan vrij laag zijn, de Sunny Rule stelt dat ik f/16 moet gebruiken met 1/15 sec of 1/250 bij f4, heel geschikt voor deze lens (in donkere schaduwgebieden zou ik f/2 en 1/125 kunnen gebruiken). Vandaag heb ik de films ontwikkeld (ik had er twee) in een speciale ontwikkelaar (Adotech IV). Het ontwikkelproces was vrij eenvoudig: verdun de ontwikkeloplossing, controleer de temperatuur en gebruik de TAS-tool. Tegelijk heb ik voor mezelf een kopje koffie gemaakt en tien minuten gewacht. Het wassen was eenvoudig met het Ilford advies dat eco-vriendelijk is.
De negatieven waren goed belicht (in ieder geval de meeste: had de belichting niet moeten raden en probeer de meter te gebruiken!)
Nu wacht de donkere kamer op het afdrukken van de beste negatieven.

Reflections

2020-05-09T14:19:38+02:00

NEDERLANDS, voor ENGELS zie hieronder

Volgens de econoom Selacek, in een boek uit 2011, alweer bijna tien jaar geleden, werken we teveel, kopen we teveel, vliegen we teveel en verspillen we teveel. Kortom een typisch gedrag van de hedendaagse consument. Je zou verwachten dat de stilstand in de economie, veroorzaakt door Covid-19, wel tot reflectie zou leiden over dit gedrag.Helaas verander je mensen niet zomaar. Ook voor de camera industrie, die al jaren kampt met een teruggang in de belangstelling van kopers, is er maar een weg: en die is vooruit: lukt het niet met dSLR’s dan maar met spiegel-loos. Die zijn goedkoper te maken en je kan er meer voor vragen. De consument trapt er mooi in en koopt zich suf. Althans dat is de indruk. Maar in feite is er sprake van een teruggang in de verkoop van alle camera’s voor gevorderden en de camera’s voor beginnelingen zijn er al niet meer: die rol heeft de slimme telefoon overgenomen. Er zijn diverse momenten in de geschiedenis van de foto industrie die geleid hebben tot een kopersstaking en een technologische stop: de eerste was de automatisering van de camera functies tot aan de afstandsinstelling, dat was rond 1980. Gelukkig kwam toen Minolta op het idee op een oud patent van Leitz te moderniseren en in de compacte camera te plaatsen. De auto focus voor de SLR was geboren. Die techniek was er al jaren eerder in de point en shoot modellen van talloze leveranciers, maar baseerde op een ander principe. Voor de SLR modellen die toen voornamelijk door ambitieuze amateurs en vakfotografen werden gekocht was het een drempel die overschreden moest worden. Dat ging met de inbouw van de sensor een stuk gemakkelijker. Ook toen was er een stilstand in de markt: wat zou je nog kunnen bedenken als je al een Nikon F5, F6 of een Canon 1n, 1v hebt. Gelukkig had de industrie al een nieuw speeltje klaar staan: de digitale camera. De rest is geschiedenis. Nu staan we weer voor een technische stilstand. Wie wil er nu nog een nieuwe camera kopen?

Jaren geleden, toen ik nog voor Camera Magazine, inmiddels ter ziele, schreef, werd mij duidelijk hoe sterk de vervlechting is tussen industrie en de gedrukte pers, en de online bloggers. Elke importeur had zijn marketing persoon uitgefaseerd en de marketing in handen gelegd van een bureau die wel voor verstand heeft van de consument maar niets weet van camera techniek. Als je in een artikel iets negatiefs schreef over een camera of merk, werd je onmiddellijk daarop aangesproken en werd het verband met de advertenties subtiel aangeduid. Sterker nog: je kreeg niet eens meer een camera voor beproeving en moest het doen met de tekst die het bureau in samenspraak met de maker had opgesteld. Een verkapte advertorial dus. Ook Leica, toch lange tijd een ‘eerlijk’ bedrijf met de uitdrukkelijke wens om kritisch commentaar goed te verwerken, heeft nu een feel-good strategie. Ik krijg al jaren geen Leica producten meer van de fabriek of de importeur, omdat ik nog wel eens kritisch wil zijn over een product of over de marketing teksten. Aan die feel-goed strategie wil ik niet meedoen en dan is dit dus het gevolg. Niet dat ik er rouwig om ben! De firma lijkt meer op een dependance van Panasonic. Schrijven over Leica producten is nu niet meer interessant sinds de producten meer en meer gelijk zijn aan de concurrentie en de filosofie van het bedrijf meer op winst-maken is gericht dan op het maken van producten die voor de fotograaf interessant zijn, zoals in de tijd van Wetzlar en zelfs Solms. Maar we weten ook hoe deze aanpak stukliep: het faillissement was nabij en de rijke meneer Kaufmann kon gemakkelijk alle aandelen overnemen. De rest is geschiedenis!

ENGLISH VERSION

According to the economist Selacek, in a book from 2011, already almost ten years ago, we work too much, buy too much, fly too much and waste too much. In short, a typical behaviour of today's consumer. One would expect that the standstill in the economy, caused by Covid-19, would lead to a reflection on this behaviour. Unfortunately, you don't change people just like that.
For the camera industry, which has been struggling for years with a decline in the interest of buyers, there is only one way: and that is forwards: if you don't succeed with dSLR, try it with mirror-less. These can be made cheaper and you can ask more money. Consumers are falling in love with them and are buying themselves drowsy. At least that's the impression. But in fact there is a decline in sales of all cameras at least for advanced users. The cameras for beginners are no longer there: the smart phone has taken over that role. There are several moments in the history of the photo industry that have led to a buyer strike and a technological stop: the first was the automation of the camera functions up to the distance setting, which was around 1980. Fortunately, Minolta then came up with the idea of modernising an old Leitz patent and placing it in the compact SLR camera. The auto focus for the SLR was born. That technique had been around for years in the point and shoot models of countless suppliers, but was based on a different principle. For the SLR models that were then mainly bought by ambitious amateurs and professional photographers, it was a threshold that had to be crossed. That went a lot easier with the installation of the sensor. Even then there was a standstill in the market: what could you think of if you already have a Nikon F5, F6 or a Canon 1n, 1v. Fortunately, the industry found a new toy ready: the digital camera. The rest is history. Now we are at a technical standstill again. Who still wants to buy a new camera?

Years ago, when I was writing for Camera Magazine, now defunct, it became clear to me how strong the connection is between the industry and the print press, and now the online bloggers. Each importer had phased out his marketing person and put the marketing in the hands of an agency that understands the consumer (perhaps) but knows nothing about camera technology.
If you wrote something negative about a camera or brand in an article, you were immediately addressed and the connection with the advertisements was subtly indicated. What's more: you were no longer even given a camera for testing and had to do it with the text that the agency had drawn up in consultation with the maker. So it was a disguised advertorial. Even Leica, which for a long time was an 'honest' company with the explicit desire to process critical comments properly, now has a feel-good strategy. I haven't received Leica products from the factory or the importer for years, because I still want to be independently critical about a product or about the marketing texts. I don't want to participate in that feel-good strategy and the result is there. Not that I'm sad about it! The connection with Panasonic is now so strong, that Leica seems to act as an upmarket strategy for that company. Writing about Leica products is not interesting anymore since the products are more and more equal to the competition and the philosophy of the company is more focused on making profits than on making products that are interesting for the photographer, like in the days of Wetzlar and even Solms. But we also know how this approach broke down: bankruptcy was imminent and rich Mr. Kaufmann could easily take over all the shares. The rest is history!

Facebook

2020-05-07T13:23:16+02:00

Ik zit nu ook op Facebook. daar kun je gemakkelijk de NL- teksten volgen en vertalen.
Ik ben geen fan van Facebook, maar als je zichtbaar wil zijn in dit media wereldje, dan is er nauwelijks een alternatief.
I am on Facebook now. Texts are in Dutch, as is the case on this blog. But texts can be easily translated.
I do not like Facebook, but if you want to be visible, it is the only kid on the block!

terug naar de slow fotografie?

2020-05-07T13:00:11+02:00

We zijn ons er nauwelijks van bewust! Als we een foto maken, denken we vaak dat we iets origineels op de foto zetten. In feite doen gebruiken we thema’s, composities en inkaderingen, die al sinds 1900 gecodeerd en gereglementeerd zijn. Datzelfde is het geval als we nadenken over een nieuw fototoestel, digitaal is nu de norm! Wat we niet (willen) zien is de samenspanning tussen de tijdschriften en de industrie, die ons probeert wijs te maken dat we nog betere foto’s zullen maken met de allernieuwste apparaten. De personen op de nieuwe media, influenzers en bloggers, trappen in dezelfde val! Met de nieuwste apparaten (uit 2020) foto’s maken volgens de normen van 1900. Dat is toch wel vreemd. Creativiteit staat voorop in de aanprijzingen voor de modernste fototoestellen. Dat is ook wel nodig: alle toestellen kunnen op automaat de standaard beelden met de prachtigste techniek vastleggen zonder dat de bediener ook maar iets bijdraagt. Dan staat de controle van de creativiteit tegenover de niet-controle van de automaat.
Misschien toch weer terug naar de slow fotografie: die met het filmpje en het middenformaat, zoals de Hasselblad V of de Rolleicord en -flex of zelfs de Mamiya C220 of C330. En ook de doka weer terughalen! Dan moet je zelfs nadenken over je eigen schaduw in het beeld: De beroemde fotograaf Walker Evans, maakte met groot formaat camera een foto vaneen persoon en zette zijn eigen schaduw erop: daarmee kon je zien dat et beeld authentiek is. Nu geldt het als doodzonde: de schaduw van de fotograaf in beeld is een typische beginners fout die alleen snapshooters maken. Waarom is die schaduw eigenlijk een probleem?

Actuele film emulsies

2020-04-14T11:28:25+02:00

De ISO100 film

Er wordt veel over verschillende emulsies geschreven. De gebruikelijke vorm (en waarschijnlijk ook de meest praktische formule) bestaat uit het maken van opnames en het visueel en subjectief beschrijven van de afdrukken. Het is vaak niet duidelijk of de negatieven digitaal gescand worden omdat de afdrukken alleen via internet te zien zijn. Toch is er niets mis mee om de combinatie film emulsie en ontwikkelaar op een aantal kenmerken te meten en op deze uitkomsten die in ieder geval het subjectieve element uitschakelen de conclusies te baseren.
Mijn methode is eenvoudig:
(1) ik maak een reeks foto’s van de grijskaart met belichtingen die variëren van + 5 tot -5 om de gehele zonereeks in beeld te krijgen;
(2) ik maak foto’s met de Leica M7 en de Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm van een testkaart om het scheidend vermogen en de korrelstructuur onder de microscoop (met 40x en 100x vergroting) te kunnen bepalen. Het eerste is een meetgegeven en het tweede is een subjectieve indruk omdat ik geen micro-densitometer bezit.
(3) de films worden ontwikkeld met een ontwikkelaar die als standaard geldt (voor kleinbeeld is dat een randscherpte verhogende verdunde ontwikkelaar) en voor zo veel mogelijk films wordt dezelfde ontwikkelaar gebruikt. In mijn geval is de standaard FX39 II (nu door Adox gemaakt), de Adonal als variant van Rodinal en de Maco Supergrain (de opvolger van de Amaloco AM 74). Alle drie de ontwikkelaars zijn scherpte-verhogend, toonwaarde behoudend en korrelgrootte behoudend. Het zijn geen klassieke fijnkorrel-ontwikkelaars, maar dat is ook niet nodig bij de huidige stand van de emulsie techniek.
De films kunnen in drie groepen worden verdeeld
(1) de klassieke laaggevoelige films met gevarieerde korrelvorm als de Ilford Pan F+ en de Lomography Potsdam;
(2) de modernere emulsies met de platte korrelvorm (T-grain), zoals de Kodak Tmax en de Fuji AcrossII;
(3) de speciale films als de Adox HR 50, een versie van de zogeheten mono-dispersie mircofilms.

De Lomography Potsdam film wordt soms aangeduid als de ORWO UN74, een cinematografische emulsie die een steile gradatie bezit, net als de Ferrania P30. OP de verpakking staat echter “Made in China”. Van de Berlin versie (ISO400) bestaan twee versies die in eenzelfde verpakking wordt geleverd. Deze tweede (verbeterde) versie wordt in Duitsland gemaakt en zou de ORWO N74plus kunnen zijn. Op de verpakking is de opdruk “Made in China” overgeplakt met de sticker “Made in Germany)
De eerste conclusie die in ieder geval blijkt uit de densitometer metingen is dat de aangegeven gevoeligheid in geen enkel geval wordt gehaald.
Deze constatering moet wat nader worden toegelicht. De officiële norm voor de gevoeligheid van een foto emulsie gaat uit van een bepaalde gradatie en een zwarting van D = 0,1 (zonder sluier) op een gespecificeerd punt. De effectieve gevoeligheid is voor iedere fotograaf verschillend, maar het Zone Systeem heeft bepaald dat die D = 0,1 moet worden bepaald bij vier stops onderbelichting te opzichte van de grijskaartmeting. Ook dit is een willekeurige aanname, die er van uitgaat dat de schaduw detaillering een belangrijk element is in de uiteindelijke afdruk. Dit is per situatie verschillend. Zone V geldt als de grijskaart meting en Zone I is vier stops onderbelichting. Uit de tabel blijkt dat geen van de emulsies die norm haalt. De Zone II en III (dus een onderbelichting van drie en twee diafragma waardes) komt voor de meeste films in de buurt van een densiteit 0,1. Als je dus een effectieve schaduw detaillering wil, moet je twee tot drie diafragma waardes overbelichten. En uiteraard de ontwikkeltijd aanpassen (verminderen met 30% minimaal), anders kun je de hoge lichten niet meer afdrukken.
Het in de digitale fotografie veel gebruikte begrip van ‘dynamisch bereik’ met een omvang van 10, 12 en 14 stops wordt door de film emulsies niet gehaald: hier stoot je al aan de grens met 9 of 10 stops (Pan F+ en Tmax). Ook hier is een dosis pragmatisme wel noodzakelijk. Afdruk papier haalt maximaal negen stops tussen een reflectie graad van 0,06 (helder wit) tot 2,24 (diepzwart). Dit geldt zowel voor inkjet papier als emulsie papier. Een grote zwartingsomvang op het negatief (chemisch negatief of rekenkundig beeld) biedt alleen een reserve voor foutieve belichtingen. En hoe groter het bereik is, hoe kleiner de toonwaarde verschillen zijn, die nog zichtbaar gemaakt kunnen worden. De nieuwste Leica M10 Monochrom wordt een grote rijkdom aan toonwaardes toegedicht, maar dit is een subjectieve indruk, die nog niet meetbaar is gemaakt. De Kodak Tmax staat bekend om een lineaire gradatie, die het mogelijk maakt om over- en onderbelichting te compenseren zonder extra inspanning in de doka (doordrukken en tegenhouden). De Heiland Splitgrade methode biedt zich aan als de ideale manier om met dit soort films om te gaan.
Pragmatisme vereist dat we de afdruk beoordelen op de waarneembare toonschaal.
Vanuit dit perspectief is het negatief met een bereik van zeven tot acht stops ideaal, want dan kan je de toonwaardes oprekken tot heel waarneembare stapjes. De meeste film emulsies die onderwerp zijn van deze vergelijking vallen binnen dit bereik. Alleen de Potsdam en de HR50 vallen uit erbuiten. De bolling van gradatie curve van de HR50 geeft aan dat de middentonen zeer verfijnd kunnen worden weergegeven. De steile gradatie van de Potsdam film geeft aan dat de hoge lichten snel dichtlopen, maar dat in de middentonen de grijswaarden een visueel heel aantrekkelijke weergave hebben. Voor een groot dynamisch bereik is de Tmax het meest geschikt. De Pan F+ en de Across II hebben een karakteristieke curve die een getrouw beeld van de werkelijke helderheden in de scene weergeven.

Het scheidend vermogen ligt bij alle films, behalve de Potsdam, boven de 80 lijnparen per mm. Die waarde zie je pas bij een vergroting van minimaal vijftien keer, maar dan speelt de korrel alweer een belangrijke rol. De kleinste korrelgrootte hebben de HR50 en de Pan F+, maar die zorgt ook voor de meeste reductie van het scheidend vermogen.
Het zal duidelijk zijn dat de Tmax en de Across II eigenlijk de meest pragmatische keuzes zijn met de PanF+ als goede tweede keus.
Hieronder de grafieken en tabellen.

160 lp/mm met Leica M7 en Ilford 100D!

2020-03-14T13:03:54+01:00

Met de nieuwe generatie beeldsensoren die tussen de 40 en 50 Mp aanbieden, is een scheidend vermogen mogelijk van maximaal tussen de 80 en 90 Lp/mm volgens de testkaart en testomstandigheden die ik gebruik.
Onder dezelfde omstandigheden heb ik de (oude) Ilford 100 Delta onderzocht. Die film is geladen in de Leica M7 met de Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm met een diafragma f/5.6 en de afstand tussen camera (uiteraard op statief) was 2.2 meter. Ontwikkeling in SuperGrain (een verbeterde versie van de klassieke Amaloco AM74). Tot mijn verbazing levert deze combinatie een scheidend vermogen van 160 Lp/mm, dus bijna twee keer zo veel als met de modernste sensoren haalbaar is.
Dus in plaats van veel geld uit te geven aan de upgrade naar een actuele beeldsensor (die gegarandeerd over enkele jaren al weer verouderd is) kun je beter een oude M6 kopen en die laden met film uit de Ilford stal. De bewerking is wat lastiger en tijdrovender, maar de resultaten zijn nog steeds veel beter dan wat je met een actuele en dure beeldsensor kan presteren.

160 lp/mm with Leica M7 and Ilford 100D!

With the new generation of image sensors that offer between 40 and 50 Mp, a separating power of up to between 80 and 90 Lp/mm is possible according to the test chart and test conditions I use.
Under the same conditions I investigated the (old) Ilford 100 Delta. That film was loaded into the Leica M7 and the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm with an aperture f/5.6 and the distance between camera (of course on tripod) was 2.2 meters. Development in SuperGrain (an improved version of the classic Amaloco AM74). To my surprise, this combination delivers a separation power of 160 Lp/mm, so almost twice as much as is achievable with the most modern sensors.
So instead of spending a lot of money on upgrading to a current image sensor (which is guaranteed to be obsolete in a few years time) you better buy an old M6 and load it with film from the Ilford stable. The editing is a bit more difficult and time consuming, but the results are still much better than what you can achieve with a current and expensive image sensor.

Mythes en zo

2020-02-26T16:42:05+01:00

Over Leica valt nog weinig te zeggen. De meeste verhalen en opinies zijn niet op echte feiten gebaseerd. Dit geldt zowel voor de positieva als negatieve verhalen. Over wat er allemaal over de klassieke M3 camera en over de vele Leica objectieven wordt verteld, kun je je alleen nog verwonderen. De nu werkelijk talloze websites, blogs en commentaren volgen bijna allemaal het papagaaien-concept. Iemand zegt iets, en een tweede beaamt dit verhaal en bij de derde persoon is het een feit. Dit is het effect van internet communicatie. Het is een grote echoput: je roept iets en je krijgt het honderdvoudig terug.
Voor de vele andere mechanische cameras en de werkelijk goede objectieven van Japanse en Duitse makelij (de Schneider Xenon 2/50 mm is echt beter dan de Summicron 2/50 van dezelfde generatie en de Nikkor-H is echt even goed als de Summicron -R) geldt een treuriger verhaal: ze zijn verdoemd tot vergetelheid.
De Canon F1 new was een geweldig concept en een tour de force van de Japanse ontwerpers, net als de nog oudere Canon meetzoekercameras. Toch zijn die cameras totaal vergeten en wie er nog van weet zucht diep en zegt dan dat ze zo niet meer gemaakt worden. Ook zo een uitspraak die als dooddoener de wereld in gaat.
Hetzelfde verhaal gaat ook op voor het beruchte Zone Systeem. Je wordt er nog steeds mee overvallen op allerlei websites die zich bezighouden met film en filmchemie.
Die websites staan ook bol van de meningen over films en cameras, de een nog onzinniger dan de ander.
Je kan echt niet beter doen dan een densitometer kopen of lenen en dan je eigen combinatie van film, ontwikkelaar en belichtingsmeter (ingebouwd en/of extern) uitproberen.
Ik heb overigens de nieuwe Ilford Multigrade RC (V?) in de doka liggen om uit te proberen. Duur? Dat wel: 10 vel A4 voor de prijs van bijna Euro 30 (met verzendkosten! Is er nog een winkel waar je die spullen over de toonbank kan kopen!?).

analog and digital tools

2020-02-24T11:36:24+01:00

Below is a picture of two new tools for calculations. On top is a Swiss emulation of the famous HP41 CX wit all modules inside and below is a new Japanese circular slide rule. The HP is much more convenient and more accurate, but gives no insights. The slide rule is less accurate (but still good enough for Berek to calculate the Elmar design), less convenient (until you know how to use it), and gives you insight into the number relations.

NEW Pocketguide is now digital for smartphone and tablet use

2020-02-24T10:41:38+01:00

The original pocketbook is quite popular and is now included in the digital version of the Leica pocket guide 2018. Only Euro 10,00! Check the shop tag and see for yourself.

I am BTW working on a new book about film photography and mechanical cameras, including Leica CRF till Leica M-A. This book will be published only in digital format.

SL2 review

2020-02-18T18:38:29+01:00

General impressions of the SL2

Around 1930 Moholo-Nagy, one of the Bauhaus teachers, wrote that in the future the photographically illiterate would be judged as illiterate. The Leica SL2 proves the opposite of this statement. Anyone who can not make a good picture with this camera is really a fool. Even without photographic knowledge, it is almost impossible to produce a technically bad image with this camera. You can check with Instagram whether it is also a good image.
The Leica SL2 tries to evoke the culture of the famous and traditional Leicaflex. The original Leicaflex (1965) (with the external meter on the front of the prism housing) was still without the add-on SL. This only came later in 1968, when light metering was introduced through the lens. SL stands for "Selektive Lichtmessung".
The designers of the Leicaflex copied many functions that were already common at the time, but developed their own Leitz-inspired technique in order to be slightly better than the competition. The Leica SL that was announced in 2015 pursued the same goal (to be slightly better than the competition), but the technology was no longer Leitz inspired. Many components of the SL were designed and manufactured by other manufacturers. Leica limited itself to relatively minor modifications to the specifications, to the integration of all those components, to the interface and to adjustments to the software. In this digital age, the Leica factory has evolved from an integral manufacturer to a system integrator. The lenses are also inspired by others. That is nothing new. The Leicaflex lens series had already been supplemented with Minolta and Sigma designs.
The Leica SL2 was introduced in 2019 and has continued the strategy already visible with the SL. Interface simplification has been enhanced and more proprietary software has been integrated with third-party components. The influence of Panasonic has at least become visible with the five-axis image stabilisation.
Compared to the Olympus Pen-F (at least, the digital MFT version) some things stand out: weight and volume of the SL2 are not for wimps; the Olympus feels less solid (due to weight and less clear feedback when operating the buttons); the Leica has much fewer options and buttons, which makes using the SL2 simpler.
Put the SL2 on automatic (ISO, AE and AF) and on image stabilisation and you can forget about it.
Compared to the Leica M Monochrom (M246), the lower volume and weight are especially striking, especially in combination with the Summilux 50 mm lenses. The SL version of the lens weighs three times as much as the M version.

Monochrom weight: 680 grams (with battery)
SL2 weight: 915/835 (with/without battery)

Summilux-M 1.4/50 ASPH weight: 335 grams
Summilux-SL 1.4/50 mm ASPH. weight: 1065 grams

The comparison

My main concern is the comparative performance. Is the new 47 Mp image sensor of the SL in combination with the Summilux lens so much better than the 24 Mp image sensor of the M240/M10 with the Summilux version for the rangefinder camera.
I do not own the M10 and I have to make do with the M246. Earlier comparisons show that the M246 performs more than the Bayer colleagues. This has to do with the effective algorithms for interpolation (demosaicing). The comparison with the monochrome image sensor is not entirely fair, by the way.
The original M8.2 with the CCD image sensor of 'only' 10 Mp and in the APS-H format are also included in the comparison.
The high number of pixels on the SL2's image sensor is hailed as the best way to store and display the finest details. In practice, not much of this is noticeable. Only with partial magnification and intensive manipulations in photo editing programs is the large number of pixels useful.
The important consideration to take the SL2 with the latest generation of lenses is based on the autofocus capabilities, the sensor with very small pixels (4 micrometres) and the image stabilisation. Leica photographers who work with a rangefinder model and own one or more M lenses will be charmed by the L-->M adapter.
The test covers the comparison of a number of Leica objectives. The two most important are the Summilux versions for the SL and the M. The M version is the current ASPH version. Because the L mount is only available for the SL it is obvious to use the SL2 with the 47 Megapixel sensor and the L-->M adapter. Out of competition also participated the Apo-Summicron-M and the 7Artisans 1.1/50 mm, an objective design that strongly resembles the original Sonnar construction and in performance quite similar to the first version of the Noctilux-M 1/50 mm.

The standard

Many years ago Zeiss already made an analysis of the requirements that can be made of 35mm objects and they came to the conclusion that 40 line pairs/mm represent an absolute limit if you assume an enlargement of 10 times the 35mm format. With 40 lp/mm on the negative you arrive at a magnification of 10 times at 4 lp/mm on the print and that is the limit that can be seen with the naked eye at a distance of 25 cm and under sharp light. A salon photo on a larger print size, but also to be seen at a larger distance would give the impression of high sharpness with a(1) lp/mm.
The eye is very sensitive to the contrast of contours (lines) of object shapes and then 20 lp/mm is already a clear boundary. Japanese manufacturers therefore prefer the 10 and 30 lp/mm, while German manufacturers emphasise 10 and 40 lp/mm. The 40 lp/mm are therefore a practical limit for the sharpness impression of a photograph.
Handmade shots show that the 40 lp/mm are also the extreme limit of what is achievable. With the image stabilisation of the SL2 in active mode, you can still reach that value at 1/60. Without image stabilisation, the limit can generally be drawn at 1/1000 sec. This difference corresponds to the 4 to 5 stops that is the gain of the image stabilisation. Everything depends on the personal situation that determines how still you can hold a camera/lens.
All objectives easily reach that 40 lp/mm at all apertures. Even the Olympus Pen-F with the standard zoom lens 14-42 mm achieves a maximum of 50 lp/mm. That is also the reason why all digital images are so similar in performance.
Even at full aperture, both Summilux objectives reach a value of 80 to 100 lp/mm. The objectives reach this level only on a tripod, in itself a down-to-earth thought.

The test situation

It is easy to make an objective comparison in bright light. But a bright lens like the Summilux is also used in dimmer conditions. It is a well-known fact that a lens always performs better in bright and high-contrast subjects. That is why I choose a lighting system that means an obstacle for every lens: weak light and low contrast is available at 30 to 300 lux.
The test charts are (1) the NBS1963A card and (2) a classic pattern as designed by the Dutch photographer Tirion. His font patterns are very heavy for digital registration because there are so many fine curves in the letters.
The first pattern gives the separating power in line pairs/mm: always good for comparative recordings and the second pattern gives a good insight in the way small curved details are represented.
In the test shots I consciously chose for the middle part of the sensor. Why only the centre part? First of all, in most shots with such bright lenses, the motifs are placed in the centre. Secondly, the emphasis on the edges and angles is grossly exaggerated when assessing the performance of a lens. Thirdly, there is a simple consideration: I do not have the option of placing the camera plan parallel to a wide test wall. This requires a special layout in order not to get distorted results.

The test itself

It took quite some effort to produce an optimal image with the Sl2. The autofocus was very fast, but not super accurate. It took quite some time to produce a maximum sharp image. You have the same problem with the mechanical finder of the M-camera. It is very reliable, but the tolerances are at the limit when it comes to critical sharpness. After all, you have a flat surface and suddenly half a millimetre is a lot.
The rangefinder camera on a tripod gave a tolerance of half a millimeter at 2 meters. In percentage terms, that is the maximum achievable: a tolerance of 0.025 % is an extreme value for a mechanical adjustment, better than that with autofocus: the SL2 indicated between 2.10 and 2.30 metres at 2 metres. This variation is interesting in itself.
The test pattern consists of black bars on a white background with ever decreasing distances between the bars. You would say that the software has no problem with the interpolation of such a simple pattern. The film technology indeed sees this pattern as a simple test: see the illustration: with blurring, only the density of the black and white pattern changes and the width of the black bar increases. The NBS test pattern is a standard for comparisons of lenses and film material. The comparison is visual (under the microscope with the eye) and therefore there can be a big difference in interpretation. In order to reduce this difference, there is a rule that says that you may only choose that pattern in which the different black and white stripes are clearly distinguishable. This then becomes the so-called boundary frequency. There is also a difference between the brightness of the pattern: do you just see the separate orbits or do you see clearly and brightly. That is the effect of contrast reproduction. A clear image gives a pleasant reproduction. In digital photography it is common to work with a dose of sharpening to give an image an artificial contrast. You don't see anymore, but the details do stand out.
The pattern of the test chart is as shown below.

The numbers must be multiplied by the reduction measure of the lens. In the case of the 50 mm at 35 mm size and at two meters distance: that is 40x. I use that distance more often, because it makes a simple comparison possible. The pattern with number 1.0 then becomes 40 lp/mm. Most tests come out between 1.4 and 1.8 for film and digital. Only the microfilms get between 2.8 and 3.2. Below is an example of a current SL2 with SX-SL lens at 1.4.

Both the 2.5 and the 2.2 are possible as a choice for the limit at 1.4. With the 2.2 (88lp/mm) the five line pairs are clearly visible, with the 2.5 (100 lp/mm) there is a reasonable doubt. Even more magnification shows that the various line pairs merge into each other and are therefore no longer clearly distinguishable from each other.
I show this because I think the reader of my analyses should know how I think and on which facts my arguments are based. It is customary in the country of option analysts on the internet not to mention the exact method. Sometimes I ask for it, but so far I haven't received any answer. Because this comparison is so important, I want to be very transparent in the basic data and the derived conclusions.
Another remark: the Nyquist frequency for the SL is 116 lp/mm, for the Monochrom-2 it is 83 lp/mm and for the M8.2 still 73.5 lp/mm.

SL2, Summmilux-SL 50 mm and Summilux-M 50 mm ASPH

The large volume of the lens is explained by the built-in autofocus which includes a stepper motor and moving lens parts. Also the diameter of the lens mount on the camera side is mentioned as causing the volume and at the same time this larger diameter would give the lens designer more leeway to produce better performance. At least that is the opinion of the Canon and Nikon advertising people. Leica is also going in the same direction with the L-mount.
The different aperture openings give the image below in line pairs per mm:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 80; 80; 80; 88; 88; 80; 80; 80

The pattern that shows the same quality at all apertures is remarkable and raises the question of whether internal programs help the optical designer. This is not unusual for modern digital cameras and their lenses. It is not for nothing that a recognition mechanism is active in the camera, which recognizes the correct lens and makes the corresponding corrections.
This suspicion is confirmed by the analysis of the SL2 and the Summilux-M 50 mm ASPH.
This lens with the recognition active gives the following results:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 88; 88; 88; 88; 100; 100; 80;
This lens has the same resolving power as the SX-SL, but there are clear differences: there is a color shift in all patterns between 40 lp/mm and 64 lp/mm, and the details around 80 lp/mm are stained, while they are actually black and white lines. These discolorations are caused by the larger proportion of chromatic aberrations, with which the interpolation algorithm clearly has difficulty. You don't see that on black and white film! Only at aperture f/4.0 you have a clear contrast rich image.

As a check, I also compared the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm:
2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
88; 88; 100; 100; 100/112; 72; 72;

An interesting maverick is the 7Artisans 50/1.1 on the SL2 with the Leica SL-M adapter. At full aperture(f/1.1) there is a violent degree of overradiation, but the 40 lp/mm are clearly visible. Astigmatism is abundant!
Diaphragm to f/1.4 produces a clear image with now 64 lp/mm and at f/2.0 it even goes to the 80 lp/mm with a clear contrast rich image. At f/2.8 you even have 88 lp/mm and at f/4.0 also the 100 lp/mm comes into view. This performance remains even at smaller apertures and only at f/11.0 it goes down to 72 lp/mm. This is a remarkable lens that certainly puts the old Noctilux 1.0/50 mm to the crown and is unbeatable considering its price.

The Leica Monochrom 2 with SX-M 50 ASPH and Apo-Summicron-M 50mm

This combination is without the artificial optical correction and we now see the familiar image: low contrast at the larger apertures.
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
72; 80; 80; 80; 88; 80; 80; 72;
It is noteworthy that with this camera the color shifts are not perceptible at all.

The Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm
The separating power remains constant at apertures from f/2.0 to f/4.0, but the definition increases and thus the ability to display the very fine details.
2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 80; 80; 88; 88; 88; 80

The Leica M8.2 with SX-M 50 ASPH and Apo-Summicron-M 50

Both lenses are close to the limit of the Nyquist frequency of 73 lp/mm, which the image sensor is still able to display. The amount of light was 400 - 800 lux. The amount of light was 400 - 800 lux, so very low and suitable for a lens intended for twilight conditions...
These are the results of the SX-M 50 ASPH:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
72; 72; 72; 64; 64; 64; 64; 64;

Below are the results of the Apo-Summicron-M 50. 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
72; 72; 72; 72; 64; 64; 64

The conclusions

There is very little difference between the various lenses. The SX-SL 50 does better than the SX-M 50 and marginally less than the Apo-Summicron-M 50. The limit is clearly the quality of the programs that are active in the SL camera. If it is true that the software helps the optical designer, especially with the very fine details and the contrast of those same details, then it is logical that Leica seeks refuge in the software development and puts the noble craft of the optical designer out of the way.
The results show that
(a) The added value of the image sensor of the SL2 of 47 Mp is hardly visible compared to the image sensor of the Monochrom-2 with 24 Mp and the difference with the image sensor of the M8 with 10Mp is not particularly large;
(b) the differences between the optical performance of the various lenses, as visible in the MTF graphs, are not translated into the results that can be achieved in practice;
(c) the differences that exist are smoothed out by the effectiveness of the programs inside and outside the camera;
(d) the maximum achievable limit frequency of 80 lp/mm is only visible in everyday practice and is usable on a tripod and with careful working (AF precision, mechanical tolerances of the finder). The mechanism of focus peaking drops quite a few stitches on both the SL2 and the Monochrom-2. The SL2 clearly benefits from the image stabilization mechanism. Some tests I did with the SX-SL and the Apo-Summicron-M 90 show that there are visible improvements when the image stabilization is working. To what extent this also applies in all circumstances, practice must show. I didn't have the SL2 on loan from the factory long enough to analyse all options and conditions.

Here are the images from a black bar representation for film (top) and digital (below):

Dit is de Nederlandse tekst. De illustraties staan in de Engelse tekst.
Algemene indruk van de SL2

Rond 1930 schreef Moholo-Nagy, een van de Bauhaus leraren, dat in de toekomst de fotografisch ongeletterde als analfabeet beoordeeld zou worden. De Leica SL2 bewijst het tegendeel van deze stelling. Wie met deze camera geen goed beeld kam maken is echt een klungel. Ook zonder fotografische kennis is het haast onmogelijk om met deze camera een technisch slecht beeld te produceren. Of het ook een fraai beeld is, kan je bij Instagram navragen.
De Leica SL2 probeert in de naamgeving de cultuur van de beroemde en traditionele Leicaflex op te roepen. De originele Leicaflex (1965) (met de externe meter aan de voorkant van de prismabehuizing) was nog zonder het toevoegsel SL. Dat kwam pas later in 1968, toen de lichtmeting door de lens werd geïntroduceerd. SL staat voor “Selektive Lichtmessung”.
De ontwerpers van de Leicaflex kopieerden veel functies die toen al gemeengoed waren, maar werkten een eigen Leitz geïnspireerde techniek uit om net ietsje beter te zijn dan de concurrentie. De Leica SL die in 2015 werd aangekondigd heeft dit zelfde doel nagestreefd (net iets beter te zijn dan de concurrentie), maar de techniek was niet langer Leitz geïnspireerd. Veel componenten van de SL zijn ontworpen en gefabriceerd door andere fabrikanten. Leica beperkte zich tot relatief kleine aanpassingen aan de specificaties, tot de integratie van al die onderdelen, tot de interface en tot aanpassingen van de programmatuur. De Leica fabriek is in dit digitale tijdperk van een integrale manufaktuur geëvolueerd tot een systeem integrator. Ook bij de objectieven speelt men leentjebuur. Dat is niks nieuws. Ook de Leicaflex lens-reeks was al aangevuld met Minolta en Sigma ontwerpen.
De Leica SL2 is in 2019 geïntroduceerd en heeft de strategie die al zichtbaar werd bij de SL verder doorgezet. Vereenvoudiging van de interface is versterkt en meer eigen programmatuur werd geïntegreerd met de componenten van derden. De invloed van Panasonic is minstens zichtbaar geworden met de vijf-assige beeldstabilisatie.
In vergelijking met de Olympus Pen-F (althans, de digitale MFT versie) vallen enkele zaken op: gewicht en volume van de SL2 zijn niet voor watjes; de Olympus voelt minder solide aan (komt door gewicht en minder duidelijke feedback bij de bediening van de knoppen); de Leica heeft veel minder opties en knoppen en dat maakt het gebruik van de SL2 eenvoudiger en overzichtelijker.
Zet de SL2 op automaat (ISO, AE en AF) en op beeldstabilisatie en je hebt er geen kind meer aan.
In vergelijking met de Leica M Monochrom (M246) valt vooral op het geringere volume en het gewicht, zeker in combinatie met de Summilux 50 mm objectieven. De L versie van het objectief weegt driemaal zoveel als de M versie.

Monochrom gewicht: 680 gram (met batterij)
SL2 gewicht: 915/835 (met/zonder batterij)

Summilux-M 1.4/50 ASPH gewicht: 335 gram
Summilux-SL 1.4/50 mm ASPH. gewicht: 1065 gram

De vergelijking

Het gaat mij vooral om de vergelijkende prestaties. Is de nieuwe 47 Mp beeldsensor van de SL in combinatie met het Summilux objectief zo veel beter dan de 24 Mp beeldsensor van de M240/M10 met de Summilux versie voor de meetzoekercamera.
Ik bezit de M10 niet en moet het doen met de M246. Eerdere vergelijkingen geven aan dat de M246 meer presteert dan de Bayer collega’s. Dat heeft te maken met de effectieve algoritmes voor interpolatie (demosaicing). De vergelijking met de monochrome beeldsensor is niet helmaal eerlijk, maar ik zal aangeven bij de resultaten hoe je die moet interpreteren.
Ook dingt mee de originele M8.2 met de CCD beeldsensor van ‘slechts’ 10 Mp en in het APS-H formaat.
Het hoge aantal pixels op de beeldsensor van de SL2 wordt omhoog gejubeld als de beste manier om de fijnste details te kunnen opslaan en weergeven. Daar is in de praktijk niet veel van te merken. Alleen bij deelvergroting en bij intensieve manipulaties in de fotobewerkingsprogramma’s is het grote aantal pixels van nut.
De belangrijke overweging om de SL2 met de nieuwste generatie objectieven te nemen berust op de autofocus mogelijkheden, de sensor met zeer kleine pixels (4 micrometer) en de beeldstabilisatie. De Leica fotografen die met de meetzoeker versie werken en een of meer M-objektieven bezitten zullen gecharmeerd zijn van de L<-->M adapter.
De test betreft de vergelijking vaneen aantal Leica objektieven. De twee belangrijkste zijn de Summilux varianten voor de SL en de M. De M versie is de actuele ASPH versie. Omdat de L mount alleen beschikbaar is voor de SL is het voor de hand liggend om de SL2 te gebruiken met de 47 Megapixel sensor en de L<-->M adapter. Buiten mededinging deden ook mee de Apo-Summicron-M en de 7Artisans 1.1/50 mm, een objektief ontwerp dat sterk lijkt op de originele Sonnar constructie en in prestaties behoorlijk overeenkomt met de eerste versie van de Noctilux-M 1/50 mm.

De norm

Vele jaren geleden heeft Zeiss al een analyse gemaakt van de eisen die gesteld kunnen worden aan kleinbeeld objektieven en men kwam tot de conclusie dat 40 lijnparen/mm een absolute grens vertegenwoordigen als je uitgaat van een vergroting van 10 maal het kleinbeeldformaat. Met 40 lp/mm op het negatief kom je bij een vergroting van 10 maal op 4 lp/mm op de afdruk en dat is de limiet die met het blote oog waarneembaar is op een afstand van 25 cm en onder scherp licht. Een salon foto op groter afdruk formaat, maar ook te bezien op grotere afstand zou al met een(1) lp/mm de indruk van hoge scherpte geven.
Het oog is heel gevoelig voor het contrast van contouren (belijningen) van object vormen en dan is 20 lp/mm al een duidelijke grens. Japanse fabrikanten geven daarom de 10 en 30 lp/mm de voorkeur, terwijl Duitse fabrikanten de nadruk leggen op 10 en 40 lp/mm. De 40 lp/mm zijn daarom een praktische grens voor de scherpte indruk van een foto.
Uit de hand gemaakte opnames laten zien dat die 40 lp/mm ook de uiterste grens zijn van wat haalbaar is. Met de beeldstabilisatie van de SL2 in actieve stand kun je bij 1/60 nog die waarde bereiken. Zonder beeldstabilisatie is de grens algemeen te trekken bij 1/1000 sec. Dit verschil komt overeen met de 4 tot 5 stops die de winst vormt van de beeldstabilisatie. Alles hangt af van de persoonlijke situatie die bepaalt hoe stil je een camera/lens kan houden.
Alle objektieven halen met gemak die 40 lp/mm bij alle diafragma’s. Zelfs de Olympus Pen-F met het standaard zoom objektief 14-42 mm haalt een maximum van 50 lp/mm. Dat is ook de reden dat alle digitale beelden zo op elkaar lijken wat prestaties aangaat.
De beide Summilux objektieven halen zelfs bij volle opening al een waarde van 80 tot 100 lp/mm. Dit niveau halen de objektieven alleen op statief, op zich zelf al een nuchtere gedachte.
De testsituatie

Het is gemakkelijk om bij helder licht een objectief vergelijking te maken. Maar een lichtsterk objectief als de Summilux wordt ook benut in lichtzwakkere omstandigheden. Het is een bekend feit dat een objectief altijd beter presteert bij heldere en contrastrijke motieven. Daarom kies ik voor een verlichting die voor elk objectief een hindernis betekent: zwak licht en laag contrast heb je bij 30 tot 300 lux.
De testkaarten zijn (1) de NBS1963A kaart kaart en (2) een klassiek patroon zoals ontworpen door de Nederlandse fotograaf Tirion. Zijn letterpatronen zijn heel heftig voor de digitale registratie omdat er zoveel fijne bochten in de letters zitten.
Het eerste patroon geeft het scheidend vermogen in lijnparen/mm: altijd goed voor vergelijkende opnames en het tweede patroon geeft een goed inzicht in de manier van weergave van kleine gebogen details.
Ik heb bij de testopnames bewust voor het middengedeelte van de sensor gekozen. Waarom alleen het centrum deel genomen? In de eerste plaats worden bij de meeste opnames met dergelijke lichtsterke objectieven de motieven in het midden geplaatst. In de tweede plaats wordt de nadruk op de randen en hoeken om een beoordeling van de prestaties van een objectief schromelijk overdreven. In de derde plaats geldt een eenvoudige overweging: ik heb niet de mogelijkheid om de camera planparallel te plaatsen voor een brede testwand. Daarvoor is een speciale inrichting nodig om geen vertekende resultaten te krijgen.

De test zelf

Het had nogal wat voeten in de aarde om met de Sl2 een optimaal beeld te produceren. De autofocus was wel zeer snel, maar niet super nauwkeurig. Het kostte nogal wat tijd om een maximaal scherp beeld te produceren. Datzelfde probleem heb je ook met de mechanische meetzoeker van de M-camera. Die is wel zeer betrouwbaar, maar de toleranties zijn bij die kritische scherpte toch wel op de grens. Je hebt immers een plat vlak en dan is een halve millimeter opeens heel veel.
De meetzoekercamera op statief gaf bij 2 meter een halve millimeter tolerantie. Dat is procentueel het maximaal haalbare: een tolerantie van 0,025 % is een extreme waarde voor een mechanische afstelling, beter dan die met autofocus: de SL2 gaf op 2 meter een aanduiding tussen 2,10 en 2,30 meter. Die variatie is op zich al interessant.
Het testpatroon bestaat uit zwarte balken op een witte achtergrond met steeds kleinere afstanden tussen de balken. Je zou zeggen dat de software geen enkel probleem heeft met de interpolatie van zo een simpel patroon. De film technologie ziet dit patroon inderdaad als een eenvoudige test: zie de illustratie: bij onscherpte wordt alleen de dichtheid van het zwart-witte patroon anders en de breedte van de zwarte balk wordt groter. Het NBS testpatroon is een standaard voor vergelijkingen van objectieven en filmmateriaal. De vergelijking is visueel (onder de microscoop met het oog) en daarom kan er een groot verschil in interpretatie ontstaan. Om dit verschil te verkleinen is er een regel die zegt dat je alleen dat patroon mag kiezen waarin de verschillende zwart-wit banen duidelijk te onderscheiden zijn. Dit wordt dan de zogenaamde grens frequentie. Er is ook een verschil tussen de helderheid van het patroon: zie je de afzonderlijke banen net nog wel of zie je duidelijk en helder. Dat is het effect van de contrastweergave. Een helder beeld geeft een aangename weergave. In de digitale fotografie is het gangbaar om met een dosis verscherpen te werken om een beeld kunstmatig eer contrast te geven. Je ziet dan niet meer, maar de details springen er wel uit.
Het patroon van de testkaart is zoals hieronder afgebeeld. De getallen moeten vermenigvuldigd worden met de verkleinings-maatstaf van het objectief. In het geval van de 50 mm op 135 formaat en op twee meter afstand is dat 40x. Die afstand gebruik ik vaker, omdat het een eenvoudige vergelijking mogelijk maakt. Het patroon met getal 1.0 wordt dan 40 lp/mm. De meeste tests komen uit tussen 1.4 en 1.8 voor film en digitaal. Alleen de microfilms halen tussen 2.8 en 3.2. Hieronder een voorbeeld van een actuele SL2 met SX-SL lens op 1.4.
Zowel de 2.5 als de 2.2 is mogelijk als keuze voor de grenswaarde bij 1.4. Bij de 2.2 (88lp/mm) zijn de vijf lijnparen duidelijk zichtbaar, bij de 2.5 (100 lp/mm) is er een gerede twijfel. Nog meer uitvergroting laat zien dat de diverse lijnparen in elkaar overlopen en dus niet meer eenduidig van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn.
Ik laat dit zien omdat ik vind dat de lezer van mijn analyses moet weten hoe ik denk en op welke feiten mijn argumenten gestoeld zijn. Het is gebruikelijk in het land der optiek-analisten op internet om de precieze methode niet te vermelden. Soms vraag ik er naar, maar tot op heden heb ik geen enkel antwoord gekregen. Omdat deze vergelijking zo belangrijk is, wil ik heel transparant zijn in de basisgegevens en de afgeleide conclusies.
Nog een opmerking: de Nyquist frequentie is bij de SL 116 lp/mm, bij de Monochrom-2 zijn het 83 lp/mm en bij de M8.2 nog altijd 73.5 lp/mm.

SL2, Summmilux-SL 50 mm en Summilux-M 50 mm ASPH
Het grote volume van de lens wordt verklaard door de ingebouwde autofocus die een stappenmotor en bewegende lensdelen omvat. Ook wordt de diameter van de lensvatting aan de camera zijde genoemd als veroorzaker van het volume en tegelijk zou deze grotere diameter de lensontwerper meer speelruimte geven om betere prestaties te produceren. Dat is althans de opvatting van de Canon en Nikon reclame personen. Ook Leica gaat met de L-mount diezelfde kant op.
De verschillende diafragma openingen geven onderstaand beeld in lijnparen per mm:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 80; 80; 80; 88; 88; 80; 80; 80

Het patroon dat bij alle diafragma’s een gelijke kwaliteit zichtbaar wordt, is opmerkelijk en roept de vraag op of interne programma’s de optische ontwerper een handje helpen. Dit is niet ongebruikelijk bij moderne digitale camera’s en hun objectieven. Niet voor niets is er een herkenningsmechanisme actief in de camera, die het juiste objectief herkent en daar ook de desbetreffende correcties op los laat.
Dit vermoeden wordt bevestigd door de analyse van de SL2 en de Summilux-M 50 mm ASPH.
Dit objectief met de herkenning actief geeft de onderstaande resultaten:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 88; 88; 88; 88; 100; 100; 80;
Dit objectief heeft hetzelfde oplossend vermogen als de SX-SL, maar er zijn duidelijke verschillen: er is een kleurverschuiving bij alle patronen tussen de 40 lp/mm en 64 lp/mm en de details rond de 80 lp/mm zijn van kleurvlekken voorzien, terwijl het eigenlijk zwart-wit lijnen zijn. Deze verkleuringen zijn veroorzaakt door het grotere aandeel aan chromatische aberraties, waarmee het interpolatie algoritme duidelijk moeite mee heeft. Je ziet dat niet op zwart-wit film! Pas bij diafragma f/4.0 heb je een helder contrastrijk beeld.

Als controle heb ik ook de Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm vergeleken:
2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
88; 88; 100; 100; 100/112; 72; 72;

Een interessant buitenbeentje is de 7Artisans 50/1.1 op de SL2 met de Leica SL-M adapter. Bij volle opening(f/1.1) is er een heftige mate van overstraling, maar de 40 lp/mm zijn duidelijk zichtbaar. Astigmatisme is er in overvloed!
Diafragmeren tot f/1.4 levert een helder beeld op met nu 64 lp/mm en bij f/2.0 gaat het zelfs naar de 80 lp/mm bij een helder contrastrijk beeld. Bij f/2.8 heb je zelfs 88 lp/mm en bij f/4.0 komt ook de 100 lp/mm in zicht. Deze prestaties blijven ook bij kleinere diafragma’s en pas bij f/11.0 loopt het terug naar 72 lp/mm. Dit is een opmerkelijk objectief dat de oude Noctilux 1.0/50 mm zeker naar de kroon steekt en gezien de prijs onverslaanbaar is.

De Leica Monochrom 2 met SX-M 50 ASPH en Apo-Summicron-M 50mm

Deze combinatie is zonder de kunstmatige optische correctie en we zien nu het bekende beeld: laag contrast bij de grotere openingen
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
72; 80; 80; 80; 88; 80; 80; 72;
Het is opmerkelijk dat bij deze camera de kleurverschuivingen in het geheel niet waarneembaar zijn.

De Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm
Het scheidend vermogen blijft constant bij de diafragma’s van f/2.0 tot f/4.0, maar de definitie neemt toe en daarmee het vermogen om de zeer fijne details weer te geven.
2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0; 22.0
80; 80; 80; 88; 88; 88; 80

De Leica M8.2 met SX-M 50 ASPH en Apo-Summicron-M 50

Beide objectieven lopen hier tegen de grens op van de Nyquist frequentie van 73 lp/mm, die de beeldsensor nog kan weergeven.De hoeveelheid licht was 400 - 800 lux. Zeer laag dus en passend bij een objectief dat bedoeld is voor schemerachtige omstandigheden..
Dit zijn de resultaten van de SX-M 50 ASPH:
1.4; 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
72; 72; 72; 64; 64; 64; 64; 64;

Hieronder de resultaten van de Apo-Summicron-M 50. 2.0; 2.8; 4.0; 5.6; 8.0; 11.0; 16.0
72; 72; 72; 72; 64; 64; 64

De conclusies

Er is bar weinig verschil tussen de diverse objectieven. De SX-SL 50 doet het beter dan de SX-M 50 en marginaal minder dan de Apo-Summicron-M 50. De grens is duidelijk de kwaliteit van de programma’s die in de SL camera aktief zijn. Als het waar is dat de programmatuur de optisch ontwerper een handje helpt, vooral bij de zeer fijne details en het contrast van diezelfde details, dan is het logisch dat Leica zijn heil zoekt in de software ontwikkeling en het edele ambacht van de optisch ontwerper buiten de deur zet.
De resultaten laten zien dat
(a) de meerwaarde van de beeldsensor van de SL2 van 47 Mp nauwelijks zichtbaar is ten opzichte van de beeldsensor van de Monochrom-2 met 24 Mp en ook het verschil met de beeldsensor van de M8 met 10Mp is niet bijzonder groot;
(b) de verschillen tussen de optische prestaties van de diverse objectieven, zoals die zichtbaar zijn in de MTF grafieken, niet vertaald worden in de resultaten die behaald kunnen worden in de praktijk;
(c) de verschillen die er zijn worden gladgestreken door de effectiviteit van de programma’s in en buiten de camera;
(d) de maximaal haalbare grensfrequentie van 80 lp/mm in de praktijk van alledag alleen zichtbaar wordt en bruikbaar is op statief en met zorgvuldig werken (AF precisie, mechanische toleranties van de meetzoeker). Het mechanisme van focus peaking laat nogal wat steken vallen zowel bij de SL2 als bij de Monochrom-2. De SL2 heeft duidelijk baat bij het mechanisme van de beeldstabilisatie. Enkele proeven die ik gedaan heb met de SX-SL en de Apo-Summicron-M 90 laten zien dat er zichtbare verbeteringen zijn als de beeldstabilisatie werkzaam is. In hoeverre dat ook geldt in alle omstandigheden moet de praktijk uitwijzen. Ik had de SL2 niet lang genoeg in bruikleen van de fabriek om alle opties en condities te analyseren.

Onderstaand de beelden van een zwart lijnstuk op film en als digitaal beeld:

New Project for the 2020s

2020-02-08T14:29:31+01:00

ENGLISH VERSION
NOTE:
This introduction is the start of a new book, explaining the approach I will use in the 2020’s. The book will be published as PDF only and available soon.

Introduction

You have to be very clumsy if you cannot make good images with a modern digital camera. When the camera is on everything automatically, all you have to do is aim at the subject and print it at the right moment. In this way, the ideal of the camera designers has become reality. This was the intention of the engineers! Replace the expert who has all the knowledge needed to make a technically perfect shot with mechanisms in the camera and you have a device that everyone can use to take a picture. The digitization of the photographic process has realized this ambition and transferred it to devices that belong in the world of consumer electronics.
A lot of advantages are listed in the discussion about the calculated image. Yet this is the real advantage! And this advantage is hardly mentioned: the almost impossibility to take a bad picture. Amateur photos are often characterized by wrong exposure and blurring of the main motif. Those problems are a thing of the past if you use a digital camera. What doesn't disappear are the classic mistakes: awkwardly posed people, sloping buildings and the most problematic part of all photos: the cliché character of many photos. The sloppy rendition of everyday subjects is the traditional criticism of the snapshot. Yet the skewed horizon has also become the symbol of the aesthetic snapshot. The amateur who intended to enter the art world with aspiration also experiences a similar criticism. Here, too, there is talk of cliché standards: the countless portraits and glamour photographs clearly demonstrate this. It rains commentary, when you deviate from the norm. All these comments shows that image criticism is connected with social norms. What was once beautiful and revolutionary, is now trite and boring.
The camera as a mechanical and automatic imaging machine is a metaphor that emerged soon after 1840. The realisation of this automatic device became only possible around 1980, when the integrated circuit and the computer-on-a-chip entered camera technology. The automation of the process meant that the operator of the camera hardly had a role anymore. That's why the manufacturers are now emphasizing the individual creativity of the photographer. Presumably not to embarrass the maker of the image because actually the software in the camera does all the work. Modern photographers talk about the digital photo camera as an interface that can be individually configured. An important characteristic of the ambitious and demanding image maker is the demonstrable experience with the extensive possibilities of image manipulation on the computer. The possibilities of the programs in the camera are limited (because there are no powerful chips in it), but can be compensated with the versatile programs on the computer. These manipulations of the original image replace the choices required by film photography: exposure and printing technique. (inkjet printing is a scarce phenomenon, and here too the manipulations of the computer programs must be visible in any case). The classic guideline of straight f/64 photography has long ceased to apply.
How to make art with a machine is the dilemma of the ambitious amateur photographer. The term 'art' can be broadly understood as any image that distinguishes itself from the general trend of the average photographer, who only records the everyday environment. It is a bit contradictory that art is also a convention that follows the rules and codes of the prevailing norm. The best example is street photography, a genre from which the Kodak box derives its fame. These Kodak images go through life as snapshots or candid shots. The subsequent designation of the snapshot-aesthetic or the 'beautiful-image' movement tries, with reasonable success, to give an artistic flavour to the spontaneous and nonchalant approach of the ordinary amateur. The classic difference between the naive photographer and the artistic photographer is actually the distinction between the photograph as document and memory and the photograph as proof of expertise in photography as expression. This results in images that are especially rigid in composition and object. The nude photograph is a good example of this static rule. The lighting and the technique of depiction obviously determine the impression of the photo. Posture of the person, framing and angle of view are the image-defining means that distinguish the ambitious photographer from the naive photographer. The open-mindedness with which people like Fieret, Sannes and Breitner capture their models in the daily and studio environment has completely disappeared due to the eagerness with which the ambitious photographer submits to the "rules of art". Photographs are made to be shown: privately, in a domestic setting, in museums and books or globally on the internet. Meeting the prevailing trend is very important.
It doesn't matter much whether the photo is presented materially as a barita print or virtually as a screenshot. Every observation of a photograph starts with the question: what happens here? That question encapsulates the art photograph, because the art photographer makes a photograph with the clear intention to make something artistic. What is to be seen in the photograph remains valid, because that determines the intention and message of the photographer. The rules of what is to be considered 'artistic' vary per period of time and per culture, but they are always socially determined by the art world.
The amateur's need to distinguish himself from the ordinary snapshot maker or what is patronizingly called the 'happy snapper', is the main argument for approaching photography as art. This need becomes less understandable when the photographic apparatus is approached as an instrument. It is somewhat contradictory to emphasize the instrumental properties of the device. A painter uses the simplest tools to make a painting and will never explain which brushes or pencils are used. A brush or pencil is not a machine! But a camera is.
It is now modern to interpret everything as a machine. The technique of photography just like the camera. You can use a camera functionally as an imaging device in everyday surroundings, just like you approach the radio as a listening device, the typewriter as a writing device and the vacuum cleaner as a household appliance. Taking pictures in the same daily environment is a ritual and/or a useful leisure activity.
The person who takes the obligatory photos of important social events often hardly sees himself as a serious photographer. The modern amateur (not the nineteenth century version!) is an umbrella term. The hobby photographer, who emphasizes the technical elements of the camera and the photographic process, the passionate photographer who sees himself as a documentalist of everyday life and the art photographer who stresses the expressive possibilities of the medium fall under it. You can only describe the amateur of today in a negative sense: it is the non-professional photographer. The difference in performance is often very small: many amateurs follow the professional standards better than the professional photographer does. The amateur and the professional photographer only differ from each other in one respect: the first takes pictures in leisure time and the second does it in working time. Also the motive is different: fulfilling useful leisure time and acquiring income.
The more leisure time there is, the more photos are taken. Especially now that the process of photography has become so simple and almost free of costs. Photography is a standard activity, just like talking and consuming. Hardly any thought is given to it. In the early days of photography there was actually a lot of thinking about it and the camera was viewed with admiration and curiosity. That admiration is hard to find in today's digital age. If you want to rediscover this feeling, a return to the darkroom is desirable and even necessary.
But it takes more than that. Curiosity about the objects in the daily environment is a separate feeling that is linked to an emotional relationship with those same objects. That is the essence of the classic style "New Vision”: seeing reality as it is with our own (innocent) eyes and not as we are accustomed to seeing and experiencing this reality. The photo camera is pre-eminently the instrument to make a correction to the 'coloured' perception of everyday life.
Photographing everything and everyone is an ubiquitous phenomenon. This was already the case a hundred years ago and it has only become more widespread since the digitization of the technical process. At the end of the nineteenth century, photography was 'child's play' that could be taught in three hours to any person of average intelligence (as it was called at the time). The Kodak box had just arrived and it made photography both cheap (relatively then!) and easy. The newspapers complained that you couldn't take a step without an amateur or hobbyist pointing his camera at you. Especially girls on beaches and on the street were a much photographed object. This is not surprising in the Victorian era. The complaints were made very public, even parliament had to be requested to reign in this disturbance of the public order. The main difference between then and now is the degree of social acceptance. Back then the photographer was seen as a disturbing factor, now it is a normal phenomenon, although you are no longer allowed to take pictures of unknown people in public space. The so-called 'candid' photography is a thing of the past, like so much in the world of photography. But that style has resurfaced with the everyday use of the smart phone. Today's digital photographer is mainly fixated on capturing daily events that are sufficiently interesting to be shared. Sharing the moment itself is more important than capturing it as a memory for reflection. These internet connections and video capabilities are built in modern cameras as a counterbalance to the smart phone, which does have the ability to send short movies to social platforms in real time. The still image gradually becomes an exception.
This still image was discovered by academics in the 1960s and 1970s and analysed as a single artifact, an icon relating to the essence of photography. Since the beginning of photography a lively and sometimes fierce discussion arose about the nature of photography: art or no art, document or expression and so on. This discussion is now completely silenced. Since the digital turn in the world of photography, the question of what photography really is has been replaced by the question of what those photographers do anyway. The answer is habitually found by the observation that the current photographers are mainly focused on making images on a massive scale that are also distributed massively over the internet to anonymous viewers.
The big difference with the 'Kodak culture' (a concept that replaces the photography with the film rolls) is this instant distribution to unknown viewers. In the Kodak culture the photos were shown to a small group of acquaintances, who recognized the situation and the persons in the photo. When digital photography was still in its infancy and became a serious alternative to Kodak culture, commentators warned of the demise of photography as such. These people saw the essence of photography in the materiality of the photograph that captured reality in an objective sense. The digital image is fluid and never finished: anyone can manipulate the content. Even the maker himself can do this: there are plenty of filters and templates that can change the original image. Just think of the (in)famous Photoshop manipulations of models in fashion magazines and advertisements. The relationship between reality and what was depicted was at risk. The photographers had no interest in this theme and used their digital devices to take the pictures they had always taken: the snapshots of interesting people and events from everyday life. The stream of images that are now shared on the websites show that little has changed in the content of the image and the vision of the photographer. This is not surprising: reality doesn't change that fast (a smiling baby or a sunset around 1920 is identical to a smiling baby and a sunset around 2020). Photographers are simply conservative and prone to follow the cliché-path.
The adoption of digital photography doesn't change much for the average photographer: photographing traditional subjects, but with a current and smarter technique. The classic themes of the hobby photographer have not changed: the rites of passage in everyday life and the events during the holidays are still shared en masse. What is new is just the act of sharing these images; in the past photos were put into albums or projected on slide shows.
The digital technique is seen as the follow-up and displacement of the chemical technique. Still, most iconic photographs, now in museums and in books, have been captured on film, but that will change, given the enormous flood of new images. Unfortunately, these are still very traditional and not very innovative. The motif of the domestic cat in a box or the lunch that has just been served may be informative, but these images are not fascinating. The generation of photographers of the New Objectivity had a sharper perception of the uncommonness of everyday things.
Photography has been studied by scholars from various angles. Only when the medium was recognised as an art form did an interest in what photography actually was and what photographs do when viewed. The counter-reaction did not take long. The amateur photography was discovered and in its wake the snapshot and the photo album. The snapshot is a tricky phenomenon that cannot easily be captured in a conclusive definition. The word says it all: a snapshot is a hurried and careless shot. There is also the amateur photo that is full of mistakes: skewed horizon, shadow of the photographer in the picture, finger in front of the lens, half-cut head or legs etc.. But many family photos are very static, carefully composed with all the persons neatly in centre of the picture and looking straight into the lens.
This approach closely resembles the carefully staged art photo in the studio. The snapshot comes in many flavours: the carefully composed photo by Cartier-Bresson next to the sloppy photo by Breitner or Fieret and the rough street photography by the Swiss photographer Frank, who took many photos from his moving car.
What is completely ignored in these analyses is the fact that photography is primarily a mechanical process with the camera as the most important technical artifact. The fascination for technique was the motivation for many hobby photographers to start photographing and to prove with the results that they had mastered the technique completely. Now there are no more mechanics in the standard digital camera: that role has been taken over by the software on the chips in the camera. The mechanical components that are still there, have been produced to perfection by modern manufacturing methods. Not a single shutter speed, even of the cheapest device, deviates from the nominal values.
Digital technology has completely displaced the film reel. That's a fact. Are we really done with its role, photographically speaking? The slide rule and the typewriter have completely disappeared and are only being collected. Those devices are no longer used for good reason, except by nostalgic people. From a functional point of view, these instruments have had their time and there are now effective successors, such as the digital calculator and the word processing program on the PC. The question is not so much what we have improved with them. Those advantages are beyond dispute.
The basic question is what have we lost. The answer is especially important for photography, which at this moment (early 2020) is at the crossroads giving up the film roll definitively and embracing digital technology, including its social mechanisms. Or are we going to give the roll of film another chance? There is this chance! Sales of film rolls are higher than they have been in recent years. So there is interest, even though the processing is more complicated and time consuming.
The simple replacement of the emulsion by the image sensor means little for the daily use of the camera: the same objects, persons and events are depicted. You only go from a material to a virtual format. The next step is more important.
The aim of digitising the photographic process is to convert the image information originally available in optical form into an electrical signal. With that signal, usually in sinusoidal form, you can do anything. Visual information can be stored in digital form and integrated with all the data stored and manipulated on the computer. They can then be put on the Internet. We then talk about digital transformation and communication. Immediate availability and universal accessibility are the great advantages of this transformation process, which cannot work without the primary digital transformation: the known zero one of signal processing.
The digital process has many advantages:
cheap and easy to use;
the darkroom is built into the camera or available on the computer as a 'light room';
the images are immediately available and can be shown directly to everyone;
the performance is better than is possible with the film technique and these results are easy to achieve without training or experience.
Disadvantages of digitisation
There are also drawbacks; uniformity and conformity are the main drawbacks, but also the spontaneous sending of countless images is a disadvantage, because it forces one to share only the most liked images. It is not for nothing that all advertisements around digital cameras emphasize the creativity of the individual. The most important disadvantage is the consequence of the instant availability and immediate distribution. That is the virtual and fleeting nature of the digital images. The Polaroid photo was a remarkably invention and relatively quickly available (at least within a minute), but that photo was a material and tangible thing. You could not change its contents or appearance afterwards.
The Polaroid was a fixed image. That was part of the charm of the process. The digital virtual image was never finished. It's a series of numbers that can be edited by anyone. You never know if the image you see is authentic. The ephemerality of the image is a consequence of the process of distribution and display. The image on the monitor of the camera, on the smart phone and on the computer screen is not physically palpable like a paper print is. Paper (and material in general) is the tool of the craftsman, a species that has almost become extinct through the digitization of contemporary products and their manufacture. Craftsmanship was highly regarded in photography until the middle of the last century. At that time, photography commuted between the craftsman and the consumer.
From consumer to prosumer
Currently, photography fits entirely within the framework of consumer behaviour. This was already the case in the heyday of amateur photography in the middle of the last century. There are clear differences. The modern consumer, in the internet age, has evolved into a prosumer. In the past you used to have two kinds of cameras, hobby and professional, now a third category has been added, the prosumer camera, which stands between the two but emphatically leans against the professional version. The prosumer is seen as the expert who substantiates the purchase of photographic equipment with rational considerations. The camera manufacturers appreciate the opinion of the prosumer. Nowadays, this person is regarded as the instant cheer-leader of the well-known brands. Nevertheless, the most recent figures indicate that sales of cameras are declining considerably.
Geoffrey Crawley, renowned editor and tester of the once influential British Journal of Photography followed the principle that a test of a camera system was only interesting if these products were on the market for more than a year and were in use by many photographers. The reason was the possibility of mechanical shortcomings and limitations in use, which were overlooked in a test. It would be impossible to review a digital model that will be replaced by a newer version every six months.
Crawley had a simple advice: buy only what you really need to take better pictures. This advice is the opposite of that of the typical prosumer: this person always wants to have the very latest because that's automatically better (and that's how the manufacturers like to see it). The origin for this version of consumer behaviour is the unconscious brain. This is where the mechanisms that drive each purchase of products are located. There is a big difference between what people do and what people think. Traditional consumer views assume that the consumer primarily pursues satisfaction of needs. In reality, this stage has long since passed and the consumer's main concern is emotional satisfaction and status confirmation. Few persons acknowledge this and analyses that ignore this type of thinking are quite suspicious. This is an example. The Leica is a very expensive camera and therefore buyers tend to attribute all sorts of mythical properties to products of that company. But many digital cameras which have practically the same functions, will perform at the same level. Many photographers choose a particular brand subconsciously, and later argue that that choice is completely deliberate and related to performance. This performance will be judged from an emotional perspective that is located in the subconscious domain of the brain. Consumer behaviour, generally, is not different from ordinary human behavior and that is biologically determined by the complex processes in the brain. These are controlled by instinct (illusion?). These unconscious processes work super fast and even before our rational consciousness is aware of them. The unconscious brain will mainly react risk-avoiding. A new camera can never be a problem!
What problem is actually solved?
What problem have we actually solved with the digitization of the entire photographic process from recording to display? The hobby-photographer doesn't take pictures that can't tolerate a time delay. Immediate availability and fast distribution are also irrelevant. Who is waiting for the picture of a playing baby or that nice picturesque street in a village in the South of France? We think we want to show it and we see it presented by others. Actually, we want to because we can and everyone does it.
The real problem we solve is a problem of the manufacturer of photographic equipment. The companies want the manufactured products to be sold. The manufacturer doesn't earn any money when you buy a used camera, no matter how good it is. A Nikon F3 or a Leica M6 are excellent cameras, but they are not made anymore. (The Leica M6 can still be bought new in the form of the Leica MP, but if you are considering that purchase, there is plenty of choice for all kinds of variants of the M6). Reluctance on the part of buyers is nothing new. Already three times the industry of photographic articles faced a decline in production. In the 1980s (between 1980 and 1990) a platform in technology was reached for the first time. At that time the mechanical cameras were so perfected that no one wanted to buy a new device. You could simply not make better pictures after upgrading to a new model. The introduction of autofocus gave a brief new impulse. This impetus worked until the autofocus technology was built into all cameras and perfected. And the market collapsed again. That was the second crisis, which took place around 2000. Fortunately, a whole new experience was gained with the image sensor. The manufacturers also learned from the consumer behaviour of the average photographer. Now we are back on a platform of technological standstill. In 2019, as in all previous years since 2009, sales of cameras declined. The big difference with the previous dips is the contraction of the market and not the saturation of the market. The main reason is the rise of the smart phone.
That's why the photographic industry is now focusing more on video and on artificial intelligence to compete with the ever better smart phones.
There is a trend to place more and more pixels on a fixed (24x36mm) surface and to counteract the negative effects of the smaller pixel surfaces with smarter programs. Still, there is hardly any difference in results between a camera model from 2019 and one from 2009. The technique has survived with drastic consequences for the camera properties that have been the same for years and the sales of devices, which are steadily declining. The change to mirror-less variants and the installation of image sensors with increasing numbers of image points will not be able to turn the tide either.
Do we still want what we can do without the latest technology?

New problems!
So we didn't really solve a problem and created at least three extra problems.
(1) turning our backs on reality
Photography started as a process to let nature depict itself through the light. To capture reality with as little influence as possible on the photographer was the real goal of the inventors of the photographic process. The digital turnaround caused the opposite. The software in the camera calculates a visual image from the stream of photons that the sensor registers and transforms into bits, bite-sized chunks for the computer programs. The original image is captured using mechanisms and programs that convert the light intensity into numbers and from those numbers calculate a visual image according to the applicable cultural standards. This calculation is based on techniques from the world of signal processing and on ideas of what an image should look like. Not what the image really looks like, but what it should look like. The Sherlock Holmes approach to reality (seeing the unusual in ordinary things) has been abandoned. This brings us to the second big problem.
(2) Enhancement of the original image by applying programs is now the photographer's goal.
The attention has shifted from the front (reality) to the back (the application of computer programs). This results in technically impressive images, but the downside is a standard image, so to speak a cliché image. The photos in the family albums used to be the insult of the serious photographer. Now every photographer does his best to produce technically successful, but boring images (content-wise). That is the main goal of the hobby photographer: making technically successful images. There is clearly also a desire to make a work of art. The hallmark of a work of art is the individual way of vision and expression. The photo magazines and the books on art and photo history are full of images that can be imitated and are also presented as such with the urge to copy these images.
In the nineteen-twenties, now one hundred years ago, the style of the Straight Photography (the new vision) emerged. This was the style that assumed that the photographer possessed a special instrument when using the camera whose results could correct the human eye in the perception of reality. The followers of that school tried to develop a technical vision that could counterbalance the culturally influenced perception. The photographic technique in combination with the enthusiasm of the new photographers provided a new perspective on the everyday environment. This approach can now only be seen in the Lomographic Movement.
The programming filters try to do just the opposite: adapt images in such a way that they are accepted in the eyes of the majority, that act as an arbiter on social media: 'eye candy' is what it is called. The classic glamour photography did the same. So that is nothing new under the sun. Same end and different means. This brings us to the next problem.
(3) The third problem is the loss of a craft identity.
The amateur photographer used to be a dilettante if the person did not possess the necessary skill for technical mastery. The industry did its best to undermine this image and replace the technical skill with automatic processes stored in integrated circuits. The smart phone amplified this process, but even with the current digital camera set to automatic, it takes effort to produce a technically less successful image.
If you want to create separate views of everyday objects in today's day and age, you quickly fall back on the old-fashioned photo techniques, such as Daguerreotype and album printing. This allows you to achieve surprisingly different views. The emphasis on the cliché image was already visible in the family photo and the amateur snapshot. Here, too, the persons always stand with a smile and in a standard position, which makes the person stand out the most. The digital magazine cover has reinforced this cliché formation even further. Photoshop and colleagues are very strong in offering styles, filters and other tools that make it possible to beautify and change the original image. This is also the power of the digital process. The image is originally a calculated image and the programmed styles and filters do no more than apply a calculation to the numbers with which the image is captured.
The solution
The outlined three processes that negate the classical properties of the photographic process can be solved in two ways.
(1) The easiest way is to continue the trend of digital photography. Then the obvious way is: a radical turnaround to a new way of producing images, which does justice to the real characteristics of the digitization of the photographic process. This is characterized by the fluid character of the calculated image, by its integration with social media and the relation with the internet. This future digital photography leaves behind all ideas about contemporary photography, which is still trying to imitate classical photography. The whole discussion about photography in the twentieth century is aimed at exploring and arguing for its status as an art form. Fortunately, that is behind us. Thinking about photography is not so much fathoming its theoretical status, but looking at the practice of what people do with photography. Impulsive, immediate and universally accessible than the keywords.
(2) The second way is less easy. It is a return to the hobby photography of yesteryear, but with some adjustments. Not reality as such (see Renger-Patzsch: die Welt ist schön) is central, but the emotional relationship as Proust describes it. That is a shift from the classical snapshot-aesthetic to the emotional snapshot in deadpan style (see the photography of the Düsseldorf school, the Bechers).
The alternative
The alternative described boils down to a different style of photography and a different choice of scenes. Filling the family album is not part of it. And making images to get as many 'likes' as possible is not really part of it either.
The answer to the obvious question why we are still photographing outlines the contours.
The basis for the answer can be found in the events and objects from the daily environment. As Sherlock Holmes put it, there is nothing more unusual than the ordinary. We live in the everyday environment and have emotional relationships to objects and situations. Recording those situations and objects is the task of photography. When we look at an image later, the original emotion returns and because it is now a static image, we also see things we didn't see then. A personal and emotional relationship to the events, objects and people in the daily environment is worth capturing. Recording is not equal to reproduction or copy, nor is it equal to an expression of values or points of view. Recording the reality around us is an analogous process. The photograph can never be an exact copy of reality: at most it is an analogy, because there are always parts of reality that are not recorded. An analogy is a tool with which important properties of one object or process are imitated in another object or process. An analogy is a methodical way of studying unknown phenomena in more detail by simulating their essential properties. When you use an analogy, you also renounce any aspiration to produce art. The classical purpose of documentary photography, the objective representation of reality at the moment of printing, also disappears from view.
This approach is very similar to the traditional snapshot, which also aims to capture everyday events and people. The difference with the proposed approach is the selection of motifs. The snapshot is about ritual and social events, the rites of passage in a person's life. The new photography focuses on the emotional elements in a person's life, however unimportant they may be from a social point of view. Building up an image of time could be a goal. Proust describes photography as a means to show the things that have been lost. Atget did the same with his photographs of buildings and streets in Paris.
"Photography acquires something of the dignity it lacks when it ceases to be a reproduction of reality and shows us the things that are no longer there." (Atget)
Looking at photos provides a special sensation.
"It's with pleasure as with pictures. What you take in the presence of the beloved one is only a negative, you develop it later, when you are back home, when you have that inner darkroom at your disposal again, which remains closed as long as you are in company". (Proust)

The photo, which Proust describes, is a fixed and material object. To achieve this you have to fall back on the process of the darkroom, because only then the end result is a fixed image on paper.
The darkroom is so called because all processes must be carried out without light. The materials are light-sensitive. Working in the darkroom was not everyone's hobby. When the non-light-sensitive materials (the computer and the inkjet printer) were introduced, it was worth a dance of joy for many photographers. The items in the darkroom were sold off en masse. The light room was greeted enthusiastically.
For almost two hundred years, the practice of photography has been shaped by the collaboration between chemistry and mechanics. No photo could be seen without a darkroom or printing plant. The print was the final product and proof that the photograph had actually been made.
The mechanical nature of the process supported a way of photographing, which was called snapshot photography. The photographs as an end product was not the end goal, but their consumption was the real goal. Photographs were made to be seen. The device with which the photos were produced was given a separate role in the status-sensitive consumption society: the camera became an icon and symbol of expertise and leading craftsmanship, at least in the world of hobby photography. The Leica in particular was given this role and the manufacturer was only too happy to adopt this position. In the digital world, it are the Canon and Nikon devices that now compete for the honor of occupying the top of the pyramid. Years ago, when the Canon and Nikon were electromechanical devices, both systems were equivalent for the professional photographer. Only for the amateur the perceived and possibly real differences were important.
Around 1925 Moholy-Nagy, a Bauhaus teacher who also taught photography, wrote: 'the illiterate of the future is not the one without writing, but the one without photography'. In those days, just when the Leica as a 35mm camera made extreme demands on the skills of the photographer, craftsmanship also meant mastery. Anyone who did not master the craft (métier) of the photographer was a naive amateur, in fact: a dilettante, the new meaning of the old term 'amateur' (originally: lover). As early as 1923, the Dutchman Idzerda was concerned about the fact that the new amateur was sloppy with the time-honoured rules of the photographic craft, which laid down guidelines for the subject, composition and technical skill of the photographer. The snapshot maker (the "happy snapper" or the snapshooter) was possibly unacquainted with these rules and ignored the technique. Many photos therefore failed. The camera and emulsion makers did their third best to incorporate the knowledge of the photographic process into the technique. The point and shoot camera, which automatically set exposure and distance, was the result. Previously, the Polaroid technique had been introduced, but the disadvantages of the small format did not outweigh the advantages of convenience and immediate printing.
The main advantage of digital photography is the fact that the photographer doesn't need to know anything anymore. You are a when you produce a failed photo with a modern camera (standalone or integrated in the smartphone). The limited possibilities of the integrated circuit that was built into the most advanced cameras of the last decades of the last century have been supplemented by the effective processing of the current algorithms. These algorithms provide a unified picture. It's therefore not surprising that the modern photographer is completely immersed in the skill of dealing with those computer programs. The modern photographer also relies on the knowledge of digital technology. That knowledge is unfortunately rather superficial, as every blog on the internet shows.
The fact that technology is now so highly valued, is a curious phenomenon. In the time of chemical photography, knowledge and skill were very important to make technically good photos. Now everyone can do it and Moholy-Nagy's statement is overruled. The current photographer's emphasis on technique compensates for the dullness of visual culture. The camera manufacturers know that too! They promise that the latest generation of cameras will support the real creativity of the photographer. At the same time, the photo magazines are full of rules on how to take good photos. Good' is not only technically good. The correct application of the many filters that make the image more beautiful or alienated from reality is the measure of competence. More than the immediate distribution of the created image, this is the actual criterion of digital photography: the embellishment of the image and the expertise to be able to accomplish this. Reality is ignored and therefore embellished. This desire leads to the appreciation of pure magic. Photoshop adaptations of mainly female models are the best-known example. The ordinary photograph is transformed into a special image. That is the difference with the classic amateur photo. Everyday reality should be recorded without embellishment. The group photo was evidently posed with every important person in the centre of the frame and everybody looking straight into the lens and with a smile.
In digital photography, two remarkable trends come together: the pleasure of editing the image replaces the pleasure of making the image, and photography has become an integral part of everyday practice. The traditional hobby photographer made a conscious decision to go out and take a picture.
It is now customary to claim that photography has become an integral part of everyday life and thus part of consumer and communicative behaviour. The photograph is no longer a technical artifact, which stands on its own, but has become a means of communication.
The project
The project of this book is ambitious and against the grain! It is a plea for the naive amateurism that has given photography its raison d'être. The project will also show a way to a rediscovery of the traditional darkroom, which is the antithesis of the digitization of the photographic process. Photography is a hobby for recording reality and only secondary as a means of communication. With this statement we connect with the classical Dutch genre of painters from the 17th (Golden) century. These genre painters worked for the market and because ordinary houses are small, the paintings too became a size smaller. The scale of the prints on photo paper should also be modest: usually A4 and at most A3. Then the material becomes more manageable and the demands on equipment and technique are still modest. That is in a relative way! To obtain a detailed registration of the original reality, eight line pairs per mm on the print are the maximum. Two line pairs suffice for exhibition style pictures. Related to the maximum magnification measure of ten times, this requirement means that twenty or at most forty (and actually 80) line pairs per mm are needed on the 35mm negative. It is not for nothing that many photographers switch to large format cameras to capture the finest details.
These Dutch masters of the 17th century mainly painted daily scenes in extremely detailed definition. Especially the correct representation of the fabric of clothes was important. This combination of realism and craftsmanship can also be seen in the later photographers, who imitated the movement of the New Vision in photography that imitated the New Objectivity in painting. Now that digital technology has the upper hand in photography, the idea of craftsmanship has been forgotten. A return to the mechanical camera, to the use of the triangle relation between exposure, film sensitivity and graininess and to the darkroom process (film development and negative print) is desirable to bring this idea back. There is more to consider.
Amateur photographers and hobby photographers were enthusiastic and passionate about photography. It is also an enjoyable activity. The idea that photography can also mean pleasure, has been moved from the photographic action to the post photographic image editing. Arjan Mulder puts it this way: "As soon as you know that that cute little figure and that fine skin colour can be adjusted at will, what moves you? No more truth or lie, not even untruth: the only thing that counts from now on is the image pleasure, the photographic pleasure". This text is about digital calculated photography. The chemical process, which is much more traditional, refers to a different kind of pleasure: being busy with materials and eliminating the uncertainty that is hidden in every traditional process.
Being intensely engaged with reality soon has a voyeuristic colouring: you have to learn to look closely and then you can only stare at a scene, whatever that may be. Voyeurism now has a negative sound, but it was a modern pastime in the nineteenth century: the modern city was discovered and life took place mainly in public space. The metropolitan flaneur and dandy is the prototype of the voyeur, who searched everywhere for coincidental but interesting impressions. Photographers of the humanist (Parisian) school and the New York school, who saw the city and the street as their field of activity, made impressionistic shots, following in the footsteps of the impressionist painters who also found their scenes 'in the open air'. Many Leica photographers have adopted this style as their hallmark: inconspicuously with the camera over their shoulder, searching for visual trophies in the form of candid shots. The photographic impulse has two tastes: a creative one and a documentary or voyeuristic one. The first tries to capture something beautiful with the click of the shutter. The second has a simpler goal: to capture what irrevocably passes by. The snapshot is honest and direct: you record impulsively what happens in front of your eyes.
The snapshot style of the things around us and the daily events, with which an emotional bond exists, already answers the question of how and what we photograph. The underlying question of why we photograph requires further analysis. To look at a photograph is to stop reality and to relive the scene emotionally. Human perception is geared to filtering the important things out of the chaos of visual impressions coming at us per second. The movements around us cannot be followed and that is why a photograph that registers a frozen moment is so fascinating: the question of what happens here forces us to look closely, something we never do in practice. You can easily notice that this is also possible with a digital camera. It also freezes all movements and records what happens in front of the lens. But then two aspects are forgotten: the software that sits between reality and registration and therefore distorts the image and the role of the craft, which starts from the material present negative. Without negative there is no craft and without negative there is no registered material reality. That is why the core of the project lies in the choice for the mechanical camera and the processing of the photo in the darkroom. The scenes and objects will be selected in a natural way, as long as emotion is involved.
In order to give the project a solid background, the following subjects are critically examined:

✓ the perception of reality
✓ the development of the mechanical camera
✓ information and signal processing and digitisation of the photographic process
✓ the style of the amateur and hobby photographer: the snapshot
✓ the technique of the modern darkroom

NEDERLANDSE VERSIE

OPMERKING
deze inleiding schetst de aanpak die ik voorsta in de 2020’s. Het boek zal gepubliceerd worden als PDF en beschikbaar zijn binnenkort.

Inleiding

Je moet wel zeer onhandig zijn om met een moderne digitale camera geen goede beelden te maken. Als de camera op alles automatisch staat, hoef je alleen nog op het motief te richten en en af te drukken op het geschikte moment. Daarmee is het ideaal van de camera ontwerpers werkelijkheid geworden. Dat was de intentie van de ingenieurs! Vervang de expert die alle kennis bezit die nodig is om een technisch volmaakte opname te maken door mechanismen in de camera en je hebt een apparaat waarmee iedereen een foto kan maken. De digitalisering van het fotografisch procedé heeft deze ambitie verwerkelijkt en overgezet naar apparaten die thuishoren in de wereld van de consumenten elektronica.
Er worden heel wat voordelen opgesomd bij de discussie over het berekende beeld. Toch is dit het werkelijke voordeel! En dit voordeel wordt nauwelijks genoemd: de bijna-onmogelijkheid om een slechte foto te maken. Amateur foto’s kenmerken zich vaak door verkeerde belichting en onscherpte van het hoofdmotief. Die problemen zijn verleden tijd als je een digitale camera benut. Wat niet verdwijnt zijn de klassieke fouten: scheef staande personen en hellende gebouwen en het meest problematische onderdeel van alle foto’s: het cliché karakter van veel foto’s. De traditionele kritiek op het kiekje of de snapshot is de sleetse weergave van alledaagse onderwerpen. Toch is de scheve horizon ook het symbool geworden van de esthetische snapshot. Ook de amateur die de kunstfoto met aspiratie tegemoet trad en treedt, ondervindt een vergelijkbare kritiek. Ook hier is sprake van cliché-vorming: de talloze portretten en glamour foto’s laten dit overduidelijk zien. Het regent commentaar als je van de norm afwijkt. Al deze kritiek laat zien dat beeldkritiek aan sociale normen gebonden is. Wat ooit mooi en revolutionair was, is nu afgezaagd en saai.
Het fototoestel als mechanische en automatische beeldmachine is een metafoor die al in snel na 1840 opkwam. De verwerkelijking van dit automatische apparaat werd pas mogelijk rond 1980, toen het geïntegreerde circuit en de computer op een chip hun intrede deden in de camera techniek. De automatisering van het proces heeft ertoe geleid dat de bediener van de camera nauwelijks nog een rol heeft. Daarom leggen de fabrikanten nu zo de nadruk op de individuele creativiteit van de fotograaf. Vermoedelijk om de maker van het beeld niet in verlegenheid te brengen omdat eigenlijk de software in de camera alle werk doet. Moderne fotografen praten over de digitale foto-camera als een interface die individueel te configureren is. Een belangrijk kenmerk van de ambitieuze en veeleisende beeldmaker is de aantoonbare ervaring met de ruime mogelijkheden van beeldmanipulatie op de computer. De mogelijkheden van de programma’s in de camera (want er zitten geen krachtige chips in) zijn beperkt en die kunnen worden gecompenseerd met de veelzijdige programma’s op de computer. Die manipulaties van het oorspronkelijke beeld vervangen de keuzes die de film fotografie vraagt: belichting en afdruktechniek. (De inkjet afdruk is een schaars verschijnsel en ook hier geldt dat de manipulaties van de computer programma’s in ieder geval zichtbaar moeten zijn). De klassieke richtlijn van de realistische f/64 fotografie geldt al lang niet meer.
Hoe kun je kunst maken met een machine, is het dilemma van de ambitieuze amateur-fotograaf. Het begrip ‘kunst’ is ruim op te vatten als elk beeld dat zich onderscheidt van de algemene trend van de doorsnee fotograaf, die uitsluitend de dagelijkse omgeving registreert. Het is een beetje tegenstrijdig dat kunst ook een conventie is die de regels en codes van de geldende norm volgt. Het beste voorbeeld is de straatfotografie, waaraan de Kodak box zijn faam ontleent en waarvan de foto’s als snapshot of kiek door het leven gaan. De latere aanduiding van de snapshot-aesthetic of de ‘mooie-plaatjes’ beweging probeert, met redelijk veel succes, de spontane en nonchalante benadering van de gewone amateur een kunstzinnig sausje te geven. Het klassieke verschil tussen de gewone amateur of de naïeve fotograaf en de kunstzinnige fotograaf is eigenlijk het onderscheid tussen de foto als document en herinnering en de foto als bewijs van expertise in de fotografie. Dat levert beelden op die vooral star zijn in compositie en object. De naaktfoto is hiervan een goed voorbeeld. De belichting en de techniek van de weergave bepalen de indruk van de foto. Houding van de persoon, inkadering en beeldhoek zijn de beeldbepalende middelen die de ambitieuze fotograaf onderscheiden van de naïeve fotograaf. De onbevangenheid waarmee personen als Fieret, Sannes en Breitner hun modellen in de dagelijkse en studio omgeving registreren, is geheel verdwenen door de krampachtigheid waarmee de ambitieuze fotograaf zich onderwerpt aan de “regels der kunst”. Foto’s worden gemaakt om getoond te worden: privé, in huiselijke kring, in musea en boeken of globaal op internet. En dan is het voldoen aan de heersende trend heel belangrijk.
Het maakt niet veel uit of de foto materieel als bariet afdruk of virtueel als schermbeeld wordt gepresenteerd. Elke waarneming van een foto begint met de vraag: wat gebeurt hier? Die vraag sluit de kunstfoto in, want de kunstfotograaf maakt een foto met de duidelijke bedoeling om iets kunstzinnigs te maken maar dan ook blijft gelden wat er op de foto te zien is, want dat bepaalt de intentie en boodschap van de fotograaf. De regels van wat als ’kunstzinnig’ beschouwd moet worden, variëren per tijdsperiode en per cultuur, maar altijd geldt dat die regels sociaal bepaald zijn door de kunstwereld.
De behoefte van de amateur om zich te onderscheiden van de gewone kiekjes maker of wat wel denigrerend de ‘happy snapper’ wordt genoemd, is het argument om de fotografie als kunst te benaderen. Deze behoefte wordt minder begrijpelijk als het fotoapparaat als een instrument wordt benaderd. Het is enigszins tegenstrijdig om de nadruk te leggen op de instrumentele eigenschappen van het apparaat. Een schilder gebruikt de meest eenvoudige hulpmiddelen om een schilderij te maken en zal nooit beklemtonen welke penselen of potloden er gebruikt worden. Een penseel of potlood is geen machine! Maar een camera is dat wel.
Het is nu modern om alles als een machine te interpreteren. De techniek van de fotografie net zo als het fotoapparaat. Je kan een fototoestel functioneel gebruiken als beeldapparaat in de dagelijkse omgeving, net zoals je de radio als een luisterapparaat, de typemachine als een schrijfapparaat en de stofzuiger als een huishoudelijk apparaat benadert. Foto’s maken is in diezelfde dagelijkse omgeving een ritueel en/of een nuttige vrije tijdsbesteding.
De persoon die de verplichte foto’s maakt van de belangrijke sociale gebeurtenissen ziet zichzelf vaak nauwelijks als serieus fotograaf. De moderne amateur (niet de negentiende eeuwse versie!) is een paraplu begrip. De hobby fotograaf, die de nadruk legt op de technische elementen van de camera en het fotografisch proces, de gepassioneerde fotograaf die zichzelf ziet als documentalist van het dagelijks leven en de kunst fotograaf die de nadruk legt op de expressieve mogelijkheden van het medium vallen eronder. Je kan de amateur van nu alleen in negatieve zin omschrijven: het is de niet-professionele fotograaf. Het verschil in prestatie is vaak heel gering: veel amateurs volgen de professionele standaarden beter dan de beroeps fotograaf zelf. De amateurfotograaf en de beroepsfotograaf verschillen eigenlijk maar in een opzicht van elkaar: de een maakt foto’s in de vrije tijd en de ander doet het in werktijd. Het motief verschilt: nuttige vrijetijdsbesteding en inkomen verwerven; het doel eigenlijk niet: foto’s maken die aan een hoge standaard voldoen. Naarmate er meer vrije tijd is, worden er ook meer foto’s gemaakt. Zeker nu het proces van de fotografie zo eenvoudig is geworden en bijna gratis is. Fotograferen is een standaard activiteit, net als praten en consumeren. Er wordt nauwelijks over nagedacht. In de begintijd van de fotografie werd er eigenlijk wel veel over nagedacht en werd de camera met bewondering en nieuwsgierigheid bekeken. Die bewondering is in het huidige digitale tijdperk ver te zoeken. Als je dit gevoel weer wil hervinden, is een terugkeer naar de doka gewenst en zelfs noodzakelijk.
Maar er is meer voor nodig. Nieuwsgierigheid naar de objecten in de dagelijkse omgeving is een apart gevoel dat gekoppeld aan een emotionele relatie met diezelfde objecten. Dat is de kern van het klassieke “Nieuwe Zien”: met eigen ogen de werkelijkheid zien zoals die is en niet zoals we gewend zijn die werkelijkheid te zien en te ervaren. De foto-camera is bij uitstek de mogelijkheid om een correctie aan te brengen op de ‘gekleurde’ waarneming van alledag.
Het fotograferen van alles en iedereen is een overal te herkennen verschijnsel. Fotografie is alomtegenwoordig. Dat was al zo ruim honderd jaar geleden en dat is, sinds de digitalisering van het technisch procedé, alleen maar meer geworden. Fotografie was aan het eind van de negentiende eeuw ‘kinderspel’ dat geleerd kon worden in drie uur aan elke persoon van gemiddelde intelligentie (zoals dat toentertijd genoemd werd). De Kodak box was er net en die maakte het fotograferen zowel goedkoop (relatief dan!)als gemakkelijk. De kranten klaagden erover dat je geen stap kon zetten zonder dat een amateur of hobbyist zijn toestel op je richtte. Vooral meisjes op stranden en op straat waren een veel gefotografeerd object. Dat is niet verwonderlijk in het Victoriaanse tijdperk. De klachten waren ook niet van de lucht, zelfs het parlement moest worden ingeschakeld om deze verstoring van de orde teniet te doen. Het grote verschil met nu is de mate van sociale acceptatie. Toen werd de fotograaf gezien als een storende factor, nu is het een normaal verschijnsel, al mag je geen foto’s meer maken van onbekende personen in de publieke ruimte. De zogeheten ‘candid’ fotografie is verleden tijd, zoals zo veel in de wereld van de fotografie. Maar die stijl komt weer met de alomtegenwoordige smart phone. De digitale fotograaf van nu is vooral gefixeerd op het vastleggen van dagelijkse gebeurtenissen die voldoende interessant zijn om gedeeld te worden. Het delen van het moment zelf is belangrijker dan het vastleggen voor later als een herinnering. Er zijn twee soorten beeldmakers, die de ‘interconnected’ (met internet verbonden) camera waarderen: de smart phone gebruiker en de moderne hobby fotograaf. De cameras van de laatste groep worden steeds vaker voorzien van internet connecties en cinema functies, die de traditionele videocamera nabootsen. Die internet verbindingen en de video mogelijkheid worden ingebouwd als tegenwicht voor de smart phone, die wel de mogelijkheid heeft om korte filmpjes naar de sociale platformen op te sturen in real time. Het stilstaande beeld wordt geleidelijk aan een uitzondering. Dit stilstaande beeld werd ontdekt door academici in de jaren zestig en zeventig van de vorige eeuw en als alleenstaand artefact, dat representatief was voor de fotografie in het algemeen, geanalyseerd. Sinds het begin van de fotografie al ontstond een levendige en soms heftige discussie over de aard van de fotografie: kunst of geen kunst, document of expressie enzovoort. Die discussie is nu geheel verstomd. Sinds de digitale omslag in de fotografie-wereld is de vraag wat de fotografie echt is, vervangen door de vraag wat doen die fotografen toch. Het antwoord wordt gevonden door de waarneming dat de actuele fotografen zich vooral richten op het massaal genereren van beelden en die ook massaal verspreiden over het internet naar anonieme kijkers.
Het grote verschil met de’Kodak cultuur’ (een begrip dat plaatsvervangend is voor de fotografie met de filmrolletjes) is deze massale verspreiding naar onbekende kijkers. In de Kodak cultuur werden de foto’s getoond aan een kleine groep bekenden, die de situatie en de personen, die op de foto stonden, herkenden. Toen de digitale fotografie nog in de kinderschoenen stond en een serieus alternatief werd voor de Kodak cultuur, waren er commentatoren die voor de teloorgang van de fotografie als zodanig waarschuwden. Deze personen zagen de kern van de fotografie in het werkelijkheidsgehalte van de foto. Het digitale beeld is vloeiend en nooit af: iedereen kan de inhoud manipuleren. Ook de maker zelf kan dit doen: er zijn voldoende filters en sjablonen die de afbeelding danig kunnen vervormen. Denk maar aan de beruchte Photoshop manipulaties van modellen in mode tijdschriften en advertenties. De relatie tussen de werkelijkheid en wat er afgebeeld werd, stond op de tocht. De fotografen hadden geen interesse in deze thematiek en maakten met hun digitale apparaten de foto’s die ze altijd al gemaakt hadden: de snapshots van interessante personen en gebeurtenissen uit de dagelijkse omgeving. De stroom beelden die nu gedeeld worden op de websites tonen aan dat er weinig is veranderd in de inhoud van het beeld en de visie van de fotograaf. Dat is ook niet verwonderlijk: de werkelijkheid verandert niet zo snel (een lachende baby of een zonsondergang rond 1920 is identiek met een lachende baby en een zonsondergang rond 2020) en fotografen zijn nu eenmaal conservatief en cliché-matig.
De adoptie van de digitale fotografie verandert weinig aan het doel van de gemiddelde fotograaf: traditionele onderwerpen fotograferen, maar met een actuele en slimmere techniek. De klassieke thema’s van de hobby-fotograaf zijn niet veranderd: de rites-de-passage in het dagelijks leven en de gebeurtenissen tijdens de vakantie worden nog steeds massaal gedeeld. Nieuw is alleen dat delen van foto’s; vroeger werden die foto’s in albums gestopt of op dia-avonden geprojecteerd.
De digitale techniek wordt gezien als de opvolging en verdringing van de chemische techniek. Toch zijn nog meeste iconische foto’s, die nu in musea hangen en in boeken staan, op film vastgelegd, maar dat zal gaan veranderen, gegeven de enorme vloed aan nieuwe beelden. Helaas zijn die nu nog erg traditioneel en weinig vernieuwend. Het motief van de huiskat in een doos of de net opgediende lunch mogen dan informatief zijn, maar boeiend zijn die beelden niet. De generatie fotografen van de Nieuwe Zakelijkheid had een scherpere waarneming voor de on-alledaagsheid van de alledaagse dingen.
Fotografie wordt vanuit diverse gezichtshoeken bestudeerd. Pas toen het medium als kunstvorm erkend werd, ontstond er een interesse in wat fotografie eigenlijk was en wat foto’s doen als ze worden bekeken. De tegenreactie liet niet lang op zich wachten. De amateur fotografie werd ontdekt en in het kielzog de snapshot en het fotoalbum. De snapshot is een lastig verschijnsel dat zich niet gemakkelijk laat vangen in een sluitende definitie. Het woord zegt het al: een snapshot is een haastige en onzorgvuldig gemaakte opname. Er valt ook onder de amateur foto die vol zit met fouten: scheve horizon, schaduw van de fotograaf in beeld, vinger voor de lens, half afgesneden hoofd of benen enz. Maar veel familiefoto’s zijn juist erg statisch, zorgvuldig gecomponeerd met alle personen keurig in beeld en recht in de lens kijkend.
Deze aanpak lijkt veel op de zorgvuldig geënsceneerde kunstfoto in de studio. De snapshot is er in veel smaken: de zorgvuldig gecomponeerde foto van Cartier-Bresson naast de slordige foto van Breitner of Fieret en de ruwe straat fotografie van de Zwitserse fotograaf Frank, die veel foto’s maakte vanuit de rijdende auto.
Wat volledig genegeerd wordt in deze analyses, is het feit dat fotografie vooral een mechanisch proces is met de camera als meest belangrijke technisch artefact. De fascinatie voor techniek was de drijfveer voor veel hobby fotografen om te gaan fotograferen en met de resultaten te bewijzen dat de techniek volledig beheerst werd. Nu is er geen mechaniek meer in de standaard digitale camera: die rol is overgenomen door de programmatuur op de chips in de camera. Wat er wel nog aan mechanische componenten in zit, is door de moderne fabricage methoden tot in de perfectie geproduceerd en valt nauwelijks nog op. Geen enkele sluitertijd, zelfs van het goedkoopste toestel, wijkt nog af van de nominale waarden. Je moet wel een kluns zijn om nog met de moderne digitale camera een technisch slechte foto te maken.
De digitale techniek heeft de filmrol volledig verdrongen. Dat is een feit. Zijn we er, fotografisch gezien, wel mee opgeschoten? De rekenliniaal en de typemachine zijn helemaal verdwenen en worden alleen nog verzameld. Die apparaten worden met reden niet meer gebruikt, behalve door nostalgisch ingestelde personen. Uit functioneel oogpunt hebben die instrumenten hun tijd gehad en er zijn nu effectieve opvolgers, zoals de digitale rekenmachine en het tekstverwerkingsprogramma op de PC. De vraag is niet zozeer wat we er mee op vooruitgegaan zijn. Die voordelen staan buiten kijf.

De vraag is wat er verloren gegaan is. Het antwoord is vooral van belang voor de fotografie, die op dit moment (begin 2020) op het kruispunt staat definitief het film rolletje vaarwel te zeggen en daarmee helemaal de digitale techniek met zijn sociale processen te omarmen. Of geven we het filmrolletje nog een kans? Die kans is er! De verkopen van filmrolletjes zijn hoger dan ze de laatste jaren waren. Er is dus interesse, ook al is het verwerkingsproces meer ingewikkeld en meer tijdrovend.
De eenvoudige vervanging van de emulsie door de beeldsensor betekent weinig voor het dagelijks gebruik van het fototoestel: dezelfde voorwerpen, personen en gebeurtenissen worden afgebeeld. Je gaat alleen van een materieel naar een virtueel formaat. De vervolgstap is belangrijker.
De digitalisering van het fotografisch proces heeft als doel: de omzetting van de oorspronkelijk in optische vorm beschikbare beeldinformatie in een elektrisch signaal. Met dat signaal, meestal in sinusvorm, kan je van alles doen. Visuele informatie kan in digitale vorm worden opgeslagen en geïntegreerd worden met alle data die op de computer opgeslagen zijn en gemanipuleerd worden. Daaropvolgend kunnen ze op internet worden gezet. We praten dan over een digitale transformatie en communicatie. De onmiddellijke beschikbaarheid en universele toegankelijkheid zijn de grote voordelen van dit transformatieproces, dat niet kan werken zonder de primaire digitale omzetting: het bekende nul-een van de signaal verwerking.
Het digitale proces heeft een groot aantal voordelen:
goedkoop en eenvoudig te gebruiken;
de doka is in de camera ingebouwd of beschikbaar op de computer als ‘lichte kamer’;
de beelden zijn onmiddellijk beschikbaar en kunnen direct worden getoond aan iedereen;
de prestaties zijn beter dan met de film techniek mogelijk is en deze resultaten zijn zonder opleiding of ervaring gemakkelijk te bereiken.
Nadelen van de digitalisering
Er zijn ook nadelen aan verbonden; eenvormigheid en gelijkvormigheid zijn de belangrijkste nadelen, maar ook het spontaan versturen van talloze beelden is een bijkomend nadeel. Het is niet voor niets dat alle advertenties rondom digitale cameras de creativiteit van het individu beklemtonen. Het belangrijkste nadeel is het spiegelbeeld van de ogenblikkelijke beschikbaarheid en distributie. Dat is het virtuele en vluchtige karakter van de digitale beelden. De Polaroid-foto was ook opmerkelijk en relatief snel (althans binnen een minuut) beschikbaar, maar die foto was een materieel en tastbaar ding.
De Polaroid was ook een gefixeerd beeld. Dat was een deel van de charme van het proces. Het digitale virtuele beeld is nooit af. Het is een reeks getallen die door iedereen bewerkt kunnen worden. Je weet nooit of het beeld dat je ziet, authentiek is. De vluchtigheid van het beeld is een gevolg van het proces van distribueren en tonen. Het beeld op de monitor van de camera en van de smart phone en op het beeldscherm van de computer is niet fysiek tastbaar zoals een papieren afdruk dat wel is. Papier (en materiaal in het algemeen ) is het instrument van de handwerksman, een soort die bijna is uitgestorven door de digitalisering van de hedendaagse producten en de fabricage ervan. Het ambacht stond in hoog aanzien in de fotografie tot het midden van de vorige eeuw. In die tijd pendelde de fotografie tussen ambachtsman en consument.
Van consument naar prosumer
Nu past de fotografie geheel in het raamwerk van het consumentengedrag. Dat was ook al zo in de hoogtijdagen van de amateur fotografie in het midden van de vorige eeuw. Alleen zijn er duidelijke verschillen. De moderne consument is, in het internet tijdperk, een prosumer geworden. Had je vroeger grofweg twee soorten camera’s, hobby en professioneel, nu is er een derde categorie bijgekomen, de prosumer camera, die tussen beide instaat maar nadrukkelijk aanleunt tegen de professionele variant. De prosumer wordt gezien als de expert die met rationele overwegingen de aankopen van fotospullen onderbouwt. De camera fabrikanten stellen veel prijs op de mening van de prosumer. Die persoon geldt tegenwoordig als de instant-cheerleader van de bekende merken. Toch geven de meest recente cijfers aan dat de verkopen van cameras behoorlijk teruglopen. Geoffrey Crawley, befaamd redacteur en tester van het ooit invloedrijke British Journal of Photography had als principe dat een test van een camera systeem pas interessant was als deze producten meer dan een jaar op de markt waren en in gebruik waren bij veel fotografen. De reden was de mogelijkheid van mechanische tekortkomingen en beperkingen in het gebruik, die over het hoofd werden gezien bij een test.
Crawley had een duidelijk advies: koop alleen wat je echt nodig hebt om betere foto’s te maken. Dit advies is tegengesteld aan dat van de typische prosumer: die wil altijd het allernieuwste hebben omdat dat automatisch beter is (en zo zien de fabrikanten dat ook graag). Het argument voor dit model van consumenten-gedrag is het onbewuste brein. Daar zetelen de mechanismen die elke koop van producten sturen. Er is een groot verschil tussen wat mensen doen en wat mensen denken. Traditionele opvattingen over de consument gaan ervan uit dat de consument vooral bevrediging van behoeften nastreeft. In werkelijkheid is dit stadium al lang voorbij en gaat het de consument vooral om emotionele bevrediging en om status bevestiging. Weinigen geven dit toe en daarom zijn analyses die dit wensdenken negeren ook zo verdacht. De Leica is een heel dure camera en daarom neigen kopers ertoe om allerlei mythische eigenschappen aan producten van die firma toe te dichten. Toch zal iedere digitale camera, die praktisch gelijke functies bezit, op een zelfde niveau presteren. Maar vaak kiezen fotografen voor een bepaald merk, een keuze die vaak onbewust is gemaakt. Later wordt dan beargumenteerd dat die keuze geheel weloverwogen is en gerelateerd is aan de prestaties, die vanuit een emotioneel perspectief worden beoordeeld. Consumentengedrag is niet anders dan gewoon menselijk gedrag en dat is biologisch bepaald door de complexe processen in het brein. Die worden bestuurd door het instinct (illusie?). Die onbewuste processen werken supersnel en zelfs voordat ons rationele bewustzijn zich ervan bewust is. Het onbewuste brein zal vooral risico-mijdend reageren. Een nieuwe camera kan nooit een probleem zijn!

Welk probleem is eigenlijk opgelost?
Welk probleem hebben we eigenlijk opgelost met de digitalisering van het gehele fotografische proces van opname tot vertoning? De hobby-fotograaf maakt geen foto’s die geen tijdvertraging kunnen verdragen. Ook de onmiddellijke beschikbaarheid en snelle distributie zijn niet van belang. Wie zit er nu te wachten op de foto van een spelende baby of dat leuke pittoreske straatje in Zuid-Frankrijk. We denken dat we dit willen tonen en ook zien. Eigenlijk willen we dit omdat het kan en iedereen het doet.
Het echte probleem dat we ermee oplossen ligt bij de fabrikant van fotoapparatuur. Die wil dat de gemaakte producten ook verkocht worden. De fabrikant verdient er niets aan als je een gebruikte camera, hoe goed die ook is, koopt. Een Nikon F3 of een Leica M6 zijn uitstekende camera’s, maar die worden niet meer gemaakt. (De Leica M6 kun je nog steeds nieuw kopen in de vorm van de Leica MP, maar als je die aankoop overweegt, is er keuze genoeg aan allerlei varianten van de M6. Terughoudendheid bij kopers is niets nieuws. Al drie maal stond de industrie van fotografische artikelen voor een teruggang in de productie. In de jaren 80 van de vorige eeuw (tussen 1980 en 1990) werd voor de eerste keer een platform in de technologie bereikt. Toen waren de mechanische cameras zo geperfectioneerd dat niemand nog een nieuw apparaat wilde kopen. De introductie van de autofocus gaf een kortstondige nieuwe impuls. Totdat de autofocus techniek in alle cameras was ingebouwd en geperfectioneerd. En de markt weer instortte. Dat was de tweede crisis, die plaats had rond 2000. Gelukkig werd met de beeldsensor een geheel nieuwe ervaring opgedaan. Ook hebben de fabrikanten geleerd van het consumentengedrag van de gemiddelde fotograaf. Nu staan we weer op een platform van technologische stilstand. De verkoop van cameras is in 2019, net als in alle vorige jaren sinds 2009, teruggelopen. Het grote verschil met de voorgaande duikelingen is de inkrimping van de markt en niet de verzadiging van de markt. De belangrijkste reden is de opkomst van de smart phone.
Daarom zet de fotografische industrie nu meer in op video en op kunstmatige intelligentie om de concurrentie met de steeds beter wordende smart phones aan te gaan.
Er is een trend zichtbaar om steeds meer pixels op een vaststaand (24x36mm) oppervlak te plaatsen en de negatieve gevolgen van de kleinere pixel oppervlakken tegen te gaan met slimmere programma’s. Toch is er nauwelijks verschil in resultaten tussen een camera model uit 2019 en een uit 2009. De techniek heeft zichzelf overleefd met drastische gevolgen voor de camera eigenschappen die al jaren hetzelfde zijn en de verkoop van apparaten, die alsmaar terugloopt. Ook de omslag naar spiegelloge varianten en de inbouw van beeldsensoren met steeds grotere aantallen beeldpunten zal het tij niet kunnen keren.
Willen wij nog wel wat we kunnen zonder de nieuwste techniek?
Nieuwe problemen!
We hebben dus eigenlijk geen probleem opgelost en minstens drie extra problemen geschapen.

(1) de werkelijkheid de rug toekeren
Fotografie is gestart als aan proces om de natuur via het licht zichzelf te laten afbeelden. De werkelijkheid vastleggen met zo min mogelijk beïnvloeding van de fotograaf was het eigenlijke doel van de bedenkers van het fotografisch proces. De digitale omslag heeft het tegendeel veroorzaakt. De programmatuur in de camera berekent een visueel beeld uit de stroom van fotonen die de sensor registreert en omvormt tot bits, hapklare brokjes voor de computer programma’s. Het oorspronkelijke beeld is vastgelegd met behulp van mechanismen en programma’s die de lichtintensiteit omzetten in getallen en uit die getallen een visueel beeld berekenen volgens de geldende culturele normen. Die berekening is gebaseerd op technieken uit de wereld van de signaalverwerking en op ideeën hoe een beeld er uit zou moeten zien. Niet hoe het beeld er werkelijk uitziet, maar hoe het er uit hoort te zien. De Sherlock Holmes benadering van de werkelijkheid (het ongewone zien in gewone dingen) is verlaten. Dit brengt ons op het tweede grote probleem.

(2) Verfraaiing van het oorspronkelijke beeld door toepassing van programma’s is nu het doel van de fotograaf.
De aandacht is verschoven van de voorkant ( de werkelijkheid) naar de achterkant (de toepassing van de computer programma’s). Dat levert wel technisch indrukwekkende beelden op, maar de keerzijde is een standaard beeld, omziet te zeggen een cliché-beeld. Vroeger waren de foto’s in de familiealbums het schrikbeeld van de serieuze fotograaf, nu doet elke fotograaf zijn best om technisch geslaagde, maar inhoudelijk saaie beelden te produceren. Dat is het kenmerk van de hobby-fotograaf: technisch geslaagde beelden maken. Er is duidelijk ook een wens om een kunstwerk te maken. Het kenmerk van een kunstwerk is de individuele zichtwijze en expressie. De fotobladen en de boeken over kunst- en fotogeschiedenis staan vol met beelden die na te bootsen zijn en ook zo worden aangeprezen.
In de jaren 20 van de vorige eeuw, nu honderd jaar geleden, kwam de stijl van de Nieuwe Fotografie (het nieuwe zien) op. Een stijl die ervan uitging dat de fotograaf met de camera een apart instrument bezat, dat het menselijk oog kon corrigeren in de waarneming van de werkelijkheid. De aanhangers van die school probeerden juist een visie te ontwikkelen die voor de cultureel beïnvloede waarneming een tegenwicht kon bieden. De fotografische techniek in combinatie met de bevlogenheid van de nieuwe fotografen zorgde voor een nieuwe kijk op de dagelijkse omgeving. Deze benadering zie je nu alleen nog terug bij de Lomografische Beweging.
De computer filters proberen juist het tegenovergestelde te doen: beelden zo aanpassen dat ze in de ogen van de meerderheid, die op de sociale media optreedt als arbiter, geaccepteerd worden: ‘eye candy’ heet dat. De klassieke glamour fotografie deed hetzelfde. Dat is dus niets nieuws onder de zon. Zelfde doel en andere middelen. Dit brengt ons naar het volgende probleem.

(3) Het derde probleem is het verlies van een ambachtelijke identiteit.
Vroeger gold dat de amateur fotograaf een dilettant was als de persoon de noodzakelijke vaardigheid voor de technische beheersing niet bezat. De industrie heeft zijn best gedaan om dit beeld te ondergraven en de technische vaardigheid te vervangen door automatische processen die in geïntegreerde circuits werden opgeslagen. De smart phone heeft dit proces nog versterkt, maar ook met de actuele digitale camera, op automaat gezet, kost het moeite om een technisch minder geslaagd beeld te produceren.
Als je in de huidige tijd aparte weergaves wil scheppen van alledaagse objecten, val je al snel terug op de ouderwetse fototechnieken, zoals Daguerreotype en albumen druk. Daarmee kan je verrassend andere weergaves bereiken. De nadruk op het cliché-beeld was al zichtbaar bij de familiefoto en het amateur kiekje. Ook hier staan de personen altijd met een glimlach en in een standaard houding, die de persoon het voordeligst laat uitkomen. De digitale omslag heeft die cliché-vorming nog versterkt. Photoshop en collega’s zijn heel sterk in het aanbieden van stijlen, filters en andere hulpmiddelen die het verfraaien en vervormen van het oorspronkelijke beeld mogelijke maken. Dit is ook de kracht van het digitale proces. Het beeld is van oorsprong een berekend beeld en de geprogrammeerde stijlen en filters doen niet anders dan een berekening toepassen op de getallen waarmee het beeld is vastgelegd.
De oplossing
De geschetste drie processen die de klassieke eigenschappen van het fotografisch proces teniet doen, kunnen op twee manieren worden opgelost.
(1) De makkelijkste manier is de trend van de digitale fotografie voortzetten. Dan is de voor de hand liggende manier: een radicale ommezwaai naar een nieuwe manier van beelden produceren, die recht doet aan de echte kenmerken van de digitalisering van het fotografisch proces. Die kenmerkt zich door het vloeibare karakter van het berekende beeld, door de integratie met de sociale media en het met het internet verbonden beeld. Deze toekomstige digitale fotografie laat alle ideeën over de actuele fotografie, die nog altijd probeert de klassieke fotografie na te bootsen, achter zich. De hele discussie over de fotografie in de twintigste eeuw is gericht op het verkennen van en argumenteren voor de status als kunstvorm. Dat ligt gelukkig achter ons. Denken over fotografie is niet zozeer de theoretische status ervan doorgronden, maar kijken naar de praktijk van wat mensen doen met de fotografie. Impulsief, onmiddellijk en alom toegankelijk zijn dan de steekwoorden.
(2) De tweede manier is minder makkelijk. Het betreft hier een terugkeer naar de hobby fotografie van weleer, maar met enkele aanpassingen. Niet de werkelijkheid als zodanig (zie Renger-Patzsch: die Welt ist schön) staat centraal, maar de emotionele relatie zoals Proust het beschrijft. Dat is een verschuiving van de klassieke snapshot-aesthetic naar de emotionele snapshot in deadpan stijl (zie de fotogafie van de Düsseldorf school, de Bechers).

Het alternatief
Het beschreven alternatief komt neer op een anders stijl van fotograferen en een andere keuze van motieven. Het vullen van het familie album hoort er niet bij. En het maken van beelden om zoveel mogelijk ‘likes’ te krijgen eigenlijk ook niet.
Het antwoord op de voor de hand liggende vraag waarom we nog fotograferen schetst de contouren.
De basis voor het antwoord is te vinden in de gebeurtenissen en objecten uit de dagelijkse omgeving. Zoals Sherlock Holmes het al verwoord heeft, is er niets ongewoner dan het gewone. We leven in de dagelijkse omgeving en hebben emotionele betrekkingen tot objecten en situaties. Het vastleggen van die situaties en objecten is de taak van de fotografie. Als we later zo een afbeelding bekijken, komt het oorspronkelijke gevel weer terug en omdat het nu een statisch beeld is, zien we ook dingen die we toen niet zagen. Een persoonlijke en emotionele relatie tot de gebeurtenissen, objecten en personen uit de dagelijkse omgeving is de moeite waard om vast te leggen. Vastlegging is niet gelijk aan reproductie of kopie en ook niet gelijk aan een expressie van waarden of standpunten. Registratie van de werkelijkheid om ons heen is een analoog proces. De foto kan nooit een exacte kopie van de werkelijkheid zijn: het is hoogstens een analogie, want er zijn altijd delen van de werkelijkheid die niet worden vastgelegd. Een analogie is een hulpmiddel waarmee belangrijke eigenschappen van het ene object of proces worden nagebootst in een ander object of proces. Een analogie is een methodische manier om onbekende verschijnselen nader te bestuderen door de wezenlijke eigenschappen ervan te simuleren. Als je een analogie gebruikt, doe je ook afstand van elke aspiratie om kunst te produceren. Ook het klassieke doel van de documentaire fotografie, de objectieve weergave van de werkelijkheid op het moment van afdrukken, verdwijnt uit het zicht.
Deze aanpak lijkt heel veel op de traditionele snapshot, die ook als doel heeft om dagelijkse gebeurtenissen en personen vast te leggen. Het verschil met de voorgestelde aanpak is de selectie van motieven. Bij de snapshot gaat het om rituele en sociale gebeurtenissen, de rites de passage in iemands leven. De nieuwe fotografie richt zich op de emotionele elementen in iemands leven, hoe onbelangrijk die ook in sociaal opzicht mogen zijn. Het opbouwen van een tijdsbeeld zou een doel kunnen zijn. Proust beschrijft de fotografie als een middel om de dingen te tonen die verloren zijn gegaan. Atget deed dat ook met zijn foto’s van de gebouwen en straten in Parijs.
“Fotografie krijgt iets van de waardigheid die ze tekort komt, als ze ophoudt een reproductie van de werkelijkheid te zijn en ons de dingen toont die er niet meer zijn.” (Atget)
Kijken naar foto’s levert een bijzondere gewaarwording op.
“Het is met genot zoals met foto’s. Wat je neemt in aanwezigheid van de geliefde is enkel een negatief, je ontwikkelt het later, als je weer thuis bent, wanneer je die innerlijke donkere kamer weer tot je beschikking hebt die afgesloten blijft zolang je in gezelschap vertoeft.” (Proust)

De foto, die Proust beschrijft, is een gefixeerd en materiaal object. Om dat te bereiken moet je terugvallen op het proces van de donkere kamer, want dan pas is het eindresultaat een gefixeerde afbeelding op papier.

De donkere kamer wordt zo genoemd omdat alle processen zonder licht moeten worden uitgevoerd. De materialen zijn lichtgevoelig. In de doka werken was niet ieders hobby. Toen de niet-lichtgevoelige materialen (de computer en de inkjet printer) werden geïntroduceerd, was dat voor veel fotografen een vreugdedansje waard. De doka spullen werden massaal van de hand gedaan. Men begroette enthousiast de lichte kamer. (1)
Bijna twee honderd jaar is de fotografie beoefening gevormd door de samenwerking tussen chemie en mechanica. Zonder doka of afdrukcentrale kon geen foto worden gezien. De afdruk was het eindproduct en het bewijs dat de foto ook echt gemaakt was.
De mechanische aard van het proces ondersteunde een manier van fotograferen, die de snapshot fotografie werd genoemd. De foto’s als eindproduct was niet het einddoel, maar de consumptie ervan was het echte doel. Foto’s werden gemaakt om gezien te worden. Het apparaat waarmee de foto’s werden geproduceerd, kreeg in de statusgevoelige consumptie maatschappij een aparte rol: de camera werd een icoon en symbool voor deskundigheid en toonaangevend vakmanschap, althans in de wereld van de hobby-fotografie. De Leica in het bijzonder kreeg deze rol toegedicht en de fabrikant nam dit maar al te graag over. In de digitale wereld zijn het de Canon en Nikon apparaten die nu om de eer strijden de top van de pyramide te kunnen bezetten.
Al lag geleden, toen de Canon en Nikon nog elektromechanische apparaten waren, gold al dat beide systemen gelijkwaardig waren voor de beroepsfotograaf. Alleen voor de amateur was het verschil belangrijk.
Rond 1925 schreef Moholy-Nagy, een Bauhaus leraar die ook fotografie doceerde: ‘de analfabeet van de toekomst is niet degene zonder schrift, maar degene zonder fotografie.’ In die tijd, net toen de Leica als kleinbeeldcamera extreme eisen stelde aan de kunde van de fotograaf, gold dat vakmanschap ook meesterschap betekende. Wie niet het ambacht (métier) van de fotograaf beheerste, was een naïeve amateur, sterker nog: een dilettant, de nieuwe betekenis van het oude begrip ‘amateur’ (oorspronkelijk: liefhebber). De Nederlander Idzerda maakte zich al in 1923 bezorgd over het feit dat de nieuwe amateur slordig omging met de aloude regels van het fotografisch ambacht, die richtlijnen vaststelde voor onderwerp, compositie en technische vaardigheid van de fotograaf. De kiekjesmaker, (de “happy snapper” of de snapshooter) ging slordig om met die regels en negeerde de techniek. Veel foto’s mislukten daarom. De camera- en emulsie-makers deden derde voor zich hun best om de kennis van het fotografisch proces in de techniek op te nemen. De point and shoot camera, die automatisch belichting en afstand instelde was het gevolg. Eerder nog was de Polaroid techniek ingevoerd, maar de nadelen van het kleine formaat wogen niet op tegen de voordelen van het gemak en de onmiddellijke afdruk.
Het kenmerk van de digitale fotografie is het gegeven dat de fotograaf niets meer hoeft te kunnen en te weten. Je bent een kluns als je met een moderne camera (standalone of geïntegreerd in de smartphone) een mislukte foto produceert. De beperkte mogelijkheden van het geïntegreerde circuit dat ingebouwd was in de meest vooruitstrevende cameras uit de laatste decennia van de vorige eeuw zijn aangevuld door de effectieve bewerkingen van de actuele algoritmes. Die algoritmen zorgen voor een eenheidsworst van de foto’s. Het is daarom niet verwonderlijk dat de moderne fotograaf zich helemaal stort op de vaardigheid om met die computer programma’s om te gaan. Ook laat de moderne fotograaf zich voorstaan op de kennis van de digitale techniek. Die kennis is helaas vrij oppervlakkig, zoals elke blog op internet aantoont.
Dat de techniek nu zo hoog in het vaandel staat, is een merkwaardig verschijnsel. Kennis en vaardigheid waren in de tijd van de chemische fotografie heel belangrijk om technisch goede foto’s te maken. Nu kan iedereen het en daarmee is de uitspraak van Moholy-Nagy gelogenstraft. De nadruk van de actuele fotograaf op de techniek is een compensatie voor de saaiheid van de beeldcultuur. De camera fabrikanten weten dat ook! Ze beloven dat de nieuwste generatie camera’s de eigen creativiteit zal gaan ondersteunen. Tegelijkertijd staan de fotobladen vol van regels hoe je goede foto’s moet en kan maken. ‘Goed’ is niet alleen technisch goed. Ook de juiste toepassing van de vele filters die het beeld mooier maken of juist vervreemd van de werkelijkheid is de maat voor bekwaamheid. Meer nog dan het kenmerk van de onmiddellijke distributie van het gemaakte beeld, is dit het eigenlijke criterium van de digitale fotografie: de verfraaiing van het beeld en de kennis om dat ook te kunnen. De werkelijkheid wordt genegeerd en daarom verfraaid. Deze wens leidt tot de toepassing van zuivere magie. Photoshop bewerkingen van vooral vrouwelijke modellen zijn het bekendste voorbeeld. De gewone foto wordt omgetoverd naar een bijzonder beeld. Dat is het verschil met de klassieke amateur-foto. De alledaagse werkelijkheid hoorde zonder opsmuk te worden geregistreerd. De groepsfoto was duidelijk geposeerd en geregisseerd: recht in de lens kijken en iedereen met een glimlach.
In de digitale fotografie komen twee opmerkelijke trends bijeen: het plezier in het bewerken van het beeld vervangt het genoegen van het maken van het beeld en de fotografie is onherkenbaar onderdeel geworden van de dagelijkse praktijk.
Het is gebruikelijk om de fotografie te benaderen als cultureel en sociaal verschijnsel. De vraag is dan wat doen mensen als ze fotograferen of gefotografeerd worden of naar beelden kijken. De meeste studies komen niet veel verder dan de waarneming dat de moderne fotograaf vooral directe en anonieme verbindingen zoekt met anderen via internet.
De nadruk ligt op de culturele praktijk. Het is nu gebruikelijk om te beweren dat de fotografie een integraal onderdeel van het dagelijks leven is geworden en dus een onderdeel van het consumptief en communicatief gedrag. Wat vergeten wordt is te kijken naar de oorsprong van de fotografie als technologie uit het industriële tijdvak. Met de digitalisering van het foto-technisch proces is de integratie in de elektronische (digitale) media een gegeven. De foto is niet langer een technisch artefact, dat op zich zelf staat, maar een communicatie middel.
Het project
Het project van dit boek is ambitieus en tegendraads! Het is een pleidooi voor het naïeve amateurisme dat de fotografie haar bestaansrecht heeft gegeven. Het boek schetst ook de weg naar een herontdekking van de traditionele doka, die de antithese is van de digitalisering van het fotografisch procedé. Fotografie is een hobby en geen communicatiemiddel. Met deze uitspraak sluiten we aan bij de klassieke Hollandse genre schilders uit de 17e (Gouden) eeuw. Die genre-schilders werkten voor de markt en omdat gewone huizen nu eenmaal klein zijn, werden ook de schilderijen een maatje kleiner. De schaal van de afdrukken op fotopapier is eveneens bescheiden: meestal A4 en hooguit A3. Dan wordt ook het materiaal nog behapbaar en zijn de eisen aan de apparatuur en de techniek nog bescheiden. Relatief! Om een gedetailleerde registratie van de originele werkelijkheid te verkrijgen zijn acht lijnparen per mm op de afdruk het maximum. Gekoppeld aan de maximale vergrotings-maatstaf van tien maal, betekent deze eis toch dat er op het kleinbeeld-negatief minstens 40 (en eigelijk 80) lijnparen per mm nodig zijn. Niet voor niets stappen veel fotografen over op grootbeeld formaat camera’s om de fijnste details vast te leggen.
De meesters uit de 17e eeuw schilderden vooral dagelijkse taferelen in uiterst gedetailleerde weergave. Vooral de juiste stofuitdrukking was van belang. Die combinatie van realisme en vakmanschap zien we ook terug bij de latere fotografen, die de stroming van het Nieuwe Zien in de fotografie die de Nieuwe Zakelijkheid in de schilderkunst nabootste. Nu de digitale techniek in de fotografie de overhand heeft, raakt het idee van vakmanschap in vergetelheid. Een terugkeer naar de mechanische camera, naar het gebruik vande driehoek belichting, filmgevoeligheid en korreligheid en naar het doka proces (filmontwikkeling en negatief afdruk) is gewenst om dit idee terug te halen. Er is nog meer.
Amateur fotografen en hobby-fotografen waren enthousiast en gepassioneerd bezig met fotograferen. Het is ook een plezierige bezigheid. Het idee dat fotografie ook genoegen kan betekenen, is verplaatst van de fotografische actie naar de post-fotografische beeldbewerking. Arjan Mulder zegt het zo: “Zodra je weet dat dat leuke figuurtje en die fijne huidskleur naar believen kunnen worden bijgesteld, waardoor raak je dan ontroerd? Geen waarheid of leugen meer, zelfs geen onwaarheid: het enige wat voortaan telt is het beeldplezier, het fotografisch genoegen”. Deze tekst gaat over de digitale gerekende fotografie. Het chemisch procedé, dat veel ambachtelijker is, verwijst naar een ander soort genoegen: het bezig zijn met materialen en het uitbannen van de onzekerheid die in elk ambachtelijk proces verstopt zit.
Intensief bezig zijn met de werkelijkheid heeft al gauw een voyeuristische inkleuring: je moet leren goed te kijken en dan kan alleen als je heel intens naar een tafereel, wat dat ook mag zijn, staart. Voyeurisme heeft nu een negatieve klank, maar het gold in de negentiende eeuw als een modern tijdverdrijf: de moderne stad werd ontdekt en het leven speelde zich vooral af in de publieke ruimte. De grootstedelijke flaneur en dandy is het prototype van de voyeur, die overal zocht naar toevallige maar interessante impressies. Fotografen van de humanistische (Parijse) school en de New-Yorkse school, die de stad en de straat als hun werkterrein zagen, maakten impressionistische opnames, in navolging van de impressionistische schilders die ook ‘in de open lucht’ hun scenes vonden. Veel Leica fotografen hebben die stijl als hun kenmerk geadopteerd: onopvallend met de camera over de schouder speurend naar visuele trofeeën in de vorm van candid opnames. De fotografische impuls heeft twee smaken: een creatieve en een documentaire of voyeuristische. De eerste probeert met het klikken van de sluiter iets moois vast te leggen. De tweede heeft een eenvoudiger doel: vast te leggen wat onherroepelijk voorbijgaat. De snapshot is eerlijk en direct: je legt impulsief vast wat er voor je ogen gebeurt.
De snapshot stijl van de dingen rondom ons heen en de dagelijkse gebeurtenissen, waarmee een emotionele band bestaat, beantwoordt al de vraag hoe en wat we fotograferen. De achterliggende vraag waarom we fotograferen vraagt om een nadere analyse. Het kijken naar een foto is de werkelijkheid stilzetten en de scene emotioneel opnieuw beleven. De menselijke waarneming is afgesteld op het filteren van de belangrijke zaken uit de chaos van visuele indrukken die per seconde op ons afkomen. De bewegingen rondom ons zijn niet te volgen en daarom is een foto die een bevroren moment registreert ook zo boeiend: de vraag wat gebeurt hier dwingt tot nauwkeurig kijken, iets wat we nooit doen in de praktijk. Je kan gemakkelijk opmerken dat dit ook met een digitale camera kan. Die bevriest ook alle bewegingen en legt vast wat er gebeurt voor de lens. Maar dan worden twee aspecten vergeten: de programmatuur die tussen de werkelijkheid en de registratie zit en daardoor het beeld vervormt en de rol van het ambacht, die uitgaat van het materieel aanwezige negatief. Zonder negatief is er geen ambachtelijke werkwijze en zonder negatief is er geen geregistreerde materiële werkelijkheid. Daarom is de kern van het project gelegen in de keuze voor de mechanische camera en de verwerking van de foto in de doka. De motieven komen dan vanzelf, als er maar emotie bij betrokken is.
Om het project handen en voeten te geven, worden de volgende onderwerpen kritisch bekeken:

✓ de waarneming van de werkelijkheid
✓ de ontwikkeling van de mechanische camera
✓ de informatie- en signaal verwerking en de digitalisering van het fotografisch proces
✓ de stijl van de amateur en hobby fotograaf: de snapshot
✓ de techniek van de moderne doka

Questions!?

2020-01-07T15:32:18+01:00

NEDERLANDS

Er is iets vreemds aan de hand! Ik ben langzaam de resultaten van mijn verkenning van de Leica SL2 en de Summilux-SL aan het verwerken en stuit daarbij op merkwaardige resultaten. Het eerste, minder merkwaardige resultaat is het feit dat op de SL2 het Summilux-SL en het Summilux-M objectief praktisch gelijk presteren, althans in het midden en op de testkaarten die ik gebruik. Wel merkwaardig zijn de prestaties bij de verschillende diafragma-openingen. Al bij volle opening presteren beide objectieven al bijna zo goed als bij de midden diafragma’s waar normaliter de beste prestaties zijn te verwachten. De Summilux-M wordt herkend door de software van de SL2, omdat dit objectief al de elektronische identificatie heeft. Het vermoeden is nu sterk dat de software in de camera de prestaties opkrikt.Bij de M8.2 zijn de prestaties van de SX-M zoals verwacht: langzame stijging van volle opening to f/5.6 en daarna een afzwakking tot f/16.
Ook de vele recente en super-lichtsterke objectieven van Canon, Nikon en Panasonic (van 0.95 tot 1.4) vertonen bij volle opening bij testopnames opmerkelijk goede resultaten. Ondanks de vele lenselementen en de grotere diameter van de bajonet vatting lijken deze resultaten een beetje over-the-top te zijn. Omdat die moderne objectieven alleen op digitale en eigen merk camera’s passen is het niet na te gaan of en in hoeverre de software inderdaad de objectief ontwerpers een handje helpt. Het is niet uit te sluiten en zet vraagtekens bij de zogenaamde objectief tests van de tijdschriften en de vele bloggers.

ENGLISH

Something strange is going on! I'm slowly processing the results of my exploration of the Leica SL2 and the Summilux-SL and I'm encountering strange results. The first, less remarkable result, is the fact that on the SL2 the Summilux-SL and the Summilux-M lens perform practically the same, at least in the middle and on the test cards I use. What is remarkable, however, is the performance at the different apertures. Already at full aperture both lenses perform almost as well as at the central diaphragms where normally the best performance can be expected. The Summilux-M is recognized by the software of the SL2, because this lens already has the electronic identification. The suspicion is now strong that the software in the camera increases the performance. With the M8.2, the performance of the SX-M is as expected: slow increase from full aperture to f/5.6 and then a decrease to f/16.
The many recent and super bright lenses from Canon, Nikon and Panasonic (from 0.95 to 1.4) also show remarkably good results at full aperture in test shots. Despite the many lens elements and the larger diameter of the bayonet mount, these results seem to be a bit over the top. Because these modern lenses only fit on digital and proprietary brand cameras, it is impossible to determine whether and to what extent the software actually helps the lens designers. It cannot be ruled out and questions the so-called lens tests of the magazines and the many bloggers.

2020!

2020-01-04T14:24:30+01:00

NEDERLANDS
Volgens de heer Dr. Schuhmacher, die (althans voor mij) een zeer interessante website onderhoudt, is de fotografie markt voor 2020 in een desolate toestand. De grote vier in Japan (Canon, Nikon, Sony en Fuji) produceren te veel, hebben grote voorraden en ontwikkelen minder toestellen, want de kosten voor de omzetting naar spiegelloze camera’s en een nieuwe bajonet kosten veel geld. Dat moet worden terugverdiend door geringere ontwikkelkosten bij andere producten en door goedkopere productie en hogere prijzen. Alle fabrikanten gaan over op zinloze hogere pixel aantallen om de camera’s duurder te maken en zich te concentreren op het luxe marktsegment. ‘Zinloos’ want het zijn de echte professionele camera’s die nog met 20 -25 Mp sensoren werken. Als we uitgaan van 4K tv schermen als industrie standaard dan kan zelfs een 12 Mp sensor dit formaat gemakkelijk aan.
De meeste van die Japanse bedrijven zijn mengbedrijven die een heel reeks diverse producten op de markt brengen en nauwelijks van alleen de fotomarkt moeten leven. Die bedrijven verleggen hun aandacht en productievolume naar andere markten. Zelfs Leica, dat toch uitsluitend in het luxe segment opereert, is aan het stoeien met luxe horloges, brillen en drones. Wie hoort er nog iets nieuws over de Leica S dezer dagen? De samenwerking met Huawei leverde een aanzienlijke kasstroom op, zo zeer dat de nieuwe CEO (nummer 7 sinds Kaufmann de fabriek in Solms heeft opgekocht en omgevormd tot een voor vele Leica afficionados ongrijpbare tempel in Wetzlar) droomt van een eigen smart phone die ongetwijfeld ut de koker van Huawei zal komen. De Andrioid besturingssoftware van Huawei is op dit moment in een crisis. Of die 80 nieuwe programmeurs de Leica wil hebben, het tij kunnen keren, staat in de sterren.
Veelzeggend is de stroom van speciale edities die Leica nu in de markt zet. Altijd als het concern in financiële problemen zit, wordt de special als reddende engel opgeroepen. Ook de nieuwe L-bajonet, door de cognoscenti als belangrijke vernieuwing uitgeroepen, is eigenlijk helemaal niet nieuw. Het is de oude T-bajonet en de kosten om die te ontwikkelen waren niet echt hoog omdat er zo weinig objectieven waren die gebruik maakten van die bajonet. Toch zijn de kosten nog zo hoog dat er een consortium voor nodig is om de kosten te delen.
De winstgevendheid van de fabrikanten van foto apparatuur staat op een kantelpunt of is zelfs al zo ver gedaald dat het alleen nog een kwestie van tijd is voordat een fusie ophanden is of zelfs een camera fabrikant de deuren sluit.
Er is nu al enige tijd geen sprake meer van een verzadigingsmarkt, maar van een krimpende markt. Het aantal zogenaamde enthousiaste fotografen, die voldoende geld hebben om de superdure producten te kopen, zal eerder afnemen dan toenemen. En video is niet ieders hobby.
Overaanbod en neerwaartse prijsdruk zullen voor 2020 de norm zijn. De nieuwste camera’s en objectieven presteren niet beter dan die van enkele generaties geleden, wat de influenzers ook mogen beweren. Je helpt tenslotte ook het milieu nog als je de huidige camera nou eens niet vervangt door een nieuwe. De productie pijplijn is vol en dat zijn de magazijnen ook.

ENGLISH
According to Mr. Dr. Schuhmacher, who (at least for me) maintains a very interesting website, the photography market for 2020 is in a desolate state. The big four in Japan (Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji) produce too much, have large stocks and develop fewer devices, because the costs of conversion to mirrorless cameras and a new bayonet cost a lot of money. This has to be recouped by lower development costs with other products and by cheaper production and higher prices. All manufacturers are switching to pointlessly higher pixel numbers to make the cameras more expensive in able to concentrate on the luxury market segment. Pointless' because it is the real professional cameras that still work with 20 -25 Mp sensors. If we assume 4K TV screens as industry standard then even a 12 Mp sensor can easily handle this size.
Most of those Japanese companies are mixing companies that bring a whole range of different products on the market and barely have to make a living from the photo market alone. These companies shift their attention and production volume to other markets. Even Leica, which operates exclusively in the luxury segment, is frolicking with luxury watches, eyel-glasses and drones. Who heard anything worthwhile about the Leica S these days? The cooperation with Huawei generated a considerable cash flow, so much so that the new CEO (number 7 since Kaufmann bought the factory in Solms and transformed it into an, for many Leica afficionados elusive, temple in Wetzlar ) dreams of having his own smart phone that will undoubtedly come from Huawei. Huawei's Andrioid operating software is currently in crisis. Whether or not he wants 80 new programmers these numbers are to small to be able to turn the tide.
Significant is the flow of special editions that Leica is now putting on the market. Whenever the company is in financial trouble, the special is called up as a saving angel. Also the new L-bayonet, declared by the cognoscenti as an important innovation, is actually not new at all. It is the old T-bayonet and the costs to develop it were not really high because there were so few objectives using that bayonet. Nevertheless, the costs are still so high that a consortium is needed to share the costs.
The profitability of photographic equipment manufacturers is at a tipping point or has already fallen so far that it is only a matter of time before a merger is imminent or even a camera manufacturer closes the doors.
For some time now there is no longer a saturated market, but a shrinking market. The number of so-called enthusiastic photographers, who have enough money to buy the super expensive products, is more likely to decrease than increase. And video is not everyone's hobby.
Oversupply and downward pressure on prices will be the norm for 2020. The latest cameras and lenses do not perform better than those of a few generations ago, no matter what the influencers may claim. After all, if you don't replace the current camera with a new one, you'll be helping the environment. The production pipeline is full and so are the warehouses.

SL2 + Summilux-SL 50 mm

2019-12-02T20:10:33+01:00

NEDERLANDS

Vandaag kreeg ik van de Leica fabriek een SL2 camera met Summilux-SL objectief. Beide zijn behoorlijk gewichtig en volumineus. Het objectief heeft een lens vatting van 82 mm. Denk er aan dat de Apo-Telyt-R 280 f/4 een diameter heeft van 77 mm en de Apo-Telyt-R 280 f/2.8 (eerste versie) een diameter van 112 mm heeft. Het gewicht is opgeteld 900 gram (met batterij) + 1065 gram, bijna 2 kilogram, nogal een gewicht voor de zorgeloze wandelaar. Gelukkig is er nu een interne beeldstabilisatie, die tot 5 stops compensatie biedt.
Ik ga van deze set geen uitvoerig relaas schrijven, maar me concentreren op de verschillen tussen MM 2 body met Summilux-M en de vele beeld-omvang opties die de SL2 biedt (upsizing naar 180 Mb en downsizing naar 24 Mb). Ik maak daarbij gebruik van de Image Engineering software en de Siemens ster als target. Ook zal ik mijn eigen Tirion testkaarten benutten. Deze aanpak is in ieder geval wetenschappelijker en betrouwbaarder dan een landschap fotograferen of een portret. Uiteindelijk wil de lezer toch een vergelijking hebben tussen de verschillende opties: hoe zijn gewicht en compactheid gerelateerd aan optische prestaties.Maakt het nog verschil uit om een 46 Mp sensor te hebben in vergelijking net een 24 Mp sensor. Is upsizing zinvol en krijg je er meer prestaties voor. Is downsizing, zoals wordt beweerd, gunstig voor de visuele indruk van het beeld. Het is onvermijdelijk dat er ook enkele opmerkingen over gevoel en bediening zullen worden gemaakt
LET OP: de pixel shift optie is nog niet aanwezig, die test kan dus nog niet. Maar de ervaringen met de Olympus en de Panasonic S zijn niet overweldigend.

ENGLISH VERSION
Today, the Leica factory sent me an SL2 camera with Summilux-SL lens. Both are quite heavy and voluminous. The lens has a lens mount of 82 mm. Remember that the Apo-Telyt-R 280 f/4 has a diameter of 77 mm and the Apo-Telyt-R 280 f/2.8 (first version) has a diameter of 112 mm. The total weight is 900 grams (with battery) + 1065 grams, almost 2 kilograms, quite a weight for the carefree walker. Fortunately, there is now an internal image stabilization, which compensates up to 5 stops.
I'm not going to write an extensive story of this set, but I'm going to concentrate on the differences between MM 2 body with Summilux-M and the many image size options that the SL2 offers (upsizing to 180 Mb and downsizing to 24 Mb). I use the Image Engineering software and the Siemens star as a target. I will also use my own Tirion test charts. This approach is more scientific and reliable than photographing a landscape or a portrait. In the end the reader wants to have a comparison between the different options: how are weight and compactness related to optical performance?: does it make any difference to have a 46 Mp sensor compared to a 24 Mp sensor? Is upsizing useful and do you get more performance for it. Is downsizing, as it is claimed, beneficial for the visual impression of the image? And so on. It is inevitable that some comments about handling and feel have to be made.
NOTE: the pixel shift option is not yet available. This comparison is not possible.But the experience with the Olympus and the Panasonic S are not really impressive.

praktijk van pixel verschuiving/pixel shift

2019-11-07T16:51:15+01:00

De meeste camera’s hebben tegenwoordig de techniek van de beweegbare beeldsensor ingebouwd. Deze bewegingen, vaak vijf-assig bieden de mogelijkheid van beeldstabilisatie, sensor oppervlak reiniging en inderdaad ook nog de optie van pixels shift of multishot. Omdat in het laatste geval acht beelden worden samengevoegd tot een beeld, waarbij elk afzonderlijk beeld over een minuscule afstand verschoven is (meestal een of een halve pixel) groeit het totale aantal pixels behoorlijk. Het idee van pixel shift komt van de video camera, die toentertijd met afzonderlijke slechts voor een kleur gevoelige beeldsensoren werkte. Elke sensor had slechts een beperkt aantal pixels (rond de een miljoen) en de techniek werkte zo dat het beeld werd opgebouwd uit e combinatie van elke sensor afzonderlijk. Om de bescheiden resolutie te verhogen werden er trucjes uitgehaald zoals het verschuiven van een sensor over een beperkte afstand, waarmee de kleurinterpretatie kon worden verbeterd en de ruis kon worden onderdrukt.
In digitale foto camera’s wordt gebruikt gemaakt van een enkele beeldsensor die met het bekende RGB Bayer patroon is overdekt. Hierdoor gaat per pixel nogal wat kleurinformatie verloren die door interpolatie wordt aangevuld.
De pixel shift technologie werkt als volgt: tijdens de opname wordt de beeldsensor over de afstand van een pixel verschoven, zodat elke pixel door alle RGB filters wordt belicht en daarmee alle kleurinfo kan opnemen. Omdat elke pixel ook meer licht kan opnemen wordt ook de ruis gereduceerd.
Nadeel is dat deze techniek alleen werkt met statief en met echt stationaire objecten.
Tot zover de theorie. Maar werkt het ook?
Ik heb geen Pentax of Sony of Panasonic of Leica (de SL2 is te duur, lomp en zwaar). Ik heb wel een Olympus Pen-F die een vergelijkbare techniek aanbiedt.
Voor alle duidelijkheid: in geen van de genoemde camera’s wordt de oppervlak van de photosites op de beeldsensor veranderd. Het fysieke oplossend vermogen blijft dus gelijk, ook als je de sensor beweegt en het aantal pixels softwarematig vergroot.
De Pen-F heeft een MFT formaat beeldsensor met 5184 x 3888 photosites. De lengte van een photosite (meestal ook als pixel aangeduid) is 17,4 mm / 5184 beeldpunten = 3.4 micrometer voor een totaal oppervlak van 226, 2 mm^ 2. Het oppervak per beeldpunt is 11,56 mm^2.
Het aantal effectieve beeldpunten is 20, 3 Megapixel. Ter vergelijk, de nieuwe Leica SL2 heeft een oppervlak per beeldpunt van 18,49 mm^2 bij een totaal effectief oppervlak van de beeldsensor van 46,7 Megapixel. Omdat een pixel dimensie-loos is (in tegenstelling tot de fysieke photosite), is het werkelijke oppervlak minder belangrijk. Het totale aantal megapixels wordt bij de multishot techniek van de SL2 vergroot tot 187 Megapixel. (= 46,7 x 4).
Bij de Olympus Pen-F zijn de getallen wat bescheidener. De originele 20,3 Megapixel wordt vergroot tot 50 Megapixel. De originele maten (5184 x 3888) worden in Raw formaat vergroot to 10368 x 7776, een verdubbeling dus. Waar de leica SL2 dus een pixel verschuiving heeft van een halve pixel, is dit voor de Pen-F maar een kwart pixel.
Om de theoretische toename in scheidend vermogen te controleren, heb ik met de Pen-F de volgende studie uitgevoerd. Ik heb een super scherpe dia van het USAF test patroon genomen (van Image Engineering), de Kaiser belichtingseenheid en als objectief de 60 mm macro van Olympus, gediafragmeerd op f/8. Uiteraard op statief en enkele opnames gemaakt met de normale en enkele met de High Res stand.
De beelden zijn met Photoshop geopend en niet bewerkt. Er is geen enkel verschil in beeldkwaliteit waarneembaar.
Zie hieronder de originele opname,

onder de High Res opname.

De laatste opname is tweemaal groter dan de originele. Om redenen van vergelijking is de HR opname dus tweemaal verkleind. Ook de werkelijke grootte laat geen verschil zien bij de fijnste patronen.
Ik heb geen ervaring met andere camera’s. Als die op vergelijkbare wijze werken als de Olympus, zal het verschil dus wel minimaal zijn. Zo wie zo is de hedendaagse fixatie op aantallen pixels erg overdreven. Je mag wel spreken van een hype. De fijnere details komen er alleen uit bij bewegingloze opnames (camera en object). Of met studio flits! Als je uit de hand werkt, zakt de feitelijke resolutie aanzienlijk, al zal dit met beeldstabilisatie wel weer meevallen.

Here is the English version

Most cameras nowadays have the technique of the movable image sensor built in. These movements, often five-axis, offer the possibility of image stabilization, sensor surface cleaning and indeed also the option of pixel shift or multishot. Because in the latter case eight images are merged into one image, where each individual image is shifted over a minuscule distance (usually one or a half pixel), the total number of pixels grows considerably. The idea of pixel shift comes from the video camera, which originally worked with separate image sensors that were only sensitive to one colour. Each sensor had only a limited number of pixels (around one million) and the technique was such that the image was made up of a combination of each sensor individually. In order to increase the modest resolution, tricks such as shifting these sensors over a limited distance were used to improve colour interpretation and suppress noise.
In digital photo cameras, a single image sensor is used that is covered with the well-known RGB Bayer pattern. As a result, quite a lot of colour information is lost per pixel, which is supplemented by interpolation.
The pixel shift technology works as follows: during the recording, the image sensor is shifted over the distance of a pixel, so that each pixel is exposed by all RGB filters and can therefore record all colour information. Because each pixel can also capture more light, the noise is also reduced.
The disadvantage is that this technique only works with a tripod and with real stationary objects.
So much for the theory. But does it also work?
I don't have a Pentax or Sony or Panasonic or Leica (the SL2 is too expensive, bulky and heavy). I do have an Olympus Pen-F that offers a similar technique.
For the sake of clarity: in none of the mentioned cameras is the physical area of the photosites on the image sensor changed. The physical resolution remains therefore the same, even if you move the sensor and increase the number of pixels by software. This interpolated resolution is software generated and thus virtual. Anything can happen here!
The Pen-F has an MFT size image sensor with 5184 x 3888 photosites. The length of a photosite (usually also referred to as a pixel) is 17.4 mm / 5184 pixels = 3.4 micrometers, which translates into a total area of 226, 2 mm^ 2. The surface area for a pixel is 11.56 mm^2.
The number of effective pixels is 20. 3 Megapixels. To compare, the new Leica SL2 has a surface area per pixel of 18.49 mm^2 at a total effective surface of the image sensor of 46.7 Megapixels. Because a pixel is dimensionless (as opposed to the physical photosite), the actual surface area is less important. The total number of megapixels is increased to 187 megapixels with the SL2's multishot technique. (= 46.7 x 4).
With the Olympus Pen-F the numbers are a bit more modest. The original 20.3 megapixel is enlarged to 50 Megapixel. The original sizes (5184 x 3888) are enlarged in Raw format to 10368 x 7776, a doubling. While the Leica SL2 has a pixel shift of half a pixel, for the Pen-F this is only a quarter of a pixel.
To check the theoretical increase in resolution, I did the following study with the Pen-F. I took a super sharp slide from the USAF test pattern (from Image Engineering), the Kaiser exposure unit and as an objective the Olympus 2.8/60 mm macro, with the aperture at f/8. Of course on a tripod. Some shots made with the normal and some with the High Res mode.
The images were opened with Photoshop and not edited. There is no difference in image quality.
The pictures are above: first the original recording. The High Res recording is below this one.
The last picture is twice as large as the original one. For reasons of comparison, the HR recording has been reduced twice. Also the actual size shows no difference in the finest patterns.
I have no experience with other cameras.. If they work in a similar way to the Olympus, the difference will be minimal, so today's fixation on numbers of pixels is very exaggerated. You can speak of a hype. The finer details only come out with motionless shots (camera and object). Or with studio flash! If you get out of hand, the actual resolution drops considerably, although with image stabilization this will not be too bad.

Farewell to the Leica World

2019-10-20T18:07:52+02:00

For more than 35 years I have been intimately involved in the Leica world, encompassing the history of the company, the analysis of the products and the use of the products, all under the umbrella concept of the Leica World.
I have experienced and discussed in detail with relevant persons in Wetzlar (old), Solms and Wetzlar (again, new) the digital turn and how the company evolved and changed while adopting the digitalization of the photographic process and the changing world of the internet based photography. The most recent event is the evolution from a manufacturing company to a software-based company. While a commercial success, this change of heart has accomplished a, perhaps not intended, impact: the soul of Leica products has been eradicated. A renewed interest in classical products is the result. The SL and Q are currently the hopeful products for the future. The ghosts of Huawei and Panasonic can be seen all over the campus and while the M-system is still being promoted as the true heir of the Leica lineage, it is now sidelined. Once upon a time, Leica followed its own path, guided by gifted and pioneering engineers and keen marketeers. Nowadays its products are as mainstream as every other camera manufacture.
The company has sketched a future and follows a path that I am no longer willing to go.

Leica M 50 mm objectieven

2019-09-09T13:32:57+02:00

There are three 50 mm lenses for Leica M that many Leica aficionados are interested in: the classical Summicron lens from 1979, the Apo-Summicron-M FLE from 2012 and the Summilux-M FLE ASPH from 2004.
Fifty millimeter lenses are still quite popular and exhibit excellent characteristics. I am most interested in the performance for very fine textural details. The 40 lp/mm are a good benchmark for the crisp rendering of fine detail, especially at high MTF values. The classical rule of optical designers (50% contrast at 50 lp/mm) is still a very good rule and several recently introduced lenses for the AF Leica cameras with the L-mount show this level of performance.
The M lenses can be used on older cartridge loading models from M3 to M7 and modern versions (M-A = M4P; MP = M6) and there are films available that can capture extremely fine detail. So I used the limits of 80 lp/mm and 160 lp/mm on the Zeiss K8 equipment. I am less interested in the popular notion of bokeh (unsharpness before and after the plane of sharpness) because this is a very subjective impression.
I prefer hard numbers to base my conclusions on.
Let me be clear: 160 lp/mm would require points with a dimension of 0.003 mm or a sensor with a pixel pitch of 3 micron to record this fine detail. This is a sensor of more than 88 megapixel. None of the three lenses would be able to perform at this level.
The 80 lp/mm are a different matter. Here all three lenses can cope with this very fine detail. A few figures first: 80 lp/mm require points with a dimension of 0.006 mm or a sensor with pixel pitch of 6 micron. That is equal to 24 Megapixel, the current sensor characteristics of the M. (the same pixel pitch is also available in the forgotten M8/M8.2). So a sensor with more pixels than the current 24 Megapixel makes only sense for selective enlargements.
Let us look more closely at the numbers.
At 40 lp/mm the SX at f/1.4 is almost as good as the Summicron-classic at f/2. This Summicron lens is however surpassed by the APO-Summicron at the same aperture. The difference is on average ten percentage points more contrast for the Apo-version. The center is for all three lenses much better than the edges, which is to be expected. Modern design rules state that a straight line from center to edge is a more desirable performance. A careful study of the numbers will also sho that there is a difference between the sagittal and the tangential planes. The more these two differ, the more blurring and color fringes you will see.
At 80 lp/mm the SX at f/1.4 is still very good, but the recording of this level of fine detail depends on the illumination of the scene. The average value for contrast of 20% is the limit. This said, the performance of a high-speed lens at f/1.4 is too good to be true and sets indeed a benchmark.
At f/2 the Apo-version is ahead of the classic version. The same remarks as for the SX can be made here: this level of fine detail can be handled with ease by the Apo-version and is the limiting value for the classical version.
At f/4 the ranking is:all three lenses perform now at an optimum level and there is not much to choose between the three lenses reviewed here.
The classic rule that at medium apertures most lenses perform in the same league is not obsolete. If a prospective buyer uses the medium apertures most of the time, the classical Summicron is a bargain! The Apo-Summicron shows the best overall performance and the SX is the most versatile of the three. Subtle differences can be found in the performance from wide open till f/4, especially around f/2.8 the critical user might find arguments for the choice to be made.
It is remarkable how good the lens design was in 1980 and how much effort one needs to improve substantially on this design, either as an overall improvement (the Apo-version) or an extension to a wider aperture (the SX).

Developer review

2019-06-29T14:52:53+02:00

There are now many reviews of film-developer combinations on the internet. Most of them are quite subjective and hardly worth the reading time. The often used format is simple: use a film-developer combination and take a range of pictures of different subjects under different conditions. Then use the eye to look at the results and use the emotion to guide you.
This is not the way to present information about film-developer combinations that a reader an use. The classical approach is also quite simple: take pictures of a grey card with a range of exposures to create a series of negatives with different densities and use a densitometer to measure this density. Then use a test chart to measure the resolution and sharpness under a microscope with sufficient enlargement.
This is what I did:
Use one film, the best on the market (Ilford 100Delta), a grey card and the Tirion test chart.
On my camera I had a lens of excellent quality, stopped down to f/5.6. The first remark is that even with this aperture, you need to be careful to get the best results. The microscope had enlargements of 40x and 100x. The maximum common enlargement is 15x to 20x.
The developers used in this test are:
1. FX39-II: the classical high acutance developer, formulated by the late Geoffrey Crawley and now made by Adox. This is one of the best developers on the market.
2. Adonal: also made by Adox and a reformulation of the classical Rodinal.
3. Pyro 48: made by Moersch Chemie, a new version of the classical pyro developer
4. Super Grain: a new version of the AM74.
5. The Df96 monobath, made by Cinestill. This is an interesting developer, because it combines developer, and fixer solutions in one. You need only one development time for all films. The classic formula has very fine grain but less sharpness. It is interesting to see how the modern remake functions.
The film was exposed at the nominal speed (ISO100), the light was measured with the Sekonic Speedmaster with the incident method. camera was Leica M7 with Summilux-M 1.4/50 ASPH.
The development data are:
1. FX39-II: dilution: 1+9; temperature 20 degrees; 7 minutes; continuous: first 30 seconds, then 2x per minute
2. Adonal: dilution: 1+25; temperature 20 degrees; 9 minutes; continuous: first 1 minute, then 30 seconds per minute
3. Pyro 48: dilution:2.5 + 5 + 250; temperature 20 degrees; 16 minutes; continuous: first 1 minute, then 2x per minute
4. Supergrain: dilution: 1+9; temperature 20 degrees; 6 minutes; continuous: first30 seconds, then 2x per 30 seconds
5. Df96: stock solution; temperature 22 degrees; 6 +4 minutes (to clear the negatives); moderate agitation: 2x per minute

Results: tonal range.

The density range gives information about the effective speed, the maximum useable density for the highlights and the steepness of the curve says something about the subtleties of the tonal differences: a steep curve is an indication that the mid tones are very well separated and a less steep curve tells you that the tonal differences are well recorded but more difficult to observe.
The graph below gives all the details.

There are in fact three groups: The first group comprises Adonal and SuperGrain: The tonal differences in the extreme highlights will be difficult or impossible to print, but the shadow areas are very well recorded with good local contrast. In practice the speed of the film is fully exploited, but the dilutions could be higher (Adonal: 1+50/100 and SG 1+15 of even 1+20) with proportional increase of the development time. A reduction of development time is advisable to reduce the densities of the highlights. Some experimentation is a rewarding exercise!
The second group combines the FX39-II and the Pyro 48. Both developers score very well on tonal range and highlight density, producing subtle tonal shades with high overall contrast. Nine stops is a good score that matches the claimed tonal range of most digital cameras. For best shadow recordings, the speed should be reduced by one third (FX39) or even half a stop (Pyro).
The third group is populated by only one developer: the monobath developer by Cinestill. It has a very convenient processing cycle: no stop bath and no fixer. The high lights are well recorded, and matches the second group. Disappointing is the steep drop in the shadow area. After two stops of underexposure there is nothing to record. Deep shadows will be completely black without any trace of subject contours.The solution to reduce speed will help and the instruction leaflet says that pull processing is possible. My recommendation: set ISO speed to 50 and use the 6 minute development time. This developer is best used when deep shadows are absent in the scene.
The score (speed and tonal range) is
1 FX39-II
2 Pyro 48
3 SuperGrain
4 Adonal
5 Df96
Note that the numbers 3 and 4 could get a better score after some experimentation with speed setting and development time.

Results: grain and definition

The test chart has a number of intriguing details: it shows fine print in several sizes and printing is white on black and black on white. The chart is arranged as a range of pie charts, numbered 1 to 8. (1 is op top). The white on black print is more difficult to observe because the large area of black grains will sill over into the thin white lines of the fine print.
The grain is quite pronounced with Adonal (as expected) and hardly visible with Df96 (not expected, but assumed because of the large amount of sulphite). Between these two, the grain pattern is similar for the three others. The score is:

1 Df96
2 Pyro 48
3 FX39-II
4 SuperGrain
5 Adonal

The fine print that is just readable is the limit for the resolution:
here the score is
1 FX39-II
2 Pyro 48
3 Df96
4 SuperGrain
5 Adonal

General conclusion
Overall there is not much to choose between the five developers. It is also a tribute for the Ilford emulsion. There is a old statement that says that the main characteristics are fixed by the emulsion and all that the developer can do is adjust the balance between grain, tonal range and definition a bit. This test indicates the truth of this statement. There are more considerations today to look at: Adonal is quite flexible and has a long shelf life. It produces excellent sharpness with a pronounced grain, but can be used with every film and te shape of the curve can be influenced to a high degree. It is also very cheap.
The Df96 is also quite flexible, can be used with all films and has quite simple instructions, a long shelf life, but one litre is limited to 16 rolls of 135 film. The shadow recording is non existent, but when this is not a problem, the developer is very easy to use and you need no fixing solution.
The SuperGrain functions like an improved version of Rodinal: it gives very sharp results with moderate grain and a very fine tonal range. Most films require only one development time and one dilution.
The Pyro and FX39 are the best for the recording of extremely fine detail. Grain is fine and tonal range is well within the grade 2 of the print range in Splitgrade/Multigrade. The FX39 gives very clean negatives, where the Pyro has its staining effect. The only problem with Pyro is its restricted range of films that match this developer.
My choice then is for this Ilford film: FX39-II. It has excellent definition, fine gran and a long tonal range with good shadow details and subtle highlights.
Note: with the exception of the characteristic curves, all results were observed under the microscope with 40x enlargement. Scatter in the enlarger will reduce the final results and then Adonal and SuperGrain, because of the specific grain size and distribution may hold details to a larger degree. In fact, you can not make a wrong choice with any of these developers. Fine tuning the exposure method in combination with experiments with the development times, temperature and agitation method will improve the results. Any person has its own requirements and visual standards, but the results presented here should provide a good starting point.

Linear or nonlinear?

2019-06-07T20:36:43+02:00

This question might surprise you. But there are good arguments to discuss this mathematical concept in the photographic environment. Assume you have a 24 Megapixel sensor, like the one in the current M series. The image quality (a very elusive concept) should be replaced by the information capacity, but for now it are the Image Engineering calculations that dominate the discussion. The Image Engineering analysis of the sensor performance (always including a lens) has a good correlation with perceived image quality. The German magazine Color Foto is a true believer of this software. The recent issue has a report of the Leica M10-D. The results are, for ISO100, 1931 line pairs per image height (LP/IH). One would assume that when doubling the number of pixels on the sensor, the lp/im would also double. This is the linear aproach: when x=y the 2x would be 2y. As it happens, there is also a report of the Nikon Z7 with 45.7 Megapixels. Almost twice the amount of the pixels on the Leica sensor. The result? At ISO 100 it is 2822 lp/ih. The Z6 (with 24.5 Mp) has 1988 lp/ih. The lenses used are different of course. This might have some influence, as is the selection of the JPG format. The results of the Z7 are intriguing. There is a 90% difference between the pixel amount of the Leica M10 compared to the pixel amount of the Z7, but only a 46% increase in resolution. A non-linear result! So a roughly 2 times the amount of pixels results in only 1.5 times resolution.
Another comparison: the Leica has pixel pitch of 6 micron, the Z6 of 5.9 and the Z7 of 4.3 micron. The APS-C sensor of the Ricoh GR III has a pixel pitch of 3.9 micron with an APS-C sensor of 24 Mp and a resolution of 2075 lp/ih. Presumably the pixel size is more important than the sensor size. The Leica M8 is a living proof for this argument!
If and when Leica will decide on an increase of the amount of pixel for the next generation of the M camera it will be somewhere between the 24 Mp of the current model and the ±65 Mp of the Leica S models. Not being in the position to being allowed to compete with the SL in future versions (let us assume 45 Mp) the final amount would be somewhere between 24 and 45: 34.5, which happens to be neatly between both extremes. Then the increase in amount of pixels will be ±40%. The predicted increase in resolution will be around 0.5*40% and 0.75 * 40% = between ± 20 and ±30% or 1900 *1.25 = 2375 lp/ih, not the result to be really happy with. Assuming the usual tolerance of 5% for the bandwidth of the measured results, these figures only give the direction of thinking. The exact values are less important.
The same argument can be found in the discussion about film emulsions that can record 200 lp/mm and film emulsions that can ‘only’ record 80 lp/mm. With 80 lp/mm almost every detail, that is visually relevant in a scene, can be captured. But the price for the higher resolution is slow speed, careful focusing and the use of a tripod. In handheld shooting, the increase in resolution can not be exploited. Again, assuming that the M camera will be the champion of handheld snapshot style of photography, the current level of resolution that is supported by the sensor is more than adequate for the task. Leica could improve the imaging chain and especially the demosaicing section for enhanced clarity and best results.
UPDATE June 10: There is some confusion here:
Let us first get the basic figures about the measurements, based on the IE software, related to the fixed ISO 100
Ricoh GR-III: 24 Mp and 2075 lp/ih (pixel pitch 3.9 micron)
Leica M10-D: 24 MP and 1911 lp/ih (pixel pitch 6 micron)
Nikon Z6: 24 Mp and 1988 lp/ih (pixel pitch 5.9 micron)
Nikon Z7: 46 MP and 2822 lp/ih (pixel pitch 4.3 micron)
It is universally assumed that in order to double the resolution, one needs a four times increase in area: to double the resolution of the Leica sensor (24 Mp) one needs a sensor size of 4 * 24 = 96 Mp. This increase in size would (theoretically!) elevate the resolution from 1900 to 3800 lp/ih.
The Nikon Z7, which has only twice the area of the Leica sensor and therefore its resolution would be less: it is in fact 2800 lp/ih. The sensor of the Ricoh with 24 Mp has 2075 lp/ih with a comparable pixel pitch. This is important to note, because the Nyquist limit is related to the pixel pitch. For a pixel pitch of 4 micron, the Nyquist frequency is 0.008 mm per mm (or cycle) = 125 lp per mm. (application of the Kell factor of 0.7 gives 87.5 lp per mm). 2000 lp/ih is 64 lp/mm for a 15.6 mm image height. So there is some room for improvement, at least theoretically. The pixel size of 6 micron for the Leica would produce 0.012 lp per mm or 83,3 lp per mm. The 1900 lp are for the image height of 24 mm, which is 79 lp/mm. Including the Kell factor which says that you can only reliably resolve 70% of the Nyquist frequency, the practical resolution limit of the Leica sensor would be .7* 83 = 58 lp for every mm. The Leica imaging chain is better than that of the Ricoh! Or one could also claim that the JPG demosaicing of the Leica is more aggressive and that spurious resolution is spoiling the results.
The Nikon Z7 with its 4 micron pixel pitch would be able to resolve 0.7*125 lp/mm = 87.5 lp per mm. The image height is 24 mm and the resolution is 2800 lp/ih. This would result in 117 lp per mm compared to a Nyquist frequency of 125 lp per mm. Compare the measured resolution with the calculated Nyquist limit and the Kell factor:
Leica M10-D: 79 lp/mm; 83.3 lp/mm; 58 lp/mm
Nikon Z7: 117 lp/mm; 125 lp/mm; 87.5 lp/mm
The measured resolution is quite close to the Nyquist number. This is not surprising because the IE software uses the Nyquist calculation as the limiting factor in their calculations. This limiting value would result at the point where the contrast is almost zero. Not very useful! The Kell factor is used because there is a contrast level below which there is no visual difference between two adjacent lines. A contrast difference of 15% is the minimum and the Kell factor is in many cases too conservative.

Now the calculation. Doubling the size (from 24 Mp to 46 Mp) produces an increase in resolution of 1900 lp/ih to 2800 lp/ih. That is an increase of 47% or a factor of about 1.5. This is indeed a one-dimensional relation. It compares only one direction and not the area. But here is the confusion. The resolution is measured one dimensional in line pairs per mm. This resolution is identical in the horizontal and the vertical direction.The pixel pitch is a square measure (the 6 micron length of the Leica are the same for both directions. The pixel has a square area!) Now an example: assume that we would like to have the resolution of the Z7 for a new Leica sensor. Going from 1900 to 2800 lp per mm and increasing the resolution in both directions would require that the amount of pixels for the same size of the sensor grows2800/1900*24 = 35.4 Mp to get the same resolution of 2800 lp/ih. This value is less than expected. But the Leica processing chain might be more effective. The 35 Mp number would require a pixel pitch of 4.1 micron. This would result in a Nyquist value of 122 lp/mm or 2920 lp/ih. If we require to double the resolution of 1900 lp per mm, we would need a decrease in pixel pitch from 6 to 3 micron to get a resolution of 166.7 lp per mm. (Nyquist limit). This would imply an increase in amount of pixels to 96 Mp or 4 times the actual Mp or 24 Mp.
Mixing the concept of the number of pixels in a certain area and the concept of the resolution of the pixel itself (in a one dimensional line) may be the reason for much confusion. The Nyquist frequency is a one dimensional measure, assuming a square sized pixel, and will calculate the resolution of the system. The resulting pixel pitch will define the number of pixels per sensor area.

Handheld external exposure meters

2019-06-01T10:46:15+02:00

NOTE: to keep this report as short as possible I have chosen not to illustrate all meters. There is enough info on the internet to get a view of any of these meters.

The following list of exposure meters has been evaluated.

______________________________
Weston Master V, 1963 - 1972
Sekonic L-398A Studio de Luxe III, 1978 - current
Minolta Flashmeter VI, 2003, later known as Kenko KFM-2100
Sekonic L-478D with 5° attachment, 2012 - current
Sekonic L-758D, 2001 - 2017
Sekonic L-858D, 2017(?) -current
Gossen Lunasix 3, 1966 - 1980 (Lunasix 3s)
Gossen Mastersix, 1983 - 1990
Gossen Starlite 2, 2001(Starlite) - current
Gossen Digisky, 2011 - current
____________________________

This list spans a period from 1950 to 2020. Handheld external exposure meters were required when mechanical cameras were made without a meter. At first exposure meters were considered a toy, not worthy of the true photographic craftsman who could estimate the intensity of the scene illumination by experience or used one of the many tables to ‘calculate’ the exposure values. Using an exposure meter slowed down the speed of taking pictures. It has been said of Cartier-Bresson that he could guess the exposure values (aperture and speed combinations) quite accurately. Never mind that his darkroom assistants had to cope with severe under and over exposed negatives. The other method is also true: C-B knew what his film could handle and by experience took only pictures when the ambient light fell within the latitude of his pre-set values. Two problems however had to be confronted: cope with the contrast range within a scene and the fact that the film reacted differently to intensity of the brightness areas. The classical examples are the black cat in a dark barn and the white bear in a snowy landscape. The thick two-layer emulsions of those days could handle a wide contrast range and also over- and underexposure. Experience taught the photographer to underexpose when confronted with a dark scene and to overexpose when the scene was brighter than the average one.
The problem of accurate exposure became more pressing when the miniature format gained popularity. The quality of the print depended heavily on the exposure: over- and underexposure will reduce the resolution and the tiny areas of tonal differences are more difficult to reproduce in print.
With the incorporation of through-the-lens exposure metering in so-called professional cameras, like the Konica Autoreflex-T, introduced in 1968. This particular model was designed for the professional market with its TTL metering and fully automatic exposure control, setting the norm for all professional cameras since. The lenses for the Konica model were also particularly good, optically, and suitable for professional tasks, but were overshadowed by the more popular Nikon and Canon ranges and the mythical Zeiss and Leitz ranges.
The last film-cartridge loading camera models used extremely sophisticated exposure algorithms, based on the analysis of thousands of film rolls and typical and a-typical scenes. When Nikon introduced its matrix exposure system, and Canon used its multi-segmented metering areas system, the technical integration of versatile metering, the classical hand held exposure meter faced extinction! The fatal blow for this instrument came when the solid-state sensor replaced the film emulsion. Now every pixel could become an exposure meter. The idea of combining focus points with exposure points was the next step.
Whatever the sophistication, the evaluation of the luminance values of every pixel resulted in one specific EV (exposure value). The algorithm how the software weighs and averages the individual values is unknown. The user is hardly interested, because the selected EV is almost always accurate and at least sufficient as a base for subsequent post processing. The cursory look at the histogram is not a real alternative for the function of the program, because the histogram only shows the distribution of the brightness values over the range of 0 to 255. It does not tell you which parts of the scene have which values. And it is still left to the photographer to decide what parts of the scene are important and what is the best exposure for these parts.
One of the best implementations of TTL exposure measurement can be found in the famous Olympus OM-3 and OM-4. There is a spot meter option, coupled to a high and dark selection. Use the spot to aim at a bright spot and the high option will increase EV by two stops, ensuring that this area is at the top of the characteristic curve. For the dark areas the opposite rule applies. It is a crude, but effective approximation of the Zone System. The only caveat is the fact that the spot diameter changes with the used focal length. This is a problem with all so-called narrow angle meters in a camera body. One of the advantages of the handheld spot meter is the consistency of the one degree spot. Whatever you aim at to measure, it is always a one degree measurement.
Here we have one of the advantages why it makes sense to use an external exposure meter: the spot meter option. Measuring several different brightness areas in the scene and averaging these gives a good idea of the final EV. The second advantage is the option of incident metering. Much has been written about this technique. The idea is simple: the illuminance of a scene depends on the brightness of the main source. Measuring this source is the only thing that matters. The various reflectance values of the parts of the scene are not relevant. With a sun high in the sky it makes no difference if we take a picture of a white or a dark wall. The EV is identical. Incident measurements were the favorite of many Directors of Photography on film sets. It is easy to measure the main and the secondary light sources and balance both. The Sekonic Studio de Luxe is the latest version of such a meter. It has limited sensitivity (only 4 EV at ISO100). It is a battery-less meter, a great companion for the battery-less mechanical cameras (as example: the Leica M3, Leica M-A, the Nikon F and the Canon Rangefinders).
The main advantage of this meter is the simple operation, combined with a maximum of information. The large dial shows at one glance all combinations of aperture and speed for still photography and cine, ISO settings and EV values. Under- and overexposure values by one and two stops can be easily selected. In fact this dial tells you everything you really need to know about correctly exposing a scene. The method of measuring reflected light is supported, but can not be recommended.

The other meter of this type is the Weston Master, here in its final version (V). The Weston Master V is a more modern version of the original Weston Master I, made in England from 1947. The Westons are famous for their accuracy and the special shape of the Invercone dome, converting the meter into an incident-type instrument. The shape of the dome gives accurate EVs even when the main subject is backlighted. The dial presents the user with a number of controls: in addition to the ones on the Sekonic meter, there is a brightness range scale and a method for reading extremely low light and extremely high light areas. Reflected readings are also quite easy and deliver accurate results.

The evolution of the exposure meter shows an increasing tendency to flash metering and radio control of external flash units. The parallel trend is to more sensitivity, flexibility and versatility.
More sensitivity and the simplicity of the traditional scales is the strong point of the Gossen Lunasix. Its range is now extended to -4 EV, a level almost matched by the new Sekonic L-858.
The Lunasix was a purely photographic meter. Gossen produced the next generation of meters, taking advantage of then new electric circuits and micro-processor. The Mastersix was a very versatile meter with additional accessories for specialized applications. It could master all photographic tasks and also the basic photometric tasks. It has the same sensitivity as the Lunasix (-4EV) and can be used as a scientific instrument.
Its size is a limitation and the latest addition to the Gossen range, the Digisky, is more compact. (size of the Mastersix: 70 x 130 x 34 mm versus Digisky: 60 x 139 x 16). The sensitivity has been reduced to -2.5 EV. This level is still enough for most scenes. The meter compensates this with an extended range of features, like flash readings, mixed readings for flash plus ambient light and most importantly a range of options for the cinematographer. A color display supports the analysis of the main values. The meter lacks a spot option. If this is important the Gossen range has the Starlite 2.
This meter incorporates all measurements of the Mastersix and adds the unique option of the Zone System readings. Dip switches are needed to change between function groups. The meter is very sensitive and it takes some time to get stabilized readings. The versatility for cine and photometric measurements is a bit too much for most users, but when needed everything is there, including a range of flash readings.
The layout is ergonomic, but the dip switches ask for some pre-configuration to get the optimum one-hand operation.
The change from incident light to reflected light via spot meter is done by turning a ring on the measurement unit. This is a bit inconvenient and the Minolta Flashmeter VI has a better solution. Changing between the two modes is easy. The meter is sensitive to -2EV (spot is only 2EV) and has separate buttons for Average, Highlight and Shadow readings. The range can be adjusted in the Custom Settings. Standard it is -3 stops for Shadow reading and + 2, 5 stops for Highlight readings. The latitude function shows the latitude of the preferred film emulsion and indicates when the measured subject contrast range is inside or outside the specified latitude. The Custom Functions are quite flexible and must be the maximum that an analogue meter can handle.
The Sekonic L-758D was announced in 2001. It is a unit optimized fro still photography with digital cameras. There is a wired connection with a computer to set the specific latitude for the sensor response for the minimum and maximum light levels that the sensor can handle. The cine and photometric values had to be omitted and a specific version L-758C was introduced for movie requirements. The basic L-758D has a flexible way of combining readings from ambient(spot and incident) and flash light. These modes require study and insight into what is happening at the scene. This requirement is indeed one of the main reasons to use a separate handheld meter. Using a meter gives insight into what is involved in the simple final exposure value. The camera may respond with a specific f-number and shutter speed, but there is no information why the camera has selected these parameters.
The L-758 can measure low light levels to -2EV (spot 1EV), can calculate and change the ratio of flash and ambient light readings and can do averaging readings and light contrast analysis.
During the first decades of the twenty-first century color LCD and touch-sceens became the rule for smart phones and cameras. Sekonic and Gossen went back to the drawing board and came back with the L-478D and the Digisky.
The L-478D has a sensitivity of -2 EV with the Lumisphere (reflected light with separate attachment 3EV) and incorporates all functions of the L-758D and C (but without the spot meter facility. The separate attachment (for five degree measurement) is cumbersome and not really a fine addition. For ambient (incident) light readings, flash metering and analysis and personalized display settings for still photography and cinema, the instrument is quite unique. There is one problem with all these flash meters and that is the measurement of high speed flash (stroboscopic and non-studio flash). Studio flash is rather slow and most meters can catch the peak of the flash energy. On-camera and in-camera flash has a very short duration and this cannot be measured by standard flash meters.
The recent L858 does away with this critique. It combines the touch screen of the L-478 with the options found on the L-758D/C and extends even on the software flexibility. There are no longer buttons on the instrument and everything is changed with the options on the touch screen. This is both flexible and slow: instead of just pressing a button, you now have to wait through a menu of options to find the one you need. The sensitivity has been enhanced to -5EV for incident readings and -1EV for the spot meter. The ability to measure HSS flash peak values and flash duration is a bonus for those photographers who use flash for freezing movement, but will be of limited use for the available light photographer who needs to measure dimly-lit scenes.

The measurements for comparison
All measurements were done in a diffusely lit room with all meters (in incident mode) pointing in the same direction. Spot metering was done in the same room with the target a grey card, made by Fotowand. ISO setting is 100.
Below are are the results in EV:
Weston Master V (Invercone)……………………………………..9.7
Sekonic L-398A Studio de Luxe III (Lumisphere)……………..10.3
Minolta Flashmeter VI
incident…………………………………………………………… 10.3
spot 1 degree………………………………………………………10.5
Sekonic L-478D
incident…………………………………………………………… 10.4
spot 5 degree………………………………………………………10.5
Sekonic L-758D
incident……………………………………………………………10.7
spot 1 degree……………………………………………………10.8
Sekonic L-858D
incident……………………………………………………………10.5
spot 1 degree……………………………………………………10.6
Gossen Lunasix 3
incident …………………………………………………………10.0
reflected…………………………………………………………..10.5
Gossen Mastersix
incident ……………………………………………………………10.2
reflected……………………………………………………………10.5
Gossen Starlite 2
incident……………………………………………………………10.4
spot 1 degree……………………………………………………10.8
Gossen Digisky
incident ……………………………………………………………10.0
reflected……………………………………………………………10.5
Note: The EV values for the incident and spot meter modes are not comparable, because they are generated in different conditions. The target for the spot readings is the grey card. This method is good for comparing the calibration of the meter.

Between the reading of the Weston master and the Sekonic L-758D there is a difference of one stop. This is partly due to the different method of calibration. Every meter needs to be calibrated in relation to a known light source. In addition there is also the design philosophy of where the average reading should be placed on the characteristic curve. The Weston Master clearly assumes that a slight over exposure (black and white film) is good for the shadow detail in the scene. The Sekonic on the other hand assumes that slight under exposure is the best solution (it is for slide film and general sensor capture). The Sekonic can be individually calibrated, so the choice is of secondary importance. All other meters are within a third or half stop difference. Hardly important for the average black and white or colour negative film. This difference is only significant when working at the extreme ends of the film or sensor latitude.

Why use a handheld exposure meter?
This question needs to be answered from several perspectives: functional, educative and fun.
Functionally the exposure meter is required when using a meterless camera (which is obvious), when a true one degree spot meter reading is needed and when there is a substantial use of flash light in ambient light scenes. It makes sense to use an external exposure meter even when the camera has a built-in TTL metering system and has a sensor. The exposure latitude of a sensor is less than commonly assumed: a spot meter is a great tool to make sure the exposure of the important areas of the scene is within the useable contrast range. An incident reading is also advisable when the scene has unusual brightness distributions. In all other cases there is no functional argument for using an external meter: the modern in-built TTL metering systems were and are remarkably efficient.
The educational role of the external meter is the most important asset of this method of exposure control: a spot meter reading of important areas in a scene and averaging these values and comparing them to the values that the camera proposes is often interesting and an inspiration for thinking. Using the Zone System or the Highlight and Shadow Buttons lets the photographer control effectively the tonal values of the scene, irrespective of this is recorded by film or by digital means.
The fun factor is the last but certainly not the least argument. Not being dependent on what the exposure algorithms inside the camera propose and making a decision oneself, based on a thorough analysis of the scene and a knowledgable prediction of the behavior of the recording medium, is fun. The technological dependency in photography is generally quite high and the exposure is too important to leave it to some program, however efficient.

What meter do I use?
I have two meters in my bag:
The Sekonic Studio de Luxe for battery independent incident readings
The Gossen Starlite 2 for spot metering, Zone System analysis and photometric analysis (this is fun and not directly related to the photographic tasks.

If only one meter is required (because of space requirements in my small Billingham Hadley bag I select the Gossen Digisky or the Minolta Flashmeter VI or the Sekonic L-858D (for its high sensitivity). The choice depends on the envisaged application (Gossen: compact; Minolta: ergonomics; Sekonic: flexibilty).
When using a classic camera (Leica M3, Canon VIL or Canon F-1), I match the meter to the camera (easy to handle Weston Master or the scientific Mastersix).
Luckily I have the choices!

The current landscape of lens reviews

2019-05-31T14:54:33+02:00

The basics
Any lens (excluding the enormously expensive lithographic lenses, only corrected for UV light) has aberrations. Aberrations are like the Russian dolls: correct the third order and the fifth order will pop up, correct all fifth order aberrations and seventh-order aberrations will emerge and so on. The task of the optical designer was and is the balancing of all these aberrations in order to fulfill the main goal of all optics: transfer the subject points to image points without any loss of information. A daunting task that every designer solves individually. Modern design is supported by software (in many cases the Code V program). Most software works with merit functions that are translated into numbers. The program then proposes an optical system (lens curvatures, thicknesses and distances between lens elements) when the number of lens elements is given. The optical designer has now the task to construct the merit function. The main and big problem is to find a merit function that can represent the practical requirements of the intended user.
This is indeed the primary problem: how to find a balance between aberrations that supports ‘good’ imagery, where ‘good’ has a considerable bandwidth of interpretation. Once fixed, the optical system has to be manufactured and the tolerances of the process define the final and actual performance.
Scientists at the Zeiss Company studied this problem quite intensively and discovered that the image contrast (global and local) was the decisive factor in appreciating the image quality when the limits of eye vision are taken into account. In is known for a long time that the optimal human eye can only resolve details that have a certain size. It has been established that the eye can resolve at most 10 line pairs per mm at a distance of 25 cm. Ctein claims that any person can distinguish between 20 and 30 lp/mm on a print, but that statement is certainly not supported by scientific or empirical evidence.
The problem
Reviews of lenses have the task to analyze the characteristics of a lens and to relate these characteristics to a lens profile, such that a prospective user can know what to expect of a lens. This requirement is more problematic that it sounds. There are basically two approaches to lens evaluation: (1) the scientific lab analysis and (2) the personal and subjective analysis of selected characteristics of the lens in question. I have to stress the element of ‘selected’, because any lens is a compromise between conflicting demands. When the reviewer is most interested in close up performance, because that is what interests the reviewer, all practical ‘tests’ and the importance of the conclusions will be focused on this aspect. When a reviewer is most interested in finding colour fringes, all his work will be focused on finding these colour defects. What these characteristics mean in practice or how important they are for the majority of users is not considered.
The current landscape
Analyzing the performance of lenses is still an important element of many blogs, review sites and magazines.
In the past, lens testing was a specialized occupation. Projection of patterns (lines, points), and MTF measurements were the classical ways of doing this. Zeiss used their own MTF equipment and most others (including Leitz) used projection patterns. Needed was considerable expertise to analyze these patterns. The important issue was always how to relate the results to practical requirements.
Since the digital turn in cameras the camera has become the virtual test lab. Software is often used to analyze the results on the sensor surface. Many magazines and some blogs/sites use the software of Image Engineering or of Imatest to present the findings. These findings are what the designers of the software find important. While often interpreted as tests of camera sensors or lens optics, the fact is that these tests always use both elements. Not considered is the problem of the hardware, the accuracy of the camera and lens, the influence of the software to translate the pixel photon count to visual images and so on. All measurements will have a tolerance level of let us say 5%. The often used parameter of the lines per image height is presented with semi-scientific precision and the camera/lens performance is ranked according to these values: when a system is measured with a value of 2856 l/ih and another one with a value of 2788 l/ih there is no discussion that the real values might be 2713 and 2928, in fact reversing the order. Even when the tolerance would be 1% there is no discussion of the real values, related to the measurement values.
It is questionable whether the numerical results can be directly related to the practical requirements, but one requirement is obeyed: the consistency of the tests and the consistency of the lab conditions.
This requirement is not guaranteed by the many subjective evaluations that ask for attention on the web.
These personalized and very subjective reviews fall in two extremes: the subjective reviews that are full of the words ‘impression’, ‘feeling’ and ‘opinion’. The choice of these words indicate the intention of the reviewer: not an objective analysis, but a description of the emotions when using a specific lens or camera body. A good example is the website of Joeri van der Kloet. A cursory glance at the discussion platform of the TheOnlinePhotographer will show you that almost every comment made there on whatever topic is at best simply an expression of personal preference and at worst the continuation of some myth. It is amazing what internet discussions can reveal about the human psyche!
The other extreme is the pseudo-scientific approach. A good example is the website of Mr Chambers. His recent review of the Leica Summilux-SL 1.4/50 mm ASPh is a fine example of this attitude. First of all, he does not describe the test conditions and uses a range of different pictures to support his statements (lab rule # 1is to state the conditions of measurement and to hold as many influencing parameters as possible constant ). Secondly he uses the method of pixel shifting to artificially enlarge the resolution of the sensor. Presumably this is done to improve the resolution yardstick for the optical performance. Martin Doppelbauer has a sensible explanation why this is a fake option. My own experiments with the Olympus PenF and the option of enhanced resolution are also not impressive: in fact the results are worse than the original ones! Thirdly he is obsessed with the phenomenon of the occurrence of distortion and the use of software to correct this so-called aberration.Again, without scientific evidence, there is the claim that this software correction will reduce the optical performance. Any modern book about optical design will tell you that distortion can be easily corrected by mathematics without loss of information.
The last issue I would like to address is the pseudo scientific language, that is supposed to disguise the subjective bias of the reviewer.
I am always amazed that there are individuals who seem to be impressed by the length of the review (erroneously described as “depth’).
Geoffrey Crawley tried to review a lens with at most a hundred words and he thought that would be enough to give a serious profile of the reviewed lens. He also refused to add illustrations because they are easy to misinterpret or to put too much value on some phenomenon.
The best test for an optical system is still the brick wall and a slide film.

Leica Special Editions

2019-05-28T20:18:11+02:00

Manufacturers of photographic equipment know that any product today has a limited production time with a general lifecycle: A product announcement is hyped by the ubiquitous cheerleaders, publishing on the social media. Then a product is available and the sales are initially high. Then sales flatten and even dry up. The product managers know this and they carefully hold back some improvements for inclusion in future model changes. When a new market is required, a totally ‘new’ product is designed. ‘New’ is not the correct designation: the competition has these features already or a clever modular construction design allows for a mix of features. Canon is a master in this area.
Leica follows a different strategy. Given the high investment in a new or improved model and the long period of amortization (required because of low production volume), a new model can be announced every two or three years (compared to the six months to twelve months that a typical Japanese manufacturer requires). As soon as a camera model approaches the flat sales cycle, the company starts producing special models, specially for the M-range.
This was the obvious sales strategy for the period between 1980 and 2000 when a confusing amount of special editions was announced.
Not one of these special models could improve or efficiently support the photographer to take better pictures (technically and/or artistically). This statement is true for the most current special M models. While previous editions used iconic models of the past as a source of inspiration, current special editions are fashion statements, like the haute couture world.
The most recent edition is the Kravitz Monochrome Drifter edition, one of the most appalling and ugly versions in the history of the special editions. The ASC edition occupies a good second place, because of the simulated gold plating of the lenses. The subtleties of previous models are gone and the design statement is more aggressive and may I say (?) desperate.

The girl with a Leica

2019-05-08T21:58:51+02:00

Most Leica aficionados are familiar with the (iconic) picture of Rodchenko (Girl with a Leica) from 1934. Recently a book with the same title has been published in 2017, written by Helena Janeczec. It is about Gerda Taro, the friend of Robert Capa. She was a very good photographer herself, better even then Capa. She died in the Civil War in Spain. The story is simple. Capa got a second-hand Leica from a friend, but hardly used it. He gave the camera to Gerda, who used it all the time. Capa himself used the Contax camera and also had a Rolleiflex with him.
The Leica people stubbornly insist that the Capa pictures (the well-known “dying soldier” is one of them) were made with a Leica, which is not true. It is a fact beyond doubt that the D-day pictures were made with a Contax. The story behind these pictures is rather fascinating and AD Coleman is one of the main investigators to find the truth. It seems that the actual heroism of Capa is less impressive than the myth. And the poor guy in the darkroom did not screw up the rolls of films as is often claimed.
Even the dying soldier may be a staged scene. No one knows for sure.
The book about Taro is a very pleasant read. It seems to be available in Italian (the original) and in a Dutch translation, which I am reading.

By the way:

All orders for my new book, the Leica Path, have been shipped.

Why low light photography has been overvalued.

2019-04-24T15:38:34+02:00

There is a strange contradiction in the everyday photographic practice. Most pictures are taken in bright scenery with apertures between f/4 and f/11. Yet, the high speed lens is much valued and so is the ability of the photographer to take pictures in low ambient light. There is even a cult among Leica users to look at flash with disdain. A true Leica picture is made without flash, is an often heard statement.
In the past, slow speed films and medium aperture lenses were the norm. When photographers extended their domain for ‘fishing images’ to the twilight zone and the scarcely lit interiors of cafés and other public places, the requirement for fast emulsions and wide aperture lenses was a fact of life. Most high speed emulsions, then around ISO 400, were grainy and had in general a long tooth, which reduces the capability for under exposure and always generates a low contrast in the deep shadows.
In those days the standard f/2 workhorse was at the limit of useful work with a 400ISO film and German optical manufacturers were keen to extend this to f1.5 and even f/1.4. The Japanese topped this with f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses. These lenses were generally of low contrast and did not match smoothly with the low contrast films. But the photographer could get the picture. It became a measure of craftsmanship to be able to take pictures with high speed lenses and relatively slow emulsions in low light situations. Then something curious happened. The different lens departments made the performance of the high speed lens the measure of its design competence. Leitz and later Leica, in particular, made the performance at the wide open aperture their yardstick of optical competence. The smooth and low contrast image of the older generations of lenses, coupled with a shallow depth of field made these lenses (at least for the taste of the generation at that time) destined for portraits. The cult of selective focus was born and with it the idea that this style was the best for general photography. The manufacturers, Leica in particular, were promoting these characteristics of their lenses with a great deal of verve.
The well known characteristics: high cost, shallow depth of field, large volume and careful focusing are negative side effects.
A moderate aperture lens with an opening of f/2.8 is nowadays not done, but it is the best compromise between cost, performance and size. Especially today when high sensor speeds with the equivalent of ISO 12500 are the norm. There is much to argue in favour of a moderate aperture lens of f/2.8. Optical performance can be outstanding (see the last Elmarit-M 2.8/90mm, the lenses are compact (see the collapsible Elmar-M 2/8/50 MM), there is no need for aspherical elements which reduces the manufacturing costs (compare the Summicron-M 2/75 ASPH with the Summarit-M 2.4/75 mm). The size can be reduced also, which is always a benefit.
The aperture of f/2.8 is fully adequate for even the current slow high resolution films when going the Kodak path.
It is good when the prestige element would be diminished for the high speed lenses. Most photographers would be delighted to have high performance, moderately-sized lenses to shoot their pictures in bright sunlight. You lug much volume and accept a high price tag for the occasional shot in the dusk. And flash is always an option. Skillful use of flash is also a mark of craftsmanship!

By the way: Adox HR50 and FX39 are now a beautiful combination with the reduced development times and reduced speed. The lens is the Apo_Summicron-M 2/50 mm ASPH, mostly used at f/2.8 or f/4

Adox HR50

2019-04-15T13:09:14+02:00

The new Adox HR50 is a remarkable emulsion. It is based on a microfilm, but with additional chemicals to increase the effective sensitivity and enable the use of some standard developers. The famous Crawley formula, FX 39, is one of the options. I used the film with an indicated Iso of 40 and the FX39 in a dilution 1+19 (to compensate for the highlights) for 20 minutes.
The test chart was the grey chart, issued by Sekonic and the exposure meter was indeed the Sekonic L-398-A. Camera was the Leica M-A.
The fog level was very low (density 0.15).
The Zone V was spot on with a net density of 0.80 (official = 0.75). The Zone I (the one designated for the true speed of D = 0.10) was 0.08. Quite close to the norm. The Zones II and II are rather thin with a D of 0.13 and 0.26. The highlights were a bit too dense with VI = 115 and VII = 1.41.
A reduction of the speed to EI = 25 is advisable and a reduction of the development time to 15 minutes is also advisable.
Acutance is high and grain hardly existent. This is a worthy successor of the famous Kodak Tech-Pan.
The graph as made is below. It has the classical S-shape.

Choices!

2019-04-13T17:34:37+02:00

Most camera users and photographers assume and even believe that the analog technique has been finally superseded by the digital technique. This us technological progress: an older less efficient technique has been replaced by a newer and more efficient technique. The analog - digital dichotomy is the wrong metaphor, but as its stands, it is the common usage. But analog is not the opposite of digital and there is no reason why both concepts (and techniques) could not exist side by side. It is, in fact, a continuum, more than an antagonist pair.
The digitization of negatives and slides is something of the past: many users have already converted the silver halide grain patterns into numerical matrices or have forgotten about their possessions. That is the reason why there are only a handful of dedicated scanners on the market. Everyone produces only acceptable results or is so expensive that only a handful of users can afford one.
A reasonable alternative is now on the market: the Kaiser company has already a LED light box on the market and has now supplemented this with a film copy instrument, that looks deceptively like the classical negative carrier for the enlarger. It is heavier however and more stable than the negative carrier tool.
You also need a digital camera with a macro lens. The process is quite simple. The light box is switched on and the film copy tool is placed on top of the light box. Than the slide or negative strip is inserted into the copy tool. A tripod is used with an attached digital camera and a suitable lens.
The Nikon Coolscan has an optical resolution of (theoretically) 4000 dpi/inch and a real resolution of 2600 dpi/inch. This will give you a resolution of the standard 35 mm negative size of 6000 x 4000 or 4900 x 2600 dpi. This performance is easily within reach of a modern digital camera. (I use the Olympus Pen F with 100 mm macro lens). The results are quite good. A slight adjustment in Photoshop (highlight and shadows) produces a HDR effect.

This brings me to the second topic of this blog entry.
The efficiency of these adjustments (including the sharpness options in Photoshop, which are second to none) is excellent and will reduce any differences that (theoretically) exist between lenses.There is hardly any use for lens testing in this digital era. There are two arguments to support this statement. One is the fact that lens performance is now integrated with sensor performance. The second one is the fact that the image processing algorithms are more standardized than ever before and will produce comparable, if not identical, results. The combination: lens + sensor + software is a very potent solution for the problem how to produce high quality imagery. Even Leica uses software to improve the quality of their lenses for their digital cameras.
It made and makes sense to test lenses under analog conditions. But the negatives and slides have to be processed by chemical means in a proper darkroom to see and appreciate the differences. When the hybrid path is chosen, the powerful software (like Photoshop, but there many more) will compensate for any defect in the optical processing of the image.

There are at this moment three paths to choose from:
1. the fully digital path with a reduction and an evening out of optical differences
2. the hybrid path with a choice of optical leveling and optical preservation
3.the fully chemical path with optical preservation and a search for the proper parameters to produce high image clarity.

Below are two pictures made from a slide and processed without and with the software algorithms of Photoshop.

Below the original version

Below the ‘enhanced’ version

The content of my new book

2019-04-02T19:46:07+02:00

The text is in three languages. I am gradually switching to the Dutch audience.

Nederlands

Met mijn nieuwe boek duik ik in de toekomst van de Leica fotografie. Vooruitkijken betekent ook terugkijken. Er is geen duidelijke beschrijving van de fotografie. Het is een te veelzijdig en alomtegenwoordig medium: de camera is gebruikt voor persoonlijke fotografie (de snapshot), voor commerciële doeleinden (mode, studio, medische documentatie) en voor creatieve uitingen in de kunstfotografie. De visuele cultuur waarin we nu leven en het gebruik van de smart phone hebben de fotografie als zelfstandige activiteit en hobby onzichtbaar gemaakt. In dit woelige fotografisch universum stond de Leica camera als een lichtend baken waaraan cultuur en industrie zich oriënteerden. Sinds ongeveer 50 jaar (van 1930 tot 1980). Leica fotografie stond voor een bijzondere stijl waarmee alledaagse motieven werden vastgelegd. Die motieven werden in de werkelijkheid gevonden. De driehoek: werkelijkheid-waarneming-cameratechniek kreeg met de Leica een bijzondere betekenis. De fototechniek veranderde, de fototoestellen ook: er kwam steeds meer elektronica, die de bediener van het apparaat bijna overbodig maakte. De moderne techniek maakte waar wat de oorspronkelijke geleerden en beschouwers altijd al hadden gezegd: de fototechniek is een machine die zelfstandig een beeld van de natuur kan vastleggen. Veel theoretici hadden een andere mening: fotografie is een kunstvorm, een mening die nog versterkt wordt met de digitalisering van het proces. Nooit eerder was het gemakkelijker om een technisch geslaagde foto te maken, duizendvoudig te reproduceren en in een oogwenk wereldwijd te verspreiden.
Maar de Leica bleef zichzelf. Niet langer meer een baken, en steeds meer een zeldzame verschijning in een luxueus omhulsel, waarin een digitale techniek is verpakt. De Leica gebruiker staat nu voor een dilemma: welke Leica camera kiezen, hoe ermee te fotograferen en vooral wat valt er nog te fotograferen.

Dit boek beschrijft de uitweg uit het dilemma: gebruik de Leica zoals Barnack het bedoelde: pretentieloze foto’s van scenes uit de alledaagse werkelijkheid, die emoties oproept en die de fotograaf wil vasthouden. Er zijn drie delen. deel 1 beschrijft de wereld van de Leica camera: de producten, de geschiedenis van de Leica fotografie, de constructie van de belangrijke onderdelen en de fabricage technieken. Dit deel eindigt met een duidelijk advies welke Leica camera uit het omvangrijke hedendaagse pallet geniet de voorkeur. Deel 2 gaat wat dieper in op de grondslagen: de principes van de waarneming, de structuur van de werkelijkheid, de kern van de fotografie en de voor-en nadelen van de digitale evolutie. Deel 3 tenslotte beschrijft een nieuwe stijl van de Leica fotografie (wat en hoe te fotograferen met de camera). De persoonlijke relatie tot de dingen in de werkelijkheid staat voorop, evenals de stijl van de deadpan (ausdruckslos) fotografie.

_______________

Deutsch

Mit diesem neuen Buch taucht der Leser in die Zukunft der Leica-Fotografie ein. Nach vorne schauen heißt auch zurückblicken. Es gibt keine klare Beschreibung der Fotografie. Es ist ein zu vielseitiges und allgegenwärtiges Medium: Die Kamera wird für die persönliche Fotografie (Schnappschuss), für kommerzielle Zwecke (Mode, Studio, medizinische Dokumentation) und für kreative Ausdrucksformen in der Kunstfotografie verwendet. Die visuelle Kultur, in der wir heute leben, und die Verwendung des Smartphones haben die Fotografie als selbstständige Tätigkeit und Hobby unsichtbar gemacht. Seit den Anfängen der Fotografie hat sich das Medium verschiedentlich entwickelt. In diesem turbulenten fotografischen Universum stand die Leica-Kamera als eigenständiger Leuchtturm, an dem sich Kultur und Industrie orientierten. Während etwa 50 Jahren (von 1930 bis 1980) repräsentiert die Leica-Fotografie einen besonderen Stil, der alltägliche Motive einfängt. Diese Motive wurden in der Realität gefunden. Das Dreieck: Wirklichkeit-Wahrnehmung-Kameratechnik hat mit der Leica eine besondere Bedeutung erhalten. Die Fototechnik änderte sich ebenso wie die Fotokameras: Immer mehr Elektronik wurde eingeführt, so dass der Bediener des Gerätes fast überflüssig wurde. Moderne Technologie entsprach dem, was die ursprünglichen Gelehrten und Zuschauer immer gesagt hatten: Fototechnik ist eine Maschine, die unabhängig ein Bild der Natur aufnehmen kann. Viele Theoretiker hatten eine andere Meinung: Fotografie ist eine Kunstform, die durch die Digitalisierung des Prozesses noch verstärkt wird. Noch nie war es einfacher, ein technisch erfolgreiches Foto aufzunehmen, tausendfach zu reproduzieren und weltweit im Handumdrehen zu verbreiten.
Die Leica blieb jedoch sich selbst. Nicht mehr ein Leuchtturm und mehr und mehr ein seltener Auftritt in einem luxuriösen Gewand, in dem eine digitale Technik verpackt ist. Der Leica-Anwender steht nun vor einem Dilemma: Welche Leica-Kamera muss gewählt werden, wie wird sie zum Fotografieren verwendet und insbesondere, was kann noch fotografiert werden.

Dieses Buch beschreibt den Ausweg aus dem Dilemma: Verwenden Sie die Leica, wie es Barnack beabsichtigt hat: unprätentiöse Fotos von Szenen aus der alltäglichen Realität, die Emotionen auslösen und die der Fotograf festhalten möchte. Es gibt drei Teile. Teil 1 beschreibt die Welt der Leica-Kamera: die Produkte, die Geschichte der Leica-Fotografie, die Konstruktion der wichtigen Teile und die Herstellungstechniken. Dieser Teil endet mit einem klaren Hinweis, welche Leica-Kamera aus der umfangreichen zeitgemäßen Palette vorgezogen wird. Teil 2 geht auf die Grundlagen ein: Die Prinzipien der Wahrnehmung, die Struktur der Realität, den Kern der Fotografie und die Vor- und Nachteile der digitalen Evolution. Teil 3 beschreibt schließlich einen neuen Stil der Leica-Fotografie (was und wie mit der Kamera fotografiert werden soll). Die persönliche Beziehung zu den Dingen in der Realität ist von größter Bedeutung, ebenso wie der Stil der ausdruckslosen (deadpan) Fotografie.
________________

English

++++++++++++++++
With my new book I dive into the future of Leica photography. Looking ahead also means looking back. There is no clear description of photography. It is a too versatile and omnipresent medium: the camera is used for personal photography (the snapshot), for commercial purposes (fashion, studio, medical documentation) and for creative expressions in art photography. The visual culture in which we now live and the use of the smart phone have made photography invisible as an independent activity and hobby. In this turbulent photographic universe, the Leica camera stood as a shining beacon on which culture and industry were orientated, since about 50 years (from 1930 to 1980). Leica photography represented a special style with which everyday motifs were recorded. Those motives were found in reality. The triangle: reality-perception-camera technology got a special meaning with the Leica. The photo technology changed, so did the photo cameras: more and more electronics were introduced, making the operator of the device almost superfluous. Modern technology lived up to what the original scholars and viewers had always said: photo technology is a machine that can independently capture an image of nature. Many theoreticians had a different opinion: photography is an art form, an opinion that is further enhanced with the digitalisation of the process. Never before has it been easier to take a technically successful photo, reproduce a thousandfold, and distribute it worldwide in the blink of an eye.
But the Leica remained itself. No longer a beacon, and more and more a rare appearance in a luxurious cover, in which a digital technique is wrapped. The Leica user is now faced with a dilemma: which Leica camera to choose, how to use it for photographing and, in particular, what can still be photographed.

This book describes the way out of the dilemma: use the Leica as Barnack intended it: unpretentious photos of scenes from everyday reality, that evoke emotions and that the photographer wants to hold. There are three parts. part 1 describes the world of the Leica camera: the products, the history of Leica photography, the construction of the important parts and the manufacturing techniques. This part ends with clear advice which Leica camera from the extensive contemporary pallet is preferred. Part 2 elaborates on the foundations: the principles of perception, the structure of reality, the core of photography and the pros and cons of digital evolution. Finally, part 3 describes a new style of Leica photography (what and how to photograph with the camera). The personal relationship to things in reality is paramount, as is the style of deadpan photography.
+++++++++++++++

The Leica Path will ship in first week of May!

2019-04-01T23:22:19+02:00

My new book about the Leica path in the 21 C will ship in the first week of May 2019. It will be a very limited edition. The price is Euro 45 excluding shipment. In the Netherlands you will have to add Euro 6 to the price (making it Euro 51) and for all other countries the shipment cost will be Euro 22,50 (making a total price of Euro 67,50). If you wish to add the Leica Pocket Guide, you may add Euro 20 to the total price, because shipment costs will be the same.
A sample PDF (the table of content and the preface may be downloaded here.

I will update my Shop with the new information in the next days.

more corrections to the serial numbers in my Pocket Guide

2019-03-25T16:26:09+01:00

I received information that there is a Super-Elmar 3.4/21 mm with serial number 4108732. This number falls in the range allocated to a Summicron 50 mm lens
(4108531 to 4109030). The first batch of the SE 21 mm has a range from 4108481 to 4108530) just before the Summicron range. It is possible that the SE was produced alongside the Summicron and that its serial number was loaned from the Summicron range.

Another correction: the M8 with serial# 3.333.333 was dedicated to Mr. Mueller, but the camera was given by Leica to an Italian Leica expert, who sold this camera to an Italian person.

Another correction: M7 „BIRTHDAY FRIEDRICHS“
the correct name is „FRIDERICHS“

Erwin

new book finally ready

2019-03-11T17:43:19+01:00

My new book about the Leica world in the 21st century is going to the printer and will be available in six weeks time. It has the usual dimensions 17 x 24 cm, full colour pages, hard cover and so on. price is not yet settled. It will be a very limited edition!

Anyone who already indicated their interest in buying the book will get a copy.

If you wish to be included and have not yet informed me of your interest in buying might do it.

Why AF is impossible for M-lenses

2019-02-26T11:30:28+01:00

When analyzing a lens prescription, it will be evident that not every lens element is a good candidate for autofocus movement. A lens element in one of the actual L-mount lenses weighs 3.8 grams, and has a focus movement of 640 steps controlled by a stepper motor. A comparable lens element that might be suitable for AF movement is the actual Summicron 2/28 mm ASPH which weighs 47 grams. Not only is this weight too high, but there is also not enough space in the mount to accommodate the required movement and the motor, however small it is. The 640 steps explain why AF is more accurate than manual focusing and much faster.
Most Leica users however take pictures of stationary subjects. AF is hardly needed in these situations.
A new generation of lenses would be needed for incorporating AF in the M camera. The M lenses have already grown to a significant volume. The quest for wide apertures and high performance has a price already. This balancing might be the reason why L-mount lenses are limited in aperture. The size of the diameter of the L-mount would not be a hindrance. Size and performance are in an inversely proportional relationship.
The performance parameters for actual Leica lenses are related to the MTF curves. This is good for the important characteristics that define image clarity: edge contrast (often referred to as micro-contrast) and resolution. The price to be paid is the uniformity of the reproduction.
The overall image quality is the result of a balance of aberrations. High MTF values imply that the residual aberrations are very well corrected with a smart balance of fifth-order aberrations. The reverse of this strategy is a uniform image quality. It is comparable to the sharpening algorithms in post processing software. They all function in the same way and the results are interchangeable.
The older generations of optical designers had less options to work with and used every trick they knew to get a decent result. These lenses were less good, optically speaking, but they showed a character that modern lenses do not have.

New Pocket Guide

2019-02-13T23:23:13+01:00

The recently announced Pocket Guide has got an excellent reception. Most buyers value the content, especially the extended history of the company. The many listings and tables give succinct information about the Leica products since the early 1950s. The most heard complaint is the lack of coverage for the older SLR Leica cameras. I have omitted this info (it is in my e-books: Leica Chronicle and Leica Compendium) because these models ,with the exception of the Leicaflex and the R8/9, are not evolutionary landmarks or quite popular these days. The R3 has much Leitz DNA under the hood. The R4 to R7 are upgraded Minolta models. This strategy of rebranding is also visible in the many digital compacts from Panasonic. They are good sellers as the serial numbers in the pocket guide indicate.

The question is now: when is a Leica branded camera an original Leica model. The trend within the Leica company is moving away from the production of cameras and lenses to the design of the artefacts. Here the Apple company is the most obvious example: hardly anyone would not assume that the Apple product is a genuine Apple product, even when most components and the assembly are 'made in China'.

The design and the quality of the software are the main elements that explain the attraction of the Apple products. Leica is copying this strategy with a simplified design style and a high image performance. While the design makes the product unique, the same can no longer be claimed for the image performance.

The danger of algorithms

2019-02-09T10:54:32+01:00

Photography is a simple technology. Establishing the correct exposure is not rocket science. The brightness value of the scene can be matched to the light sensitivity of the emulsion or imager. This match assumes that the brightness contrast between dark and light parts of the scene has a numerical value of 1:160. The assumption is that there is an even distribution between the brightness levels (the tonal range) in the scene. Compensating for a bias (many dark or bright tones, higher or lower contrast) is easy, especially with cameras fitted with imagers, because in this situation the bias compensation can be matched with the characteristics of the imager itself, because the variable of the developer is no longer part of the equation. When film emulsions were the norm, the method of compensation had to take into account a standard emulsion and its response.
The compensation is limited, perhaps plus/minus one stop or at most two stops. Any algorithm can handle this task without any problem. Exposure algorithms were already effectively implemented in cameras before the digital era.
When using emulsions, there is always a risk involved. A conscious decision by the photographer/operator is required to reduce this risk. Digital techniques have reduced this risk to a minimal level. The photographer with a digital camera relies of the algorithms to take risk-free images.
It might be better to rephrase the standard analog-digital dichotomy as a risk-taking versus a risk-aversion strategy. Risk-taking is part of the human condition and helps you grow. Risk aversion is the best prescription for creative stagnation. Look at the billions of pictures on the internet and you can see where current algorithms lead you to.

Corrections for the new Pocket Guide

2019-01-16T10:14:51+01:00

Here are the corrections known since the date of the print:

M3D

Cameras: Originally planned: 4.888.905 - 4.888.920 (M3D always without the dash between 3 and D, so NOT "M3-D“!)

4.915.005 - 4.915.020 were finally used

M Monochrom (Typ 246) in silver for Leica Historica e.V.

Cameras: 4.969.001 - 4.969.040

Lenses: 4.969.001 - 4.969.040 for the APO-Summicron M 1:2/90 mm ASPH. in silver (same serial numbers used for the lenses as for the bodies)

The Leica M10-D in practice.

2019-01-10T15:30:00+01:00

I used the camera with and without the FOTOS App.
Leica promotes the Leica Photos application as the modern (digital) interface between the smartphone and the camera. With the WIFI enabled on both the camera and the smartphone (an iPhone 5S in my situation) the screen of the phone is a substitute for the monitor display of the regular M10 and M10-P. It is an unpractical solution. Holding the camera in one hand and the phone in the second hand (that is all normal humans have), you cannot focus rapidly. The only practical solution is the fixed distance setting while changing the distance with your arm advancing more or less. This is by the way the classic solution for street photographers who fix the distance setting to exactly 1,75 or 2 meters and change the physical distance between camera and object to focus sharply. The other option is to lay down the phone and handle the camera with both hands. Problem now is that the small screen requires you to position the phone close to your eye. Perhaps with a large screen of more recent smartphones there is more to see.

The best option is to use the camera on tripod and then to activate the app. For photography on the run with dynamic scenery the app is not suitable. Then the classical choice of the view/rangefinder is the best way to operate the camera.
When the app is activated there are a few selections to make in Live Mode: The File Format and Resolution (when using JPG) can be selected as are the metering options (spot, center-weighted and multi-field) and the White balance (hardly ever necessary to select one as the DNG option lets you select the colour balance on the computer.
The camera settings can be found under (obviously) the Settings tab. Here you find most of the menu options that are available to the user of the M10(-P).
The most natural option is to use the camera without the App and rely on the viewfinder. There are a few, but useful indications in the finder area, like number of remaining pictures, the battery capacity and the shutter speed (in A-mode). Also the flash symbols are visible.
The finder is very clear and the bright (white) lines of the frames are well lit. The illumination is by LED's but the frame lines are projected by physical masks. An electronic option would be possible.
Knowing that the camera is digital, gives the initial impulse to look at the monitor after taking a picture. This impulse is soon repressed.
The camera's simplicity and the lack of the monitor have seduced many commentators to apply the designation 'analog' to the handling. This impression is intensified by the little lever that works as a thumb support. As a support there may be improvements possible, because ergonomically the support does not function quite well. You need all fingers of one hand for a firm grip of the camera and after some time, walking around with the thumb behind the lever, the camera starts to slip because of fatigue. Perhaps with more exercise?
The very low shutter noise makes it hard to know when exactly the shutter has been fired. The counter that indicates the number of remaining pictures helps! The classical portrait session when the sitter relaxes after hearing the shutter firing and the photographer quickly shoots another picture to capture the relaxed pose has vanished. It should not be difficult to include an option in future updates to increase the shutter noise.
The general operational features and the performance of the M10-D are similar to the standard m10 and need not to be discussed. The main topic of the M10-D is its analogue feeling.If (and this is a big IF) we assume that the delay between taking and viewing the picture is the defining characteristic of the chemical/physical process than there is some logic in treating the M10-D as the analogue version of the digital camera. But this delay is an illusion. As soon as the smartphone is activated we can see the results. When there is no smartphone, the direct access to the laptop will do the job. The Polaroid effect we do not have: there is always a time lag between taking the picture and looking at the finished picture. The essence of the chemical/physical process is not the immediacy of controlling the result, but the risk factor and the lack of flexibility. First the risk factor. There is always the chance that the picture goes wrong: exposure setting is wrong, chance element is not controlled, unsuitable developer has been selected and so on. The inspection of the film strip after development always produces surprises. The most important negatives are unusable. The digital process on the other hand gives fool-proof results: there is always the software that comes to the rescue.
The lack of flexibility is the second characteristic of the chemical/physical process. Before we start taking pictures, we have to select the film (negative or slide, colour or bw, low speed or high speed). When the selected film is the wrong one, we are lost. In the digital world, even with the M10-D, we can select auto ISO and we gain lots of flexibility. When taking pictures (handheld) with ISO 100 bw film, we may be confronted with low shutter speeds: the choice then is under exposure or blurred images. A change of ISO settings as on the M10-D is impossible when using the M-A. There is a limited option to under expose and use a suitable developer to increase the density but this procedure has other problems.
The basic fact is that the M10-D produces numerical virtual files and the M-A produces (after a lengthy process) fixed physical negatives. The result is different and the process is different.
Claiming that the M10-D invites the user to the analogue world is an illusion. The simple fact that there is no darkroom involved when processing M10-D images says it all. The analogue mentality is absent when using the M10-D. To understand the difference, compare the handling and workflow of the M10-D with the M-A or even M3 from picture taking to the printing stage.
The emphasis on the analogue feeling has obscured the real merits of the M10-D. The operational environment is different from the M10 and previous digital models. The inability to check the result immediately is a fine reminder of the fact that risk and chance are elements to confront in the photographic workflow. The fake transport lever as a thumb rest is evidently a suggestive feature that is unmasked after the first release of the shutter and the immediate motorized tensioning of the springs.

M10-D sound level

2018-12-16T17:20:15+01:00

General comments:
(1)The usual measurement is in dB, but this is a relative measure compared to the standardized threshold of just audible human hearing. The absolute measurement is related to the maximum possible recording value of the instrument. These values are generally minus values. I calculated a correction factor to convert the negative values of the recording instrument into positive values of the usual dB measure.
(2) I made five measurements per shutter speed, measuring the minimum, maximum and average values. In all cases I used the RMS values, because these give a more reliable result.
(3) I noted that there is a substantial variation between samples, not only with the mechanically governed shutters, but also the electronically controlled ones. Therefore I used the average value of all measurements per shutter speed.
(4) The variation between shutter speeds (1/4; 1/60; 1/250/1/1000 sec) is minor, at least at 1 meter distance. Example: the M Monochrom II has max dB values of 47.86; 51.55; 51.58; 51.30. The M3, often accepted as the quietest rangefinder camera has max dB values of 54.88; 54.46; 53.53; 53.53. The higher level noise of the 1/4 sec is caused by the additional sound of the retarding gears. The M7 has dB values of: 52.99; 51.96; 51.88; 51.80.
The loudest camera is the Canon L1. The dB values are: 59.25; 61.73; 60.92; 60.41. The Canon has the loudest shutter, but the variation between samples is negligible. To simplify the results I selected the 1/60 sec as the reference speed.
(5) Some typical sound levels: normal conversation: 60 dB; humming of refrigerator: 45 dB; noise level of typical urban roads daytime is 55 dB and night time is 50dB; a quiet library is 40 dB.
Below are the values of all tested cameras with the max RMS power at 1/60 sec.
Canon VI-L——————————— 61.73
Leica M-A——————————— 54.82
Leica M3———————————- 54.46
Leica M7—————————— 51.96
Leica Mono II———————- 51.55
Leica M8.2 standard———————— 49.09
Leica M8.2 discrete———————— 49.92
Leica M10-D———————— 42.00

It is evident that the M10-D is the quietest. A picture taken with the M10-D in a quiet library is still audible. But every camera, with the exception of the Canon is inaudible in normal conditions, like conversations and urban streets in day lime. The M3 and M-A are for all intents and purposes equal. The M7 has a remarkable low level and compares favorably to the MMono II (and presumably all versions of the M240). The M8.2 in discrete mode is louder than in standard mode. The discrete mode is identical to the standard mode, but with a time lag for the sound of the closing blades.
For a correct interpretation of the figures it should be noted that the equipment has a tolerance of 1 dB and the figures should be rounded to the first decimal. The usual interpretation tells you that a difference of 3dB represents a doubling or halving of the sound level. Note also that the peak noise is the sound of the brake: a rather short sharp click. The cameras with the Copal shutter have a more subdued noise that is more pleasant for the average person.

M10-D review: Intro

2018-11-26T15:08:57+01:00

There is very little difference between the performance and image quality of the M10, M10-P and M10-D. The main difference is the handling and the approach to (digital) photography. Leica stresses the fact that the M10-D has the most quiet shutter release of any Leica rangefinder camera and enables un-conspicuous photography. I used a dedicated sound meter to check this claim and compared the noise of the M10-D with a number of other cameras (M3, M7, M-A, M8.2, M 246 and Canon L1) The distances were 10cm and 1 metre. The shutter speeds were 1/4, 1/60, 1/250 and 1/1000. I used the dB-C . All camera used the same lens and the analog models were additionally fitted with a film cartridge to fill the hollow space of the body. The loudest camera was the Canon L1. The M10-D was indeed the most quiet. The mechanical braking has been presumably replaced by an electronic one.
The complete shutter sound consists of two distinct components: the (softer) release of the first curtain and the (louder) braking of the second curtain. When using faster speeds, both sounds merge into one complex sound level.
Normal conversation level peaks at about 60 dB-A and the urban sound scape varies between 56 and 95 dB-A with an average of 73 dB-A. Even the loudest camera would be below the normal sound level on the street for un-conspicuous recording. Only when taking pictures in a very quiet library the sound would be detected.
The second important characteristic of the M10-D is the lack of the monitor which is supposed to emulate the idea of an analog camera where you also cannot check the results immediately. My first impression after using the camera for over a week is different. The fact that the M10-D has an adjustable ISO speed feature and an electro-magnetic shutter release button gives a non-analog experience. Add the fact that you do need to rewind the film and with the knowledge that after 36 exposures you do not have to load another cartridge which give you a digital experience. The acid test of the analog workflow is the proper exposure and the choice of developer and development time. This connection is not existent when walking the digital path. Proper exposure is much less critical because of the latitude of the sensor and the power of the software.
In my second part I will comment on this feature and also the use of the Leica Fotos App.
The noise patterns were recorded with Adobe Audition. The study of these recorded signals takes some time and needs the consultancy of an expert

New Pocket Guide

2018-11-09T20:28:20+01:00

I have been inspired by the famous Bredow pocket "Leica Tashenbuch'. I produced a new book: "Leica Pocket Guide 1953 - 2018".
The content:
listings of price development of selected Leica cameras and lenses since 1998;
listings of all serial numbers since 1950 to 2016 of cameras and lenses;
a Leica time table;
specifications of all Leica cameras since 1953
specifications of all current Leica lenses (S.SL, M, Q, TL, CL)
lens diagrams of all current Leica lenses
pictures of selected special M editions
pictures of all Leica cameras since 1953
and more

The book is A6 format: 105 x 148 mm, 280 pages thick, bound and with an imitation leather soft cover.

The idea is that you can carry the book with you at all times and quickly can reference details you did forget.

Below is a sample of images

The price of the book is Euro 19.95 excluding shipment cots. I am at this moment discussing the shipment fee. Y
It is a limited edition. You can preorder the book on the shop tag.

The book" The Leica way in 21C will be published soon!

Some figures for Leica fiscal year 4/2016 to 4/2017.

2018-10-28T10:00:22+01:00

The German Bundesanzeiger has published the annual report about the financials and position of the Leica Company. These are the highlights:
Total turnover increased by 10% from €294M to €325M. The system camera production was reduced from €161M to €144M. The results for the SL were 7% down, but the Q and the Sofort were up.
The increase in turnover was the result of the licencing business, specifically the Huawei connection. The conclusion: turnover has been increased, but caused by the licencing business with Huawei. The turnover of the three core units: photo, professional photo and sportoptics was disappointing.

The Leica M10-D

2018-10-27T17:24:54+02:00

We are told by the marketing people of major industries, the tech gurus and the enthusiastic adopters of modern innovations, that we live in a period of ever accelerating change and that the near future (if it not already here) brings new possibilities of unimagined power. The electrical-powered car is one example, but we forget that we have already a very versatile, energy-efficient and environment friendly vehicle: the bike. The future is often an extreme version of the present. We admire modern technology in cameras and the expanded capabilities. We forget that we always have wanted to produce more pictures at no cost and immediately available for inspection and distribution. We did not use Polaroids in the studio for fun, but to see what the shoot would be. We embraced automation in cameras before the digital age, because we wanted fuss-free and error-free picture taking. Handheld exposure meters were always a problem and high-speed emulsions had their own limits. Now we live in a photographer’s heaven: we can take pictures anytime and everywhere at no cost and when we make a mistake (not relying on the inbuilt algorithms) we can correct it easily and effectively.
The recently introduced Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras promise an easy road to a bright future. But is it? We produce billions of pictures, hundreds of millions of them are pictures of sunsets, landscapes, flowers, pets and friends in all kinds of more or less embarrassing poses. Are these picture styles and themes different from what one could do with a Kodak camera from 1890? Hardly, but there are more of the same! Photographers do what they always did and a digital picture is not different from a printed negative or a slide film.

The new Leica M10-D is described by Leica AG as a digital body with an analog soul. The marketing people have still not understood the real difference between analog and digital, but I would say that the more appropriate description would be an analog body with a digital soul.
The reference to the “unique experience of analog photography” is coupled to the proposal that ‘less’ is the unique property of the traditional film emulsion world and that ‘more’ is the defining characteristic of the digital-computational world. What exactly is that analogy with the film-emulsion camera?. The fact that you have a mock film advance lever and the fact that you cannot see the result immediately on the monitor screen is not enough to create a genuine feeling.of operating a cartridge loading camera. Compare the handling and workflow of the M-A with the M10-D and you know immediately what is the real difference.
The original M-D type 262 was a production version of the special version M -‘Edition 60’. Both replaced the monitor display with an ISO setting wheel. This ISO setting wheel became standard with the M10 and the touchscreen monitor display of the M10-P has been transferred to the screen of the smartphone with the standard WIFi connection in the M10.

The whole idea of the ;analog’ spirit seems to be that a lack of options is the essential element of the film emulsion experience. It is not and anyone who uses the M10-D will not feel convinced that this is the best to experience the unique way of the ‘analog’ photography
It is evident why Leica introduced this monitor less and lever added model. The suggestion that the lever can be used as a support for one-hand shooting with a fixed distance as the classical street photographers, working in the style of the snapshot-aesthetic, did, is based on a distorted view of the past.
Leica cannot compete with the future oriented models of the competition and has to find a safe niche for their camera models in the M-style. But they can point to a heritage no one else can. The M10-D is the model that the modern photographer can use with ease and still maintain that s/he works in the traditional style of the Leica Way (Matheson). Tradition has a future!

Size?

2018-09-30T11:33:34+02:00

Most comments about the new tsunami of mirrorless system cameras refer the small size of the new models. The table below gives another impression. Only the weight has been reduced substantially. The figure for the depth of the SL is a bit misleading (it is from the official documentation by Leica) and gives only the depth of the bottom without handgrip and so on.

Photokina 2018, 3

2018-09-28T11:12:36+02:00

It was only a matter of time for Zeiss to introduce their own camera, the ZX1. The number 1 indicates that more are to follow. It is an intriguing proposition. The camera shows details of the Sony compact models with a fair amount of design elements taken from the Leica TL. The execution however is smarter than with the Leica model. The sensor is a surprise, but when thinking that Zeiss provides the lenses for the lithographic industry, especially the Dutch ASML chip factory it makes sense. One might see such a chip in he next generation of the M camera when and if Zeiss buys into the Leica company. Hardly anything is known about the ZX1 except that it is a smart integration of camera ergonomics, software integration and minimalist design. It is very interesting to get more specs and have one for commenting upon.

It is refreshing to note that the lens is a compact one, after the huge lenses for the L, Z and R mounts

Photokina 2018, 2

2018-09-26T15:14:37+02:00

More news that is hardly surprising. My last paragraph in the previous post referred to the future strategy of Leica to become a system integrator and design hub for all things that have an optical and camera flavour. The association with Huawei showed the direction: input of optical design and sensor knowledge and manufacture in China. The same story with the Leica watches. It is not clear what input Leica has given, because the company who makes the watches is well equipped to manufacture high accuracy miniature mechanisms. presumably it is the outward design.
The cooperation with the French firm that produces spectacle glasses and frames is an identical story. Remember that leitz once made spectacle glasses in their Rastatt Werkstatt.
Sigma will replace their proprietary SA-mmount with the L-mount. Now we get Foveon sensor competition too.

The Zenit M announcement fits in the pattern. The M 240 body has a collection of externally made components that are assembled mainly with the help of computer assisted assembly. Any manufacturer can do this. The only possibly problematic topic is the rangefinder assembly. This is made in Portugal, so there is no reason why an increase in production of the M240 assemblies should be impossible. And to add a wicked thought: perhaps Portugal has a lot of M240 rangefinders in stock, because the M10 rangefinder is different.
The M240 is heavily discounted and approaches its end of life. A cheaper version, made in Russia would be a smart option. At least now users can buy into the digital M line and buy Russian lenses who had a good reputation in the past. A 1/35 mm is now a common item for Chinese niche producers. Not to forget the many Voigtlander lenses, some with interesting specs.

Photokina 2018, 1

2018-09-26T13:19:35+02:00

During the lead-time to current photokina the dSLR, the favourite product of the photography divisions of Canon and Nikon became serious competition from the same companies. The announcement of the Canon R and the Nikon Z systems of mirrorless camera systems may or may not predict the death of the mirror equipped cameras. The shape of the new mirrorless cameras is quite familiar and with a casual glance no one would see the difference between the current champions with mirror and the aspiring champions without mirror. Shortly after these announcements came the press release by Leica, Panasonic and Sigma that they will cooperate around the L-mount, designed by Leica for the SL, TL and CL systems. The strategy of the L-partners is identical to the one forged by Olympus with its FTH project.It may be unprecedented for Leica to intensify this type of cooperation, but it also shows the weakness. The proprietary mounts of Canon and Nikon are so popular that independent lens makers will copy as much as is possible to provide their users with compatible mounts. Canon and Nikon have extensive lens ranges themselves and in fact no one who is part of one of the closed ecosystems can complain about the scarcity of choices.
Leica has shot itself in the foot by insisting on very expensive lenses and their capacity to produce the range of lenses that are needed to become a large player on the market are limited. This situation was already the problem with the R system. Too less lenses and too expensive.
The cliché comments by every reviewer of a photographic system are related to the limited range of lenses. I always feel unhappy when reading such comments. I am aware that every manufacturer has to fill every perceived hole in the product range (this is the reason why Leica has now such a broad portfolio of camera systems). For an individual photographer who is not victim of the compulsive buying disorder (CBD), only a few lenses are needed. And when a system provides these, there is no reason to complain.
So the management of Leica realized that the sales of the L-mount systems were restricted to the small community of loyal Leica customers who feel that the archaic M-system or the vanished R-system have to be complemented by a new system of AF lenses.
Expensive body and cheaper lenses or cheaper body and expensive lenses: the choice becomes yours.
Panasonic is already strongly involved in the design and production of the SL system and its lenses and Sigma provided several lens units for the R-system that were placed in Leica mounts at the factory, here and there.

The mirrorless community stresses the fact that the new enlarged diameter of the lens mount and the shorter distance from flange to sensor surface (no one ever talks about film emulsions!) enables optical designers to produce lenses with better performance. It may be. The original Leica M-mount had a diameter of 43.9 mm and excluding the mechanical bayonet tabs had an effective diameter of much less. The diameter of the optical throat is of course the important paramater. The Leica M flange to surface is 27.8 mm. So the light rays have to pass through a narrow tunnel and then expand immediately to a wide array. Every strong deviation form the straight path will produce additional aberations and this is most compelling reason to widen the throat of the bayonet.The Leica M lenses are unique in combining small size with a narrow throat and high performance. This knowledge the competition does not have and therefore they have to use the other trick: wide throat and tele centric designs. The price is a huge size, comparable to what Leica now produces with the L-mount designs.
The effective diameter is much less than the inner diamater: canon has a good example: the R mount has a inner diameter of 54.5 mm, but te optical useable diameter is only 45.2 mm.
The L-mount has a diameter of 51.6 mm (Z-mount = 55 mm, S-mount = 53 mm, Leica R-mount = 49 mm). The flange distance to sensor is for the L-mount 20mm (Z-mount = 16mm,Canon R-mount = 20mm). The diameter is not the best criterium: the area within the circle is a better one. Then the difference between the L-mount and the Z-mount is -12%, hardly an important value.

The S3 has been announced with a pixel number of 64M. It is evident in the Leica line up that the flagship cannot have a lesser number that the SL or M series. It is now only a matter of time before the L and M series will be upgraded to the size of 35 to 40 Mp, leaving the Panasonic S1 with the 47 Mp sensor as the high end version. And the Leica Stores have a new kid on the block to sell. Of course there will be overhyped stories about the performance of the S1 with the Leica L-lenses. Leica claims to be a leader in the processing of the bayer layout to produce lifelike colours and this was the claimed weak point of Panasonic still cameras. With some technology transfer the problem might be gone.

Overall it is clear that Leica, once the manufacturer with an integrated vertical production column, is now evolving into a design center for products with components specified by the center, but manufactured elsewhere in the world. It is a mix of the Porsche design buro and the Apple design center.

New books

2018-09-19T09:40:47+02:00

There is considerable interest in my new book, announced on the Shop page.
In fact I am working on two books. Below are the specs.

Two books to be published in november 2018

Title: Leica Pocket Guide
Specs: 10 x 15 cm, bound and semi-leather softcover, all pages in colour,200 pages, one bookmark ribbon
Price: to be announced and probably between €20 and €25, excluding shipping cost
Synopsis:
covers all Leica models since M3, lists of serial numbers (cameras and lenses from start to end of 2016!), lens specs and diagrams of all current lenses (M, S, SL, Q, TL/CL), useful tables of brightness levels and contrast ranges of general scenes etc.

Title: The Leica Way in the 21st century
Specs: 17 x 24 cm, bound and hardcover, all pages in colour,400 pages, two bookmark ribbons
Price: to be announced and probably between €40 and €45, excluding shipping cost

Synopsis:
The unexpectedly swift transition of digitization of the photographic process and the subsequent digitalization of the photographic culture has created a difficult and at the same time exciting situation for the average Leica user. More choices of digital camera models promise an easier workflow and expanded opportunities for picture taking. On the other hand the Leica camera has lost part of its traditional magic. With billions of pictures uploaded every day, four questions need to be answered: (1) why photograph at all, (2) why photograph with a Leica camera, (3) which Leica camera to use and (4) what style of pictures is appropriate for the 21st century.
To answer the first question (a) we have to look at the differences between the way the brain processes the visual reality and how the lens does depict this same reality; (b) we have to appreciate how photography has been developed since its announcement in 1839 and the role of the Leica as the ultimate snapshot camera since 1925; (c) the development of modernism that emphasizes the important role of the moment and the gaze in everyday life, starting with the Impressionists and ending with Winogrand.
To answer the second question we have to look at (a) the Leica as a technical artefact that was the first precision engineered camera, including its design and engineering; (b) the evolution of the manufacturing process to produce the Leica and (c) the current level of engineering, material choice and design principles of the Leica product range.
To answer the third question we have to look at (a) the emotional and practical differences between the analog and digital technical processes and (b) the style and technique of the great masters of Leica photography.
To answer the fourth question we have to look at (a) the differences between low (amateur) art and high (intentional) art and the middle-bow art in between; (b) the deadpan-snapshot style as an alternative to the ubiquitous street photography that has been defined as the quintessential Leica photography style, starting with the decisive moment. The conclusion is rather unexpected: the emotional personal record of everyday life in deadpan format is best suited for Leica photographers in this 21st century.

Nikon Z-system

2018-08-24T12:35:15+02:00

Long ago, Zeiss designed new lenses for their flagship camera, Contarex. The lenses had a large volume and Zeiss explained that the size was needed to produce lenses with enhanced performance characteristics. The Contarex lenses still have this aura of “never-surpassed-quality”. Careful testing however shows that the lenses were very good, but not superior. Leitz in that same period focused on compact designs and their expertise was and is the combination of high quality with small footprint. There are limits for a small volume that cannot be surpassed unless one uses very sophisticated manufacturing techniques and extremely careful assembly (from the usual micro scale to the nano scale). This approach is not economical feasible (note the high price for the Apo-Summicron-M 2/50 mm ASPH) and Leica wisely did fall back on the old Zeiss design principle. The new range of lenses for the SL and CL/TL has a number of very large designs (absolutely and especially relatively). Zeiss showed the path to go with the Otus design and now Nikon, with its new Z-line follows suit: the Noct 1.2/58 mm has very large dimensions. The 1.8/50 mm has 12 elements in nine groups and has dimensions: diameter x length of 76 mm and 86.5 mm. The specs indicate that this is a 1.4 design that has been downgraded to improve performance. The number of lens elements is no longer a sign of high quality but an indication that the designer can delegate the correction of aberrations to a large number of elements to ease the load for every element and make production more economical.More lens elements are also a sign that the computer program is in automatic mode to control the tolerances for easy manufacture.
It may be the case that the new Z-mount does indeed free the designer from a number contents that the previous F-mount had. We wait and see.
Leica, once a company that produced workhorse cameras for discerning customers, has become a luxury manufacturer that leaves the main market to be a playing field for Sony and Nikon, and soon Canon.
The Nikon brochures and Nikon marketing will, naturally, stress the fact the the new Z-line will introduce the next stage of digital photography.
Leica copied and improved on the Sony mirrorless designs and Nikon studied very carefully both product lines and improved again. The technological progress is clear. It is also evident that Canon will improve again and the next generation of Sony, Nikon and also Leica will technically enhance their products. Wait for the announcement by Leica that the S-system will have a 50 to 100 Mp sensor. That will be the start of a new product cycle where the whole range of system cameras will get a 40 to 50 Mp sensor.
The technological race will continue for a while and then some manufacturer will realise that the average photographer who really wants to take pictures and does not want to be a techno-erotics freak is not served by ever increasing complexity.
Last but not least: the price of the Z7 with adapter and a 1.8/50 mm lens is in NL € 4528. Body only the Z7 is with adapter € 3849 and the Z6 plus adapter is € 2449 and with adapter and with1.8/50 mm it is € 3128. The Leica SL (body only) is € 5900 and the new M10-P has a price tag (body only) of € 7500 (the 2.4/50 mm and 2/50 mm lenses are € 1600, € 2200 and € 7400 respectively).
The best and critical comment about the media hype and the real position of the Z-line in the Nikon ecosystem can be found here (Only in German!)
https://www.foto-schuhmacher.de/artikel/hardware/der-migrationspfad-der-kamerahersteller-zu-spiegellosen-systemen.html#ndld

Leica M10-P

2018-08-22T11:40:05+02:00

If you were to drop a droplet of water into the ocean, how much would the water level rise? By an infinitesimal small amount! The same impact has the introduction of the M10-P by Leica, Wetzlar. The improvements are minor and the price increase is only a pleasure for the CFO of the company.
I do not receive any cameras for inspection and testing (the management presumably thinks I am too critical and not enthusiastic enough). Well the point is that I am critical of the current strategy that is based on three pillars: (1) expansion into a broad portfolio (from cine lenses to spectacle glass and exclusive watches); (2)exploitation of the mythical past; (3) introduction of a range of cameras that are secondary compared to the products of the worldwide photographic industry.
There was a time (long ago) when the Leitz Company designed new cameras when the engineers thought that the new product could significantly enhance the quality of the photograph or assist in taking better pictures. That was the period when the whole photographic world would wait for the announcement of a new Leica camera.
When looking at the three additional features of the M10-P (the more silent shutter, the level gauge and the touchscreen), the basic question is: do these features help the photographer taking better pictures.
The answer is obviously negative. There are early comments that the silent shutter is good for street photographers. The reality is that the normal urban street isto full of noise and that the camera noise will not draw any attention. The touchscreen requires that the photographer to hold the camera in one hand and uses the other hand to pinch and swipe over the screen. This is hardly the condition that HC-B called the extension of the eye. The classical handling of the camera requires a triangle of two arms and the forehead to stabilise the camera and to focus on the subject. The functions of the touchscreen may be helpful for post-photography inspection, but not for the act of photography itself.
The gauge level is good for studio and architectural photography. These are hardly the domains where the M camera excels. And what about the famous skew horizons of Garry Winogrand?
The M10-P is a camera type that the world is not waiting for, but it might excite the occasional Leica guru.

Remember!
Below a marketing picture of the M8 and silent shutter

Below the almost identical picture for the M10-P and silent shutter

Agility is the new buzzword in Leica Wetzlar

2018-08-03T12:49:39+02:00

In a recent video, the director of operations, Mr. Stankovic, explains how cameras are assembled in the current workflow in the Wetzlar buildings. To give you some context, the classical way of manufacturing, serial numbers allocation and assembly may be elucidated.
When Leica had only two camera systems (the R- and M-line) with a range of lenses, the workflow was like this: the product manager decided how many cameras and lenses were to be made, based on demand and sales forecasts. Then for every camera and lens a batch of serial numbers was reserved and the production of such a batch started. The production of every batch required time, because the batches were made in succession. This had the consequence that some products were temporarily unavailable or (worse!) did not sell at all and were in stock for a long time. This method was transparent, but had the danger that capital was destroyed. The manufacturing method was a version of the very old assembly line: a line of workstations was established and on every workstation one person assembled some parts of the product.
The agility concept implies that the production responds very quickly, if not immediately to market movements. A new product requires a fast production run to have enough items available, but the demand of existing products also needs to be satisfied. Therefore the new method is to have a number of assembly stations where one person assemblies up to ten different products (presumably in a period between a day and a week). This method explains a few things: serial numbers are now almost allocated at random, the product quality is less than what it was. Classical cameras (like the M-A) are organically assembled from a number of parts. That is why one person on one workstation assembles one camera at a time. This can be done because demand is low.
Modern digital cameras are assembled with subgroups (like shutter mechanism and electronic boards) and every assembly stage is controlled by computer. This makes it easier to assemble a variety of products in a short period. For lenses the same method is implemented.
The advantages are clear: hardly any obsolete stock and a fast reaction to changing demands. The disadvantage? Think for yourself!

Rules for now

2018-08-01T11:39:06+02:00

1. apply snapshot style to your personal photography
2. select everyday moments and things you are emotionally attached to
3. avoid cliché photographs, including picturesque scenery
4. avoid simulation of art photographs, also cliché!
5. do not take photographs of conventional things and events
6. be creative in the sense of spontaneity and instantaneity
7. use film
8. do not believe that digital is better
9. apply the detective approach
10. accept that the cameras sees different things than common causal perception and presents them differently
11. forget about photographic language, photographic seeing, photographic message and all this stuff
12. avoid street photography and the snapshot-aesthetic approach
13. straight photography or deadpan photography and Leica photography are a happy symbiosis
14. read Robert Penn “It’s all about the bike” if you wish to understand photography
15. everyone (including Leica marketing and Leica development) claims that the path from analog to digital has a teleological necessity: progress implies that old technologies are obsolete and restrictive
16. this is false: digitization of the camera simply increases profit.
17. if you insist on walking the digital path, use the Leica M8 or M10, or both
18. my preferred tools?
19. Most used: Leica M-A, Leica M7, Apo-Summicron-M 2/50, Sekonic L-398A III, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak TMax 100, ADOX FX-39
20. Occasionally used: M8, M Monochrome II, Iridient Developer, Epson R-3000

Spur-Orthopan UR

2018-07-17T17:02:48+02:00

A few days ago I loaded my M-A with Spur Orthopan UR film. It should be known that this is an Agfa-Gevaert microfilm emulsion with a useable sensitive for photographic purposes from ISO 6 to ISO 25. When using the Apo-Summicron-M 2/50 mm ASPH. the shutter speed is between 1/125 and 1/500 at f/2 or f/2.8 depending on the brightness level of the ambient light. For these pictures, made in sunny bright daylight I selected ISO 6. The negatives had a high contrast, but showed no grain at all. The scanning procedure did not reduce the contrast. The two pictures below show that this emulsion is capable of producing images that are equal to what is possible with computational photography.

analog-digital: what does it mean?

2018-06-17T18:02:42+02:00

The pair of contrasting concepts is now the standard way to describe the difference between silver-halide processes and the computational processes inside the solid-state equipped modern cameras. The advantage of this pair is clarity: you know what you are talking about, they are easily used and nobody will be confused when you are referring to one or the other. What is not clear, is the exact content of the concepts, especially when applied to the alternative and complementary photographic processes.
For a long time I have wondered what an analog photographic process is. The description and analysis of silver-halide processes since the early 1840s do not use the word 'analog'. The few recent books about silver-halide processing (Haist, Modern Photographic Processes and Tadaaki, Photographic Sensitivity) do not use the word 'anaog' at all.
First of all: the word is traditionally spelled as 'analogue'. American writers drop the silent -ue. 'Analog' is now routinely used in relation with electronics and 'analogue' is used in the sense that someting bears an analogy to somethinge else. An analogy is a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. The word 'analogy' derivers frome Greek word meaning 'proportionate' and this is correct.
There are two domains where the analog-digital pair is used: the computer industry and the signal-processing industry.
Analogue is related to analogy and this concept is used in the construction of scientific theories. When a scientist has a number of experimental data and wants to give an explanation of what is happening, a model or analogy with familiar events or objects is often introduced. The main definition of ‘analog’ originated in the computer industry. An analog computer represented data in a way that reflects the properties of the data being modelled. Data and numbers may be represented by physical quantities such as electric voltage levels. Analogue computing is primarily a modelling technology. An analogue computer contains shafts, wheels, discs and gears to perform operations and also used relays and vacuum tubes. All this gear was used to simulate and model some physical process in reality. Physical processes can be described mathematically with differential equations and this type of functions can be simulated with analogue computers.
The calculations based on analogue computers that use proportions to simulate and compare processes have a finite accuracy. The newer development of digital computers could increase the accuracy by using a long string of binary digits and were also more reliable. Originally there was no word for the type of computers used for simulation and equation solving. They were just 'computers'. When the digital computer was introduced, a new name 'analogue computers' was given to the modelling type, because analogy was the method that was used to model, calculate and simulate processes happening in the real physical world.
Analogue and digital in the computing world are not alternatives but complementary techniques.

These two parallel themes of calculation and modelling have to be separated when discussing the concepts of analogies, simulations and modelling.
The study of the process of silver-halide photography reveals that there is no computing involved and hardly any simulation or modelling. The characterization of the silver-halide process as analogue is false from whatever angle it is approached.
In the photographic world the interpretation of the two words (analog and digital) is derived from a definition used in electric signal processing. An analog signal is a continuous signal which represents physical measurements. The signal is represented by sine waves and the values of the measurements are mathematically continuous. A digital signal is a discrete time signal generated by digital modulation. The signal is denoted by square waves and the values of the measurements are mathematically discontinuous (or discrete). In order to input these values into a computer the values are converted to digital strings of zeros and ones. The analog signal is concerned with small fluctuations that are meaningful, whereas the digital signal uses large electric charges or voltages.
This description is valid for signal processing and the charge-coupled devices used for the capture, transmittance and storage of electrical signals. A modern photographic camera, equipped with charge-coupled devices, is in fact a powerful computer that processes data in binary format.
A series of MOS capacitors that transport and store electric voltages or currents is called a charge-coupled device and when the voltages or currents (the charge packets) are linked to photon counting or imaging, the device is called an imager. The best description of a ‘digital’ camera would be a camera equipped with an imager.
To describe a camera as digital when inside the camera metal-oxide semiconductor capacitors do the work is an obvious, but narrow-minded approach.

The word ‘digital’ has become magical. When the inside working of a device is based on digital technology it is good, reliable and cheap. The original analog devices are forgotten. All analogue technology is based upon the idea that the magnitude of an electric current or voltage has to be analogous to something in the real world. The bad point is that every electric circuit has a certain randomness, a noise effect that mingles with the analog signal values to produce an uncertainty. Analog signals are small, noise-laden voltages. The new idea is to go from small voltages to large ones: a high voltage is interpreted as one, a low voltage as zero. This one-zero concept was already used to represent numbers in computers and this concept was therefore called ‘digital’. Now the code patterns can describe everything and he strength of the signal is no longer important, The code pattern becomes a non-physical entity. We already had such a system in the past: the telegraph system where time plays an important part: the sequence of long and short intervals between the clicks of the telegraph mechanism.
The technology that is used inside a digital camera is the solid-state imaging that is possible with these charge-coupled devices.
Looking in the most recent brochures about the Canon EOS-1V and the Nikon F4, thee is no mention of the analogue processes and of analog cameras. These models are simply called cameras, very advanced and full of electronics of course, but just cameras. There is some mention of opto-mechatronics technology, but that is all there is to say. It is the analogous situation with the early computers. Before the introduction of the digital computer no one knew or was interested to describe such a computer as analogue.
The digital camera has the same functions and the same type of microcontrollers and printed circuits (Canon boasts that the EOS-1V has lots of 32 bits CPU's) and even the same functionality as these older cameras. The only difference is the fact that the F4 and 1V have to be loaded with film and that the modern EOS-1Dx and Nikon D5 are equipped with solid-state imagers.
The most obvious way to distinguish these two types (film using and imager equipped) would be to use a description such as: cameras using film and cameras fitted with imagers). If a shorter description would be needed the word 'film camera' is not smart, because of the fact that movie cameras also are described as film cameras or cinema cameras. This is confusing. Analogue and digital cameras is also not a smart idea, because of the connection to computations. Inside a digital camera lots of computations take place, but there is no computation at all in the silver-halide photography. When we could agree that silver-halide is the core technology of photography, we might say that we have two types of cameras: photographic cameras and computational cameras. Such a description is more to the point of the core processes inside the camera. A camera is a technological and physical artefact, not a digital or analogue one.
Perhaps I am to nitpicking to question the time-honored description, sanctioned by industry and all photographers in the world. Adoption and conciseness is one side of the medal:a clear description of the technology involved is another one. Given the fact that 'analogue' is associated with archaic, dinosaur and Luddite, and 'digital' with modern, progress and future, it makes sense to return to the roots and find the origin of words and why they are used so falsely in technological discussions about photography.

David Douglas Duncan died on June 7, 2018

2018-06-14T20:58:46+02:00

DDD as he was known, was one of the last and perhaps greatest photojournalist of the twentieth century. He was the equal of Margaret Bourke-White, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Eugene Smith. He died 102 years old and gave away all his possessions a few years before 2008, living in a French villa at a hill overseeing Cannes.
Some of his possessions were a handful of Leica cameras. He became famous within the photographic world because he selected the newly discovered Nikkor lenses above the Leitz designs. He presumably had the Nikkor lens mounts adapted for his Leica cameras. The content of his pictures were less important than this technical detail. He was however a photographer of the old school who was more interested in taking pictures than talking technically or artistically about them. His pictures were grainy and gritty, probably made with Kodak Tri-X pushed to the limit.
His selection of the Nikkor lenses was a topic of high importance. When a working photographer of his standing threw away the Leitz designs, there must be a garin of truth. Crawley claimed that the Japanese optical designers favoured a high contrast at low frequencies, where as the German counterparts favoured the low contrast at high frequencies, because this was better suited to the new colour films with the finely graded colour hues.
Most Zeiss MTF measurements of older Japanese lenses indicate that this conclusion is not correct: the older Japanese lenses show a low contrast at low frequencies and an even lower contrast at high frequencies. It might be the case that Japanese designs had a (relatively) high contrast at the medium frequencies, precisely where the Kodak Tri-X emulsion showed its best performance.
It is an intriguing problem. The historical discussion indicates that the eye is easily fooled and that the MTF values do not show the proper optical performance the human brain appreciates.

M8 parts and weights

2018-06-13T11:36:55+02:00

In a hardly known broschure about the virtues of the Leica M8, there is a listing of all components inside the camera body with the weights. This is done to indicate how agile the M8 is. This particular model, completely forgotten by the worldwide Leica community and the company(!), is still a very pleasant camera to use. The high ISO values are quite daring to use, but at speeds from IS O160 (the basic speed of the original Kodak Ektachrome) to ISO 640 (the upper limit of Kodak Tri-X) the printed photographs are excellent.
Here is a partial listing with weights in grams (in brackets):
Display (14); sensor board (10); shutter blades (1); shutter chassis (18); back body part (26); front body part (45); bayonet ring (14); top cover (76); bottom cover (49); rangefinder frame (31); rangefinder prisms (19); screws (1); synthetic leather coating (13); gears-steel (2); gears brass (2); electrical motor (12);

Leica in the twentyfirst century

2018-06-02T17:06:17+02:00

When I think about the status and current practices of (Leica) photography in the twenty-first C I wish to reflect on
(1) the fluid borderline between the art photograph and the domestic photograph;
(2) the vanishing of the silver-halide photography (influenced by the so-called digital turn) and the disappearance of photography as a distinct social and technical activity;
(3) the status of the Leica camera as the premium precision engineered instrument.

These three topics are related, but are not the only ones that are tangent to the Leica world. Many books have been written about the Leica camera. Most fall in one of three different classes: the history books discussing the evolution of the Leitz Werke and later Leica AG; the collector books, discussing every variant of the camera models that were and are manufactured by the company and the picture books that explain the evolution of the art of Leica photography, beginning with Wolff, and then in orderly succession move on from the French Humanist photographers to the American snapshot-aesthetic street photographers. Now it is quiet in the photographic art world. In the current post-modern art world digital cameras are used to create large tableaus for exhibition purposes in museums and galleries. The Leica digital camera is hardly used by modern large scale and large format art photographers.
The Leica camera is an excellent tool for the spontaneous and instantaneous style of photography. Barnack designed the camera with this goal in mind: a handy-sized pocketable camera of high quality for recording everyday life. This goal matched seamlessly with the trend of the times: modernism as a movement was initiated already in the middle of the nineteenth century (by the writer-critic Baudelaire) to become the major movement in the first part of the twentieth century. Modernism refocused the attention on everyday events in an urban environment and admired the technological progress (1).
The Leica Company has always emphasised the close connection between the Leica and photographic art. This connection has been accentuated presumably to elevate the status of the camera from a high performance compact amateur tool for candid photographs to a tool for the ambitious photographer who wants to follow the great masters of Leica photography. It is significant that Leica now selects photographers that were famous in the second half of the twentieth century when the film-loading Leica rangefinder was the only choice for serious photographers.
Most photographs made with a Leica fall into the category of snapshots. This type of pictures is hardly exciting and is therefore neglected by most art historians and theorists. Recently a turning point has been reached. The academic and art worlds have caught sight of the amateur snapshot as a social, ethnographic and photographic artefact.
The Leica camera was designed as a candid camera and its mechanical and optical qualities were specified to ensure enlargements that could equal the image quality of the ubiquitous 9 x 12 cm or 13 x 18 cm print formats. The accuracy of the manufacture of the camera matched these requirements. The all-metal body was an innovation. The manufacturing technology of that period could guarantee the accuracy of the parts when metal was used. It was the preferred technology of the Leitz Werke as a manufacturer of a wide variety of optical precision instruments. When manufacturing technology progressed and more materials became available, the Leica camera also improved. The well-known editor of the BJP, Crawley, noted that “the quality of manufacture […] improved steadily until […] the manufacturing standard emerged from an ad hoc but workaday mechanism to within sight of a standard to which the term ‘precision’ might be applicable. “
The copies of the Reid and Canon cameras were made to a higher standard of manufacture and were a major impetus for Leitz to produce the Leica M3. In the 1950s and 1960s amateur photography became a widespread activity. The camera industry responded with a tide of innovative products. Most of them were labelled as “built with precision”, “designed by exerts” and a host of comparable phrases. True or not, the amateur photographer did not want to be seen without ‘serious stuff’. One of the most serious kits was the Leica rangefinder system. The optical and mechanical quality justified its status as the professional workhorse for available-light photography. Intriguing is the contrast between the general use of the Leica CRF and its capabilities as a high performing picture engine. Looked at the matter with a purely functional eye, there is no reason to buy a Leica CRF unless you need the reliability and durability of the instrument. Most amateur photographers are very conscious of the value of the Leica camera and use it with care. There is no sound (photographical and functional) argument for the choice of a Leica CRF when taking pictures in the candid snapshot style. The redoubtable Canon RF system would suffice! There are in fact only two or three arguments for investing in the Leica system. One is the very simple argument that the owner wants to differentiate himself from the rest and the other argument is the appreciation for the asceticism of the perfected camera, which is just a camera and not an electronic machine. It is indeed significant that the most discussed properties of the Leica camera are the mythical properties of optical excellence, carefully selected material and meticulously produced parts that are assembled by an experienced workforce. The comparison of the optical performance of the many lens es in the system (its boke(h), its wide open performance, colour correction and so on) initiates always a lengthy discussion on any internet blog or forum. The well-known discussion about the material of the top cover (zinc or bronze) is a good example of the focus of many owners of Leica equipment. Next to the question what is the best lens is the topic what is the best camera. This display of knowledge of camera lore is a harmless and sometimes amusing exercise. It does distract from a serious and honest appraisal of the technical and functional characteristics of the Leica CRF. In this respect we find the third reason for the choice for the Leica CRF system: the compact high performance lenses and the mechanical-manual operation of the camera and its attached lens. The amount of detail that can be accurately recorded by the Leica CRF is one of the big assets. The manual operation is a vivid reminder of the materiality of the photographic process, especially when using and processing silver-halide emulsions.
One of the great assets of the Leica CRF system is the small size and limited weight of many M lenses while preserving a very high image quality. With the new introductions Leica seems to have changed their strategy: several new lenses for the M-system break a barrier. One of the main complaints of the old Zeiss Contarex was the fact that the lenses for this system were designed without any regard for size and weight. The Zeiss Otus lens is the first modern design that also disregards size and weight. At first this design was negatively reviewed because of these physical characteristics. Now the new designs for the CL and SL cameras are bulky too (their performance is not disputed). The CL and SL indicate that the Leica designers follow the standard of the day: industrially-sized bodies with every possible option integrated into the body and fast but bulky AF lenses with a variable range of focal lengths. This is the current standard in a digital Coca-Cola world. The camera with a different approach that distinguishes itself from the mainstream is the Leica M CRF.
There are several remarkable antinomies in the argumentation around a Leica camera, solid-state equipped or cartridge-loading. Here floods a list, certainly not complete:
(1) The choice of materials of a solid-state equipped camera ensures a prolonged durability, but the pace of technology and the demands of the marker require a continuous refreshment of the camera models. This relatively fast product cycle causes a drop in value and popularity. The M8.2 is still a very good camera for most purposes that the Leica photographer will strive for. The popularity of this particular model is very low now. The risks of break down and a scarcity of repair parts does not bode well for a prospective owner. Compare this state of affairs with the situation for the Leica M4: this one can be repaired by any competent repairperson and there is an abundance of spare parts.
(2) The insistence by all buyers of a Leica camera that it should deliver the highest possible image quality is at odds with the modest demands for the final result. The so-called pixel peepers use a ridiculous process to examine the properties of a virtual image file.
(3) Many older users of the Leica CRF complain about a reduced ability for accurate focus with the manually operated rangefinder and switch to one of the autofocus models. At the same time the subjects of the photographer are in many cases static, a condition that does not require fast and accurate autofocus. The photographers who use a Leica rangefinder camera had and have zone focusing, attentive observation and a host of other methods at their disposal to cope with fast changing situations.
(4) A comparable argument can be set up for the automatic exposure mechanism that is available since the M7. Many commentators in books and on the internet state that AE is needed to ‘get the results’. On the contrary: an external handheld exposure meter suffices to measure the ambient light and experience can change the settings. In open air there is a stable illuminance value between 11.00 and 15.00 hours.
This list of purely photographic problems and how to cope with them is an indication that photographers now have lost their traditional grasp of the technical matters. The ubiquitous software algorithm is the root of this situation. The efficiency of the processing of the numerical data (after the analog-digital converter has transformed the analog data into numerical ones) ensures that almost every fault of the user is compensated and supports the user when knowledge or experience of the photographic process is lacking. The downside of this reliance on unknown processing algorithms is the dependence of the user on the choices and ideas of the software developer inside the company. With chemical materials the user knows exactly what is going on and how the processes can be handled to get the desired results: the Zone System is an excellent example of the controlled manipulation of the photographic process.
The hallmark of the Leica camera is the accuracy of the manufacture. The literature of the Leica company refers often to this characteristic. The most used examples are however the taken from the optical design and manufacture. In this domain the tolerances are indeed small (0.001 mm are common). The manual assembly of elements with such narrow tolerances is not simple and requires highly trained and gifted workers with a sensitive tactile feeling. Some workers are indeed capable of handling such narrow tolerances.
The manufacture and assembly of the camera body is a different story. The adjustment of the sensor surface alignment and distance from flange to surface is computer-assisted. It depends however on the worker how to handle the upper and lower tolerances.
The purely mechanical parts are manufactured to a tolerance of 0.01 mm (now: it was 0.02 mm). As said, the tolerance level can be held (now and in the past) to very narrow limits when the whole process is competently monitored and verified. There are several levels of precision.The first is micro-precision: workpiece accuracies below 10 microns. The second is ultra-precision: workpiece accuracies lower than 3 microns. The third is nano-precision: workpiece accuracies below 1 micron. Camera products fall in category one and optical products fall in category two. In the world of machine shops, levels one and two are normal practice and easily achieved. The claim that Leica products can be designated as high-precision might be true, but the claim should be supported by actual numbers. It is too simple to state the claim and let the visitors of the factory be impressed without factual evidence (this happens a lot, alas! And not only when doing a factory visit at the Leica Company in Wetzlar).
It is a common response in the industry of camera manufacture to state that the publication of standards of manufacture and the tolerances used during machining and assembly are secret because of its sensitivity of such figures. There are however three aspects to discuss in this respect: the specified tolerance levels by the design and engineering department.; the actual tolerance levels in the machine shop and assembly process (including the measuring tools and the competence of handling them) and the measuring of the tolerances at the final control.
It is a curious paradox that the accuracy of manufacture and assembly increases at the same time that the effectiveness of the digital processing of image data would allow a lowering of the manufacturing standard. The Leica products have always distinguished themselves by the (high-)precision of engineering and manufacturing, because this characteristic is supposed to be a unique selling point.
This level of manufacturing accuracy is appropriate for the film-loading cameras because the silver-halide processing chain follows a pattern of stepwise degradation of image quality. The digital processing workflow on the other hand has at every step the potential of an improvement of image quality.

The disappearance of photography as a distinct social and technical activity is a fact now that the modern visual culture is omnipresent and has absorbed photography as only one of many producers of imagery. Everyone takes photographs at every moment of everything and uploads them to one of the social media on the internet. Billions of pictures are taken every week (perhaps every day, no one knows exactly). The content of these pictures is not distinguishable from what can be seen in the classic family album. Photography as a process is inherently amateurish and it shows! Photography as a craft may be classified now as one of the disappearing old-school trades. The discussion on the forums and in the magazines is as traditional and conventional as ever. The embracement of the digital technology has not liberated the user. Fifty years ago the most discussed questions were: what film to use, what camera, what lens for best imagery, for portraits and so on. Now the questions have hardly changed. What film to use has been exchanged for what sensor to use, how many pixels do I need, but the questions about cameras and lenses are still the same. Everybody has its preferences now and in the past. The Pentax promoters are as active as the Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Canon or Leica promoters. Only a very few persons dare to propose that photography has nothing to do with the equipment and everything with the subject and with what happens in the brain of the photographer.

M7 discussion continued

2018-05-30T21:46:46+02:00

It is quite remarkable how much noise the notification about the Leica M7 makes in the photographic world. The aperture priority exposure automation of the M7 was a first for the Leica M. Till 2002 everybody had to cope with the M6 method: balancing two LEDs by shifting manually aperture and/or shutter speed. In those days it was referred to as pure photography: learning the basics of exposure metering was a must for any novice in the craft. The method pioneered in the Leica M7 is still the exposure method of the M8 to M10. There is no other option if we accept that the lenses have to be handled manuaally and the camera has no electric or mechanical connection to inform the internal microprocessor of the selected aperture and adjust the shutter speed accordingly or the other wy around. What Leica accomplished was standard procedure for all Japanese manufacturers of that time. But Leica was limited in its options because of the manufacturing process and the choice of the mechanically governed horizontally running cloth focal plane shutter.
The fact that silver-halide afficionados within the Leica world select the MP and M-A as their primary tool speaks volumes for the trends: the film community wants a basic camera without any automation (one cannot seriously call the M6 metering system an advanced version of camera automation). The digital community (a much larger segment of the Leica camera buyers) wants as much automation as possible: even the M10 is not enough and there is a tendency for Leica CRF owners to buy a CL or SL to make life easier, but also adds to the weight and volume of the camera they have to handle.
Many comments claim that the instantaneous exposure mechamism of the M7 allows them to take pictures that are impossible to take when one has to measure the expusure with the M6 or even the clip-on exposure meter of the M3 to M4-P (excepting the M5 of course). This is nonsense because a scene illumination does not change that fast. You can take one incident light measurement and use this as a reference. The rest is simple guess work based on experience.
The functionality of the M7 is transferred to the functionality of the M10. With the exception of smooth changes of ISO settings, direct control of the picture on the back screen, selective spot metering and focus control on screen, the photographic experience is the same. What is embraced in the digital M cameras is rejected in the cartridge loading bodies.
There are discussions about the question how and why to buy a cartridge loading Leica camera. Mike Johnston on his blog remarks that the M7 is not a purist camera (evading the definiion of what 'purist' is) but that the M7 with the aperture priority AE enables the photographer (him) to take pictures (presumably in a successful way). Then he follows on his traditional mantra (and one joined by many Leica second hand sellers) that the best Leica film camera is the M4 (the one that should be the best mechanical Leica camera with the most elaborate manufacturing processes. (You can read in my new book that this is not the fact!). There are many hyperboles in his blog about the M7 and film Leicas and lenses (the reference to HCB and his Summicron lens is not supported by any factual research). The long list of comments shows an intense interest in the Leica things,but I have to say that not one comment breaks away from the standard and not very illuminating way of discussing the Leica, the rangefinder concept and the conventional film-digital diichotomy. I really miss Susan Sontag and her comments about photography. At least she elevated the discussion to a higher level.
It might be time to break out of the myth culture surrounding the Leica cameras and to discuss the virtues of the Leica CRF in a more sober way.
My view of the cartridge loading cameras: buy a new M-A (a good original M3 is difficult to find and the modern manufacturing processes, including material choices are now much improved). OR buy a second hand M4-P (the 75 mm frame is very useful) or any one the many M6 bodies on the market. If you are new to Leica and want to experience the digital path buy an M8.2. It hs its problems but coping with them is a very rewarding experience. It makes sense to limit yourself to ISO 640.

M7 discontinued?

2018-05-28T21:04:04+02:00

f you have to believe the current rumors on the internet, the Leica M7 is no longer ‘in production’. Mr. Farkas says: "Leica will no longer produce any more new M7 cameras, in black or silver.".
This may be true or not. But what does this statement say in reality? Many Leica afficionados have wondered in the past that a product officially discontinued was in the official Leitz/Leica catalogues for many years after the announcement of discontinuance. The basic facts are these:
Leica as a manufacturer of products has spare parts for the repair of that specific product. The parts that are manufactured are primarily used for the production process to manufacture a specific product, say the M7.

The usual process is as follows:
There is a certain sales of a product, say the M7. The number of M7s is set into a graph for the last ten years and a prognosis is made on the sales for the next few years. This prognosis is compared with the number of outstanding orders. The more or less intelligent numerical projection is the number of M7s allocated to be produced over a certain period of time and a new range of production numbers (if the previous one is fully booked) is allocated. The fact is that the number of cartridge loading M cameras is only a fraction of the amount of sensor-equipped M cameras. And within the film-loading M cameras (primarily meant for the East-Asian market) the most popular is the MP and a dwindling fraction is dedicated to the M7. A small production level has some problematic issues: the company can produce a batch of cameras in a short time, assuming that this volume will suffice for several years. The company can also produce the required amount of cameras continuously at a very low level/day and adjust this level depending on the current demand. It is well-known that manual assembly has its problems: a high volume is nice because every worker has the routine and expertise to to the job.
A low, but continuous volume implies that the assembly workers have to get into the flow of assembling the product. And a batch volume once in a period has the problem to find the workers who know how to assemble the product. It depends on the availability of experienced workers and the amount of manufactured parts, The main point is that many parts of the M7 are made by companies outside the Leica factory and they want (obviously!) a certain amount of orders to start their own production cycle. If Leica would say: I want only 100 pieces of a specific component to be delivered at moment X, the third-party manufacturer might say: no way.
There is a complex logistic and manufacturing situation.
Assume for the sake of the argument that the level of sold and ordered M7s falls below a sensible category of production. Then the company may decide to halt production. This does not mean that new M7s are not in the pipeline: the distributor may have a handful of boxes, the dealer may have some.And Leica may have a pile of boxes. It is logical to assume that the company stops the production when sales volumes are below a certain level and the demand can be met with the stock level for the foreseeable future.
The difference between the MP, M-A and M7 are not substantial: the only difference is the addition of solenoid parts for the governing of the shutter. There are no more differences: all other body parts and spare parts are identical.
So stopping the production of the M7 does indicate that only the solenoids are no longer produced presumably because the sales volume of the M7 is too low and Leica has not ordered a new production batch.
We should look at the modern production processes with a fresh eye. My premature announcement of the discontinuance of the AT-135 and the immediate response from Leica that this lens is still available and is being produced does not imply that this lens is actually being manufactured. There may be a number of lenses on stock and the flexible manufacturing that is now standard does a new production run (however small) quite feasible. No one knows what the production managers have planned to do!
There is a clear difference between
being actually produced (on an assembly line)
being in stock and in the catalogue
being out of the catalogue but still in the supply chain
being totally unavailable

the answers

2018-05-25T17:30:00+02:00

Why do we photograph?
Photography is a process. A technical process(to be more exact, with a suit of technical artefacts. Any artefact has a function and a goal. The function of the camera is to produce a photograph, itself also an artefact. The question why we want to photograph has at least three answers: one focusing on the process, the act of using the tool, one focusing on the goal: the finished photograph, the physical print or the virtual image on the screen and one related to viewing the photograph. Most theoretical, philosophical, artistic and social studies take the product and viewing the photograph as their objects of analysis. Studies of the practical use of photography as a physical tool and a physical product are hardly conducted. Still the experience of viewing a photograph and of the act of taking a photograph might be part of the answer.
A good analogy might be the bicycle or the pencil. The bicycle as a tool has a close association with craftsmanship and material quality that at the same time enhances the riding experience. The pencil is a simple and flexible tool that can be used for drawing a machine and writing a novel.
The most important reason for taking photographs is the complex relationship between human vision and the reality around us that is composed of physical things that very dynamically change shape and position. Human perception is not static and passive like the camera light-sensitive surface. Vision studies indicate that only a fraction of the stimuli from the environment reach the retina of the eye and the brain processes only a small part of the impulses that are fired from the retina. There is a biological cause for this behaviour. It takes the brain some time to construct an image from the many random stimuli that are recorded on the retina. The faster this construction occurs the higher the chance that the human interprets the dangers in his environment and can respond accordingly. The urban space is particularly troublesome for the brain to interpret because of the fast appearance and disappearance of dynamically moving objects that change location and shape continuously. This is the reason why we only see a small part of what is really happening in the world around us. Garry Winogrand is famous for the quote that he wants to photograph something because he wants to see how things look like when photographed (“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed,”). The result however is less important than taking the picture: Winogrand at the end of his life exposed 2500 rolls of film but left them undeveloped, because he preferred the process of getting there: being on the streets, viewing through the viewfinder and releasing the shutter (he used among others a Leica M4-P).
The fact that human perception processes only a part of the visual stimuli can explain why artists and artistically inclined photographers insist on the creative intent of painters and photographers. The photograph is not a mechanical copy of reality as claimed, but the result of an intentional act to reproduce the world as it is experienced and seen.
One can understand the actual reason to take photographs by considering the technical and physical process of photography. There is a strong element of chance involved when taking a photograph. The physical reality around us, the human observers, is dynamically and constantly changing and human vision can only capture a small selection of the scene within the field of observation. It takes the brain about 0.3 second to construct an image from the visual stimuli, processed by the brain. What exactly happens in a narrower time slot (when the shutter speed is 1/50 or 1/1000 sec.) cannot be observed. (It was Muybridge who used time lapse techniques to show the real movement of a galloping horse or a jumping person). Here the element of chance plays its part. A photograph records automatically and indiscriminately everything that reflects or emits light within the field of vision of the lens at every instant however small. That is why a portrait session so often goes wrong and why a snapshot of a gathering of people may disclose a less than flattering posture or gesture. This phenomenon has been referred to as the “optical unconscious”. Every photograph shows details of which the photographer was not aware when the photograph was made. Some photographers have even proposed that the detective approach of a Sherlock Holmes may be required to study a photograph. The important and probably main question when one looks at a photograph is: what happened here?

Why do we like to look at photographs?
The most often cited reason why we like to look at photographs, is the so-called “Kodak Moment”: the moment we all ant to remember as it was at the time of taking the picture. These pictures belong to the dreaded category of the family snapshot, the boring highly ritualised photographs of the socially and psychologically important moments in life. This is the popular version of the visual notebook, which is the idea that inspired Barnack to design his Lilliput camera in the first place. Photographs allow us to study the scene without eye movements and without disturbances because the objects in the photograph do not move and can be looked at as long as we want.

Why do we want to take photographs with a Leica?
One obvious response is based on the fact that the Leica is different. This drive to be different might be one of the main reasons why people buy a Leica camera. In the current world of photography where photographs are calculated images, the visual differences between brands is vanishing and image quality is now so high that performance is converging to a common denominator. Even the subject matter of the average photograph is standardised. The choice of camera model and type is one of the few elements one has to distance oneself from the others.
The attraction of a Leica camera is partly based on the design and partly on the haptonomics of the material. The Dutch photographer has referred to the admiration of the Leica as techno-erotics. This sentiment has also been expressed by Bruce Weber when he remarked that his Leica is like a beautiful woman.
Several others have chosen the Leica camera because so many iconic pictures have been made with the rangefinder camera (ironically most are made with the silver-halide capture technique and only a handful are recorded on solid-state media). The assumption is that using the same camera will inspire the photographer to be as creative as the masters. Leica of course stimulates this kind of reasoning because it allows the company to sell more products. While artists and engineers insist on simple tools (brushes and pencils) to create and design the most complex products, amateur photographers (the professional photographers not excluded!) insist that the tool they need to use must be ‘serious kit’. During the 1950s it became fashionable to describe and promote cameras as precision instruments. The ownership and use of a precision engineered camera became an important element:

“There is something about a group of fine mechanical parts assembled into pleasing shapes with skilful craftsmanship that creates a desire for ownership and a pride of possession, whether it be an automobile, a mobile sculpture, or a camera.” (Lahue)

The Leica camera introduced in the photographic world a new concept: the accurately-engineered miniature camera. The large variety of 35 mm cameras in the 1950s is an example of technological exuberance, the tendency in technology to produce many variations on the basic theme of an invention. Finally the industry settles on a few basic designs, as is the case nowadays in the landscape of digital cameras: there are only three types left with almost identical functions and performance, but different sensor sizes: SLR, mirrorless ILC and HQ compacts with fixed lens. Such is the power of marketing that any serious photographer (casual, hobby and professional) wanted and still wants to be seen with a high quality high performce camera. There were, in that glorious period of silver-halide film domination, several valid reasons to purchase and use the Leica camera. A precision mechanism was required to get the most out of the tiny negatives when big enlargements was the goal. Without high performing lenses and accurately aligned mechanisms this goal is impossible to attain. It is a rather strange freak of technology that software algorithms, inside and outside the camera body are able to enhance the image quality of lower quality source pictures. Still the accuracy of the manufacture and assembly have been increased substantially by using CNC machinery and computer assisted assembly.
Leica purchasers still fancy the idea of careful manual assembly by highly trained craftsmen and meticulously applied quality control by experts. It is about time to shelf this myth. A modern digital Leica camera is more like an assembled computer with printed circuit boards, flexible electronic circuits and lots of software, ASICs and other computer and memory chips,, sealed between two magnesium shells and a metal top and bottom cover. Many components, such as the back display, the main circuit board and the shutter mechanism of the M camera is manufactured outside the company (and additionally in other types; components such as the AF stepper motor and the electronic finder). The Leica company is slowly evolving into a design company where the specifications are developed and the components are made by other parties.
The design and manufacture of the lenses belongs to a different chapter. In the past one had to buy a Leica body to be able to enjoy the characteristics of the Leica optics, but since the introduction of the Konica Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon ZM one can attach Leica-M lenses to several camera bodies. The possibilities have been enlarged with the introduction of mirrorless digital system cameras. Leica itself has made the compatibility of their lenses between their different camera models a strategic asset.
There were sound reasons to select a Leica camera. The mechanical quality of the camera matched the optical performance of the lenses, the camera and its lenses were compact, picture taking was fast and intuitive and the rangefinder offered accurate, fast focus and a large clear viewing system, perfectly suitable for the modern snapshot style of the documentary photographers. The 1967 exhibition in the MoMa (New Documents) was a remarkable tribute to this, then new, photographic fashion. Some characteristics of the Leica CRF have been overtaken by current technology: shutters are silent, durability and accuracy have been increased and the automation of most important features (focus, exposure, rapid transport) have stripped the Leica CRF of its prominent role.There are however three characteristics that are still unique, even within the current Leica product portfolio: the compact size of the lenses, the manual operation of the focus setting of the lenses and the rangefinder mechanism. The Leica M in its digital and film-loading versions is the best choice if one wants a camera that connects to the long heritage of the precision miniature camera and at the same time connects seamlessly to the vintage style of photography (in every sense). The characteristics of the camera body (metal parts, efficient layout of the controls and a clean, uncluttered design) are functionally important and add to the feeling of handling a technological artefact of outstanding qualities. One often hears the remark that all Leica cameras have a solid feel and a substantial weight that are an indication of its superior mechanical qualities and high precision of its component. This remark is in itself not convincing: there is no direct connection between weight and solidity on the one hand and the accuracy of manufacture on the other.

What and how do we photograph (with a Leica)
Taking pictures happens in a social space, but we can only take pictures of things in physical space. This is a crucial difference. The camera can only record the materiality of the surfaces of the things in physical space. We can overlay this pattern with a social layer and add meaning to the photograph. This function however is something that the observer adds to the basically neutral photograph. The picture shows a technically fabricated world without any meaning. The early photographers looked with amazement and curiosity at the photographic process that reproduced automatically and without human intervention a part of reality. It is a technical image and has no relation with the visual image that is constructed in the brain. Many observers have tried to compensate this shortcoming by approaching and interpreting a photograph as a counterfeit painting, giving it the status of art. The boundary between art and non-art exists only in museums and academic circles. Photographs are informational (“this is what happened”) and automatically produced. Photographers go to considerable lengths to claim that choice of moment, of position and of technical details (focal length, ISO value, aperture, shutter speed) to determine what is captured and how and what the observer may see. All these arguments are used to insist that photography is not a mechanical/technical but an operator mediated/influenced process.
The physical objects that can be photographed because their surfaces reflect or emit light, determine what will be visible in a photograph. Photography has many characteristics of a signal processing technology: there is a source, a transmitter/decoder and a receiver. It is almost inevitable to discuss some properties of the physical reality to understand what this source is.
Some very critical thinkers claim that our world is a social world and no longer a physical world. In a sense this may be the correct way of approaching the world in which we live.
Reality may have changed, photography has changed as it is following the digital path, but one thing has not changed: the photographer. When one looks at the pictures made between 1840 and now, there is remarkably little change in the style and content of the average and even the artistic photograph. It is common knowledge that photographs can be made for reasons of communication or documentation. The real difference between both processes has still to be explained by the experts.
Recording everyday events, especially those that are happening in urban environments and in family scenes, is the goal of modern culture. Baudelaire started this trend when he wrote about the painter of modernism. Eastman saw a big commercial opportunity in promoting the camera to document leisure and travel activities and targeted the female part of the population to pick up the Kodak Box and start taking photographs. Barnack was at least inspired by these developments and designed the Lilliput camera as an easy-to-use visual notebook.
Most casual and personal photographs show positive events and happy moments. Because these photographs fix some moments in life and the human memory forgets about all other moments, the photographer and the viewers of these photographs have a very selective view of the past. On holiday, the picturesque alleys and the sunset at the horizon are being photographed, but not the beautiful girl behind the ice-cream vendor’s cart. The point of these examples is the extent of the emotional attachment. The alley and the sunset are photographed because of the so-called photogenic content and possibly composition, but there can hardly be any emotional or personal involvement. The pictures are simply too conventional to have emotional value. An illuminating example of this propensity to conventionalism are the many signs by Kodak on locations that offer opportunities for pleasant photographs.
The broad spectrum of everyday events, individual relationships and casual contacts offer many chances to take pictures with an emotional and personal relation to what has been recorded. Sherlock Holmes noted that
“there is nothing as unnatural as the commonplace”.
The Welsh (also Magnum) photographer David Hurn remarked:
“Life as it unfolds in front of the camera is full of so much complexity, wonder and surprise that I find it unnecessary to create new realities. There is more pleasure, for me, in things as-they-are. ”

This combination of things as they are, a personal emotional involvement with these things (and people) and the detective approach (the camera records the unseen things) is the primary answer to the question what and how to photograph with a Leica in this 21st C. The ‘how’ is still a bit underdeveloped (pun not intended). The Leica camera has become famous because of the image quality of its lenses. Today one would almost automatically select one of the digital models of the Leica M CRF. The performance of the lens is in this case clearly connected to the software inside and outside the camera. The quality edge is eroded however, partly because many other manufacturers of photographic optics employ the same division of labour. Optical design has evidently reached a platform. There is a limit to what one can accomplish optically and mechanically within a rigorous financial straightjacket. The current optical designs for the Leica (digital) cameras emphasise the high performance at the wider apertures and the (emotional) quality of the out-of-focus areas (the so-called boke(h) effects). The result is indeed impressive, but the cost is high (the selling prices are sky-high, regrettably matching the physical volume of the lenses).
The silver-halide technology has a simple and clean-cut physical process. The lens has been designed to be a self-sufficient and separate link in the imaging chain that also includes the silver-halide emulsions and their specific characteristics. Both elements are separately optimised based on their specific qualities, but in tandem. The famous increase of micro contrast of the Leica lenses during the 1960s has been inspired by the introduction of high acutance films and developers.
For the style of imagery, defined by a radically personal, and emotional photography of everyday happenings (instantaneous photography) where chance plays an important role (the unexpected always happens!), the Leica CRF with its small volume, compact lenses and fast intuitive handling is a very good choice. The film-loading models have several advantages besides being part of the long and famous pedigree. They connect acutely with the essence and experience of the photographic process (the materiality that is), the handling is convenient and with a time lag of less than 20 milliseconds the shutter release is for all intents and purposes instantaneous. The blink of an eye takes on average 1/3 of a second (300 to 400 milliseconds). The average digital reflex or mirrorless AF camera has a shutter time lag of 0.15 to 0.05 seconds between pressing the release button and the actual release of the shutter.
There are of course many Leica users who do not want or are unable to process their own black and white films and make prints in the (wet) darkroom. It is possible to simulate the silver-halide photographic process with a digital M camera. These versions have the same rangefinder mechanism and the same compact high performance lenses of their film-loading siblings, but use the semi-automatic aperture priority exposure measurement of the M7. A handheld external exposure meter is always a smart option and pre-setting the shutter and aperture increases the speed of operation. The capability of the sensor and software to compensate for the underexposure (equals a higher ISO setting) is a very positive argument for choosing a digital CRF version. A disciplined photographer, who is committed to follow the analogue path, should select one ISO value that mimics the film speed values (ISO160, ISO320, ISO1250) and stick to this selection for about 35 pictures (the amount of negatives on the usual film roll). The RAW image files are to be ‘developed’ in the computer by a simple program that only decodes the data and converts them to a TIFF file (one such program is DCRaw). Then a number of these images should be printed on real physical paper, preferably A4 size, the standard for wet darkroom printing. This printing stage is very important because it signals the final step in the imaging chain and produces a really interesting comparison with the negative/positive chemical process.
It is quite easy to argue that these restrictions on the functionality of the digital camera and its role in the current imaging chain (where the final result is distributed over a network as a virtual file to be seen on a computer or smartphone screen) are reducing the digital camera to an old-fashioned analogue one.
I would like to argue that this approach might restore the feeling of excitement and wonder that the photographers in the olden times must have experienced.

pixel questions

2018-05-23T22:30:31+02:00

The actual resolution of an imager (image chip) is most often measured in linepairs. This is the logical thing to do as the MTF Graphs that are published (in calculated and measured format) relate contrast to the number of linepairs over the image area. Common knowledge assumed that two pixels are enough to record one linepair (one black and one white pixel). A Leica imager in the M line would have approximately 4000 pixels in the vertical direction of 24 mm height. The theoretical resolution would be 83 lp/mm (1/24/2000). Now the classical studies by Zeiss among others claim that the sensible limit (for silver-halide emulsions and 35 mm film size) is 40 lp/mm. The Leica sensor would be able to double this number and resolve more than 80 lp/mm at the limit. My own comparisons with film and imagers indicate that both perform in the same league (when one compensates for the much higher ISO values of the imager compared to film emulsions). It is not the case that the limiting resolution of 40 lp/mm implies that the optical system is not able to resolve more lp. It is the case however that at this value of lp/mm the contrast drops to a low value of contrast and the fine details cannot be distinguished from each other. A study by Zeiss in 2013 shows that one needs at least four pixels to resolve two linepairs. The Nyquist rule explains why: one needs to double the sampling rate to get a clean record of the frequency. So if the frequency is two lp, one needs a sampling rate of 4 pixels to get a clean record of the signal.
If this is true, then we can say that the current Leica M imagers are capable of resolving just 40 lp/mm. The current Leica lenses are capable of resolving 80 lp/mm with sufficient contrast and are clearly overkill for the actual imagers (but they reduce the moire effects).
A possible future increase of the amount of pixels to let us say 36 million pixels would give 5000 pixels per image height of 24mm and a resolution of 1/24/5000/4) or 50 lp/mm. A hardly impressive increase in performance.

Why do we take photographs with a Leica

2018-05-20T21:30:36+02:00

The species of the dinosaurs became extinct about 61 million years ago in a sudden stop and not slowly dying off. There is still much mystery round the cause and the period of disappearance. Something comparable happened to the species of the Leica photography of the 20th C. This is the style of photography that can be described as the ‘snapshot aesthetic’ (1970) and the ‘decisive moment’ (1950). It was also the period that the world of photography was divided by the amateur snapshot and the art photography. This discussion concerned the content and style of a photograph. The technical discussion of the photographic endeavour focused on the characteristics of the precision manufactured 35 mm camera and the specifications of the emulsions and their developers. The Leica rangefinder camera played an important part as a reference and a yardstick to which other manufactures were compared.
The disappearance of this special world of photography can be traced very easily to the emergence and rapid adoption of the digital image technology since 2000. When the Leica company introduced the Leica M9 in 2009 the classical style of the 35 mm miniature camera vanished from the scene. Many Leica users switched from a silver-halide-based photography to a silicon-based technology and tried at the same time to preserve the old world by continuing to take pictures as if nothing had changed. This is a kind of nostalgia that is firmly rooted in the picture style of the 1950s.
There is another kind of nostalgia that can be described with the title of a book, published in 2016: The Revenge of Analog. Superficially considered one may conclude that this movement falls into the category of the old crafts school: some (quite successful) photographers return to the early photographic techniques of collodion wet plate processes. It is rather intriguing that some of the most popular contemporary filters on social-picture media belong to this category of this retro-style.
Old crafts have a few characteristics that are lacking in modern technology, dominated by the computer and its algorithms. Using tools, thinking about materiality and the development of skills are all part of that mythical practice that defines artists and craftsmen. Photography in general and Leica photography in particular have since the announcement of the technical process in the early 1840s and the introduction of the Leica I in 1925 heavily relied on the crafts and arts to evolve into what has become known as the ‘witness of our time’.
The vernacular (popular) discussion about the difference between analog and digital focuses on the coding technique for signals in communication systems. This difference is often described as continuous versus discrete. This approach is certainly correct, but does not cover all aspects. The analog mentality, the tendency to see and interpret the world with associations, models, and analogies is different from the digital mentality that interprets the world as a virtual space that can be computed with numbers and can be mastered with calculations. When you know that this beautiful figure can be corrected and changed at will, there is no reason to want to preserve it exactly as it is. The image file is a matrix of calculated numbers and every cell stands for a single pixel that can be addressed and programmed.
A more interesting analysis of the concept of analog refers to the the related idea of proportion. A certain level of light energy reflecting from some material surface area sends a number of photons to a light sensitive device. In the silver-halide technique this stream of photons produces a chemical reaction that is proportional to the level of energy.
In the digital technique the semiconductor architecture transfers this light energy into a voltage level that can be measured and given a discrete numerical value.
The digital technology is without doubt more efficient, easier to use and produces improved imagery. It is also completely integrated in the techniques of signal processing and the current information/communication technologies (ICT). The modern digital camera (the digital Leica M not excluded!) is only one of the many artefacts that together constitute the contemporary infosphere.
Photography as a distinct social and technical process has changed fundamentally since the period when the amateur photographer had a special status and followed an identifiable cultural ritual, aptly described by Calvino in his short story titled “Adventures of a Photographer”. One could even assert that photography as a separate craft with its special techniques, materials, tools and expertise has vanished and has been absorbed into the general information and communication procedures of today. Theorists have given this whole process of technical and cultural change the name of a ‘digital turn’. In addition to this digital turn we can also observe a ‘visual turn’: the fact that our culture has been transformed into a visual environment where the image plays an important part. Most products and events we see are drawn or photographed or computer generated and most knowledge we have is derived from such images. We live in a vision culture and social media are primarily visual media: obvious examples are YouTube and Instagram. Photography as a process has been incorporated into the general ICT environment. Photographs as products of this process are integrated into the visual culture and even cameras as technical artefacts are increasingly incorporated into other devices and are combined with other devices: even the Leica M10 has a WiFi module and the Huawei smart phone presents itself as a camera.
The photographic camera has vanished as a special tool for producing pictures and the photographic process is also in danger of disappearing from the list of visual crafts. As an art form however photography has never been more important. The postmodernist movement in the arts has secured a place for photography as one of many tools that artist have at their disposal. Photography is part of the practices of artists who use performance installations and other activities to produce the message and the format. Most photographers are not and do not aspire to be artists and stay firmly on the amateur path, initiated by Eastman around 1900 and described by Baudelaire already around 1860.
The Leica camera was the first precision manufactured camera, designed for the amateur (the wealthy amateur to be more accurate). The draft of the original Leica I was conceived by Barnack and his team as a compact camera that could be handled almost intuitively. It was called by Leitz an automatic camera. The whole construction was made of metal, the only material at that time that could be manufactured with the required accuracy that was needed for the enlargement of the tiny negatives. Leitz had, as microscope and instrument manufacturer, enough experience with this material.
For a long period, from 1930 to 1990, the Leica rangefinder camera represented the species of the precision miniature camera and became the reference for this type of mechanical camera. In his book “The Nikon System” of 1965, Crawley could note that the Leica camera stood head and shoulders above all others in its engineering. In the 1969 edition this remark has been deleted, probably because by then the Japanese camera manufacturers had closed the gap in engineering quality. With the introduction of the Canon F-1 in 1970, they forged ahead.
Today, this assessment would hardly be different. The modern camera has evolved from a (mechanical) opto-mechanical instrument into a (digital) opto-mechatronic instrument. Many important components are no longer manufactured by the Leica Company itself and are outsourced to other companies or purchased from other companies. There is a change from vertical manufacture to design specifications, as can be seen in the construction of the Leica SL. The rather romantic idea that highly experienced workers manually adjust and assemble the camera with great care is no longer appropriate if it ever was. It is evident that the manufacturing technology, based on CNC machinery has increased the accuracy of components. Computer assisted assembly has replaced the manual adjustments. When Leica discusses the superiority of their manufacturing quality, they most often refer to the optical design and manufacture of optical elements. Optical quality is now influenced by the power of the signal processing algorithms inside the camera and on the computer and no longer the isolated part in the classical imaging chain.
The Leica user in the 21st C is confronted with a number of choices that was absent in the period of silver-halide films and mechanical cameras. Confronted with the dual tendencies that photography has been integrated into the visual culture and absorbed by the IC technologies and is therefore disappearing as a distinct social and technological process, the main question would be: “why do we photograph?” This question is even more relevant because of the billions of images that are being made every day of everything. The next question would be to ask if we do take pictures why use a Leica camera? And the final question, after having answered both previous questions in the affirmative, would be: “What and how do we photograph?” These questions are not new, but need a new answer.

Change of link 30/04/18 16:14 In order to comply with the new EU regulations for privacy I have updated my site with a SSL connection. A change of link is necessary: from www.imx.nl/photo to photo.imx.nl. You will be automatically redirected to the new site if you use the old address. It is however nice if you switch to the new address. Thank you.

2018-05-07T11:52:27+02:00

From there and back again

2018-05-07T11:49:57+02:00

14/04/18 15:20

This is the title of a song by the Beach Boys and the subtitle of The Hobbit. It is also a reminder of the trend to the revenge of the analog (the recent book by the journalist Sax). As soon as the dichotomy "analog(ue) - digital” is mentioned you seem to touch a sore point in contemporary photographic community. The person who does not bow to the digital superiority and efficiency is a Luddite, a dinosaur and a nostalgic old fashioned idiot who does not understand the signs of the times. There is no doubt that the digital transformation of many parts of the modern technological spectre and the current society and culture has and will have unforeseen consequences. Never say that something is not possible. Sax in his book refers to a post digital era. It seems not possible, given the rapid and successful pace of the digital transformation. And do not mention this possibility to the Leica management: they will swoon and deny it, because they have set all their cards on the digital photography. There is still a small corner (not visible for visitors) in the factory in Portugal, where the old machinery is working and producing old-fashioned M-cameras (M7,MP, M-A). This is all that is left from the proud Wetzlar days when cartridge loading cameras where the ne plus ultra, the alpha and omega of the goal and raison d’être of the company.
There is currently a feeble new spring of chemical photography (often but erroneously referred to as analogue photography). The advocates of the film photography are enthusiastic, but it should be mentioned that Kodak now produces 1% of what it did in its heyday. The prediction of the disappearance of the film is also a bit overhyped. A new technology may disrupt a previous one, but is hardly ever the cause of its extinction. One point should be made at the start: the digital technology (computer based image and signal processing) is more efficient and more productive than its film cousin and the performance of the calculated image is in most cases better than the chemically processed version. At least it is much easier to produce a good image (defined as a sharp picture with full tonality). The content of the image however has not changed since the days of the Daguerreotype.
I use both technologies and select the one that is best for my purpose. It is as with classical cars: for normal traffic and holidays you are well advised to select a modern car with an efficient engine and lost of electronic assistants that make life on the road when driving much easier and safer (presumably!). When you wish to experience the road and the enthusiasm of driving nothing is better than a classic British two-seat tourer. Motorcyclists would prefer a two-cylinder Norton or BSA.
To experience the ‘good old days’ and the immerse myself in the golden age of the precision engineered mechanical camera I am going to use a 50 year old Leica M3, a 50 year old Weston Master exposure meter, a 50 year old film (the ‘new’ Ferrania P30) and a modern Apo-Summicron-M 50 ASPH FLE and the APO-Summicron-M 90 mm ASPH. The P30 will be developed in Kodak D96 (Also an age old chemical). Remember that the Kodak D76 was announced in 1926 and the Agfa Rodinal was mixed around 1900. It is indeed astonishing that such old technology can challenge, but not surpass the current digital imagery. Speed wise there is no competition. The P30 can be exposed as EI 50 and the same quality is easily attained with an SL at EI 5000.
The picture below shows my nostalgic set: included is a Lamy fountain pen and a Moleskin notebook. There is no EXIF to be assigned to the negatives and a notebook is the inevitable choice. The advantage is that I can also note all things I thought and experienced when taking the picture. The EXIF data do not show the mental musings.

The image files in the camera are processed by unknown algorithms. It teas a long study to explore what is happening and this study extends to the computer programs to. Here we have a real black box when using Photoshop. You know the input and the output, but what exactly is happening inside the program is a guess. There are many receipts in books and on the internet in the style of "Do A and B and C and you get D.” But no-one explains to you: the layer you are applying or the slider you are moving functions as follows: it adds a value of +10 to every pixel with original value below 100, unless there is a neighbouring pixel with a value of 36. Only specialised programs show you the exact values of every pixel in the image file.
Compare this to the negative where every small area can be measured with a microdensitometer and its value determined. Chemical developers are explained in detail in the composition of the chemical elements and the working of every element is described. Analogue is in effect proportional and where the calculations are exact (it is 125 and not 126), the chemical process is proportional (the density increases by 20% when the development time is lengthened by 50%.)
This is the nice thing about the chemical process: with experience you get better and you can predict the effects with confidence. The digital photographer would counter: I am not interested: everything can be changed in a later stage.
The difference is emotional and not technical: the classic car has a manual gear box and you shift up and down while paying attention to the amount of revolutions, the vibrations and the sound. The modern car driver sees a blinking number on his dashboard and shifts because the programmer thinks this is the best way. Experiencing the real thing is no longer possible with a digital camera: the whole process is virtual, efficient but not very inspiring. That may be the reason why users of digital cameras are so focused on technical details and technical functions: this is the only way to experience some reality. The digital process is rather fluid: take a picture or a series of pictures, upload a selected few via wifi to the cloud, apply a handful of filters and distribute the file to a range of social media where it will be commented.
Compare this process with the chemical trajectory: Take a picture, wait a week to develop and study the 36 negatives. To develop you have to put the film in a developing tank, prepare the chemicals and proceed, looking at time, temperature and movement. Then do the same in the darkroom: select a negative, project it in an enlarger, determine time and gradation and so on. What a waste of time would exclaim the digital photographer and see the grain and the dust specks. Nice to experience the real thing, says the film adept. Why not do both when you have the choice. That is why I go for the 50year old procedure.

digital and analogue natives

2018-03-12T17:56:17+01:00

Today I visited in Amsterdam the exhibition about the Dutch photographer Maria Austria (1915 -1975), one of the most admired female photographers in the Netherlands. She was well-known for her portraits, theatre photography and everyday life in the Netherlands. Her work is also famous for the outstanding black and white quality of her prints. She worked mainly with a Rolleiflex, printed with a Leitx Focamat IIc, the famous one!,on Kodak paper and used a Weston Master V for exact exposure settings. All classic products and now part of history and sometimes nostalgia.
See picture below.

Recent sociological studies assume that the current adult population can be divided in digital natives, analog natives, digital migrants and digital curious. It is evident that these groups are connected to age cohorts. The first group comprises people after 1980, the other groups are people born before 1960, people born between 1960 and 1980 and people aged between 54 and 62. This typology implies that there are countries where different people live and work. The analog and digital divide is well known and the two intermediate groups are persons who migrate from one country to another or who visit, as tourists so to speak, strange countries.
It is evident that most Leica users fall in the groups of analogue natives and the digital migrants and digital curious. As is often the case with migrants, they adopt the culture of the new country. It is also evident that the digital migrants are prone to defend their choices and look at the analogue natives as a dying group.

The current revival of silver-halide emulsions seems to invigorate the analogue natives. It is strange that there is much hype about new or re-introduced emulsions, like Ferrania P30 or Bergger 400. There are no better emulsions than the classical ones, Ilford Delta or FP4+ and Kodak T-Max 400 and T-Max 100. I am now sorting my Kodachrome slides and I must confess that the image quality of these slides is at least the equal of the computational images made with the M10 or Monochrome II.

I am tempted to return to te group of analogue natives after having spent much time as a digital migrant and more recently as a digital curious. For the moment I would prefer to be in both categories (analogue native and digital curious). There is so much to loose when crossing the bridge over the river that divides both countries.

Changing views

2018-03-03T15:37:14+01:00

During the work on my current book about the Leica world, I concentrated on two important questions: why photograph and why photograph with a Leica. Inevitable these answers cover a number of themes, from the difference between the visual perception of reality and the autonomous recording of this reality to the difference between analogue and digital. The Dutch media theorist, Arjen Mulder has written an important book about the transition from analogue (silver-halide) photography to digital photography. He begins his book with a description of the analogue and the digital world and then he states that crossing the great divide between analogue and digital is an irreversible act: once experiencing the advantages of the digital workflow in the daily photographic environment: there is no way back. Photography has changed beyond recognition and everything that has been written about photography has lost its value. Thinking about photography has to start all over. Many photographers and commentators about photography (nowadays almost bloggers and website reviewers) refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and continue to use and approach the digital technology as if they still take pictures with film emulsions. The digital - analogue dichotomy is indeed too simplistic and does not capture the true essence of photography. There is a technical (and trivial) discussion about these opposites that boils down to the claim that analogue is continuous and digital is discrete. There is a more comprehensive analysis that equates analogue with analogy (the original derivation). The concept of ‘analogy’ is part of a world view where analogous awareness is related to the engineering approach. The engineer uses models to describe important parts of the physical reality in order to experiment with the several paramaters and to investigate the causes of the working of these phenomena. The use of (mathematical and material) models was an important tool in the engineer’s toolbox. A sketch was a precursor of a model, because the sketch is a very simple description of the problem and a possible solution to the problem. The connection between the engineering approach and the artisan world is quite obvious. In the digital world the engineer has been replaced by the scientist who produces computations, set in a series of algorithms, to solve a problem. The connection with the real world is lost. A photograph may be approached as a model or analogy of the reality that has been captured by the camera. There is a direct relationship between the negative or print and the material reality. This link has been lost in the digital workflow where the picture is constructed (computed) from a table of numerical values. There are many advantages (ease of use, high precision) in using this digital workflow, but there is an inevitable loss.
The question ‘why photograph at all’ is a very relevant question for the analysis of a photography in the 21C. I use with purpose the indefinite article (‘a’). The history and description of photography is a very personal matter. The history of photography is quite different when one looks at a series of iconic artistic images or when one looks at the amateur snapshot from 1850 to 2018.
The essence of photography, at least in my view, can be better grasped when studying the amateur snapshot and not the (highly personal) selection of artistic images.
There is a wide disparity between the human perception of reality and the mechanical recording of the surfaces of the material objects that the camera captures indiscriminately and during an instant. The amateur photograph has been referred to as the instantaneous photograph, that accepts the basic technology behind the photographic process: the mechanical and autonomous recording of brightness differences of the surfaces of macroscopically sized material objects. Artistic photography tries to break out of this straitjacket and injects the photograph with personal meaning and intention. A photographic artist uses the techniques of photography as a painter uses his brushes and canvas.
The answer to the question ‘why use a Leica camera’ is equally personal and at least as complex. There was a period in the history of photography that the Leica offered substantial advantages to the user. This was the period from 1930 to 1980 (incidentally the same period that the everyday as a cultural and scientific concept was analysed), the period when the Leica was used as a witness of our times and in particular as a witness of our personal world. That was at least the idea of Barnack, who designed his Lilliput camera as a tool for easy and simple recording of events and objects (landscapes and persons) with which he had an emotional relationship or that evoked an emotional experience.
The advantages of the Leica as a technological artefact (designed by engineers as a recording tool) were the simplicity of the use and the high quality of the mechanism. The Leica was the first precision engineered compact camera. The rangefinder had important advantages too when compared to the contemporary reflex cameras: the bright viewfinder made the object clearly visible, even in dim light and the rangefinder patch allowed fast and accurate distance setting. The compact high-speed lenses offered excellent image quality at the start of the imaging chain.
Modern digital Leica cameras are manufactured and assembled with even greater precision and the autofocus mechanism outdoes the mechanical-optical rangefinder in accuracy and speed. The price you have to pay is an increase in the size and weight of the lenses. The Leica SL and CL are evidently contemporary versions of the Leica M model. This model has been pushed into a niche and survives with an emphasis on very high speed lenses (from 0.95 to 1.5) in the most used focal lengths from 21mm to 90mm. This focus on high speed lenses is, again in my view, a relic from the past. It makes sense when film emulsions were limited to ISO 400 and (pushed) ISO 1600, but it loses all relevance when sensors offer speeds from ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 (technically exploiting under development and software gain). The obvious answer is promotong the wide aperture as an artistic tool for shallow depth of field and visually elegant background unsharpness. The standard example of a portrait of the face of a beautiful girl or a figure shot of an attractive model is hardly convincing. I still have to see one good example of the effective use of the high speed lens (the exceptions are the classical documentary photographs in dimly lit environments).
Modern lenses exhibit a very high level of optical performance. Some reviewers will always find a visual element that might be improved, but for most users the quality is more than sufficient. To be very honest, the venerable Elmar 3.5/50 mm was considered by Berek to be just fine for most (average) photography.
What Leica design has lost is the knack for exciting and useful designs, like the first compact version of the 1.4/35 mm.
The classical Leica models (M3 to M6) are complex mechanical devices that were engineered as an organic whole (try to dismantle one!). The modern digital Leica cameras (from M to CL) are very simple designs, with a modular design that makes production and assembly quite simple and cheaper. That is why the Leica Company makes such a high profit.(The elevated price tag of the products is the other reason). Rangefinder adjustment is now a matter of computer manipulation and no longer a matter of expert manual adjustments. The computer does a better job to be sure!
The engineering complexity of the mechanical camera models is mirrored in the technical complexity of the emulsion technology. While taking pictures was and is quite easy when using film, the requirements to extract the best performance from the imaging chain is beyond the capabilities of most Leica owners. Producing a high quality digital image is very easy, because the expertise is now buried in the in-camera algorithms and post-processing software. Ask any photographer who still uses the analogue emulsion technology what is happening and why some manipulations are required, the answer will reflect experience and knowledge. Ask anyone who uses the process of computational images, what is going on inside the camera and you get a superficial and often standard answer.
It is indeed remarkable how easy the modern Leica photographer can be convinced that any modern development is worth having. A good example is the adoption of the autofocus mechanism. It is a common position to state that the older Leica user, who has trouble with manual focusing due a weak eye sight, needs autofocus. many Leica users take pictures of stationary subjects, like landscapes, street scenes and buildings. None of these subjects require wide apertures and fast focusing. In fact, the classical method of zone focusing and selecting an aperture with sufficient depth of field, was the preferred option for the famous street photographers who practiced the method of the snapshot aesthetic. One of the sensible reasons to use AF is for capturing the jumping cat or a running and playing dog or any fast moving object, like a car or a baby. In the pre-AF period, photographers used all kinds of tricks (and lots of expertise) to capture a moving object and produce a sharp print. Motorcycle races are one example.
Analogue thinkers experiment and want to take positions in a real world. Digital thinkers want to leave all options open and to see everything as a possibility. Analogue photographers select a lens, a film and use the limitations of the medium as a method. Digital photographers produce an image as a possibility: one can change always the speed, colour space and even the objects themselves. Why should one be excited about a pleasant shape when one can always adjust the shape and colour to suit one’s ideas.
Analogue photographers accept that chance plays an important role in capturing an event or scene. Digital photographers do not think that chance may influence the final image: a rapid series of images, taken with different conditions (exposure, focus) ensure that there is some image where the impact of chance is minimized.
There are still good arguments for buying and using a Leica camera, especially any of the coupled rangefinder models, in the 21C. But these arguments have no longer the force and validity that they had in the 20C.

Can a 300 Euro Chinese lens beat a ten thousand Euro Leica lens?

2018-01-04T17:08:16+01:00

The original Leica Noctilux 1.2/50 had a weight of 450 grams (officially 515 grams), a length of 53.5 mm from the bayonet and a diameter of 60.5 mm. Compare these dimensions with the current NX 0.95/50 mm: weight: 700 grams; length: 75.1 mm; diameter: 73 mm and you see the ‘progress’. The Canadian built version, the NX 1/50 mm had dimensions: weight: 630 grams; length: 62 mm; diameter: 69 mm. The growth in footprint and volume is clearly visible. For most people this price tag and volume are prohibitive, not to mention the visible departure from the Leica M philosophy: compact, high speed and excellent performance. Perhaps this is the reason why the original NX 1.2/50 mm is in such high demand. The price however is sky high and not worth the purchase. The current SX 1.4/50 mm ASPH is a much better choice. And the small drop in brightness transmission is not important in this digital age when the lens will be most probably attached to a digital M body. Even in the glorious silver-halide era a half stop loss of brightness was not a problem: you could change the toe of the characteristic curve of the film, probably Tri-X or HP5, when selecting the dedicated developer. Only when the faintest shadows, emitting a handful of photons, had to be captured with all the shades of dark grey, the additional speed advantage made sense.

Now we have the 7Artisans 50 mm f1.1 lens, produced in China. With a weight of almost 400 grams, a length of 48 mm and a diameter of 62.1 mm the lens falls within the parameters of the original NX 1.2/50 mm.
The aperture of 1:1.1 was a popular one In Japan when their rangefinder cameras became trendsetting. Nikon and Zunow to mention only two manufacturers offered such lens with a design that was based on the Zeiss Sonnar. The current Voigtlander Nokton 1.1/50 mm follows the Planar design.
The 7Artisans lens that I bought is a very special edition with a gold paint (only ten will be made). It has high refractive glass elements (above 1.9) and this property it shares with the NX 1.0/50. There are a few initial impressions. The focus movement is very smooth. The aperture ting is a classical one with non-equidistant distances between apertures (large at 1.1 and narrow after 5.6. The box includes a tool for self adjustment of the optical cell. Place the camera and lens on a tripod, focus on the (included) test chart and the location of the sharpness plane can be read off from the chart. When the focus is too near or too far, you can loosen two tiny screws at the back of the copper optical cell and turn the unit clockwise or counterclockwise according to instructions. It sounds complicated and you need to be very careful and repeat the operation several times before the focus is spot on. I used my M8.2 and MM2 and both required different settings. The smart choice was to settle for a position between both cameras.
A full test report will be published in the next part. For now a few quick observations. The lens follows a very classical pattern that is definitely 1950. At 1.1 the lens exhibits a low to medium contrast, and medium to high definition of small detail. Vignetting is clearly visible as is chromatic aberration. Bright spots show a blue and red colored fringe on both sides, but coma is remarkably absent. The performance is quite good in the centre covering a disc of about 30% of the total area. Test charts show very fine definition when sharpened a bit in Photoshop or any other post processing software. Handheld shooting shows commendable performance with fine detail crisply rendered in the centre and quickly becomes blurred when moving outwards to the edges. At this aperture it is clearly a lens for the rangefinder camera with the focus at the centre of the image. At 1:5.6 the performance becomes impeccable over the full area of the sensor and the lens can be used as a universal tool.

I compared the 7Artisans 50mmF1.1 with the Leica SX 1.4/50, both set to 1.4. Then the difference really becomes evident. The SX has a high contrast high definition image covering the full frame where the 7Artisans has a medium contrast medium definition image covering 40% of the area. The 7Artisans performance compared to the SX indicates the great progress made in the last decades. The Canon lens FD 1.2/55 mm for the F-1 in the early 1970s exhibits the same performance pattern. The wide open image has been called sharpish and not sharp to describe the overall impression of the lens. The 7Artisans lens improves on the optical quality of the Canon lens (also without aspherics), but the balance between contrast and resolution is shifted to the resolution edge, presumably because of the use of the lens on digital bodies, where contrast can be enhanced in post processing.
The price tag of the lens is extremely low (the Nokton is three times more expensive). One of the reasons is the low price of Chinese optical glass that is not as constant in quality as the Schott glass. Using a simple design (no floating, no aspherics) with only seven elements also helps to reduce the price.
At this price level the 7Artisans is highly commendable. The overall performance is good, but not superior, but to get the fingerprint of the classical lenses of the 1950s and 1960s there is o better choice.

Quo Vadis Leica?

2017-12-23T17:36:56+01:00

Recent introductions by the Leica Company beg the question what the goal might be. As always there will be of course two groups of reviewers: the Leica-friendly cheerleaders who will argue that the new lenses and cameras are the best ever, fill an important gap in the Leica portfolio, are a must-have product and epitomise the Leica spirit. The second group will find focus errors, colour fringes (somewhere in the background at pixel-peeping monitor scale), bokeh problems in lenses and ergonomic flaws and lacking must-have features in camera bodies.
The important topic of what advantages the products have in the modern post-photographic era are hardly considered.
The new Noctilux-M 1.25/75 mm ASPH will be framed as the ultimate portrait and reportage lens. But this is a very conservative approach. Any lens can be used for any purpose. The usual approach for a portrait is to focus on the eyes and have the rest of the face in the unsharp zones. Many portraits require a merger depth of field and the photographer needs to stop down to 5.6 or smaller to get the required result. The NX-75 is very heavy (more than one kilogram) and big (a volume of 391376 mm^3). The current NX-50 has a weight of 700 grams and a volume of 322563 mm^3. The original SX 75 has a weight of 560 grams and a volume of 307876 mm^3. Compare this to a really compact lens, the Apo-Summicron 50 mm: weight of 300 grams and a volume of 107640 mm^3. Modern Leica-M lenses have a very steep gradient between sharp and unsharp. This is a fine characteristic because it draws the eye to the exact sharpness plane when you are using the lens wide open or stopped down a few stops. Opto-mechanical however it is a problem. The focusing mechanism of the M camera will work at its limits and expect a fair amount of out-of-focus photos. The NX 75 will be used most often handheld if you wish to exploit the really excellent wide open properties. The high contrast and very good definition of fine details wide open are a big improvement compared to the old SX75. At f/1.4 it was difficult to take spot-on sharp pictures. The weight of the lens, the slim depth of field (at two meters ±3 cm!)and the movement of the head all add to the risk of focus. With the SX75 you had a slight advantage because the sharp-unsharp gradient was a bit smoother and this property helps to mask small focus errors. This luxury you do not have when using the NX75. Add the increased size and weight and the bodily movement and the off-focus limit is often reached and surpassed. One could select a high shutter speed in combination with a high ISO value (a simple choice in modern digital M cameras) to reduce the risk. There is much room for experiment and training. As is the case with the NX50, the new NX75 is a lens that needs to be learned in order to use it effectively. It is no universal lens like the Apo-Scron 50, 75 and 90. One may wonder why Leica has produced this lens, especially with such a high price tag of more than ten thousand Euro and limited use.
The same question may be asked when considering the re-edition of the Thambar, again a lens with very limited appeal and a price tag of around 6000 Euro.
The high optical and mechanical qualities of modern Leica lenses are beyond dispute. The volume of the lenses for the L-mount may be defended with the argument that one needs room for the many sophisticated mechatronic functions. The M-lenses however are traditional opt-mechanical constructions. The thick and heavy lens elements in the NX75 require stable (and heavy mounts) and this may explain the weight and size. When a lens design grows above its natural size (the fate of the famous Contarex lenses) one needs to reflect on its purpose. The SX75 made sense in its day. A high speed reportage lens was needed to get all available light onto the toe of the emulsion curve and a 1.4/90 mm was really a bridge to far in size and optical construction. A focal length of 75 mm was a good compromise.
The NX75 may be compared to the Canon 1.2/85 which has comparable vital statistics but incorporates an AF unit. The optical prescription is more adventurous and risky, but the price tag is a fraction of what Leica asks.
The main topic however is the need for a very high speed lens. The classical argument is the aesthetic one for a composition of selective focus. Fashion and indoor sports photographers demand the high speed because it allows them to direct the attention of the viewer to the main object. This was the case when film was the preferred medium. The NX75 will presumably be used mainly on digital bodies, where the post processing capabilities allow for every imaginable image manipulation. Then high speed must be balanced against ergonomic characteristics. Manual focusing with a rangefinder and a big lens is not everybody’s cup of tea. A very high speed lens that allows precise and selective focusing follows an outmoded concept, especially in the current digital era. Leica was once famous for its optical designs with universal appeal and scope of application. The f/2 lenses were and are excellent examples of compact designs with high performance and wide usability. The f/1.4 lenses in the 50 and 35 mm focal lengths are in the same league. With the f/1.4 designs in the 28-21 mm focal lengths, and with the NX designs of 50 and 75 mm the barrier of sensible weight and size (and price!!) has been pushed into dimensions that no longer fit the concept of the compact manually focusing CRF camera.

Bare bones

2017-12-01T12:55:09+01:00

(Reading time 15 minutes)
Photography passed the hundred years anniversary at the same time that the first Leica camera was announced: 1925. The Leica I was the first miniature camera, completely made of metal, that looked like a modern machine and operated like one. It was not perfect, but its compact size, smooth working buttons, knobs and dials and high optical quality enabled an alternative style of photography. This style had no name, but was related to the snapshot method adopted by most amateur photographers since introducing the Kodak box by Eastman around 1900. Using a Leica camera, the photographer had to know about the technical aspects of the photographic process to correlate the camera mechanism and engineering with the photographic results. The Leica camera (and all other manually operating 35 mm cameras) was an integral part of the photographic process.

Photography covers more ground than producing a picture by an orderly and transparent chemical analogue process or a concealed digital signal processing method. Photography is about an effort to capture the elusive moment. This effort inspired Cartier-Bresson to search for the decisive moment. Before him, the Impressionists already made an art of the instantaneous. Baudelaire said “modernity is the transitory, the fugitive, the contingent”. For modernity, light is the vehicle and the resource. Talbot referred to his process as photogenic drawing, but was insecure about the word ‘drawing’ and sometimes replaced it with ‘writing’. Lady Eastlake noted that photography was a new form of communication “neither letter, message, nor picture.”

The Impressionists are well versed in contemporary visual theory. They knew what you see is not what there is. Photography was an excellent means to show the difference between what the camera captures (and what could be out there) and what the brain constructs based on the visual impulses on the retina. These painters tried to capture the impression of the image of nature on the retina before the brain reconstructs the neural impulses. The photographic snapshot accomplishes this feat in exactly a fraction of a second. The snapshot represents the quintessential process of photography.

From the beginning, photography has been approached as a technique and as an art form. The rigid physical process and the limited influence that the photographer had on the final result turned over the balance to the technical side. Many theorists would claim that the means that the photographer has to influence the final picture (standpoint, moment of exposure, choice of focal length and aperture and so on) shrink into insignificance in comparison with the physical fact that the photograph only captures light reflecting surfaces with the one-eyed perspective of the optics of the camera. Even when the aspirations to an art status may be accepted by the art community, it is a hollow victory for photography. Nobody knows what art is. Instead of being caught up with a hopeless theoretical discussion, the discourse should be focused on the character of photography to ‘fix the shadows’. This implies looking at the commonplace and recording it the ultimate snapshot! Sherlock Holmes remarked that “there is nothing as unnatural as the commonplace”. David Hurn, the well-known Magnum photographer of Welsh origin, has remarked that 80% of of all good photography is based on the snapshot. He added that good photographs originate in the act of recording, simply and directly, a subject which is emotionally or intellectually engaging.
Such an approach is far removed from the art aspiration that seems to be a necessary ingredient of amateur photography in order to be allowed in the Hall of Fame of the Leica Gallery of Art Photography.

Surrounded by digital gadgets, the modern photographer has hardly any analogue experience. Such experience is intimately related to the practice of the craftsman. The Leica M camera has a metal body that feels like a machine and connects to the material world.
The use of the handheld exposure meter also adds to this feeling of work and craftsmanship. Handling a film cartridge and exposing and developing the film strip produces a feeling of manual competence that is lost when taking pictures with a digital camera, even a digital Leica M (the DRF). The sensor-equipped Leica M tries, with some success, to combine the analogue experience of the metal body with the ease and effectiveness of the digitalization of the photographic process. When using an SL , TL or CL, one gets a good sign of how far removed the Leica products are from their own core philosophy.

Talbot called the process of photogenic drawing a ‘pencil of nature’, implying that nature uses the photographic process as a draughtsman would use a pencil. The pencil is the emblematic tool of the engineer and as ubiquitous and as indispensable as photography is.

Photography can record everyday things mechanically and automatically. In this sense it is far removed from the use of the pencil that does nothing without being handled by a person. Still, there are many similarities: the pencil is a pleasure to use, it is simple, it can be used for artistic and scientific purposes, it generates an analogue feeling. The discussion around photography has become wrong-footed by the insistence of theorists that a faithful record of reality should be the same as saying that a picture is true. Like the topic of photography as art, the topic of photography as truth neglects the actual physical process of photography.
When photography is used for personal goals and with the intention to derive a pleasurable analogue experience, like using a pencil and paper for writing, these topics of art and truth are becoming irrelevant. The physical photo (the paper print) vanishes behind the content, which appears as a collection of facts. The skill and insight of the photographer are always significant, but the content comes first. Whatever the view of the photographer, there have to be some real life facts to record. Looking at facts requires adopting the attitude of the detective and asking the question what is happening here. The brain is conditioned, for reasons of efficiency and speed, to process primarily the changes in a scene, not the whole scene. It would be a waste of time and brain power to process the same information continuously. Users of the JPEG file format are familiar with this idea.

What is happening here can be answered when looking critically at photographs. Any photograph has been subject to the element of chance. The contact sheet is proof of this aspect of photography. In this digital age the method of asset management is the computer-based analogy of the physical contact sheet. If chance were not involved in the production of a photograph, the whole idea of the selection of the best image out of a series would not exist. Waiting for the exact moment has been superseded in modern times by the technique of taking pictures at a speed of a movie camera (24 images per second). Even this method cannot guarantee that the decisive moment has been captured. The photograph taken in a snap moment can be approached from two different perspectives. The photographer cannot influence the dynamism and contingency of the event, the continuum of experience, itself. This contemplation is the cause of the veridical core of photography as the truth-telling medium. Without this veridical core the reportage and the photo document would loose its importance. The second perspective on the snap moment that cannot be influenced by the photographer points to the classical art-question: how can the photographer claim that the resulting picture is a work of art when the photograph was accidentally taken. A common defence of the photographer that choice of equipment and choice of the photographic parameters are the result of skill, effort and conscious thinking about subject, framing and moment of exposure., seems to be quite hollow and forced.
The physical base of the imaging chain (silver and silicon!) and its visual context needs to be understood to get a clear view on the core of photography, independent of the debate about photography in the art world and in the community of photographers themselves who seem to copy many ideas and arguments of the art world.
Starting point is the physical reality of our everyday life and our perception of it. This is a macroscopic view, not the microscopic view of the scientist. Only a fraction of the continually changing macroscopic reality that is projected on the retina is processed by the brain.

The photograph of a section of this reality captures only the light reflecting surfaces with a eye-eyed perspective and during a fraction of second. It is a singular event. The camera records everything in its angle of view that reflects or radiates light, indiscriminately and automatically. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the object points and the image points, only regulated by physical laws. It is an automatic process for which the snapshot photograph is the best example.
Because human beings are not aware of what is happening exactly at this instant in time, the photograph presents an image we may not recognize in detail, but with which we are familiar (it is, part of the everyday life we are accustomed to). As soon as we look at photographs of events that we do not know or recognise, the alienating effect sets in. The earliest example are the photographs by Muybridge that show a running horse or a walking human in slow motion. The urge to photograph springs from the desire to record the very event which we are intimate with and which we want to remember. It is often said with some derision that the holiday maker really enjoys his vacation only after viewing the ordinary holiday pictures that were made. The Italian writer Italo Calvino, in the mid 1950s, has written a short story (“The Adventure of a Photographer”) , that is hardly ever mentioned in the discussions about photography, but contains many real gems of insight. The story starts with this description:

“When spring comes, the city's inhabitants, by the hundreds of thousands, go out on Sundays with leather cases over their shoulders. And they photograph one another. They come back as happy as hunters with bulging game bags; they spend days waiting, with sweet anxiety, to see the developed pictures (anxiety to which some add the subtle pleasure of alchemistic manipulations in the darkroom, forbidding any intrusion by members of the family, relishing the acid smell that is harsh to the nostrils). It is only when they have the photos before their eyes that they seem to take tangible possession of the day they spent, only then that the mountain stream, the movement of the child with his pail, the glint of the sun on the wife's legs take on the irrevocability of what has been and can no longer be doubted. Everything else can drown in the unreliable shadow of memory.”
The photographic technique that is described may seem dated( it is all silver halide), but the observations are to the point and actual. Events and things that are not recorded on film, are vanishing in memory and do no longer exist in a personal history. There are two reasons why the snapshot is important: (1) to preserve a slice of reality before it vanishes from memory and (2) to study what the brain missed or did not deem important enough to process. Winogrand is confirming the second argument when he said that “Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks when photographed”. The casual snapshot, made by the putative amateur photographer, lacks one essential ingredient that Calvino refers to in this paragraph.

“Now he felt that something in the essence of photographic man was eluding him, the secret appeal that made new adepts continue to join the ranks of the amateurs of the lens, some boasting of the progress of their technical and artistic skill, others, on the contrary, giving all the credit to the efficiency of the camera they had purchased, which was capable (according to them) of producing masterpieces even when operated by inept hands (as they declared their own to be, because wherever pride aimed at magnifying the virtues of mechanical devices, subjective talent accepted a proportionate humiliation).”
This ingredient is the role of craftsmanship in taking photographs. Two different positions are found in the literature: it takes ten thousand hours of hard work to learn photography and photography can be learnt in less than one hour. Both positions are true. When you just want to take a picture of something that interests you, the procedure of operating the original Leica I is a good example. Just set the aperture to f/8, the shutter speed to 1/50 sec, the distance to four meters, frame the ‘something’ at eye level position and press the shutter. This is the same technique that many street photographers use with any Leica CRF or DRF. When you wish to learn all details of Photoshop or the classical Zone System, ten thousand hours may not be enough. Craftsmanship is more than knowledge and skill at performing a task. As a first approximation craftsmanship (or its humble sibling workmanship) means using any technique or apparatus in which the quality of the work is not predetermined and depends on the judgment, care and dexterity which the maker exercises when he works. Such a description is applicable to the photographer and to the carpenter or painter or machine operator. The idea is that the final quality of the result is continually at risk during the process of making. One core idea is that the workman or craftsman works without division of labour. When division of labour is applied to the production of a good, the workman is one element in the mechanisation of the process. Here we may find the reason why silver-halide photography is still popular: the photographer works without division of labour from pressing the shutter to developing the final print. Digital photography has a workflow where major portions of the process are outsourced to computer software and social media distribution.

One of the reasons to select the Leica CRF is the optical performance of its lenses that can produce high fidelity photographs. Such photographs support the idea that photography ’s truth is disclosure rather than evidentiary. The fidelity of the recorded scene invites the observer to become a detective, to study the details and then asking what is happening here and why are these details juxtaposed or why do they converge. Cartier-Bresson developed the theory of the decisive moment. The photographer should wait until all elements of the observed scene cohere formally and some would say aesthetically. The flaw of this approach is the working of chance when during that tiny moment of 1/00 of a second the position of the elements changes or new elements pop up. High-fidelity is a concept borrowed from the sound industry and points to an additional, largely ignored view of the photograph. Modern thinkers about photography interpret the relation between the recorded brightness pattern on the surface (luminous trace) of the photography and the corresponding visual brightness pattern of a segment of reality as a representation or an index. This approach is obviously derived from art theory and shares the fate of all concepts in art theory: endless discussions about meaning and use. It might be more productive to approach photography with the vocabulary of model and analogy. There is a curious coincidence that silver-halide based photography is described as analogue photography. An analogy is composed of correspondence and difference. Some aspects of the photograph correspond with the real object and some aspects are different. That is why no one would confuse the photograph with the depicted object. They are similar, but not the same. In science the concept of model and analogy is used to explain new and unfamiliar results from experiments with a reference to known models and analogies. Using an analogy is the basis of thinking. The early supporters of the new process of photography used analogies to describe the working. Lady Eastlake (1857) describes the photographic image as the disclosure of the world rather than its creation. Oliver Wendell Holmes (1859) characterizes the world as a picture whose essence lies in its photographic reproducibility, turning the argument on its head. Talbot (1839) compared photography to nature imprinting itself on the picture, to reproduce herself. Some commentators linked photography to a specific picture, the self portrait and remarked that all nature shall be its own painter. An important observation was made by Lady Eastlake when she compared the appearance of the photographic image to the creation of the world. It is well-known that humans see the world with their eyes. One might say, when following the realist interpretation, that the world is revealed to the observer through the process of observing or seeing. Realists assume that the world exists, independent of the human observer. The photographic print when immersed in the developing agent, slowly reveals what has been captured on the negative by the camera. This phenomenon implies an analogy between the development of the print with its image of a scene and the human observation of that same scene. There is a major difference which may be referred to as optical unconscious: there are details in the physical world that are too small or occur too quickly for us to see, but the camera captures them.

The classic dichotomy between photography as evidence or an automatic copy of reality or as a constructed image, made by or strongly influenced by the operator has only a diminishing value. It leads to a debate that is useless, at least for the practicing and thinking photographer. The proposal to interpret photography as an analogy for something else (in this case the idea that the world presents itself differently to the camera than to the human eye) is quite interesting. It changes the standard account that the observer views the world objectively or constructively to the account that the world reveals itself to the innocent observer. Cézanne who described himself as a ‘recording machine’ reverberated the same sentiment. This account corresponds to the approach of a detective when looking at photographs. Photographic images are associated with the disclosure of the world. This is different from the usual accent that the photographer constructs an image to have a meaning. Basically a photograph is a document that informs about the world. Amateur photographers who take their snapshots for personal use effectively accept the idea that a photograph captures only what the world reveals to the observer, camera-lens or brain.These ideas are not new. Perceptive writers, like Proust and Kierkegaard, have pondered the ‘pure eye’, ‘fleeting moment’, ‘moment of vision’ as elements of the human condition.

The decisive moment ( “the image on the run”), captured with a Leica camera combines the seemingly simple personal photograph with a thorough reflection on the nature of craftsmanship, inspired by the handling of the Leica CRF and the technique of silver-halide photography. The Leica CRF is much more than an instrument with a number of features and a long history. It is time to stop with the fixation on the camera as a legend (which it is not) and appreciate its role as a machine within the tradition of craftsmanship, that is the mastering of material skills.

This text is not an argument against the current digital technology and its undeniable advantages (simplicity, performance and efficiency) in producing what has been called computational images. It is an argument to reconsider the values of photography as a “miracle of analogy” (pace Proust). As soon as we shake off the yoke of art and technology and start taking pictures as accurate records of everyday life (the good, bad and ugly aspects!) we may recover the joy of using a camera that was Barnack’s concern when he constructed the Lilliput camera.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

why the Leica CRF is attractive

2017-10-25T21:06:24+02:00

The discussion about the personality and the technical (or engineering) design of the Leica CRF is in this section. A reference to the Leica M3 is logical, because it is the original design from which all Leica CRF’s derive. The range from M2 to M-A is obvious, but the digital cameras from M8 to M10 are included too, because their outstanding characteristic is the coupled rangefinder and the manual focusing. A first aspect to analyze is the personality of the camera. It is strange to approach an instrument that is a tool for a technical process (produce photographs) as having a personality. I will look at the Leica camera from several perspectives: function, use and personality. These perspectives relate to a certain type and style of design. Any mechanical product results from a series of design steps. At first there is an idea for a new product or to improve an existing product. Then sketches and discussions focus on what materials to use and how to manufacture the parts. The final result depends on the materials that are available and on the quality of the manufacturing processes. Product design, as a process, is the synthesis of technical and industrial design. The creation of successful products that have a strong personality is the goal. This goal encompasses more than the classical rule that ‘form follows function’.
The technical (or engineering) design relates to the proper technical functioning of the product; the industrial design relates to the satisfaction afforded by the product: visual and tactile attributes, associations and historical pedigree. Engineering and design are equivalent terms. In Italian design and engineering is the same word: “la progettazione”; “il progetto” is the plan. The discussion of the engineering design of the Leica CRF focuses on terms of craftsmanship and handmade products. There is more to meet the eye in this respect. A special section explains what the manufacturing processes and the choice of materials mean for the quality and usability of the Leica CRF.
In this section the focus is on the elements of personality, all those aspects that separate the myth and facts of the Leica CRF, starting with the M3. The previous models, the L39 types, are left alone to become the objects of interest for collectors and historians. They are also objects for nostalgic persons who would say “they do not make them like this anymore”. In reality the L39 types, except the IIIf and IIIg, are manufactured with procedures fitting a cottage industry that would not count as precision manufacturing.

The personality of a product depends on aesthetic attributes, attributes of association, perceived attributes and emotional attributes. It is expression through manufacturing. A product is effective and pleasant to use when the way it works derives from its design: size, proportion, configuration to identify controls and what they do: a simple, easy-to-understand interface. The Leica M3 is a masterful example of this human-centered-interface. On the left side where the rewind knob is located, we find the film cassette. The transport lever is on the right side. Film transport is from left to right. Next to the transport lever is the shutter speed selection dial and the shutter release button. There is only one ocular to look through and the frame lines are clear. Under the finder window we find the frame selector lever. When handling the camera, the right hand touches all important functions, while the other hand provides the stability of the camera. Focusing and shutter release are a coordinated action with both hands. Every button or lever relates to one clear function. Framing, focusing and exposure are the all-important basic functions to make a successful photograph.

Products have a design life: a time span after which replacement is expected. The designer team of the Leica M3 never thought about a life span of more that twenty years for their product. Its design life now survives well into the 21C: the Leica M10 is very close in design and personality to the Leica M3. Without the menu controls on the back side of the camera body, every control and feature (shutter, rangefinder, aperture and distance setting) is identical and in the same location on the body.
The choice of materials is part of the personality of the Leica CRF. Surface treatment is another valued attribute that suggests impeccable perfection.Chrome plated or black painted steel alloy of the top and bottom covers suggests quality and attention to detail. Choice of metal emphasizes the engineered quality. The outer shell is covered with fine grained leather-like material. A coarse-grained vulcanized rubber compound is used for the M3.
Machined metal looks strong, its nature suggests it is being engineered. The designer can emphasize this property too much: compare the Leica SL or the Leica TL to the Leica M10 or M-A. The manufacturing technique of die-casting of aluminum alloys for soem body parts reinforces engineering quality.
These are all examples of the so-called ‘experience design’: the practice of designing products with a focus placed on the quality and enjoyment of the total (photographic) experience.
The Leica M3 is an industrial design: it assumes that photographers work as the design suggests. The Leica M10 is a human-centered-design: the design matches the capabilities and needs of the photographers.
Machines used to follow rather simple and rigid rules of operation. Look at the Leica III or M3. Distance setting is a one-way operation. Exposure setting combines shutter speed and aperture. When selected effectively, the negative is exposed as it should. The exposure method depends on the flexibility of the separate handheld exposure meter. Experience proposes small changes, based on experience. The rigidity of the machine may be a hindrance for effective use. Persons are imaginative and creative. The digital camera is in this sense a different instrument. The range of exposure methods of the Leica M10 can be adjusted to everybody’s satisfaction.

When we interact with a product, we need to discover how it works and what operations are possible. In this respect the M3 is the best: it is intuitive to understand, only one thing is possible (press the shutter, advance the film, rewind the roll). Without studying the manual the M10 is a mystery if you wish to know what is possible. After pressing the shutter release of the M3 or M-A most users can tell what happens inside the camera. When doing the same with the M10 no one (not even the reviewers of the product) can explain what happens inside.

Our brain interpretes the design of a camera on three different levels: visceral, behavioral and reflective.
Visceral responses are fast and subconscious. This is the level where style matters: appearances and touch drive the visceral response. On this level the shape and layout of the Leica CRF are important. Attraction is the main ingredient (I want this!). The behavioral level is where learned skills matter. For the designer this level has to do with the fact that every action expects a result: control is important. Handle the Leica CRF and the photographer feels in control of the instrument. On the reflective level responses are conscious. POsitine or negative feedback is possible when reflecting on the product, and combine it with its personality: you like the camera or you wish to avoid it. Well-designed products work well on all three levels and when everything is successfully combined, we feel pride and enjoyment. The extreme attitude is the frequently heard statement that some person loves his Leica.

One emotion, typical for the Leica CRF is the view through the finder: this induces a state of flow that is one with the task the photographer performs: it relates to the decisive moment of Cartier-Bresson. Actions and emotion are in synch. The actions of perform and perceive are on the visceral level. The actions of specify and interpret are on the behavioral level. Plan and compare (goal in relation to result) are actions on the reflective level. Expectations play an important part: when buying a Leica camera one expects excellent results. The user blames it onhimself when these results are not as expected.

The discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Leica CRF is not restricted to historians and collectors. They discuss the historical progress of features or the value of a camera because of its scarceness or unique features. The focus of the practical user and photographer is on utility and usability (function and form), but also on emotion and aesthetics. This element is always present, and expressed. It is the aspect that the Leica marketing department alwyas exploits. Most human behavior is subconscious, it relates to the visceral level of design. The visceral level of the brain relates to the automatic, pre-wired layer: all responses on this level are automatic and subconscious. The behavioral layer relates to processes that control the everyday behavior. It is important because it is the layer in the brain where the pleasure of using a fine tool and accomplish a task, originates. The reflective layer of the brain is where contemplation takes place. Many users of the Leica CRF will ignore the minor defects because it is so much fun to use the camera. Why does the use of this instrument gives so much pleasure? The visceral level reacts to the initial impact of the camera: appearance, touch and feel. The reflective layer evokes memories and relates to the personality of the camera. Both levels interact to produce a positive emotion and pride in the mastering of the tool and in its accomplishments. Some would argue that this style of analysis applies to products made by Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Zeiss too. This is true. But the personality of the Leica CRF differs from the one of the Canon or Nikon.

Physical feel and texture of the materials define the personality. When a reviewer remarks that the Leica has a solid feel and is made with engineering precision he is responding to the visceral level. The Leica CRF camera has the feel of smooth, polished metal and the knobs move precisely from position to position without backlash or dead zones. The Canon and Nikon have a body shell made of polymer and with knobs that shift positions without a distinct feeling. Digital Leica cameras have a release button and a speed setting dial that connects electro-mechanically to the interior mechanisms and lack the solid feeling of the film-loading cameras. Physical objects have weight, texture and surface. In design terms this is ‘tangibility’. The persons who designed the Leica M3 took photographers themselves or were immersed in the photographic culture of the day. They knew what a photographer demanded of the instrument. The shape of the Leica CRF camera results from required size, material selection and manufacturing process. Choosing a metal alloy reflects the mechanical heritage. The smoothness of operation reflects the required surface treatment which reflects the craftsmanship needed to finish the material to exact specifications. Aluminum and its alloys are often used for precision devices. Metals and alloys are clean and precise. Machined metal looks strong, its nature suggests it has been engineered, which is the activity of craftsmen. Polymers associate with cheap plastics, a wrong reputation, but one popular among camera owners.
The original Leica I was designed around the size and diameter of the film roll and with the materials that were then current for the machines in the Leitz factory. These materials were pressed and extruded alloys of steel and brass. The design of the shapes and dimensions of all parts had to match with the engineering and manufacturing capabilities. When the Leica M3 was on the drawing board, more new materials and new machine tools were available than before. The choice of material is not independent of the choice of the process by which the material is shaped or formed and also not independent of the aesthetic aspect. Industrial design theory in Germany around 1950 was influenced by the clean aesthetic of the Bauhaus, a kind of technical aesthetics that can be described as ‘form follows function’. This style is more complex: it is a balance of simplicity and aesthetics. Good design makes a product understandable. Any product has a personality, the Leica camera as well as the Nikon F or the Canon EOS range.
Materials have two overlapping roles: providing technical functionality and creating product personality. The Leica M3 had a chassis and an outer shell that were both made by die casting a metal alloy (aluminum) into the required shape. Top and bottom covers were made from zinc or brass with a chrome or painted layer. The choice for this method of manufacturing of these materials gives the designer more flexibility to create complex shapes with higher accuracy and to propose thinner walls where no stress is expected. In addition, this choice implies a simple manufacturing process: the first element of cost cutting so to speak!

Why pay $7000 for an instrument when $1000 will bring almost the same result. Leica users will point to the fact that optical performance and precision mechanics together produce photographs with a special quality and character.
The chain of reasoning is: the Leica CRF has a specific function: to make photographs. What associations does that function carry in this case? Creativity, refinement, sophisticated taste, a long production heritage, a long list of important photographers! This argumentation was valid when the Leica M6 was the preferred tool for many photographers. This is the mythical side of the personality. The instrument is as good and effective as the user. Winogrand used the Leica CRF and produced impressive photographs. The only photo-technical argument is the instantaneous response of the camera: there is no time lag between seeing something at some instant of time and recording it on film at that same moment. The quality of the lens is no issue: working with the style of most iconic street photographers accurate focusing and handheld stability is impossible. There is a large amount of chance involved.
This reasoning is part of the reflective layer and cannot provide the arguments that operate on the visceral and behavioral level. Design theory shows that on this level emotional and psychological processes are the most important. What these processes are or contribute to the final decision to admire, buy or use a specific camera type or model, is still a mystery. It is a mystery that Leitz and Leica have always used to promote their products. Design theory says we should look at the visceral level to understand why we like the Leica CRF camera.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

manufacturing quality, part 1

2017-10-19T21:50:52+02:00

The topic this time is the manufacturing quality of the film loading Leica CRF cameras from M3 to M-A. A totally different story has to be told about the modern so-called ‘digital’ Leica CRF cameras.
There is a persistent story among Leica collectors and users that the M4-2 is a watershed camera between the classical Wetzlar production and assembly procedures and the ‘cost-cutting’ techniques employed since the M4-2 and continuing to the M6 in all its variants and including the current MP and M7 models. There is no discussion yet about the M-A.
The differences observed in the two series (M3 to M4 and M4-2 to MP) are of two sorts: the change of material for some components and the infamous flare patch in the viewfinder due to a change in the construction of the view finder mechanism. The gears of the M3 were made of brass and the gears in later models were made of metal. There is a persistent story, specifically among collectors and historians that brass is the better choice. There is no explanation for this argument. There is also the story, partly true in this case, that the classical Wetzlar method employed much manual labour that gave the finishing touch during the final assembly because of their expertise with the soft hammer and the file to fit the components to extremely close tolerances and the the lavish amount of adjustment screws. The, let us call it, the Canada and Portugal methods follow a more modern method of selective assembly with a minimum of final adjustments.
What is the real story? Every small batch manufacturing process starts with the machining of parts and the assembly of these parts by human labour to a finished product.
Machining of parts to the required dimensions and accuracy depends on the combination of tools and material, on the experience of the operator and on the use of measurement tools to ensure that the machined products are made within specified tolerance ranges. The operator has to fix the metal part in the machine, adjust the tool, select the speed and cooling fluid and inspect the tool to see if it it still fit to work as required. Machining is expensive and time consuming. When labour is cheap, as was the case with the classical Wetzlar method, it makes sense to delegate the responsibility for the final quality to the assembly process. Here it is possible and even necessary to adjust and fine tune the components to a level that satisfies the demands for a precision engineered product.
When leitz shifted production to Midland, all original Wetzlar machines were moved to the Canada location. But most of the original workforce in Germany did not move to the new location. So new personnel had to be trained and some components were treated differently. So some blackening of gears was dropped as not necessary for the durability of the product. Here we see the same process as in the car industry. At first the parts were over dimensioned to make sure they do not break under load, and later it was established that too much metal was used. If we define accuracy as the ability to produce parts within specified dimensions, the blackening of some surfaces is not part of the quality requirement.
In the course of the evolution of machine processing, more accurate parts could be produced, even when using the same equipment. The original brass components had one problem: machining produces heat and the cooling of the parts distorts the dimensions that had to be rectified during final assembly. So new materials that do not deform during cooling were selected. With more accurately shaped parts the assembly process becomes easier and only selective assembly is required. This is more efficient and produces the same or even a better result. The M6 was made and assembled following this process: better machining and less work during assembly. Indeed the M6 has more non-metal parts (some would say ‘plastics’) and some changes of parts (the film counter is stamped and not engraved), but this does not contribute to the ultimate functioning of the camera as a photographic tool. It is an element of nostalgia to lament the disappearance of the classical production method. The functional view is to appreciate the tool as a precision instrument. There are many roads to perfection in manufacturing methods and collectors and historians would be well advised to stay in their field of expertise (finding exclusive models with unknown specs as example) and should not recounting myths about manufacturing methods they do not really understand.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

the importance of manual labour

2017-10-08T21:54:47+02:00

How important is the manual assembly in a production cycle?
Leica has always stressed the importance of the manual component in the production and assembly of its products. There is evidently a strong connection with the romantic idea of a craftsman in a cottage industry who carefully and with upmost concentration produces the parts of the final product and with great feeling adjusts the components as long as is necessary to function smooth-less and for a long period. There are enough descriptions on the internet that support this kind of image building. And Leica is not the only company to stress its reliance on manual labour for the assurance of ultimate quality.
Report after report in the manufacturing industry indicates that this view is a myth. CNC machinery and robotics are capable of producing parts and systems with tighter tolerances than manual labour can accomplish. The integration of the computer in the workflow for control and quality checks has had more impact on the final quality than human inspection. Of course there are instances where the expertise of a craftsperson can override the decision made by a computer. A good example is the case where the computer advised the machinist at the machine center to use a certain amount of coolant combined with a speed of the tool, where the craftsman noted that this was a wrong combination. Experience is important and computers are not perfect!
We should however not over estimate the importance of the human operator. One of the critical elements in the Leica rangefinder camera is the accuracy of the focus, a combination between the moving components in the finder, the shape of the curve at the end of the lens when it moves forwards or backwards and the roller mechanism in the camera body. The adjustment of the rangefinder in the camera body is done independent from any lens. It is assumed that the lens has its own adjustments to ensure full compatibility with the body mechanism. In reality this assumption is not correct, as can be seen from the many complaints by users who note that one lens focusses correctly and another one does not.
In the conventional way the rangefinder is adjusted by an operator looking through the finder at a target. The adjustment is done manually by focusing physically at three distances. The conditions of the operator are important: fatigue, unattentivenes and experience play a role. The current method employs a computer that simulates the three distances and the operator has to adjust what is projected on the computer screen, independent of the physical conditions of the operator.
CNC machinery in general is able to produce parts with a consistency and accuracy that surpasses that of the human operator at a classical machine. The complex shapes of some current Leica aspherical lens surfaces could not be produced without computer controlled machinery.
The original Leica camera was a product with a large number of gears, couplings, mechanical linkages and mechanical brakes to function as a transport mechanism, a rewind mechanism, a shutter release and timing mechanism and so on. It was organically built up form a bare chassis and the workman had to know the function of every part and every mechanism to assemble all parts in the correct sequence and adjust the parts to function durably and accurately. in this process manual labour was required.
In the modern digital Leica camera body there is a sequence of combining subassemblies, often produced by other companies. The linkages between subassemblies are mainly electronic or computational and not mechanical. So the level of manual adjustments is limited or computer assisted. The alignment of the sensor surface with the front bayonet ring is computer controlled and computer assisted. In the traditional mechanical camera the guide rails of the film guide are machined with a certain tolerance and the bayonet ring has to be adjusted with distance rings to the correct position.
There are many more aspects in the manufacturing processes between the traditional way and the current way, but you get the idea. There are no technical or procedural aspects in any manufacturing process that indicate that the manual assembly is inherently superior to a semi- automated process. The only argument that makes sense is that the low number of products, made in relatively small product runs does not justify (financially and economically) the deployment of dedicated machinery.
A critical assessment of the value and importance of manual labour in a modern manufacturing process might be needed to get a good grasp of what is its role.

Turnover figures
In a previous message I gave turnover figures of the Leica Company. Here are more data.
The documents from the Bundesanzeiger give financial data for the ACM Projektentwicklung GmbH and for the Leica AG Wetzlar/Solms.
There are also the results of the Leica Geschäftsberichte Solms*
All fiscal years run from 1 April to 31 March. Not all figures are available.

Leica AG——Turnover——System-cameras+lenses
2015/2016——294—————————161
2014/2015------276—————————174
2013/101–——280—————————152
2012/2013——265—————————135
2011/2012——247—————————119
2010/2011——212—————————94
2009/2010——132—————————58
2008/2009——120—————————35
2007/2008——143–————————-47
2006/2007——-133————————-46
2005/2006——-107————————-34
2004/2005*–——94————————31
2003/2004*——-119————————46
2002/2003*——144————————62
2001/2002*——140————————65
2000/2001*——158————————66 of which 50 M-system
1999/2000*——141—————————————-43
1998/1999*——136—————————————36
1997/1998*——-141
1996/1997*——136
1995/1996*——122
1994/1995*——-117

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

free pocket book

2017-10-07T22:03:46+02:00

Here is my original Leica pocket book from 2010. It is free for everyone. Due to massive downloads the provider has charged additional money. Now I will follow another option. Send me your email and I will send you a link through 'wetransfer' for downloading the file. Somewhat more impractical but no more data load on the site. Enjoy

automation or not

2017-09-30T21:49:26+02:00

Did you know that the famous French Angenieux optical company stopped with the production of lenses for the 35 mm format and gave all designs and construction to Tokina sometime in the 1970s?
I have a Canon EOS 33V film loading camera, that is now more than ten years old. It was announced in 2004. With a handful of fresh batteries, it started as new from the box. I had not used it for years. The lens, a Canon EF macro 50 mm / 1: 2.5, famous for its image quality, had been dropped on the floor and fell apart in a number of components. I could re-assemble the lens and it was fully functional. The camera itself is one of the last film-loading cameras that Canon produced. The features are impressive. Motorized film loading, high speed AF, seven selective focus points, many exposure options and a long list of function modes. It is a most pleasurable camera to use when you understand the manual and can operate the many buttons and options. In that same period the Canon company produced the Canon EOS 20D, a very affordable digital camera. Leica offered the MP and M7 and it took another two years before they announced the M8. The M7 and the M8 share the same relationship as the Canon 33V and the EOS 20D, simply replacing the film gate for a sensor surface. The Leica camera however retained the manual focus and the manual exposure settings whereas the Canon added a multitude of electronic automations.
The evolution of the Leica CRF has reached a technical platform: a slimmer body as with the M10 or a larger number of pixels in a future M11 or M12 can hardly be considered a revolution.
The EOS system (electro-optical system) on the other hand has a platform for growth and innovation. But here too, there are limits: one can increase the speed of AF or the number of AF points from seven to a hundred, but on stays in the same league. There is only one focus plane tat is interesting and one exposure that is correct. You can try to accomplish this with assistance of all kinds of automation or you can do it with knowledge of the situation and adjust the parameters by hand. What is more fun?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

The Leica world, part three

2017-09-20T22:19:41+02:00

The original Leica I was the first precision miniature camera, designed by its maker, the engineer Barnack, as the ultimate snapshot camera. The first popular snapshot camera was the Eastman Kodak No. 1 roll film camera that popularized photography and at the same time gave the amateur photographer a new status. The Kodak camera had a few drawbacks: it was a wooden construction, it had no viewfinder, only one shutter speed and the prints were circular and small in size. And with a hundred pictures on one roll it took a long time before the amateur could view the printed pictures. The Leica I was made of metal parts (the metal was needed for the required precision manufacture of microscopes), had a viewfinder for eye-level viewing, a range of shutter speeds with a very fast 1/500 second, and a film strip with 36 exposures, but with very small-sized negatives that required enlargement for larger prints that could be viewed with ease. The compact size of the camera with its excellent lens was an attractive tool for scientists and explorers, artists and wealthy amateurs.
The Leica camera has evolved since 1925 with a few giant steps from the original fully mechanical, compact body with a fixed and collapsible 50 mm lens to a system camera with a coupled rangefinder mechanism and interchangeable lenses to a solid-state equipped system camera with through-the-lens exposure automation and a range of interchangeable high-speed lenses. Comparing the Leica I with the Leica M10 feels like moving through a time machine of photo-technological progress. Not changed has the close association of the Leica rangefinder camera with art photography and with the original notion of mechanical and optical excellence and precision manufacture. Also not changed has the hint of luxury that has been attached to the Leica products which has been cultivated by the company. This strategy started with the Leica Luxus and continued by a long string of special models until today (late 2017).
Many current Leica owners aspire and hope to produce images that resemble the images made by the grand masters of the Leica camera. Photography was and is a serious activity for many camera users and to do it properly one needs serious equipment. The interminable discussions in the Leica world about the choice of the best lens and the best camera (now including the best sensor) indicate a longing for perfection that is reflected in this almost obsessive act for the selection of the best tools. The assumption is that only the best tools are good enough for high quality artistic imagery. Here we see a kind of reverse logical reasoning from product to tool. It is a fact that several photographers have been producing iconic images while photographing with a Leica camera. Therefore only with a Leica camera is it possible to produce such images. A perfect image can only be made with a perfect camera and any Leica camera is a perfect instrument manufactured with the highest precision. A combination of both arguments (with a Leica it is possible and maybe even probable to take photographs in the tradition of the great masters and a perfect picture is only feasible with a finely engineered and manufactured camera like a Leica) is a highly irresistible proposition to buy a Leica camera. Current descriptions about Leica cameras abound in subjective references to these characteristics.
When the Leica camera was announced in 1925, the world of photography was dominated by amateur photography, aggressively promoted by Eastman Kodak. The style and content of amateur photography reflected the mood of the culture at large. Photography does not exist in a vacuum. The universe of photography has been stuck between the high culture of the avant-garde and modernism and the culture of everyday and modernity. Both modern art and the culture of everyday have their roots in the period 1875 - 1914, that same period that modern photography came of age. The word and concept of ‘modern’ and ‘modernity’ were first introduced by Gautier in 1852. Baudelaire elaborated on this idea with his essay on ‘the painter of modern life’. Gautier, nor Baudelaire were interested in theorizing about the new concept. What they wanted to do, was to extract its essence. Jean-Jacques Rousseau declared that it was made up of bibelots (decorative objects) and female bodies. In the universe of art, modernism became Avant Garde and in the universe of everyday life three innovations dominated the period: advertising, mass circulation of newspaper and film (the moving photograph).
Photography was torn between both universes. In essence modernity stood for a detailed observation of everyday life in a big city. Here on the streets and in modern department stores (the glittering magasins in Paris stand out as the best example) the modern mass culture and the results of mass production could be observed. The impressionists adopted the analysis of Baudelaire that the task of the artist was to extract the essence of modernity by recording the instant of the fleeting and volatile impressions of everyday life. The only way to accomplish this task was to go into the streets - en plein air - and to observe every day events. It is remarkable that at the same time photographers who had the means to record this instantaneous moment with ease, moved into the studio to produce pictorialist and very elaborate pictures. The impressionists shocked the art world by their style of painting, but also by their choice of subject material. Before the impressionists rose to fame, it were the illustrators of magazines and advertising posters who were the most daring, because they were relieved of the burden to produce art.
Positivism was the dominant philosophy of the 19C, but artists grappled with the problem how to combine reality with subjectivity. Reality was not simply there to be discovered, but was something to be perceived and even constructed by the mind of the observer. Artists had another axe to grind: modern man lived in the age of the machine and nothing did symbolize this machine age as the steam locomotive and the train station. Impressionists did paint steam and train stations, perhaps in an effort to depict modern life with an impressionist gaze. Around 1900 the impressionist movement had vanished, but modern life had not, nor were the streets of metropolitan cities. The Dutch painter Breitner, who secretly used the Kodak pocket camera to record the fleeting moments of the dynamic urban street. With photography, the element of chance made its debut in art painting. The impressionists had already experimented with this new phenomenon, but could not grasp it without the help of photographs. These painters were well versed in optics and physiology of the eye, knowing Fermat and Helmholtz. Their idea was to capture the impressions of the outer world at the moment the light rays touches the retina, just before the brain action starts to construct a meaningful image. This was obviously a mission impossible, but it showed the close resemblance to the process of photography. They also introduced the concept of time in their approach to painting. The word ‘modern’ derives from the adverb ‘modo’, meaning recently, just now. Until the mid-19C, society was looking to the past and painters were mainly occupied with depicting grand events from the past or copying the best work of the ‘Ancients’. The 19C was a period of rapid innovation in science, technology and industry. There was a growing realization that this period in time was a distinct and even superior stage in the history of mankind. Modernity was the latest period in history, evolving from antiquity to middle ages and from Enlightenment to Modernity. The middle-class definition of modernity (scientific and technological progress, mass production and the industrial revolution, sweeping social and economic changes) was opposed by another definition of modernity (to complicate matters!). The expanding modernity of the middle-class (the bourgeoisie) was countered by a movement of cultural and artistic radicalism. The radical aestheticism, embodied in the Art for Art’s Sake movement that promoted a disinterested ideal of beauty to counter the ugliness of modern industrial life and the exploding cities. The modern artist, according to Baudelaire, should search for novelty and beauty, that is defined as romanticism (intimacy, colour, aspiration toward the infinite). Modernity, says Baudelaire, has as its core a tendency to immediacy, an attempt to identify with a sensuous present grasped in its very transitoriness and opposed by its spontaneous nature to a past suggestive of lifeless quiescence. This description could be, word for word, adopted by the practitioners of the new technique of photography for whom the aspect of time, chance and ‘the present’ are core elements of any photography. But photographers at this time (around 1860) were still engaged with the technical intricacies of the medium and the more ambitious ones were trying to copy the style of painting of the ancients that Baudelaire was so negative about. We have to wait for the construction of the engineer Barnack to implement fully the idea of time and immediacy. The ideas of Baudelaire were implemented in a photographic way by Cartier-Bresson, who was trained as a painter and embraced the Barnack camera. His theory of the decisive moment is nothing less than the translation of Baudelaire’s urge to be modern which implies to extract a mysterious beauty from human life.

Life on the street did not only inspire the impressionists, but also the thousands of amateur photographers, who, equipped with the Kodak box, roamed the streets and beaches and pubs to take a snapshot of modern life. The miniature camera, in particular the Leica, made it even easier to capture life on the street and the snapshot evolved to the candid photograph to the documentary photograph to the snapshot aesthetic. Whatever the descriptive name, the subject did not change. As Dyer has noted in his ’The Ongoing Moment” every photographer has made pictures of a blind accordion player of a blind beggar or a scene in a barbershop or a drunken person in a pub. The subjects and genres of photography, and this holds good for amateur photography as well, have not changed in the last 150 years. The history of Leica photography is often presented and discussed as an orderly progression of images through the period from 1925 to now. The Leica camera has its technical limits that restrict the range of tasks that the photographer with a Leica camera can handle. Prominently are the available light, documentary and street photographs, especially with a high-speed wide angle lens. Today the advantages of the Leica CRF are less important for most photographers. Available light photography is now possible even with a smart phone and sensor sensitivities of close to ISO 50.000 have reduced the need for high speed lenses. Fast motorized transport has made it possible to battle the element of chance and long-range zoom lenses have made framing a lesser problem. The ubiquitous application of ever more powerful post-processing software has shifted the preparation and attentiveness of the photograph from pre-visualisation to computer-processing. With hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded every few hours and with street photography that is recording scenes that are as boring as numerous and with post-modernistic art photography as provocative and enterprising as it is incomprehensible (but not for the art scene cognoscenti), what is left for the amateur photographer with a Leica CRF to do?
To answer this question we have to move beyond the description of technological progress and also beyond an analysis of photography as a set of social practices that define the worldwide Leica owner community. The basic question is why we do photograph and the related question is what is photography anyway? A related question, not without importance is why we like to look at photographs.
Mechanical recording is the essence of the photographic process. Without a real object, a lens, a black box and a recording medium, photography as a medium would not exist. There is astonishingly little written about this mechanical copying of reality (except in purely technical literature about the chemical and optical processes).
The function of human perception is related to survival. It is through vision that we get to know the world. Human vision is very selective: only a fraction of what is captured by the eye and registered on the retina as visual stimuli, is allowed to pass through the optical nerve to be used by the brain to construct an image of the world. The brain is not a passive machine, but works with templates and stored information to construct the world view. Human perception is not reliable and picks up in principle only surfaces with physical characteristics that produce a stimulus in the retina. Thoughts, for example, are not recorded.
The camera does not have a brain and records any surface that reflects light within its field of sight. The difference between what the camera records and the image that the brain constructs is often referred to as the optical unconscious (with a reference to Freud’s theory!). This difference is one of the reasons why we take photographs: to remember the event of object as it was at the moment of exposure. Human perception is conditioned to quickly scan a scene and to identify as fast as possible enemies or in general any danger. There is no time for considered reflection. Unimportant details and objects are not processed by the brain. The camera on the other hand records indiscriminately. The level and amount of detail in a photograph has to be discovered.
That is why looking at photographs is so common and perhaps even pleasant. The ease or comfortableness with which photographs are observed can be explained as follows:
1. The mitigation by one visual plane : a photograph has no depth and focusing the eye is not necessary;
2. The mitigation by reduction: a photograph shows a scene on a small format that can be captured at once without eye movement and all objects can be seen in one glance; when looking at a photograph only the visual sense is active; the photograph shows objects without movement and objects can be studied as long as one wishes: in reality the objects are constantly moving and it is difficult to observe details carefully.
3. The richness of details, once admired in the early Daguerreotypes, was also interpreted as non-art, because in a painting most fine detail is not represented, which makes looking at a painting more pleasant because the brain has less work to do.

What the camera records is not what the photographer sees at the moment of exposure. The world around us is visually chaotic and unpredictable. The element of chance has been skilfully used by Cartier-Bresson to develop his ideas of the decisive moment. Surrealists noted the surprise element in photographs taken of a fluid environment and used the Leica camera to document the unexpected.
When Barnack constructed the original Leica camera, he envisaged a small always ready camera for recording interesting events in a fast effortless way. He was thinking at the problems of the ordinary amateur photographer, like himself and not reflecting on contemporary art photography with a large field camera.
The interest in the snapshot is partly inspired by the realization that these photographs may provide useful information about the past. They also give an indication what were the interests of the persons who took these pictures.
The argument to take photographs of everyday life and objects is almost identical: what is now boring and conventional may be interesting for future generations, as long as the (digital) negative or print can be accepted as authentic.

Many current scholars of art history are turning away from the standard narrative that photography has to be viewed and interpreted as an art form with special characteristics (the medium-specific approach). Photography is increasingly interpreted as a vernacular practice, as defined by the French scholar Bourdieu already in 1965. The ordinary snapshot receives the attention it deserves and the discussion to distinguish between a snapshot and a so-called art photograph made by for example Winogrand becomes more and more futile.
Taking a casual and instantaneous photograph (or an image on the run) is the best way to experience and understand the core of photography. The conclusion of this discussion is that only a special style of photography is feasible in these modern times: a new radically personal and emotional photography that records persons and events and objects with which the photographer has an emotional bond.
But what justifies the use of the Leica CRF? An older Canon rangefinder camera is quite capable to support this photographic genre. And the Canon lenses are quite small and very good. The rangefinder is a smart solution, but more closely related to the finder in the Leica III. My arguments for the current Leica CRF models are not the ones that are often cited. The rangefinder is optimized for the 50 mm focal length, my favourite focal length and the accuracy is very good, even for an aperture of f/1.4, the widest I use. The Noctilux lens is too large and heavy for my tastes and I have no use for such a wide aperture. The body plus lens is still a compact unit and the layout of the dials and buttons is intuitive and easy to use, even when in a hurry. The optical quality of the lenses is outstandingly good, but one needs a tripod and very careful focusing, not only at the wider apertures to extract all performance out of the lens. When using the cartridge loading versions (actual M-A, M7 and MP) or one of the older versions (from M3 to M6) there is no shutter lag at all and freezing the moment at the required instant is easy. The simplicity of the layout and the minimal amount of features allow for a clean and simple process and technique of taking pictures. It has to acknowledged that current reflex and mirrrorless cameras have the option for an automatic pilot that is fast and almost silent. The only Leica shutter that may qualify as whisper quiet is the one in the M3 or the M7 that is even quieter and may lead the rank of quietest Leica cameras. Without the view/rangefinder mechanism and the compact high performance lenses in the range of 18 mm to 135 mm, there is no justification for buying and using the Leica CRF. The remaining question is the choice between a sensor-equipped or a cartridge-loading camera. This is a very difficult choice that needs careful and lengthy analysis sufficient for a full chapter in my new book.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

Leica and innovation

2017-09-19T10:36:53+02:00

Based on its own product portfolio, the Leica Camera AG Wetzlar can not realize substantial growth figures. According to the reports in the German Bundesanzeiger, the Leica CAmera AG Wetzlar had a total turnover of 304 Million Euro over 2015 (287 and 299 in 2014 and 2013). The system cameras and compact cameras had a turnover of 160, 176, 152 and 80, 60, 81). The figures of
the cameras indicate an up and down trend, reflecting the introduction of new models. The growth of both segments has reached a limiting potential of about Euro (million) 200 and 80. The photographic market is no longer a strong growth market and with the smart phones getting more and more capable, there is hardly rom for expansion. The focus of Leica on the high end and luxury market for the camera segment does limit its appeal.
If the Leica Company will want to reach the strategic turnover of 1 Billion Euro, more product categories have to be added. The cooperation with Huawei (lenses for smart phones) and now Novacel (spectacle glasses) are elements of this growth strategy. It is clear from these market movements that Leica will not be able to reach the stated goal with the reliance on camera products alone. New models will not add much inventiveness to the existing product lines. Basically the current M10 is no different from the M8 and the SL, TL and Q are hardly different from the Japanese competition. In the 1950s. new products from the Leitz Company were anticipated with great eagerness by other camera manufacturers, because the company then was at the leading edge of photographic innovation. With the exception of a small group of enthusiasts, new Leica products are nowadays hardly taken seriously by the leading camera manufacturers. (Note the reluctance of buying the Blackstone stake in the Leica company).
Leica aficionados may discuss in detail the differences between different camera models. This is trivial but fun. Introducing a new 75-mm-lens with an aperture of f/1.2 (previously f/1.4) is hardly innovative, even when the performance is much enhanced. And a different sensor-architecture in the M10 compared to the previous models will presumably change (in subtle terms) the image quality and certainly change the production efficiency. This is an element of technical evolution, not part of an innovation.
A truly innovative design, like the Leica M5, failed to impress the market and its production ended soon. The original Leicaflex was an engineering masterpiece, but as a camera tool it lacked the innovative characteristics of many Japanese models. The M-models, from M6 to M10, are based on the same design that goes back to the M3. Crawley once stated that the M-design had remained in a kind of goldfish bowl, an apt metaphor for todays design strategy of the M-line. Undoubtedly there will be sometime in the future an M11 with an increased number of pixels, to get even with the Sony, Canon and Nikon models of today. Such a ‘new’ model may even sport a reduced number of functions to enhance the feeling of minimalism and improve the direct relation with the core of photographic technique. A really innovative optical finder combining elements of the Fuji X-100 and the (now) classical Contax G series is far away. Incorporating an SL type of viewfinder in the M would not count as innovation, only as product integration.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

The Leica world, part two

2017-09-13T13:52:26+02:00

When, in 1839, the process of photography was announced and introduced to a curious public, the most important feature was the autonomous recording by the machine of a part of reality, simply by the action of light. How exactly this happened was not known, but the mechanical nature of the process pushed the operator out of this process. This was quite remarkable, because every known process of producing images or pictures required the active involvement of a human being: a painting could not be produced without a painter who used his ideas, expertise and craftsmanship to select paint and brushes and who used his eyes to convert what he saw onto a canvas. Many artists accepted the mechanical nature of photography, because they were aware of the fact that the camera records things that the eye could not see. Studying photographs improved their sensitivity for critical observation. Photographs were not seen as art works but as simple snapshots to see hidden aspects of nature. This is the reason why Surrealists were so eager to accept photography as a means for aligning the optical unconscious (a term adapted from the works of Freud) with normal conscious viewing. The Leica camera with its fast and discreet operation was a favourite tool.
Photography was soon seen as a utilitarian, even scientific, process, but many photographers were interested in elevating the status of photography to the level of an art form, comparable with painting. Around 1900, the Kodak camera was adopted by the masses and a new style of amateur photography emerged, actively promoted by Eastman. The typical content and style of the amateur snapshot was not acceptable to promoters of the Aesthetic Movement who wanted to upgrade photography to an art medium. A handful of amateur photographers aspired to produce ratlike pictures. The fine art photographer of that day stressed the composition and lighting, and the careful arrangement of tasteful backgrounds to emphasise the decisive influence of the camera operator on the final result.
There has hardly anything changed since that period. Fine art photography is still the Holy Grail of many photographers. Art photographers stress the fact that the equipment is not relevant, but the photographer is. Especially his/her ability to see what others do not see, is important. Selecting the right moment to press the shutter and waiting for the good light is part of the vision. Intention and expression is another element of this approach to art photography. There is a dedicated effort to distinguish themselves from the amateur whose pictures are boring and conventional. A group of amateurs tries to copy what the great masters of photography have accomplished. This group may be referred to as the serious or advanced amateur, the adjectives are indicative of the attempt to differentiate between folk art and fine or high art. We must walk a delicate line: high versus low and elite versus popular are distinctions that are perhaps no longer valid in our (post)modernist visual culture.
The Leica Company is definitely trying to define photography with a Leica as art photography and many owners of Leica cameras would agree. There is a clear contradiction in this position. On one side stands the claim that the artist is the most important element in the chain of producing and consuming art photography and the claim that the tool is not relevant. On the other side stands the claim that the Leica camera is instrumental in producing a certain style of art photography. The somewhat complicated explanation refers to the qualities of the camera (rangefinder, optics, fast operation) that are supposed to support the photographer in combination with the vision of the artist in producing art. The snapshot aesthetic and the medium specificity are the broad concepts that underwrite this explanation.
The escape from this dilemma (tool versus vision) is a fall back on the technique and technology of photography. Technique should combine tool and vision. After the digital turn Leica users have a new dilemma: the high performance of the digital technology and its ease of use versus the focus on technological and optical features. A case in point is the dynamic range of a sensor, which combines the exposure with the subject brightness range. The dynamic range of a specific film/developer combination could only be established with scientific precision if you had access to a densitometer and reliable resolution figures required a microscope or a microdensitometer. The current digital files are arrays of numerical values and can be analyzed by a host of programs on the computer. Photoshop is a good example of such a program. The upshot of this new field of digital image processing (which is basically a version of signal processing) is an extremely detailed numerical analysis of some characteristics of the photograph. This assessment of the dynamic range is a good example. There is some discussion among Leica users which camera has the largest range, the M10 or the M240 or the SL.
One of the comparisons claims that the M240 has a range of 10.05 stops, the M10 10.60 stops and the SL has 10.81 stops. To be honest: a difference of 0.2 stops falls within the usual tolerance range of the system performance. The average scene has a contrast range of six to seven stops and a very high contrast scene may have 15 stops difference. For most scenes the difference of 0.5 stop between the M10 and M240 is irrelevant and for very high contrast scenes the capabilities of both cameras are not good enough. In reality there is another factor that is hardly ever considered when discussing these technicalities: when the difference between two adjacent levels of brightness is less than what can be detected by the eye (the so-called JND: just noticeable difference) the two patches will be seen as equally dark or bright. If this happens to be the case with the two darkest and brightest levels, the effective dynamic range will shrink by two levels.
Here we have the case of irrelevant accuracy: because it can be measured it is important.
Technical competence (once a characteristic of the craftsperson and the artist!) has been a good substitute for the fine art claim. Leica has changed their slogan from Leica means precision to my point of view to reflect the original change from tool to vision. Nowadays the manufacturing quality and the luxury element are stressed. Note the notorious video of 45 minutes that showed the surface treatment of the body of the TL camera. In the current world of mass media, visual cultures and social media, the social process of photography, because of its ubiquitous nature (more photos are uploaded in two hours than were mede during the whole 19th century), is in danger of becoming invisible.
We should acknowledge that the genres and contents of modern (digital) Leica photographs have not changed since 1930, except that the technical quality of modern (digital) pictures has been improved since the days of the Leica III with Summer lens.
There are some good reasons to use a Leica camera. Superior image quality, engineering and manufacturing competence and an inherent connection to fine art photography however are no longer the prime reasons to buy and use the Leica (digital) cameras.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

SUPPORT THIS SITE: BUY ONE OF MY BOOKS: SEE Shop

The leica world, part one

2017-08-28T21:06:04+02:00

The photographic process was announced around 1840 as a tool for a faithful copy of reality. The exact physical functioning of the process was not yet known, but there were enough experiments to prove that it worked. The important characteristic of the new medium was the automatic and autonomous action inside the camera between the period that the operator uncapped and capped again the lens.
There was a fascination during the whole of the 19C for machines and mechanisms, based on Comte’s philosophy of positivism.
The mechanical character of the photographic process was a source of admiration, but also of disdain. The automatic technique of copying and representation was interpreted as mechanical objectivity, as a scientific tool and not worthy of a creative project. The minimal intervention of the operator reduced the human and aesthetic element in artistic activities. Photography then was the essence and emblem of mechanical objectivity and appealed to scientists of the time. It is significant that the announcement of the technique of the daguerreotype was made by Arago, an eminent scientist.
The dissemination of the photographic process between 1840 and 1890 was accompanied by the attempts, some more some less successful, of many photographers and artists to redefine photography as an art form with special characteristics that distinguished it from painting and at the same time could emulate it as far as the results were concerned.
Even when the claim that photography is a useful medium for artistic expression is accepted, it can not be disputed that during exposure the recording of reality is a fully autonomous physical process and thus prone to chance. The element of chance is an often neglected aspect of the photographic process, presumably because of the dominance of the concept of the ‘decisive moment’. The moment (in German Augenblick) as a concept is part of a long philosophical tradition that starts with Kierkegaard. During the 1920s and 1930s it finds a new interpretation by Heidegger and his contemporary , the artist and photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson. In its essence, the simple snapshot can be regarded as the prototype of the more elaborated concept of the decisive moment as it has been interpreted by Cartier-Bresson and the surrealists. The Leica camera has been (literally!) instrumental for this style of photography. With this small and responsive camera HCB could observe directly ordinary life, In that period there was no distinction between a photojournalist, a street photographer and an artist. The most used term was simple ‘photographer’. The Surrealists liked photography precisely because of its mechanical and automatic character: walking like a flaneur on the streets, the photographer might find and record a compelling reality beneath the banal surface of ordinary experience. The Leica camera with its eye level viewfinder would enable the photographer to observe the action as it unfolds before his eyes. Reality is permanently on the run and the idea of an image a la sauvette (on the run) matches the dynamic of reality permanently unfolding. The photograph is at the moment of its creation already old, a vanishing element. These are deeply existential thoughts that the average photographer is not aware of and in fact should not reflect about. Most photographers take pictures of scenes and persons that evoke pleasant feelings that can be experienced again when looking at the photographs at a later moment.
The question why we take photographs at all, when everything has already been recorded can be partly answered by a reference to this memory of emotions. The Surrealists had a good point when stressing the automatic and mechanical character of the photographic process.
The experience and realisation of the instrumental character of the process of the capture of a slice of reality is quite strong when one is using a camera loaded with a film cartridge. The automatic process of recording, developing and printing is clearly visible as are the limits of the user intervention. The modern solid-state capture and post-procssing manipulations are rather effective in shielding the photographer from this realisation. There is indeed a fundamental difference between a chemically recorded imprint on a silver-halide emulsion layer and the numerical record of a matrix of image points. Many contemporary Leica photographers dismiss this distinction and use quite superficial arguments to make their case. There is no denying that the digital technique has liberated photography from a technical bias.
Photography has never been simpler. It is therefore remarkable that many photographers stress the fact that the application of computer-based software (also known as photoshopping) is an example of superior technique. The fixation on technical specifications is as prevalent as it was in the 1960s when selecting a film and a developer were almost as important as following the rules of the Zone System. The modern equivalent of this system is the software to ‘reconstruct’ a Raw file or a JPEG-file.
Currently, art photography is heavily influenced by this style of computer manipulations. What exactly ‘art’ might be, is nothing more than a convention and defined by artists themselves, museums, art galleries and academics. This has always been the case, but since the exhibition in 1967 by MoMa’s curator Szarkowski, the so-called street photography has been promoted as a true example of photography as an art form. The concept of the ‘snapshot-aesthetic’ made the humble amateur and domestic snapshot culturally and socially respectable.
Most photographers, including Leica photographers, are not interested in and/or do not have the capabilities for commercial and artistic photography. They are following the tradition, established by Eastman since 1888 and improved by Barnack in 1925 of photographing events and persons that are socially and emotionally important for the photographer. David Hurn, the well-known Welsh and Magnum photographer, has remarked, that 80% of of all good photography is based on the snapshot. He added that good photographs originate in the act of recording, simply and directly, a subject which is emotionally or intellectually engaging.
Such an approach is far removed from the art aspiration that seems to be a necessary ingredient of amateur photography in order to be allowed in the Hall of Fame of the Leica Gallery.
Following the canons of art photography, is not very inspiring, and copying the iconic images of well-known photographers is not easy. Most photographs, made by Leica owners (and not only by them), are ordinary snapshots of everyday life and objects. It is time to accept that this type of pictures is important for the existence of photography as an industry and as a social-cultural practice. Leica as a company, for example, would not exist when only the so-called art photographers would buy Leica cameras. We might also adopt the view of Szarkowski that sometime someone could produce a snapshot that becomes a new work of art. The average snapshot, wrote Batchen, is boring and is not the topic of interest for the usual art historical approach that stresses originality, innovation and individualism. Most photo-snapshots tend indeed to be conservative, predictable and repetitive in both subject matter and style.
There is nothing wrong with this type of photographs. They are made for personal goals. The obvious question, why do we take photographs at all, is however hardly posed, let alone answered. For a tentative answer, support is needed from photo-psychology and neurobiology, two areas of science that most photographers are presumably not acquainted with.
The function of human perception is related to survival. It it through vision that we get to know the world. Human vision is very selective: only a fraction of what is captured by the eye and registered on the retina as visual stimuli, is allowed to pass through the optical nerve to be used by the brain to construct an image of the world. The brain is not a passive machine, but works with templates and stored information to construct the world view. Human perception is not reliable and picks up in principle only surfaces with physical characteristics that produce a stimulus in the retina. Thoughts, as example, are not recorded.
The camera does not have a brain and records any surface that reflects light within its field of sight. The difference between what the camera records and the brain constructs is often referred to as the optical unconscious (with a reference to Freud’s theory!). This difference is one of the reasons why we take photographs: to remember the event of object as it was at the moment of exposure. Human perception is conditioned to quickly scan a scene and to identify as fast as possible enemies or in general any danger. There is no time for considered reflection. Unimportant details and objects are not processed by the brain. The camera on the other hand records indiscriminately. The level and amount of detail in a photograph has to be discovered.
The detective approach, exemplified by Sherlock Holmes who seems to notice every detail, is part of the fascination for photography. Leica lenses are famous for the clarity of detail and this performance is one of the most cited arguments to buy and use a Leica camera (the coupled rangefinder to be more precise).
The human memory has two characteristics that need to be mentioned. One is the notorious unreliability of the memory function and the other is the inability to recall visual images of persons and events that were observed in the past (visual memory or (in German) bildhaftes Denken). We live in very complex visual environments that constantly send numerous chaotic stimuli to our sense organs. The number of objects around us may be in the hundreds or thousands. It is impossible to remember what was ‘out there’. This is often called information oversaturation.
Recent studies in the field of visual memory have concluded that large changes in a natural scene go undetected when the change happens during eye movements. The general conclusion supports the statement that human perception is very selective and in addition is basically lazy. That is why looking at photographs is so common and perhaps even pleasant. The ease or comfortableness with which photographs are observed can be explained as follows:
1. The mitigation by one visual plane : a photograph has no depth and focusing the eye is not necessary;
2. The mitigation by reduction: a photograph shows a scene on a small format that can be captured at once without eye movement and all objects can be seen in one glance; when looking at a photograph only the visual sense is active; the photograph shows objects without movement and objects can be studied as long as one wishes: in reality the objects are constantly moving and it is difficult to observe details carefully.
3. The richness of details, once admired in the early Daguerreotypes, was also interpreted as non-art, because in a painting most fine detail is not represented, which makes looking at a painting more pleasant.
Everything that provides pleasure, will be admired. The pleasure in looking (Lust am Schauen) was described by Freud, but already Baudelaire pointed to the combination of flaneur and voyeur in his description of the painter of modern life. The connection between the photographic snapshot and the flaneur/voyeur is easily established. The style and subject choice of many current street photographers is a clear demonstration of this connection.
General amateur photography is mainly focused on taking photographs of events or persons that evoke pleasurable memories. The restriction to the documentation of traditional motives (babies, pets, social rituals like marriages, holidays) was logical in the period that photography was an expensive hobby. In this digital era the production and dissemination of a photo has no cost at all. The consequence is that now in two hours more photos are made than in the whole 19 C.
When accepting that most amateur photographers (and most owners of a Leica camera are amateurs in the positive sense of the word) do not want to follow the artistic route, what then is the best way of using the Leica camera.
One of the personal drives to take photographs of persons or events is the emotional experience. A person, object or event that is connected to an emotion or a pleasurable experience can be photographed in order to recall the moment of pleasure when the photograph is seen at a later moment.
Many amateur photographs are made because of a social ritual: on a tourist tour, one may take pictures of monuments and landscapes, not because of a marked experience when perceiving the building or landscape, but because conventions urge the photographer to capture the moment. It is quite obvious that compensation is needed when the element of emotion disappears from the act of photography.
One possible route is to stress the formal, aesthetic or meaningful element of a photograph.
Another option is to stress the technical expertise that is needed to take a photograph. There is a strong connection between art and technology, not in the sense of a causal relation, but in the sense of a co-existence in time. Technology, instruments, machines and positivism emerged and became important in the 19C. The Leica camera in the early 20C had to fight an uphill battle for acceptance in a photographic world that was dominated by the larger format Kodak Box and other types of cameras with large-sized negatives. A mastery of the miniature format technique was necessary to compete with the results possible with the ubiquitous large format camera. The required enlargement of the small negative implied that the negative had to be as flawless as possible and that the engineering quality of the camera could support this technique. For a long period the Leica camera was the only one that was designed and manufactured with the required precision. Ownership of the Leica gave the photographer the quality of a connoisseur. The precision engineered miniature camera, pioneered by the Leitz company, is nowadays manufactured by numerous companies. The Leica camera is no longer the exception it once was as a professional and durable instrument. These characteristics are nowadays incorporated in many types of cameras. There are hardly any professionals left who exclusively use the Leica CRF camera. One of the reasons is certainly a shift in photographic style: available light and candid photography is hardly practiced anymore because its potential for powerful and interesting photographs has been exhausted. The protection of the personal sphere, even in the public domain, has been much stronger than it was in the past. Only celebrities and paparazzi have established a symbiotic relationship. The motor-drive and the long tele (zoom) lens have long ago eclipsed the close-distance intimate photography with the high-speed 35 mm wide-angle lens on a Leica camera.
Buying and using a Leica rangefinder camera may be partly justified by the urge to copy the masters who made the Leica photography style unique in the history of photography. This style, however has for a long time been obsolete. The technical advantages of the Leica CRF camera (fast focus in dim light, near-silent shutter noise, large, clear viewfinder) have been diminished by the relentless technical progress, including AF, silent modes, large and clear viewing screens). The current mirrorless digital cameras deliver most of the advantages that the original mirrorless camera (the Leica CRF) once set apart from a sea of single lens reflex cameras and pocket viewfinder cameras.
The incorporation of the semiconductor image sensor as a capture device inside the camera body and the ample integration of software algorithms for AF and AE lowered manufacturing costs and improved the accuracy and flexibility of the mirrorless camera to become a direct competitor of the current Leica M series. Leica itself has shown the method: take a Leica M body, remove the view/range-finder mechanism, incorporate an integrated shutter- motor-drive mechanism, AF software, and dispense of the compact lenses to incorporate a fast AF module and you get the Leica SL.
Silver-halide photography, with its closed eco-system has been almost completely forgotten. This was by the way the technique that most masters of Leica photography had used till 2006. Then the Leica M8 was introduced with a modern vertically running metal blade shutter unit and a Kodak APS-H sized sensor. All these electronic components had to fit inside the classic-sized and shaped body. The then inevitable consequence was an increase in thickness of the body shell. The latest version is the Leica M10 with upgraded components and a simpler user interface. The adoption of image sensor technology by the Leica company has however exposed the Leica M camera to the volatile market forces of the electronic consumer industry and the mass media.
The impression of professionalism and durability, sprinkled with a dose of prestige and a drip of snob-appeal, is the mix that most buyers of the Leica M prefer.
The metal body, the solid feeling and the precise, but smooth operation of all knobs and buttons and the fact that the camera is manually assembled from precision manufactured parts add to this image. John Naughton in the Guardian (2014) describes his reasons for owning a Leica:
He has the almost-obsessive quest for the perfect picture, like the ones made by Cartier-Bresson and others. He delves into the history of the Leica and points to the embryonic genre of photojournalism, made possible with the Leica camera because of its compactness and unobtrusiveness. Leica cameras in his mind are beautifully engineered precision instruments with a reassuring heft and solidity.
Apart from the feeling of the camera, it are the lenses which are ‘astonishingly good’. He bought a second-hand M2 with a 35 Summilux lens as a young scholar and this set taught him everything he knew about photography.
Such accounts can be read in a variety of ways and with different emphasis by almost every Leica aficionado. It is a mix of myth, fact and emotion. With the viewpoint of marketing and brand promotion, some of these characteristics can be enlarged. The Leica M Process Book, not authorized by Leica, makes a number of statements that echo the sentiments of the average user.:
Leica cameras are designed to help photographers perfect their craft by having them slow down and focus on the essentials first.
The Leica M is a compact precision design with the best of materials and quick to use unobtrusively. The camera is popular with street and wedding photographers.
A sober technical assessment of the M4-2 was made by Popular Photography around 1980. The technicians (Norman Goldberg) note that the camera is a classically designed and executed fine mechanism with low friction mating of gears everywhere. The shutter mechanism and the rangefinder unit are selected as examples of engineering quality because of the many adjustments possible. The excellent craftsmanship and experience of the persons who operate the machines and who assemble the parts, making small adjustments to ensure the butter-smooth operation of the camera, are specifically described. Such a description is indeed the core of the mythical craftsmanship that gave the M3 to M6 its reputation. This praise may be important for the buyer who has to justify the high cost of the camera and its lenses.
Crawley in his review of the M4-P (1982) questions the quest for ultimate quality and thinks that the matter is debatable in terms of the working photographer to whom the 35mm camera is an everyday tool. The success of the Canon and Nikon products is proof that his caution was correct. When discussing the reputation and prestige of the camera, he points to the fact that the customers are convinced that there is no better camera than the Leica and there is also the conviction that the optical skill and engineering of the company remains unsurpassed. It is evident from the careful choice of words that Crawley is slightly critical of the beliefs of the Leica customers, but basically agrees with the verdict. This was perhaps valid in the 1970-1990 time frame, but it is now 2017!
There is a deeper reason for using a Leica M camera than accurate manual focusing or the engineering and optical quality.
The attraction of the Leica CRF camera for the amateur photographer resides in its simplicity of use, its excellent compact wide aperture lenses and its conscious connection to the core elements of photography. This connection is more visible when using silver-halide (film) emulsions than when using a solid-state equipped camera. The Impressionists used this word deliberately. Reality imprints itself on the retina of the human eye. It is the duty of the artist to reproduce this image without much interference of the brain. The same process seems to happen when film emulsions are used: reality imprints itself by transferring light energy onto the silver halide grains in the emulsion. This process can be clearly envisaged. It is much more difficult to imagine the analog-digital conversion from photon count to numerical values in an ordered matrix in a digital file. The one-to-one correspondence between luminous object-points and the projected image points (as optical theory declares) is produced by an automatic and autonomous process. The specific photographic elements are the impact of the shutter speed, the optical system and the framing of the object ate moment of exposure. These are also the specific elements selected by the Lab Report by Popular Photography. The shutter refers to the moment or instant, the chance, the viewfinder refers to the gaze of the observer or photographer.
The element of chance is very important because it connects the characteristic of the automatic recording with a freezing of the movement of objects with the help of a high shutter speed (anything above 1/50 second). There is no photographer who can accurately predict what will be recorded by the camera in that fraction of a moment. The vibration and sound of the focal plane shutter and the mechanical shutter release connect the photographer to this core element of photography.
The gaze relates to the emotion and attention that the photographer has to have for the event or object to be recorded at the moment of freezing and framing the event or object. The large and accurate range/viewfinder of the Leica CRF camera is an obvious reminder of this element of the roots of photography.
The personal emotionally loaded snapshot is an excellent model for this type of photography. The French name is ‘photographie instantanée’. It is, in this context, revealing that Barnack designed the original Leica camera as a tool for a precise recording of everyday events and persons. This is identical to the Kodak snapshot, promoted by Eastman.
In a book that promotes the style of the personal, emotionally inspired snapshot, it is appropriate to start with a report on the development of the snapshot camera from the Kodak Box to the Leica CRF. A parallel development is the snapshot style from the writings of Baudelaire to the Impressionists and through the Surrealists to Modernism. A second layer will analyse the techniques for high definition imagery in both the silver-halide and solid-state technologies, in combination with a choice of Leica lenses. This layer is important because of its focus on the Leica technique for high quality snapshots. The Leica M7 and the Leica M8 will be used as the prime models to present the differences in analog and digital techniques. The third layer will look at the roots of photography: the theory of information and signal processing, the theory of perception and representation in science and art. This layout of layers implies that readers can select what to read.

Can Leica be trusted?

2017-08-19T19:47:26+02:00

Companies that work for other companies or for consumers need trust as a basis for transactions. Now that many companies are no longer trusted (software to manipulate emission, sweatshops for cheap clothing, and so on) and critical reviews and investigations are difficult to access, this topic is more important than ever.
The actual Leica company is no exception. In the past, it was an engineer-driven company and the information about its products was reliable and could be checked. Critique by outsiders was taken seriously and even invited to make a better product. When the company informed the users that the high shutter speeds were working within ±30 % of its nominal value this info could be accepted as accurate. Most information was not readily and publicly available, but it was possible to access the responsible person within the company.
This attitude has changed since the company has become product- and market-driven. Insightful technical information is hardly available and the marketing department does its best to generate confusion. Are the Summarit/2.4 designs really optically fully redesigned Summarit/2.5 lenses. How does the new sensor in the M10 differ from the previous design in the M/240? Every new sensor is claimed to have optimized shapes for the lenslets, but there is no technical information about the exact shape and its impact on the final image quality. The actual reliance on the reports by field testers for some of the practical consequences of the newly introduced technology is not sufficient as most reviewers do not use measurements to support their claims but only visual comparisons. We know how unreliable the human visual perception is: what you see is what you want to see.
The M10 uses compression software to reduce the size of the files in order to increase the storage capacity of the buffer. But there is no information about the type and quality of the software. The SL is assumed to have a very fast AF, but one needs numerical information to be sure that this claim is substantiated. The fact that field and magazine testers say that the AF is very fast is not good enough for the inquiring mind who needs to base conclusions of facts. Every other product in the photographic market has comparable claims.
In the past the Leitz technical bulletins were reliable sources of information and could be used for decision making. Now we have only diffuse marketing speak. This is of course the trend of the day and not different from what is available from other companies. Leica buyers who pay a premium price, should be entitled to receive all technical information available, that helps to understand why Leica is what is claims to be.

Silver halide emulsions and cartridge loading Leica cameras

2017-08-02T21:14:03+02:00

Currently there is a very slight surge in the sales of silver-halide films and their developers. The Spur company is busy researching the best chemicals fro developing the classical Agfa microfilms, new bW emulsions are being introduced by Ferrania, Bergger and Adox. Improved chemicals are produced by Adox, Spur, and Moersch and several others. The choice which film to use was a main issue in the past and it still is. While much hype and mystique has been removed from the craft (try Tr-X in Rodinal compared to Tmax 400 in FX-39) since the publication of the book by Henry, Controls in BW Photography, many photographers still cling to the technical ideas of Ansel Adams. My own choice is to use any film/developer combo, expose with the Sekonic L-398 and develop according specs and print with the Heiland Split grade system. Most negatives are very well exposed and easy to print. With A4 as the largest size (8 times) , I have hardly any problem with grain or sharpness. At 15 times enlargement the differences become important and here the fine tuning starts.
The lens of choice is the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm asph and the Summilux-M 50 mm asph.
What about the body? Leica has produced more film loading bodies than sensor-equipped (FPA) bodies. From M3 to M7 and M-A there is a wide choice and very cheap in many cases. An M6 is an excellent camera, capable of delivering outstanding results, often better than what can be achieved with an M10 and on the face of it in even shorter times, adding the laborious post-processing computer time. There are many differences between the several generations of the M6, especially valuable to collectors, but irrelevant to users. Any M6 can be brought to near factory conditions by a competent Leica repair person. The current MP is simply an M6. The M-A is a retro-version of the M3 and the M7 is the best automated camera Leica has ever built, before the M8.
On holiday this year I was visiting the German state of Thuringen, with the cities of Gotha and Weimar and a lost list of very quiet small villages where the time seems to be standing still. This is the same experience when using films. There is hardly any competition, everybody is friendly and mixing systems is easy and even encouraged.
The digital world, as a contrast, is a state of great flux and dynamism. The newly announced Nikon D850, the mysteries around new Canon bodies, the relentless competition by Sony and Fuji, are difficult to assess and predicting the future is a great problem. The Leica SL has been dropped in price, the lenses are disappointing, the TL2 has its range of problems, the X-series and the S-series are forgotten and so on. Try to sell an M9 or M240 and a disappointment will be experienced.
The film world is much more relaxed. No more new cameras will be introduced, second-hand cameras are very cheap, new chemicals fit the state of the art and new films follow a classical pattern.
The digital technology is very much in a flux and more innovations are to be expected. Whether this will allow the photographer to make better photographs is a big question mark. ‘Better’ is a subjective concept, but as long as the primary viewing medium is the computer screen, not much improvement may be expected.

The Leica dilemma

2017-07-24T22:34:38+02:00

The important difference between chemically based and solid-state based photography is not the capture technology. It is in fact unimportant whether the projected image by the lens is recorded by a sensor or in the emulsion layer. The main difference is the closed and open character of both capture technologies. The chemically based photography is a closed system with its own techniques, procedures and rituals: to take a picture one has to step outside the daily flow of events and activities. It is a conscious decision with products that are only useful for the process of photography. A film, a developer, a darkroom has no other use that to produce a printed photograph. It is a closed ecosystem. Digital photography on the other hand is an open ecosystem, integrated with modern electronics and digital technology. Everyone uses a computer nowadays and the digital files of the digital camera can be seamlessly integrated with modern consumer-electronics and its culture of Instagram and Facebook.
The Leica camera was leading in the 1950s, when the ecosystem was quite closed, but lost its position to the Japanese companies that were more inventive to incorporate electro-mechanical interfaces in their cameras, paving the way for electronics and automation. The Canon EOS system shows the ease with which digital engineering could be incorporated into a basically electro-mechanical body. There was space enough inside the body!
The evolution from M7 to M8/M9 was not an easy path and many engineering obstacles had to be cleared away. In the modern open ecosystem, the Leica cameras have lost their edge and are technologically marginalized, whatever the marketing department and the many Leica aficionados assert. Optically the Leica company is still leading, but the incorporation of AF and IS in the current line of TL and SL lenses shows a worrisome convergence with other leading optical companies.
Optical qualities were once very important: the image chain was a range of steps where every step degraded the original negative image: it was important to start with the best design possible. With modern imaging algorithms the situation is reversed: you can start with a medium quality lens and the imaging software will enhance the original image: it is now simple to manipulate the individual pixels and improve the final image. It goes without saying that the image quality of the current Leica lens is still beyond reproach, but is no longer the main criterium. In a closed ecosystem there is a limited number of benchmarks, but in an open system there is a longer list of benchmarks and the integration with current consumer-electronic products and technologies becomes the main criterion.
The flavour of the closed ecosystem can be experienced when a film-loading Leica camera is used: one has to think consciously about the type of film and the type of developer and in order to produce a print a fully equipped darkroom is required. The digital path is much simpler: just take pictures and use one of many processing software to produce the picture while being immersed in the consumer-electronics world. You do not have to leave your desk to develop and upload the picture. It has been said that the average digital photographer produces more pictures in two hours that all photographers produced during the full nineteenth century. This may be exaggerated, but the point is well made. Producing digital pictures is an effortless and almost subconscious activity, embedded in the usual daily flow. Here lies Leica’s dilemma: how to incorporate the values of the 1950s into modern mass consumerism.

Summer musings

2017-07-09T11:40:19+02:00

The last few months I have been taking pictures with a 50 mm lens, almost exclusively! The Apo-Summicron 50, the modern workhorse, is my most used lens (the next one is the current SX 50). Both lenses are very well suited to a style of photography that may be called ‘producing documents’. A document is a source of information and should be neutral, devoid of subjective intention. Most persons would think of the decisive moment as the iconic method for documentary photography. It is remarkable that the original French title of his book (Images à la sauvette) in correct translation means “pictures in a hurry” which is quite different from the idea of a creative and conscious decision to wait for all picture elements to fall harmoniously in place. ‘In a hurry’ refers to the vernacular snapshot style of photography, the document par excellence! This style and the kind of photographers using it are diametrically opposed to the other extreme of the spectrum: the art photography. One can discuss and even speculate about the possibility that a mechanical instrument, like the camera, can ever been capable of producing art (Szarkowski would claim that it can!). The theory of photography that assigns a heavy weight on the influence of the operator on the final result (injecting intention and meaning) disregards the chance element of photography. No one is able to see exactly what happens in that tiny part of a second (1/50 to 1/1000). Photographers with digital cameras use prolonged bursts of pictures to get the one they need or like.
But I am digressing. My choice of the 50 mm lens implies that a range of lenses I own are no longer needed: originally bought as companions to the M8, the Summarit range 2.5/35-50-75-90 was intended as a travel set: very high quality and with a compact size that takes little space in a photo bag.
I am now selling this set of lenses, complete with pouches and lens hoods.

Part 4 is almost ready!

2017-06-07T11:00:22+02:00

The text for part 4 of my series of Leica books is almost ready. There are a few printed books of part three (Leica Lens Saga) available. To give an impression of the content of this book, find below a section of the text.

Leica’s optical design team has several constraints to work with when designing lenses for the rangefinder camera. These were listed in the first part of the book. As long as the M-designs have to be compact, they will be mechanical. It is not the rangefinder concept that forces this mechanical design. The Live View option in the current FPA-equipped M-cameras indicates that the mechanical linkage between lens and rangefinder mechanism is not the only option. The inclusion of an autofocus and optical stabilisation function in the compact dimensions of the M-lenses would not be possible. An M-lens can be compared with a T-lens of similar specifications. The Summilux-M 1.4/50 mm ASPH has a length of 52.5 mm and a diameter of 53.5 mm with a weight of 335 grams (+ integrated lens hood). Compare these figures with the Leica Summilux-TL 1.4/35 mm that has a total of 12 elements, and is substantially larger (length: 77 mm; diameter: 70 mm; weight: 498 grams with lens hood).
More elements imply better correction possibilities. The M-lens is also limited in the number of elements, at least for normal (50 mm) and short-tele designs (75 to 90 mm). Possible increases in optical performance have to found in the use of more aspherical surfaces and even more exotic glass types. In a compact design these choices imply even narrower mechanical tolerances than the ones now accepted in the manufacturing and assembly stages.
The previous period during which the flagship lenses for the M-camera were manufactured (1960 to 1980) is characterised by a slow progression in the optical performance and a heavy emphasis on the mechanical qualities of the design. This was also the period when the Japanese manufacturers switched their effort to zoom lenses where weight issues were more prominent and needed to be solved. The Leica lenses were universally acknowledged as having the best mounts of all manufacturers. The Leica lenses of that period were possibly not the best in the imaging sense, but the balance between excellence in mounting and material choice on the one hand and manufacturing cost on the other hand was a very good one. The original Summilux 1.4/50 mm stayed in production for over forty years and the current Summicron 2/50 mm (without the Apo-prefix) is now more that 40 years old. The potential of the Double-Gauss design and its variants on which many Leica lenses from 1935 to 1995 were based was completely exhausted around 1980.
The most recent lens constructions for Leica cameras indicate a major change in de design approach with a shift from opto-mechanical to opto-mechatronic constructions. This shift is mainly inspired by the switch to solid-state FPA-imagers for all Leica cameras (with the exception of the classical cartridge-loading rangefinder body). In the mechatronic world the mechanical connections are replaced by microprocessors and compact drive motors. The focusing movement of the M lens is accomplished by the turning of the focusing ring, that moves the optical cell forwards and backwards. The focusing ring has a rotary movement that has to be transformed into a linear movement by means of a mechanical screw-thread mechanism that connects the focusing ring to the optical cell. The main requirement of the mechanism is the accuracy of the movement and the smoothness of the movement that must be the same over the full extent and must not exhibit any sloppiness. The automatic focusing mechanism requires that the resistance of the focusing mechanism has to reduced and the travel of the components must also be minimised. When using auto-focus mechanisms, the focusing accuracy is now the task of a small precision stepper motor that moves the focusing lens or lens group in very small steps over a 360 degree circular movement. In addition, there must be an electronic interface between camera body and lens mount. The contact strip on the R-lenses for the R8/9 and the black-white lens code on the recent M mounts are very different in function from the ten-pin interface on the new SL camera. The relative masses of the camera body and the lens body are changing with smaller bodies and larger lenses. The advantage of the rangefinder body is the ergonomically correct balance of the total package (lens plus body).

The mechanical tolerances and the accuracy of assembly are for the foreseeable future fixed. The world of the micron, a very small distance in the physical world, sets a limit to what machines can accomplish. Typical tolerances are 0.002 - 0.005 mm for distances and a few arc seconds for decentring. Such a level of precision is difficult to handle and when it is possible, one should be aware that such small dimensions make the design very sensitive.
Everyone who is acquainted with measurement and control techniques knows about the margins of error inherent in all equipment, however accurate. A lens must be useful under conditions of physical stress and accept normal wear and tear. A very sensitive instrument requires frequent adjustments at even smaller intervals of time. The Apo-Summicron 50 mm lens is for the moment the design with the most critical dimensions which explains the high price and the low production volume.

The lenses for the Leica rangefinder cameras are unique in the current landscape of photographic lenses. Leica rangefinder cameras can be classified into two major groups: the screw mount models and the bayonet mount models. The last group has two subgroups: the film-loading cameras and the solid-state FPA-equipped models, also known as digital models. There are a few minor differences between the lenses designed in the film-loading (or analogue) era and the most recent lenses designed in the digital era. The most important differences are (1) the provision of the six-bit coding strip on the backside of the lens (this feature can be used to exchange information between the properties of the lens and the in-camera processing algorithms) and (2) the optical correction (or optimization) of the design to compensate for the small impact that the protective filter in front of the sensor surface has on the path of the light rays. Lenses for the screw mount cameras can be identified by the name of the lens, as was also the case with the earlier series for the bayonet mount cameras (the ‘M’-camera). After the introduction of the Leicaflex, Leitz used the suffix -R or -M to identify lenses for the two ranges of cameras. There is no special identification for the recently introduced or (slightly) redesigned lenses for the digital rangefinder models.
The premium characteristics of the M-lenses are the outstanding performance, the full metal mount, the manual operation and the compact size. The combination of compact size and high image quality is now an unusual one. Recent introductions by Zeiss and by Leica itself (for the SL- and T-cameras) indicate a trend to ever larger physical volumes. The small physical volume limits the optical evolution of the rangefinder designs.

The current designs have already a performance profile that most users have difficulty to fully exploit. At medium apertures the standard lenses are capable of a useful limiting resolution between 100 and 120 lp/mm (measured with the microscope on low speed microfilm, developed in Spur Nanospeed). This translates into a spot of about 0.0042 mm. A 24 x 36 mm sensor would need to have about 40 million pixels to record reliably this high resolution. Presumably 50 million pixels would be required because of the moiré effects at high resolutions. The Leica M-lens however should not be valued only for the high resolution potential, but for the clarity and smoothness of the reproduced details and gradation in the mid-range of spatial frequencies. Any audio aficionado knows that it makes no sense to look only for the high-frequency response of the equipment.
The Leica rangefinder user should however accept that higher levels of performance will be introduced more gradually for M-lenses in the future. The true advances in optical design will be introduced in the modern opto-mechatronic devices, like the Leica T- and SL- systems.

The complexity of photographic lenses has increased substantially in recent times. A high-speed-high-performance lens, like the Zeiss Otus has twelve elements in ten groups. A comparable lens for the Leica T (1.4/35 mm) has also twelve elements (including two aspherical surfaces) in eight groups. A zoom lens foo the Leica SL has 23 elements and seven moving groups. It is nearly impossible to handle this complexity with the help of the Seidel coefficients or the thin lens approach. The additional mechanical and electronic complexity (image stabilization, autofocus movements), including the analysis of the required accuracy and manufacturing tolerances can only be handled with the help of computer programs. The price for this added complexity is size! Lenses for the Leica M CRF are not as complex, but their physical constraints ask much of the designer to create high quality designs.

Background for part 4 of the series

2017-05-24T16:44:06+02:00

Here is the background for my new book (part 4 of the series)
Photography has been characterized, from the early beginnings and based on its properties, as either art or science. Commentators were unsure how to categorize the new medium with its photogenic drawings (Talbot). Early photographers, not content with exploiting the objective and mechanical nature of the final picture, tried hard to convince the art community that photography was more than a recording medium with which nature copied itself without the help of the human operator. The initial excitement that the new technology could produce pictures without any human interference became soon a threat to the photographer, the illustrator and the engraver.

The early comments focused on the ability of the new process to reproduce a part of the real world without human intervention. There was much amazement that there could exist a tool with which nature could take its own picture. One could admire the capability of the machine to reproduce the finest detail that the eye failed to record. The nineteenth century was after all the age of materialism. A growing segment of the public accepted the efficacy of the machine as the embodiment of a new era, the modern one. The exhibitions in London (Crystal Palace, 1851) and Paris (Eiffel Tower, Exposition Universelle, 1889) showed the impact of the engineer’s and scientist’s ingenuity and mechanical achievement. The photographic camera was only one of many mechanical instruments of that age. It had the advantage that the machine-made image and its easy reproducibility matched the increasing demand for realistic images in the magazines and journals. Many painters looked with dismay at the enhanced realism of the images made with the photographic camera. The mechanical limitations of the camera were known and artists used all kinds of technique to produce images with a style that emulated the best of the classical painters. On the other hand many artists exploited the technical capabilities of the camera to produce optically accurate images. Baudelaire wrote a scathing critique of the Salon of 1859, where many photographs, made with several techniques and styles were exhibited. Many photographers claimed that their pictures were to be included in the domain of art. Baudelaire however denunciated photography as an art form. He listed the proper functions of photography: for record-making, as a note-taking tool and for scientific investigation. His friend Delacroix carefully noted the limitations of the photographic process and concluded that photography, used carefully, could be an asset to painting.

The description of photography as a medium oscillated between two extremes: art as photography and photography as art. Behind this dichotomy however there lurked another one. The distinction between art and science and between art and craft did not disappear, but surfaced time and time again as the main topic for a comprehensive account of photography. Scientists and technologists used the photographic technique for practical work and even for non-pictorial work, suitably referred to as non-art. In contrast the history of photography has been described as an orderly succession of the major artists in the history of the medium.
‘Non-art’ as a category also includes the snapshot (instantaneous) and detective photography, promoted by Eastman in the 1880s and finally including also the casual street photography.
In the final analysis, photography can be divided by the basic dichotomy of art and non-art. When the history of photography is approached as part of the general history of the visual arts, it is inevitable to include a discussion of the major trends in art history since the start of photography: impressionism, modernism, snapshot aesthetic and post modernism. When the history of photography is mainly concerned with non-art, the topics of science (reality), vernacular snapshot, social processes, technique, instrument development, and image quality (high resolution) have to be addressed.

Photography is intimately connected with human perception. For good reason the analogy between the eye and the lens has been stressed as a sensible idea.
Our culture is a visual culture. Vision is the main sense with which we experience and analyse the world around us. Martin Jay has characterized the twentieth century as an ocularcentric culture. The underlying cultural and scientific theories of vision, perception and reality have to be sketched and used as a background for a better understanding of the culture and technique of photography.

The Leica rangefinder camera straddles several domains. The Leica rangefinder cameras was one of the preferred tools used by a fair proportion of the classical art and iconic photographers. The optical qualities and the mechanical construction earned it the enviable reputation of being the first precision miniature camera. Its small size, accurate rangefinder and smooth handling enabled a new direction and style in snapshot photography.

After its announcement in 1839, the technique of photography was a very complex one and only suitable for the daring entrepreneur, the curious scientist and the wealthy amateur. The technology used during most of the nineteenth century (large wooden cameras, glass plates, emulsions, chemicals, lenses) was not very stable and quite xpensive. This allowed the photographer to influence the result and made him a decisive element in the processing chain. The discussion about the nature of photography as art or non-art obscured the assessment of the new medium and its most common use as a tool for recording physical reality.
Photographic technology (at least till the digital capture became the dominant technology) is a closed ecosystem. The components were provided by many small cottage industries or had to be produced by the photographers themselves. The number of active photographers around 1880 was too low to sustain a large scale profitable industry.
If nothing had changed, photography would have stayed a niche technology for the rich amateur and a tool for scientists and lithographical craftsmen.
Eastman, whose company produced photographic products, concluded that to become more profitable the scale of production had to increase substantially. He therefore created a mass market for his photographic products. In order to reach this goal he had to target the ordinary person, the public at large. The taking of photographs had to become cheap and easy to seduce the common man and woman to start taking pictures. The Kodak era started in 1880 and lasted till the end of the twentieth century. It was the century of the snapshot, the domestic photograph made by millions of people to record memorable events and persons. The Leica camera, introduced in 1924/1925, gave a new impetus to the style of candid photography: the precision miniature camera quickly became the dominant tool in the photographic ecosystem, where the rangefinder camera carved out its own niche till today.
The urge to use the Leica rangefinder camera was partly functional because of its propensity for high-quality scientific and domestic images and partly technical because of its precision-mechanical feel.
Professor Weizenbaum, one of my guiding lights in computer science, once during a lecture told the audience that he took lousy pictures with his Leica M3, but he took pictures because he liked the sound of the shutter. Here he hints at one of the most important actual arguments for choosing and using a Leica camera: the Leica RF camera is a perfect example of technical eroticism.

The Leica camera is also intimately connected to the world of art. Many iconic images were made with the Leica camera. Who does not know the Che Guevara picture by Korda (Alberto Díaz Gutiérrez), the girl in the rear window of a car by Erwitt, the kissing couple by Eisenstaedt. The classic pictures by Cartier-Bresson (“The Eye of the Century”) have inspired and still inspire many Leica photographers. The number of Leica photographers that have been allowed into the hall of fame of art photography constitutes only a minute proportion of the hundreds of thousands of Leica users who use the camera to record domestic events and persons without any other goal that to record what it interesting at the moment of pressing the shutter release button. Most of these pictures are considered as non-art and therefore as having no value by the members of the art community. Many Leica photographers feel the need to comply to the rules of composition that have been laid down by the canon of art aestheticism.

The humble vernacular snapshot has to be elevated to the level of the so-called snapshot-aesthetic to be of some interest. The common snapshot has been described as low art because it depicts ordinary life in photographs taken by amateurs who take pictures without artistic intentions. The ordinary snapshot is characterized by a highly ritualized style and composition with the main object in the center. The typical shutter speed and aperture are 1/50 and f/8. The important difference with photography as an art form (the Kantian aesthetic) is the social function of the photograph. The production and use of the photograph as a family snapshot is always embedded in a social ritual and has no artistic goal. The same style of photographs with ordinary objects as its main theme has been elevated to high art in the form of the snapshot aesthetic, as practiced by the street photographers in Paris and New York from 1930 to 1960. Many of these photographers used a Leica rangefinder camera, because in that period it was the only reliable and easy-to-use compact camera. The style of fast shooting precluded the use of the rangefinder and zone focusing was the norm, most often with the 35 mm wide-angle lens for extended depth of field.
The connection between the Leica RF camera with the 35 mm lens and the snapshot aesthetic of the street photographers has defined the public role and status of the Leica camera. There is a distinct danger in focusing too much attention on the small selection of acknowledged art photographs as typical for the medium as a whole.
The history of photography is documented with at most two hundred photographs, selected by an historian of art or photography. Bill Jay has remarked that any such small and personal selection out of the millions of pictures that have been taken since the 1820s produces a distorted view of the real history of photography. The millions of domestic snapshots, by art critics referred to as low art or by sociologists as middle brow art, are not included in the official history.

The photographic style of the so-called snapshot aesthetic, was made respectfully in the world of art by the MoMa exhibition in 1967 ’New documents”, featuring then unknown photographers Arbus, Friedlander, Winogrand. Szarkowski, the curator of the exhibition wrote that what united these three photographers is a belief that the world is worth looking at without theorizing. The pictures showed the causal style of ordinary snapshots and the subject matter was ordinary or at best a bit bizarre. The street was the theatre of urban space and the new style was in fact a continuation of the famous Kodak moment and the humanistic photography of the French, mainly Parisian photographers. Why these pictures by the three Americas were accepted as art is a matter of debate. A main reason is the mere fact that they were exhibited in a famous museum and another reason might be that these pictures indicated a major departure from the conventional style of art photography, exemplified by Steichen, Weston and Adams.

The question ‘what is art’, is in most history books conveniently evaded. To answer such a simple question, one would have to plunge into the deep waters of art theory and art history, not to mention theories of aesthetics or even philosophies of aesthetics. It suffices to refer to a handful iconic works of art and to note how close the photograph that is being assessed is to any one of the established works of art. It is inevitable that such an assessment is personal and subjective.
Art critique is often interpreted as negative, because the art reviewer has a set of norms that is assumed to define the quality of the art work. In reality the art critic describes what in his view are the merits of the work. There is some resemblance to the evaluation of the technical quality of a photograph. Image quality can be described in a subjective way and with the help of a number of measurement techniques. When the last method has been selected it is possible that the amount of aberrations can be objectively established. Such an approach is not possible when discussing the criteria that define that elusive concept of ‘art’.

Art critique is impossible without a reference to one of the theories of art. The two most important theories are now the modernist and post-modernist theories of art. Most theorists would claim that only the post-modernist theory has any relevance for the current evaluation of the visual arts.
Critics of photography follow generally the following steps: describing, interpreting, evaluating and theorizing. A background theory is necessary to put these actions into context. For example: post-modernism claims that every work of (visual) art must be interpreted as a text where symbols take the place of words. The common reference is the visual language that photographers need to learn in order to create meaningful photographs. Interpretation is a most important activity because interpreting a picture loads it with meaning and provide an answer to the question: ‘what is it about?’.

There are large practical and theoretical problems when one wishes to define photographic pictures as art. Notwithstanding these problems, there are a number of iconic photographs that define the medium.
Camera manufacturers are keen to relate their products with iconic art photographs.
The reason is obvious and quite simple. Photographs are made by photographers who use photographic equipment. Any serious photographer will assume or will be persuaded to assume that using a certain type of camera will enable him to take the same kind of pictures. Leitz in particular used the strategy of connecting famous scientists, explorers and later photographers with the Leitz products to promote the Leica camera. There was also a very logical argument for this strategy: the possibilities of the novel concept of the Leica had to be explained to the photographic world. The Leica Company follows the same strategy even today. The photographic world has however changed dramatically and the use of pictures as demonstrations of the capabilities and qualities of the equipment is losing its effectiveness.

The idea of archetypes of iconic pictures that set the norm for any serious photographer to copy or emulate is still prevalent in the world of photography. No one fails to photograph a blind accordionist, a barber shop entrance or a deserted gas station, because these images are part of the collective memory of the art of photography.
Leica photographers face the double challenge to comply with the standards from the art world and the standards from the technical domain. To be taken seriously as a Leica photographer, they are under the obligation to adopt the standards of what is considered to be good Leica photography. Historically, Leica photography is also closely tied to a certain level of image quality. The reputation of the Leica lenses is legendary. One of the arguments to invest in a camera system as expensive as a Leica rangefinder camera and its range of lenses, is the potential for a level of image clarity, usually linked to medium format systems.
Photography can be defined as an art and a craft. The skill to produce a technically accurate image can be learned, while the creativity to produce a work of art is a gift. This at least is the common view of the matter. To rediscover the joy of photography, the Leica photographer needs to shake off the yoke of the art canon.
As soon as one realizes that the art industry of galleries, artists and museums follows economic laws that capitalize on the human art instinct (a biologically regulated drive), one can look at the icons and canons of modern photographic art with a fresh view.

Photographic criticism is a personal and subjective act of judgment and interpretation. Every photographer should be free to adopt any set of rules he wishes to use. The basic requirement is a sense of pride in one’s own ability to take the pictures one likes. When the Zone System was imperative for monochrome photographers, many supporters of the system selected motives where the command of the rules of the system could be demonstrated. The motives themselves were rather boring (from today’s perspective): white pained buildings in blazing sun with deep dark shadows. Printing the full tonal scale in the darkroom was the rule and the photographer who succeeded could be proud of the result. It is not different these days with the use of digital Leica M cameras. The Zone System may be anathema, but it has been replaced by a cult of sharpness, not in the least inspired by the high optical quality of the Leica M lenses and the resolving power of the solid-state sensor. The low noise (grain in the context of classical emulsions) and high sensitivity of the imager system promote the impression of high sharpness. Many Leica M users (including the small but growing class of film emulsion aficionados) exploit sharpness techniques and select suitable motives for the task. Not every Leica photographer is enamoured by this approach. The basic dichotomy in photographic criticism is the one that divides photography in two segments: science and art. The focus on sharpness definitely falls into the category of science. The focus on meaning and composition falls into the category of art.
It is important to make sure that one does not throw away the baby with the bathwater and to replace one obsession with another one. Art photography has been cultivated for a long period. Leica M photography is strongly associated with the theme of street photography and the decisive moment. Since Cartier-Bresson’s book (L’Image à la Sauvette (The image on the run), every Leica photographer is at least aware of the cult of the decisive moment. Since the New Vision movement in art and photography, every one knows about the power of the clear photograph, taken from an unusual angle. Both approaches are in themselves valuable and can co-exist side by side.

Domestic snapshot photography is not part of any of these two categories. The important events and persons in daily life are photographed in stereotyped situations (the example of the standard tourist picture is well-known). Many photographs are made with a limited command of the basic photographic techniques.
The reality of the daily environment is taken for granted. What you see is what exists. Most photographers know that there is a difference between what one observes and what the camera records. Vision and reality as subjects of science and philosophy are highly complex phenomena that defy simple explanations. The photographer who records his daily life and the things and persons that interest him most, knows, at least intuitively, that there is a big difference in the way the camera records real life and the brain processes the information from ‘out there’. Almost every manual of photography includes a chapter on the topic of learning to see photographically. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that the human eye and the lens of the camera see things differently and see different things. Only by comparing the photograph with the original view, can we see the importance of such a statement. The bad point is of course that we do not have an objective record of what we saw when we took the photograph. The human memory is a poor recording and retrieval instrument. This is one of the reasons why we take pictures at all: to preserve at least a record of what was there when we took the picture. It is the case that the brain processes the information projected on the retina based on a set of rules that are part biological, part social and part cultural. Photographers often remark that photographs are highly personalized (even intentional) versions of reality because of the choices that the photographer has: select frame, viewpoint, moment of shutter release, focal length, shutter speed and aperture. Included in this list is the quality and quantity of the light that illuminates the subject. Most handbooks of photography try to explain the effect of each of these choices in great depth. The choice of all these photo-technical parameters in a precise combination and applied to specific subject matter produce a more or less artful picture. In theory there is an infinite number of combinations and permutations and the skilful choice and application of subject matter and technique is the defining characteristic of an artistically inclined photographer.

What is the relation between this discussion about the intentionality and meaning of a photograph and the Leica photographer who uses the camera as a simple recording instrument? The photographer has three main elements to play with: the gaze, the chance moment and the objects in reality. Weston, Renger-Patzsch and Feinimger noted that it is the Thing Itself (with capitals) that should inspire the photographer to record as cleanly as possible (or as objectively as possible) the real object. Because the camera records whatever is before the lens at the moment of the shutter release and the eye only sees selectively what is beyond the head, thee is room for a detective approach, the one Sherlock Holmes applies to solve a mystery. This is a strong argument for the so-called high-resolution photography.
When one looks at a photograph, the important question is to ask what happens here. The core of the matter is that a photograph is a statement, it is a form of communication. This is a most modern approach: (digital) image processing is based on information theory and the mathematics behind it. The message of the photograph, however simple it may be (“I made this picture because I liked to make this picture”) is more forceful when there is no nice composition to distract the viewer. A beautiful composition will push away the observation or the detection of what is going on. Winogrand said that every photograph is a contention between form and content: one is always threatening to overwhelm the other. The Dutch photographer Fieret dismisses aesthetic rules as guiding principles and specifically wants to produce ‘sloppy’ pictures.

It is important to note that the snapshot aesthetic is a continuation of the amateur aesthetic that flourished since the introduction of the Kodak Box around 1890. The actual discussion centres around the dividing line between fine-art and vernacular photography. The Kodak snapshot was followed by the Leica snapshot with the well-known characteristics of immediacy and handheld shooting. The limitations of the original Leica rangefinder forced the photographer to position his subject in the center or to look over the camera to estimate his framing. William Morgan wrote in 1944:

“The snapshot has become, in truth, a folk art, spontaneous, almost effortless, yet deeply expressive. It is an honest art, partly because it doesn’t occur to the average snapshooter to look beyond reality, partly because the natural domain of the camera is in the world of things as they are, and partly because it is simply more trouble to make an untrue picture than a true picture.”
My goal is to follow this approach and to discuss modern high-resolution photographic techniques that may help the user of the Leica rangefinder camera to rediscover the joy of snapshot photography. There is however more to say about snapshot or candid or domestic or vernacular photography. There are many names for the same subject!
When we take pictures of events and things in the daily environment, we have to be aware of two problems: (1) reality is not what it seems to the casual observer: there is much debate in modern physics and philosophy what it is and whether it does exist at all and (2) neurophysiology and vision science tells us that the brain is constructing the image of reality we assume to observe. The camera has no brain and records diligently what is physically possible.
It is not the camera that has to be tamed to reproduce what the eye sees (the common artistic approach). It is the eye that has to be educated to detect what is out there in the real world without the interfering and mediating brain. Such an approach suits the stated goal of the design of Leica lenses to record a maximum amount of fine detail. Discussions between Winogrand and Meyerowitz among others focused on technical matters related to the handheld camera and its small negative. One of the topics was the question how much information could be put on a small negative.

There is at least one convincing argument to follow the path of the domestic snapshot photography.
Several historians of photography assume that among the many snapshots there should be a handful of accidental masterpieces, that are unknown because no one sees them. Domestic snapshot photography resides in the domain of the ‘visual trophies’, highly ritualized and at the same time quite spontaneous photographs of ordinary things, persons and events.
In the Leica world the number of snapshots vastly exceeds the number of intentionally artistic photographs.
Leitz/Leica have sold about 700.000 film loading rangefinder M-cameras and about 150.000 solid-state sensor equipped rangefinder M-cameras. This last estimate is derived from these observations: every year since the announcement of the M8 between 10.000 and 20.000 cameras have been produced. During the ten years since 2006 a minimum of 100.000 and a maximum of 200.000 have been made. The average is 150.000.
Only a small minority of these 850.000 cameras have been employed by artist-photographers: let us say about a few hundreds. The majority of Leica cameras then have been used to record daily domestic scenes. When we assume that every single camera in its entire life has been clicked about a thousand times (a very low estimate), then there must have been made at least close to a billion (850.000.000) pictures with a Leica rangefinder camera since 1954. Only a fraction of these have been recognized as photographic art.
Another approach would be to look at current usage.
There are now some 150.000 Leica cameras in actual use since the announcement of the Leica M3. This is a rough estimate. I guess that only 5% of the film loading cameras is in actual use and 70% of the digital cameras. That is 40.000 plus 100.000 equals 140.000 cameras. Every year 500 pictures are being taken, again a very low estimate given the appetite for digital snapshooting. That would amount to a whopping 70 million pictures in 2016 alone. How many of these would fall into the category of photographic masterpieces? Hardly a handful if at all! When the merits of the casual photographs are compared with the yardstick of current aesthetic theory there are indeed hardly any masterpieces. But this approach is backing the wrong horse. Currently, Leica’s Photo Gallery shows mainly old masters and hardly any new ones. The focus on iconic photographs is certainly not helpful when one sees the snapshot as a document for immortalizing the present.

This poses the question why do we take photographs in the first place. An answer to this question can be found in the tale by Italo Calvino: “Adventures of a Photographer”.
The next question is a logical continuation.
Why use a Leica rangefinder camera? When one considers only the final result (the image or print), there is not much to argue in favor of the Leica camera. Many modern cameras can deliver the same image quality, thanks to the powerful image processing algorithms. The much discussed special optical characteristic of three dimensionality of Leica lenses is hardly visible in the thin sensor surface.
The big advantage of the original Leica I camera was its size, the reliability of the mechanism, the quality of the optics and the eye-level framing. Of these characteristics, the size is the most important. Small size and weight are necessary ingredients for the casual photographer who cares for the style of the instantaneous photograph.
The picture is always judged with reference to the function it has for the person who took the photograph or the function which the maker thinks it could fulfil for another person (the famous intentionality of a picture). Artistic photography depends on genre and aesthetic qualities, however nebulously defined. When the picture is considered as non-art, any genre will do and the quality of the picture becomes a technical issue. In addition, the practice of photography as an activity or process, its social dimension and its role as a craft, are important elements to consider.
The Leica rangefinder camera has the advantage that the user will be aware of the process and technique of photography. Photography with a Leica rangefinder is easy: just pick up the camera and start taking pictures. There is a whole world to discover as soon as one discards the artistic template in one’s head. Visual templates, derived from iconic pictures, have the bad habit of guiding the photographer to seek for these templates in real life. The important rule of Sherlock Holmes (looking with your eyes is not observing with your eyes) is easily forgotten. Observing is only possible when the detective knows a lot about what he observes. Finding the reality behind the commonplace is a goal of the photographer who accepts the rules of the high-resolution snapshot with the Leica M.

new trends in film emulsions

2017-05-13T11:37:10+02:00

When film emulsions were the only method of recording a scene or object/person, there was a clear division of labour. The 35 mm film and camera was selected when convenience, speed and low cost were important. The small negative had its limitations when the utmost in image quality was required. Then the medium format camera could be selected. Less easy to use, more costly and the maximum of 12 images was a limit. Fashion photographers had assistants that were involved in loading cassettes for the master. Commercial photographers and art photographers (zone system required) used field and studio camera that could be loaded with one negative at a time. Speed was replaced by contemplation. Large negatives were costly and careful processing was needed to make the most of it.
Kodak tried to make the 35 mm camera a challenge for the medium format camera by introducing the Kodak Technical Pan film. Incredible resolution, but extremely slow speed: the best results require an EI of 16 ISO (incidentally the speed of the original Pan-X).
My own testing shows that modern film emulsions are the equal of 35 mm sized sensors, when you take care of all variables. This is of course not the current style of photography. Modern consumers require ease of use, foolproof processing and fuss-less sharing of images.
A film that can surpass even a 50 Mp sensor in 35 mm size is the Belgium-Agfa made microfilm, that is sold in several guises. The Adox version is well known as is the Spur DSX. The bad point about these films is the very low speed: more than ISO 12 is not advisable when one wishes to get good shadow detail according to the rules of the zone system. If you have scenes without deep shadows ISO 25 is possible. Spur has recently introduced a new developer for this film, the DSX 200. With this developer a realistic speed of ISO 100 and even ISO 200 should be feasible. I will test the claim soon. If true this is a major boost for quality conscious Leica photographers. The Apo-Summicron range (50-75-90) could be exploited to the full.
When Amaloco was a household name for photographers, the AM74 was a favorite developer because it could be used with all kinds of film and produce outstanding sharpness. Grain was a problem but when printing at a maximum of 10 times enlargement, everything was fine. An improved version of this film is now on the market as Rollei Supergrain with (claimed) much improved performance.
The last new developer is the Spur Speed-Major, a push developer without the usual loss of shadow details. This developer allows the HP5 to be used at EI 2000 without loss of shadow detail and without a substantial grain increase. When true (test will follow soon) analog photographers can now move into really high-speed photography (above 3200 ISO).

The humble snapshot

2017-05-12T23:02:41+02:00

The photographic genre of street photography as practiced by Brassai, Cartier-Bresson and more modern persons like Winogrand and Eggleston is still a popular genre. Many books exist that will tell you how and why to proceed when street photography is your ambition. Street photography was once (around 1900) a nuisance (brought about by the ubiquitous Kodak Box camera) and got the status of an art form since Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank. The responsibility to elevate the humble snapshot to an at form rests with Szarkowski who vigorously promoted this style of photography as a medium specific art form. Bill Jay has remarked that any history of photography selects only at most 200 ‘iconic images’ that are supposed to define the essence of the medium. But millions of images are unknown and may represent a much more accurate history.The same Szarkowski has promoted the family snapshot as a serious topic of study. Indeed only at most 1% of all pictures made today are accepted by galeries as genuine art (whatever that means).
My guess is that there are now around 300.000 Leica cameras in use today (from M3 to M10) and only a minute fraction of these cameras is used by individuals who are conveniently classified as art photographers or produce pictures that may copy the content and style of pictures that are made by art photographers as defined by museums and galleries.
The Leica camera is most often used for taking pictures in the domestic or vernacular domain. Most of these pictures are made for personal memories of important or emotionally relevant events or persons.
The official Leica view is that these pictures are irrelevant for the Leica image. They seem to forget that the first Leica images were very domestic snapshots. It is a fallacy to equate Leica photography with art photography. Most early Leica photographs were reportages by scientists and by explorers who documented the reality of expeditions and were made with reality in focus.
The non-art snapshot is the stuff the Leica world is made of. And only when this style of snapshot photography is accepted as genuine Leica photography can we start to appreciate the camera and its lenses and uses. The photo-artist Feininger has written many books and one of them “Die Welt Neu Gesehen’ is an advice to start taking pictures without artistic pretensions but with a great admiration for the objects that reality offers us.
The camera can help you to see the world anew and the Leica lenses are superb tools to record what is in front of the camera.
So forget about art and composition and just record whatever interests you and look afterwards in the picture to see what inspired you.

Why do we take photographs

2017-04-26T15:40:47+02:00

The urge to take photographs is a mystery that is slowly being unraveled. We have to discard all the common arguments that can be found on the internet and look a bit deeper. A sociologist will remark that taking photographs is part of a highly ritualized social protocol: we take pictures as tourists of all photogenic locations we visit and we take pictures as family members of important family and domestic affairs. We take pictures of these scenes and events because we want to remember what was the case. Memory is tricky and will fade anyway. In this age of the selfie, another motive has to be added: the photograph as tool for personal communication. Documentary photographers and photo-journalists may object and add that the idea that a photograph or a series of photographs tells a story, is an old one. A selfie does not tell a story but makes a statement.
Snapshots and selfies may be neglected by ‘serious’ photographers who see a photograph as a personal expression of sentiment or as an artistic creation. It is the age-old dichotomy between intention and documentation that has coloured the definition and appraisal of photography since the early nineteenth century.
When we ask why we take pictures, we must also look at the objects we take pictures of. Photographs are taken to be looked at at some time after the moment of recording.

When discussing the essence of photography the analogy between the eye and the lens is often used to show the similarities. This is too easy. Reality, some philosophers would say is not the physical reality we assume it to be, but there is a filter between the physical reality and our brain which transforms the physical reality into a social reality. What we see is not what there is. The brain will influence what we see, based on what is already known. Neurofysiology tells this story in a different way. The basics are indisputable. Physical objects bounce off photons and these reach the retina. The retina calculates the angle of the trajectory of the photons and a pattern of light intensities on the retina is used by the brain to construct a meaningful shape. This is the so-called top-down direction: the higher level of the brain influences the lower level processing. This is needed because the brain can process at best 1% of all visual information that is being transmitted through the eye lens. There is a good biological reason for this fact: the brain must process the visual impulses immediately to become aware of danger in the close surroundings of the human being in his environment. If it would take minutes to recognize a lion, we would never survive by running away.
Lower level processing is not influenced by the brain processes that select the information and construct an image. This lower level processing records the unfiltered visual information that the environment sends to us. Scientists do not agree on what this type of processing is and does, but it is evident that an ‘objective (unfiltered)’ scan within the field of vision provides us with an overview of what is ‘out there’ beyond our head.
The Leica viewfinder incidentally is a perfect match for this idea of visual processing. The viewfinder corresponds with the low level vision and when focusing on a specific object (the rangefinder patch) the high level processing takes over.
The lens has an easy task: it has only to transmit the photons and the emulsion records this amount and pattern of photons without interpreting the pattern. The comparison between the eye and the lens is a bit too primitive.
The accuracy and objectivity of the camera lens and emulsion has been one of the main reasons why scientists were so enthusiastically about the new medium. It could function as a welcome correction for the subjectivity of the human perception.
Here then lies one of the reasons why we take pictures. It is not the art instinct that Dutton describes in his book with the same title and not the preservation of the moment that Barthes mentions in his book ‘Camera Lucida’. It is the urge to record in an instant what we do not see and what can be preserved for eternity and for later study. It is the compensation for the scrupulous gaze of the detective who can see what others overlook.
There is more however.
Psychology adds some valuable insight: the drive to record scenes for later inspection and hoping that the recording is objective (at least immune for brain reconstruction) is one element. The other crucial element is the psychological relation to a scene. Studies have shown that persons get good feelings when looking at pictures of scenes and events that they were involved in and that produced at that time good feelings. Seeing the scene some time later, recalls the same good feelings as one had at the moment of recording. That is why parents take pictures of their smiling baby: looking at the photo relives that same good feeling of the moment.
That is also why ritualized photographs, taken because the social rules demand or prescribe it, have much less emotional value. A picture of the Eiffel Tower will not produce happy feelings, because the commercial version is much better and you were not happy when taking the picture in the first place: there is an obligation as a tourist, not a strong emotional bonding. The picture of the small bistro where you asked your girlfriend to become your wife, has strong emotional connections, but as a picture it may be boring. But it will produce happy feelings and that is why you took the picture: to relive these feelings that fade in memory.
Why then do you take pictures? Forget about art and rituals! Search and find objects you are curious about and that will give you good feelings when looking at the photograph again. Take pictures of events and persons that you were enthusiastically about when encountering. Forget about the classical rules of composition and free yourself to see and feel. Then press the shutter and process a straight print.
There is yet another motive to take pictures: this is what Winogrand did in the last stages of his life: he took thousands of rolls of film without developing or inspecting them. The idea was that taking a picture enriches the experience of being there and to feel yourself as a being. If this is your goal: a course of yoga might be cheaper and less time consuming.

selective enlargements

2017-02-27T20:52:28+01:00

There is one persistent trend: the demand for more pixels. When Leica announced the M8 with its 10 Mp, there was an immediate response that this amount was too timid. The M9 had 18 Mp, but spread over a larger area. The pixels size did not change (6.8 micron in both cases). The M240 family and the new M10 has a pixel count of 24 Mp with a slightly reduced pixel size. The Leica Q uses selective cropping to emulate several focal lengths, combining a 24 Mp sensor with a basic 28 mm lens. The idea is that the definition of the lens can be used to enlarge sections of the sensor area. It is the same as using several focal lenght’s from one fixed standpoint to enlarge a small part of the scene.
The same idea can also be used with the MM2 and the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm lens. When you take a picture of a model the result may be like this:

If you want only a part of the face, you can use a 90mm lens or enlarge a section of the picture, see below.

This picture is a non-post-processed sectional enlargement of the original file. The definition is excellent and all detail is clearly and crisply rendered.
Selective enlargements are as old as photography itself. It is one of the main arguments for using high definition, monodispersion emulsions.

Does “Leica Photography” exist?

2017-02-12T20:49:57+01:00

In the early 1920s Leica photography (Leitz for a short time even used the designation: “Leicagraphy”) was synonymous with miniature format photography. The Leica camera had no competition (until the announcement of the Zeiss Contax) and its compact size and fast handling allowed many a revolutionary photographer to select standpoints and viewpoints that departed from the conventional rules. It was possible now to record so-called dynamic scenes (life as it enrolled before the eyes of the observer). Leitz promoted this style of photography (persons (often scantily clad females) jumping in a river, children playing on a swing, portraits in dimly lit rooms, family scenes. There are a few scenes in the famous movie (Heimat) where family celebrations are fixed for history with a picture taken with a Leica. Others, notably Paul Wolff, promoted the excellent quality of the Leica lens and the film emulsion with pictures of exquisite quality to challenge the large format community.
In the thirties and fifties of the twentieth century photographers roamed the streets of New York and Paris to capture life as it exhibited itself in public space. Street photography and documentary photography became closely connected with the Leica camera. The rangefinder had its advantages compared to the slow focusing of the dark screens of the typical SLR and twin reflex, although many users of this type could produce pictures that were uncannily close to classic Leica pictures. Photographers did choose the 35 mm camera because it was the cheaper option, negative for negative.
So a handful of iconic photographers and their style set the rule for what Leica photography should be. The claim to be an art form settled the matter. Now every aspiring Leica photographer had to prove that s/he could produce pictures in the mould of the masters (Winogrand. Meyerowitz and so on).
The sobering truth is that today the Leica photographer is a photographer using a Leica camera. For a long time Leica photography was a life style and an attitude for realistic photography. Now photographers with a Leica emulate whatever is prominent in the arts scene.
There is a heavy dependance on engineering technique and optical quality. It is no coincidence that many Leica buyers argue that the choice for Leica has been inspired by the quality of the lenses. In the current time frame where fast autofocus rules and fast sequences (up to ten pictures/second) are the norm, the whole idea of waiting for the moment to freeze a dynamic moment in carefully composed construction is a bit out of order.
In social media the usual discussion about the composition of a picture is rather embarrassing: comments like “slightly more to the left” or “a bit more space at the bottom” or (technically) “a bit more highlights” or “more shadow details” indicate the level of the discourse. The basic truth is that the whole idea of artistic composition is a no-brainer when engaging in street photography: the chance factor plays too much a role.

In 1933 the exhibition “Die Kamera” was very popular. It was a display of what photographers (professional and amateur) could accomplish with the tools of the day. Paul Wolff (in his “Meine Erfahrungen mit der Leica”1939) referred to this exhibition and used the standard of quality of the “better photograph” (das bessere Bild) to start a discussion about what the user of a Leica camera should strive for and even imitate. He divides the photographic community in two main groups: the professional photographer (Berufslichtbildner) and the amateur photographer. This second group is composed of amateurs who want to take his photography to a higher level and those who want to take pictures of important events for the sake of remembrance. (Erinnerungsbilder). (it is remarkable that Wolff and his companions hardly mention the woman-photographer who features prominently in the Kodak box photography of the 1890s). The main thrust of his book is the reasoning that the small format photography challenges the capabilities of amateur and professional photographer to the same extent. In this sense there is no major difference between both types of photographers. The important task for every small format photographer is to find a technical method that guarantees a perfect result. One should remember that Barnack’s ambition was the development of a new and very convenient amateur camera. The features of this compact camera allowed many artists to develop a new pictorial and surrealist style, the New Vision.
Wolff dedicated all his energy to the description of a method that combines fine grain with good sharpness and concludes that these basic ingredients have to be complemented by a fair dose of artistic craft, honed by studying masterful examples.
Most ideas and recommendations in the book are now obsolete or accepted as the desired standard. The focus on the motivated amateur as distinct from the snap-shooter (der Knipser) is even today of topical interest. There were a number of Leica users who achieved celebrity status as an artist. Many iconic pictures were made by the like of Cartier-Bresson, Klein, Lebeck, Shulthess, Eugene Smith, Eisenstaedt, Davidson, Eggleston, Winogrand, and Frank. These pictures are still the guiding light for many aspiring Leica photographers.
The art community has since the 1960s grasped photography as an art form and means of communication. There is now an abundant and diverse body of literature about photography as art and it seems that the only serious approach to photography is through one of several iconic art styles. As with the distinction between high and low art, there exists an almost impenetrable wall between art and snapshot photography , the latter looked at with disdain and hardly worth of mentioning by practitioners and theorists of high-brow art.
Even today the humble snap-shot, often out of sight in family albums, is hardly discussed. Without the Kodak innovation, around 1890, photography as we know it, would not have existed. Barnack’s amateur camera continued this tradition of easy capturing the fleeting events that surround us and we deem worthy of recording and remembering as it really was.
The theoretical distinction between artistic intention and mechanical reproduction is the dividing line between pictorial art and the snapshot. Another distinction that conveys the same information might be the difference between photographic pictures as depictions (with all the philosophical load attached to this concept) and photographic pictures as aids for detection. The argument to use this distinction is a certain approach to photography. Photography can be interpreted as a technology, a process, a procedure and a social process and one can focus on the photograph as an art form, independent of the methods of production. In theoretical terminology it is the distinction between aesthetic value and epistemic value.

Leica photography can be looked at from many different perspectives. Before we can discuss the characteristics of taking photographs with a Leica and the special traits of a Leica photograph, it makes sense to look at the phenomenon of photography itself. There are more definitions and descriptions of what photography is or should be or might be and even has been than can be listed.
The technical definition of photography goes like this:
“Photography is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.”(Focal Encyclopedia, 1973)
Such a definition is not very enlightening because it restricts itself to a bare bones description of the physical processes that are involved in taking a picture.
Bourdieu (1965) takes a more interesting view: he looks at the photographic practice as a social phenomenon and the meaning of a photographic image within this context. He describes photography as a middle-brow art, not unlike the description of the photography of Cartier-Bresson as an artless art.

Leica photography is basically the activity of taking pictures with a Leica camera and even more specific with a Leica coupled rangefinder camera. The argument that using a specific photographic tool will have impact on the style, themes and genres of the photographs will be discussed later.

The E6 process

2017-01-27T20:29:52+01:00

Recently, Kodak announced that it would restart production of the slide film Ektachrome 100. This is good news for all emulsion users and lovers. Leica cameras and slide film are intimately connected since the first days of Kodachrome. The impressive Leica performance was possible with the help of the Kodachrome K14 and later Ektachrome E-6 process. Indeed it should be the main aim of Leica to convert the digital workflow into a simple E6 process. The reason why I do not evaluate the colour characteristics when discussing new Leica digital cameras is the vast range of influences on the outcome, starting with the colour space and ending with the post processing manipulations. The original E6 process was a simple one. The characteristics of the slide film were known and measured to what ever precision you want. Then it is easy to evaluate the final result.
Now that Leica has chosen to follow the road of simplicity in the digital domain ( a decision I personally applaud) the next step is to implement the E6 process: there could be an internal program or algorithm inside the camera that optimizes the potential of the sensor and produces a Raw file (a colour slide so to speak) that can be printed right away without any post processing. There is no need to do this during the capturing stage and it is possible to do this after capturing the image file on the memory card.
The beauty of the digital process is the flexibility: the user has the choice, but an internal E6 algorithm in a Leica camera would increase the joy and simplicity of the act of taking photographs. And that is what every Leica M user would strive for.

addendum to M10 review

2017-01-20T13:29:08+01:00

There is some discussion about the characteristics of the sensor in the M10 and how closely it is related to the sensor in the SL and/or which manufacturer is responsible for the production of the sensor. One should first differentiate between the sensor design and the sensor manufacture. Given that the manufacturer has the required expertise and production technology it is in fact irrelevant which manufacturer does the job, as long as the results are within specifications and quality tolerances. The main characteristics of a sensor are: its sensitivity, resolution, noise, contrast ratio, dynamic range and colour gamut and accuracy.
These characteristics are determined and/or influenced by the technical layout of the imaging chain. The basic process is simple: light falls on a regular grid of detectors (a photodiode array or lattice), that produces a pattern of electric charges which are measured and then converted to numbers stored in an image file.
The main elements of the sensor architecture are the basic substrate (a p/n type silicon wafer) and the light-sensing unit (as a semiconductor Capacitor (MOS). In the substrate, pixels are defined as a grid of narrow electrode strips, known as gates. The collected electrons or charge are transferred to the output amplifier and then to the A/D converter. A full frame sensor is one in which the full sensor surface is sensitive to light and there are no dead spaces between the individual pixels. That is why I have problems with the use of ‘full frame’ as a designation for a sensor with the dimensions 24 x 36 mm. It would be better to use the term ‘full size’ for a sensor area of 24 x 36 mm.
Before the basic substrate are located a number of layers: Bayer pattern, IR filter, optionally a low pass filter and coupled to the sensor are the CMOS read out and the A/D converter that integrates with the DSP processor, the Maestro-II in case of Leica. To improve the light gathering capacity of the pixel, an array of specifically shaped microlenses is used in every case. This is not specific for the Leica designed sensors, but common practice.
In a CCD sensor the charge of every pixel is transferred through a narrow output channel to be converted to voltage. In a CMOS sensor every pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion and the sensor as a package may include amplifiers, noise-correction and digitization circuits.
The exact layout of the several Leica sensors in the Q, SL and M (various versions) full size sensor types is not (yet) communicated.
The complicated and often highly integrated and also the many separated elements that make up the full architecture make it quite difficult to say that one specific sensor is is or is not different from another one.
The remark that the filter layer and the shape of the microlenses of the sensor in the M10 have been (again) optimized for the use of Leica M lenses has not much information value. Such an optimization has been the case for every Leica digital M since the M8 and DMR R8- module. It would be only informative when the differences are specified in detail. These changes (in whatever extent and magnitude) do not imply that the rest of the sensor architecture is or is not identical to another one.
Depending on how one person assesses the magnitude of the differences in architecture, one may say that (to be specific) the sensor in the M10 is or is not identical with the sensor in the SL. After all, the sensor in the Q and SL have been claimed as the same or as improved, whatever this means.
The upshot is that it is the result that counts.

(Leica) Photography Manifesto

2016-12-19T21:54:06+01:00

About perception

1. The eye is part of the brain and we see what we have learned to see
2. The brain processes about 1% of the visual signals from the world outside our head.
3. The brain processes and reacts to specific visual patterns and changes over time in these patterns.
4. We do not see what there is, but we see what we want to see or have learned to see.
5. We need a trained detective eye to analyse a photograph. Read Sherlock Holmes!

About photography

6. Photography is a two-dimensional medium. The camera lens records all information and projects a pattern on the recording surface with a correct linear/optical perspective.
7. A photograph is a record of everything physical in the real world that is within the field of view of the lens and camera.
8. Photographs in themselves are meaningless. They are historical records without context.
9. When I look at a photograph, I ask myself what happens there and not why is this a beautiful picture.
10. Every photograph is constructed according to a conventional template and when we take a photograph we simply try to copy the reality along these templates that exist only in our head. These templates are of course the iconic pictures of the great masters.
11. A photograph is interesting or beautiful according to how close they replicate these templates.
12. The main area of photography is domestic photography and not art photography.
13. Art photography is a method to give some photographers a certain status.
14. The classical picture elements (viewpoint, location, situation and time) to give intentionality to a photograph are overvalued.
15. Photography is easy to learn: buy a camera ans start taking pictures. Continue to do it and take the pictures you want and do not mimic other photographers.
16. Digital photography has made it impossible to take a failed picture.
17. The real task is to know when to take a picture.

About Leica photography

18. There is no specific photographic style or genre that can de designated as Leica photography. There is only photography with a Leica camera.
19. Leica photography is not a style but an experience.
20. Leica lenses are great tools for domestic photography because they can record the unexpected in great detail.
21. The more detail there is in a picture, the less room for interpretation there can be and the more facts are collected: you start to discover and really observe.
22. The Leica camera is a great instrument for recording pictures that are basically only collections of facts about which questions can and must be asked.
23. The best Leica pictures are made with deliberate neglect of rules and intention: simply photograph what happens to be before the lens. The important idea is to understand what we do not see.

Summaron Reflections

2016-11-25T19:12:03+01:00

The vintage Summaron is a very fine lens. It is attached to the M3, a beautiful match, but the other two, the Elmarit and the Summilux are very interesting too. Using this range of lenses on a range of cameras (analog and digital) gives rise to a number of reflections, technical and philosophical. The next installment will delve into these topics.

First part of the 28 mm test online

2016-11-14T17:41:15+01:00

I have published the first part of the review of the Leica 28 mm lenses. I am a bit busy now: shipping books, writing the draft for the next book. Testing lenses with the M-A loaded with film and with the Monochrom camera. The working title of part 4 of my Leica book project is called: The Leica Rangefinder Camera, System and Technique.

With this book I try to produce a modern and up-to-date version of the classic book by Wolff: Meine Erinnerungen mit der Leica. A brilliant book, explaining why Leica photography can challenge the medium format cameras of that period. The pictures made by Wolff are really iconic for the Leica style and I wonder if any one of the modern Leica users could improve on them. I am not up to his level! At least photographically.

Testing 28 mm lenses

2016-11-06T20:45:45+01:00

Wittgenstein noted that noting is so difficult as not deceiving yourself. He obviously referred to his ideas that perception is a process that can and will easily be controlled by what we know. (in Wittgenstein’s philosophy knowing is located in the use of language and we never know anything about things but can only discuss and perceive facts). Photography has indeed a strong relation to facts because the photograph can only show what is the case. Artistic intentions notwithstanding, a photograph does not show the intentions of the photographer, only a copy of the light reflections from a surface. What we see however is different from what there is.
This discrepancy has been a problem for reviewers of lenses, because it is very difficult to separate between what is there and what is assumed to be there, based on some previously acquired knowledge. When it is ‘common knowledge’ that Leica lenses are the best one can buy, it is difficult to look at the results without this knowledge in mind. That is why comparisons between lenses is often required to neutralise the observer’s bias. Or one should use neutral measurement procedures.
Recently I have acquired the new test chart from Image Engineering to complement my usual procedures. A limiting factor of all these test charts is the distance between the camera and the chart. It is between one and two meters, a distance for which most lenses are not designed. The classical test proposed by G. Crawley, is an alternative: take a picture from a brick wall at a certain distance and move away from that position in incremental steps and notice when the detail structure of the bricks starts to break down. A laborious procedure, but more insightful than a single landscape picture.
I am explaining this because I will start a lengthy test procedure with the new Summaron 5.6/28, the current compact Elmarit 2.8/28 and the current 1.4/28.
I will test the lenses on the MM-2 and on film. For the film I have selected the Ilford XP2 Super, a very fine grained emulsion with an extended dynamic range,
I am very curious about the results.

My new lens saga book

2016-11-01T09:38:05+01:00

The first wave of pre-order books has been shipped in the last weeks and several persons have already received the book and commented upon the content. The overall impression is very favourable: it has been my intention to produce new and interesting information about the design and evolution of leica lenses. It makes no sense at all to recycle well-known myths and classical stories. It is much more interesting to do original research and find new and unknown facts.

Forgotten cameras

2016-10-30T20:09:57+01:00

One of the most forgotten cameras in the Leica Scuderia is the Leica M7. Purists select the MP or the M-A (which I happen to own and use!) or go digital. yet the M7, especially with the 0.85 finder is an excellent instrument. I use it often with a ISO 100 film and the SX 50 ASPH wide open. The exposure metering is quite accurate and the shutter is a joy to use. When taking pictures in low ambient light (around 1/8 to 1/15) the shutter noise is hardly audible and at 1/1000 the shutter produces the finest sound of every Leica shutter, including the new digital ones. The camera is very flexible: add a green filter for maximum sharpness and a ND filter to stay at wide apertures in full sunshine.
Evolutionary the M7 is the spring board for the M8 and all other digital Leica cameras. The current M is functionally almost identical to the M7.
The electronically controlled shutter is very accurate and sublimely quiet. Handling is very intuitive and the finder is bright with fast focusing. What else do you need or want.? This is a rhetoric question of course and I realize that the trend from negative to memory card is not reversible and it should not. The digital workflow has so many advantages that using a Speed Graphic is really anachronistic. On the other hand it is the film that separates the master from the pupil. Digital cameras are very close to industrial robots. Highly efficient and accurate, the robot is a living proof that the human operator is a clumsy competitor compared to the robot and artificial intelligence has more potential than human intelligence. The human brain is still capable of producing extraordinary ideas, but may researchers are confident that it is only a matter of time before a robot will be able to develop the string theory that Sheldon Cooper is focusing upon.
Using the M7 loaded with film is a fine and often necessary complement to the digital Leica M-camera.

heroes of analogue photography

2016-10-30T19:32:46+01:00

Today I visited the Museum in Hilversum, Netherlands, the city of audiovisual companies and radio stations. The museum had an exhibition about “the heroes of analogue photography” in the Netherlands. The idea is to exhibit pictures of famous Dutch photographers who worked with analogue material between 1900 and 1970. In most cases the original cameras are still available. The next step was to select modern photographers who are mainly familiar with digital equipment, give them the original analogue cameras and ask them to take pictures in the sprit of the old masters. The results are quite intriguing and does provoke a discussion about the impact and meaning of the transition from negative to memory card. Most interesting are the street photography pictures, made with a wide variety of cameras, from Agfa Silette to Leica and Hasselblad, and from Rolleiflex to Speed Graphic and to Plaubel and Linhof.
It is evident that the traditional idea that the Leica camera is the best for candid and street photography may be obsolete and the equally traditional idea that photography is primarily directed by the brain or what is between the ears.
The most used camera by the way is the Rolleicord and Rolleiflex, followed by the technical and field camera. It is really amazing what these old masters could accomplish with cameras we now assume to be totally unsuitable for dynamic and instant photography.

Book series

2016-10-28T20:44:33+02:00

My first book in the series (Leica Chronicle) was a description of the many products that the company of Leitz, later Leica has produced since 1849. It also contained a history of the company from 1849 to 2012. The photographic products since 1925 have not only been listed but also evaluated form my personal experience and testing procedures.
The second book (Leica Practicum) produced information about the ongoing discussion what a picture is, how to interpret it in a technical and artistic sense and what are the specifics of a Leica picture. Unavoidable is a discussion about the artistic - mechanistic dichotomy of the photography and how this dichotomy is explored in the world of chemical prints and of numerical images and the inkjet picture. Technically the focus is on the Zone System and theoretically I defended the position that genuine Leica photography accepts the external world as independent from the observer’s mind and that street photography in its documentary context is the guiding principle for true Leica photography. Between the lines I questioned the universal view that photography is an art form and proposed to see photography as a neutral recording process.
In the third book (Leica Lens Saga) I looked at the physical theories of light and optical design. The principles of optical design have changed since Berek designed the Elmar and the changes are reflected in the history of the Leica lens. I noted that optical theorists are not all interested in the topics of art versus mechanical reproduction or what the nature of reality is within the field of view of the lens in front of the camera. Designing a lens is a very complex process and the design is successful when there is a one-to-one correspondence (an isomorphism) between the objects in front of the lens and what is recorded on the capture medium. The objects in front of the lens are limited to the surfaces of these objects and their brightness distribution and intensity level. This aspect is the only characteristic of an object that a photograph can reproduce.
In the fourth book of the series I am looking at the camera itself and the act of photography. The main question will be what it is to take a picture with a Leica camera and how this will and can influence the character of the print and interpretation of its content and meaning. I will follow the ideas of the Dutch photographer, Aarsman, who argued that one needs a detective approach when analysing the content of a photograph. In addition I will expand on the theories of lens design that the lens/camera/recording medium is neutral and intrinsically meaningless. It is a theory from the science of perception that meaning has to be injected in a picture or in observing a scene. You see what you know and you do not know what you see. This is a Sherlock Holmes proposal that is close to the detective approach for the analysis of a picture. Cartier-Bresson has defined his theory of Leica photography as the decisive moment, a concept that has been discussed by Dyer in his book “The ongoing Moment”. Not well known is the influence of the chance factor in the process of taking a picture. One might reflect on the fact that the dominance of the Leica style of photography since the 1920s depends more on the ability to take 36 pictures, thereby reducing the chance element. The extended depth of field, made possible by the small format and the specific design of the Elmar lens, made possible the snapshot style of photography. There is much to explore in this exciting field and my fourth book will cover this search in depth.

Paradox of automation

2016-10-15T16:20:35+02:00

Airplanes fly most of the time on automated pilot using so-called fly-by-wire systems. These are translators, mediating between machine and human. When the human pilot initiates a maneuver manually, the system will sense what the pilot tries to accomplish and overrules the action with a more precise controlled series of activities when it assumes that the pilot is in error.
Automation is now everywhere and soon even cars will move by automation. Cameras have been automated before the inclusion of focal plane arrays and the image-processing software. The better the automated systems, the less inclined the human operator will be to exercise basic control skills. The bad point is of course that when the automatic control system breaks down, the human operator can no longer cope with atypical situations. When a modern camera has a battery failure, the whole system breaks down. And even when the battery is functioning, but the software lets you down who can determine the level of exposure or even guess the distance between camera and object when need arises.
Automatic systems accommodate incompetence by being easy to operate (never mind the 300 pages of a camera manual)and by automatically correcting mistakes. Even when operators are skilled, they will use the skill hardly ever and even worse, when a skilful response is required because the automation fails in unusual situations, the operator lacks the experience.

This is one of the reasons why I use the filmloading basic Leica cameras because they require the basic photographic skills to operate.

The other reason to use traditional chemical means to record a scene, is simply fun. It is a kind of existential pursuit of happiness, so brillantly expressed by Robert Penn in his book: “It’s all about the bike”.

A basic dilemma

2016-10-14T16:37:01+02:00

The first choice is the film: the Ilford Delta100 for now. This choice also limits the selection of the lens: the most compact is the Summarit-M 2.5/50 mm. Because I intend to take pictures in situations where the light intensity is low, the Summilux-M 50 mm will be the choice. I feel dubious about the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm because of its higher level of definition at the wider apertures, but the ability to collect the faintest photons that can hit the emulsion settles it. Then the camera: the M3 has the finest finder and the most pleasant shutter noise and the smoothest shutter release. The M-A is almost identical, but has a brighter finder and a more accurate shutter. The 0.72 finder has to be supplemented by the magnifier which makes the body a bit more voluminous. Both cameras require an external exposure meter. The Gossen with the 1 degree spot is the obvious candidate, but only when the pictures are Zone System oriented. Exposure metering with the incident light method is extremely simple and adjustments can be made by experience. I am a bit lazy for now, as I wish to explore some new techniques of photography. Then the M7 with the 0.85 finder will do. The semi-automatic mode suits the style of photography and the accuracy of the shutter is excellent. The shutter sound is hardly audible. This M7 has been cleaned and adjusted recently, and should be in perfect state.
As Wim Wenders noted, the beauty of the analogue photography (in itself a strange reference as the digital photography is also analogue to start with, but the word is now so familiar that it makes no sense to be purist) is the expectation to see later what has been captured and to reflect on the captured details. Usually we see only what we know and the detective approach (to know what we see) takes some effort. Not every photographer is a Sherlock Holmes. The Dutch photographer, Aarsman, has made it a specialty: the photo-detective to collect information from the photograph that was not intended by the photographer when he took the picture. The time period between taking the picture and observing the photograph helps to hone this attitude. And you have to focus on picture taking as there is no second chance. In this respect the immediate review possible with the digital camera makes things easier, but also less attentive. There is no single stairway to heaven!

Computational versus chemical photography

2016-10-12T14:34:39+02:00

Slowly and without remorse (‘we have to look/move forward’, said Mr. Kaufmann, discussing the possible demise of the X-Vario) the current technology of image/signal processing enters the era of the dominant algorithm and the numeric computation. The act of photography becomes almost trivial and subconscious, because the computational power will produce in almost every case and situation a decent, and often even a perfect image. This is the good point. The bad point is the inevitable convergence to one standard style and quality of imagery. And of course the loss of control, because the algorithms determine the result. Photographers may state that the post-processing tools in Photoshop and its companions will reclaim the loss of control. For some it may be the case. And using high-end cameras with RAW files there is indeed a modicum of control. Technology however has its own will and will more or less gently push the photographer in one direction to the area where the technology does rule. When one looks at the zillions of (amateur) images on the social media and the thousands of (professional) images in the magazines and the books about digital photography, only one conclusion is possible. People do produce images within their own comfort zone as defined by the technology they use. This is possibly one of the major reasons why there is such pressure to acquire ever more sophisticated instruments: they promise a more diversified portfolio of images: the demand for ever higher numbers of pixels per square area and ever more exposure latitude and higher speeds is not based on real needs, but on the possibility to distinguish one self from the crowd.
There is no more progress in chemical emulsion technology: you have to do with what is being offered on the market since decades. The Kodak Tri-X and Tmax 400 and the Ilford 100D are almost stone age emulsions and the range of developers is also quite stable although some small manufacturers amaze the user with newer and interesting developers. Some new tools for the darkroom are being designed and manufactured. The good point is that the stability of the products allows one to optimize the workflow and to experiment with the available chemicals. There is no hurry and one does not need to be afraid that a new disruptive product will wipe out the established base. What is good now will be good forever.
Film choices are a most decisive factor for the quality and style of the photographs that can be taken. A conscious choice must be made when one puts a roll of film in the camera: the grain/speed character defines the level of detail and the exposure latitude and even the style of the pictures taken. The choice of developer may alter the relationship a bit, but only within strictly defined limits. The worst advice that some emulsion theorists can give to users is the idea that the darkroom processes have to be kept within tight limits to be useful. The whole idea that the development process depends on a fraction of time or temperature is not a good advice. Developing a film for 10 minutes or 10.2 minutes will not change the quality of the negative. It is indeed the case that grain will grow and sharpness will be reduced in cases of overexposure and overdevelopment, but the ‘over’ has to be measured in double digit percentages and not in single digit percentages.
Today I developed a range of films (from APX100 to Tri-X) in FX39, the classical acutance developer. The compensating effect of the developer gives enough latitude to get good pictures from under/over-exposed negatives. The next stage is the printing stage. Modern photographers are hardly accustomed to produce, see and handle prints (chemical or inkjet), as the standard medium is the computer, laptop or smartphone screen. Assessing the final quality of an image from the i-pad screen is a bit dangerous, because of the hidden algorithms that produce the image on the screen. I prefer the comparison between prints, because the print is an honest arbiter and the artifact for the artist and technical analyst.

Photography of the future: algorithms will replace lenses!

2016-10-06T20:52:20+02:00

The establishment of the Max Berek Innovation Lab (MBIL) in Wetzlar by Leica and Huawei is not a gimmick, but a bold entry into the future of photography.

Long time ago I wrote an article on the internet that with the adoption of digital imagery, the classical art of photography was dead. I was severely ridiculed by the then active cognoscenti that I did not understand the digital world and should wash my mouth with soap and start learning about the true essence of digital technologies.
Now the advance of the technique is even more visible than it was then. The new camera of the future will be an app in which algorithms will define what and how a scene is being recorded. The announced Summicron-SL lenses may be the last one will ever see from Leica.The OBLW will produce a new type of camera obscura with so-called computational photography that will correct and enhance the images. A very simple application is the reduction of distortion and vignetting in modern Leica cameras and lenses, but this is the start not the end
The era of the honest photograph (the unaltered reproduction of the reality) once the exclusive characteristic of the Leica way of photography will be a relic of the past.
The iPhone will take over and the included algorithms. Leica and Huawei are the beginning of the end of the classical Leica photography!
Time to pick up the Leica M-A and a box of Ilford Delta films!
Like it or not: straight photography has gone and the smartphonography rules.

the fading urge to buy

2016-10-02T18:37:12+02:00

The current Leica strategy has lots in common with that other German iconic manufacturer, the BMW motorcycle. It is no coincicdence that in 1954 both companies announced the most prestigeous products ever: the Leica M3 and the BMW R50/60/69.
Since then both companies followed the same path: almost killed by mdern japanese companies (Honda Black Bomber and Canon/Nikon F-series)) they stubbornly kept faith in their own competences (the R100 and the M6) and just in time saw the light (watecooled boxer engines and digital cameras (M8-M9). Both companies are actively reflecting on their roots and know that history is an asset in current times of mnimalism and nostalgia. BMW has just announced the R5 Hommage, a pure replica of the classical R5, but with modern technology. Leica has announced the M-D and is working on even more classical-oriented models.The BMW planners however seem to be be more daring and clear-focused and less pre-occupied with marketing research and socail media opinions than the Leica planners.
Modern marketing research has shown that the focus on brand creation and image promotion, focus groups and social media and much of the current maketing hype is useless when one wishes to establish a loyal following.
Leica needs the type of products that BMW has: products with the famous Wow-factor and the instant impulse: this is what I want to have (and buy).
The current Leica cameras and lenses are very competently designed and engineered and offer a performance on a very high level, but not distinguished enough from the competion to warrant the urge to own. A few of course will buy everything Leica makes (the Q seems to be a good seller, but not with the numbers that Fuji or Sony might be satisfied with) but the fact that Leica issues special editions is an indication that normal sales are not what they were. The amount of special editions of the M6 increased at the end of its life cycle. The year 2017 may see a large amount of new announcements that will increase the sales volume, but the true urge to buy has yet to emerge.

The Leitz Wetzlar product history

2016-09-30T10:43:51+02:00

In the 1920s the Leitz company had a wide product portfolio, consisting of all kinds of optical systems (lenses) microscopes, binoculars, cameras and a broad assortment of scientific-optical measurement instruments. All of these products were designed and manufactured in Wetzlar. More than 5000 (the peak was 7000) workers were involved in the production of these instruments. A camera was also considered an instrument.
After the war the scientific instruments were slowly phased out and the company profiled itself with the microscopes and the cameras, still and movie, and the lenses. The portfolio was quite broad but focused on photography, cinematography and viewing. Projectors and even darkroom equipment were included. At the end of the 20th century the microscope and optical-scientific division was integrated in a separate company and the camera division was on its own with a much reduced portfolio, consisting of the iconic M-system, the ailing R-system, a lacklustre range of compact cameras, made by Japanese companies and a sprinkling of digital cameras, also made by Japanese companies.
Now located in the Wetzlar Park, the Leica company is again on an expansionist tour. A wide range of digital cameras, the compact ones from Panasonic and many of the high-end cameras clearly inspired by equivalent Sony products, has been supplemented by a range of cinematographic lenses, (even a new Leicina is being suggested), a Fuji-made Instant camera and Huawei smart phones. The Wetzlar Park gets a movie theatre, a hotel and a Max Berek lab for artificial intelligence and more of this type of research. The lab personnel is partly from the research centres of Huawei in Europe and China.
The new lenses for the T and SL camera systems are, to say the least, inspired by Panasonic designs and the performance goal is inspired by the Zeiss lens range. Zeiss has increased the 40 lp/mm goal from the classical 40 - 50% at a new level (70%) and this is also the target for the new Leica lenses for the digital cameras. The S-lenses were the first with this new level of performance, but had moderate apertures.
The good point of these new targets is the increased level of detail that is possible with potential new sensors of smaller pixel pitch and higher amount of pixels per square mm.
The bad point is the narrow focus depth and related circle of confusion. At wider apertures these lenses show a steep sharpness gradient and a very narrow sharpness plane. Very accurate focusing is required to exploit the feature of heightened sharpness and contrast. Zeiss has the easier task because the focusing is manual and the operator therefore responsible for the result. Leica has opted for autofocus and this requires a fast and accurate AF mechanism. This is not easy to design and manufacture and may explain the slow introduction of the lenses on the SL-roadmap.
The new levels of performance and the trend to 40 Mp sensors in small-format cameras may be fine for the marketing department and for photographers who are conscious of the prestige of this trend. The big question however is how the quality of the images will and can be increased. Handheld photography with the new large and heavy lenses (see the new 1.4/50 mm lens for the SL) is difficult and vibration reduction may be required to exploit the new options. There is however the possibility that the technique sets the limits and defines the content of the pictures. The street photographers have produced a large amount of identical pictures showing blind beggars, barber shop porches and empty or populated benches in parks, or sleepy persons in subways.

reviews of recent products

2016-09-29T22:19:22+02:00

Several visitors of the site have inquired why I do not review the new products that are being announced by Leica. The simple fact is that I am not asked to test these products. The reason why is a mystery to me.

Digital myths

2016-09-29T21:33:16+02:00

Most reviewers/testers on most websites claim that the bigger the sensor the better will be the results. This is the conventional wisdom. I received a few images from Dr. Nasse (regrettable no longer with us) who argued that this wisdom is not supported by scientific testing. The first image is an enlarged picture of the original image: part of a a post stamp. The next two images are from a MicroFT and a APS-C camera. There is no difference in visual appearance. Of course, there are many other characteristics to discuss, but when the the main criterion (image sharpness) is selected, the images are proof that there is no difference at all.

The upshot?
The effectiveness of the software nowadays provides the camera manufacturers with enough options to compensate for the differences in format and pixel pitch.

Book update 2

2016-09-29T21:17:53+02:00

There were problems with the printing and I am informed now that the delivery date will be now end of October. The books will ship early November. I apologise for the delay!

Book update

2016-09-12T19:06:57+02:00

The printer informed me today that the book will be ready end of September. So I will start shipments in the first week of October.

Truth and style in the digital age

2016-09-12T16:33:15+02:00

One of the least acknowledged ‘truths’ in the world of photography is a rule from perception theory: “you see what you know and not you know what you see”. It is the difference between interpretation and observation. It has particular relevance for the theory of photography. A photograph has no meaning: it is a frame, a window on physical reality, devoid from context and from the flow of time. It does not tell a story and it does not reveal what is behind the surface of the physical objects that are depicted. This was the discovery of the nineteenth century when a photograph was compared to a painting or drawing. A painting was full of references, carefully drafted and included in the main tableau by the painter. A photograph was the result of a mechanical instrument and could only reproduce what was before the lens. This was most unsatisfactory and during the twentieth century photographers claimed that style was the substance of a photograph. Not the physical object was the target, but the way it was photographed: standpoint, viewing angle, choice of lens and time and more selectable aspects made the photograph to a meaningful picture, because the intention and goals of the photograph became visible. The picture says more about the maker than about the subject. This is the artistic attitude and many pages are indeed written about the maker’s intentions. This however is an invention by gallery owners and art historians.
The twenty-first century changed all that again. The digital technology engulfed photography and the photograph became artificial, a construct of pixels that could be manipulated individually. The protagonists of digital constructions defend the act of photoshopping a person into the shape of the standard beauty ideal by referring to the fact that retouch is and was a standard practice to create the Playboy next door girl.
It is true that digital technology can create photographs of the old, analog type and it is the Leica community in particular that claims that digital (Leica) photography is identical to analog (Leica) photography, only with different technological means. The whole concept of a special type of photography, identified as Leica photography, is a bit suspect. Who can claim that he is able to identify a photograph made with a Leica from a bunch of photographs without knowing some facts about the photographer or the context. The fact that many knowledgeable persons in the Leica world still identify some of Robert Capa’s iconic photos as made with a Leica is the proof. We ‘know’ that the iconic picture of the dying soldier is made by Capa and we ‘know’ he used a Leica so we conclude that it is a Leica photograph. Some historians even claim that this photo was not made by Capa, but by his girlfriend who used the Leica he once owned and had given to her long ago. None of Capa’s carefully posed public photographs show that he had a Leica around his neck or in his hand and the famous D-Day pictures were made with the Contax. We see what we know and we do not know what we see.
Constructed (staged) photography, easy to make with digital technology, is the favorite of modern image artists. These staged images are loaded with meaning, like a classical painting. There is no truth in such an image. Only the pleasure of making one. The banal version is the selfie: it is the pleasure of making one, uploading the image and register the number of likes.
Robert Frank’s photographs are intensely subjective: he only photographs what he likes and what happens when he was there. In a sense these photographs are the limit of documentary photography, emotional involvement and lack of judgement go hand in hand. After this book, Frank could never repeat this act: it was a unique experience.
It is impossible to recreate such a project in the current digital era. The photographs would lack authenticity because the long imaging chain would not be transparent to the observer.
Truth and authenticity are the losers and style is the winner. A digital photograph is made in a post-processing session. When the authors of books about digital-x-photography (where x stands for landscape, portrait, nature and anything you wish to mention) would skip the chapters about special effects possible with digital technology, the books would be much slimmer. The basic methodology is simple: take a picture in raw format with classical means (focus, frame and expose), develop the file with a simple demosaicing software, like DCraw (again with classical means: gradient curve, highlight and shadow preservation) and send the developed file to a printer. That is all there is to the process of digital photography. The style-aspect is not the expertise in post-processing manipulations, but in a preservation of authenticity. The Leica M lenses are eminently suited to this process. My next book will provide examples of this approach.

Almost forgotten Leica M lenses (1)

2016-09-10T19:14:10+02:00

The focus of almost everyone is on the prestigious M lenses, like the SX 1.4/35 and the NX 0.95/50. The full range of Leica M lenses covers the fixed focal lengths from 18 mm to 135 mm (with the exception of the ‘vario’ lens Elmar 16-18-21 mm). The 135 mm is hardly mentioned at all by most reviewers. It is indeed a difficult lens to use, especially with the FPA-equipped Leica M cameras. The focal length of 135 has always been problematic in the range, because of the inherent limited accuracy of the rangefinder coupling mechanism, that was designed for use with the 50 mm lens. Even with the 1.4 magnifier the rangefinder is stressed to the limit, especially at wider apertures. This is the reason why Leica advices to use the 135 mm lens at medium apertures only when attached to a FPA-equipped body.
For a long period the 135 mm focal length was the favorite of portrait and reportage photographers, because of its ‘natural’ perspective and its ability to magnify the object at larger distances.
The 135 mm lens on the Leica provides a unique opportunity to learn the finer points of the rangefinder mechanism. When focusing the 135-lens on an object with clear-edged vertical lines it is the experience that a slight movement of the focusing mount will not change the vernier acuity of the rangefinder. In other words there is a slight tolerance in the mechanism. The solution is to look for maximum contrast in the rangefinder patch. The rangefinder reacts to contrast changes and to alignment changes. The first type of changes is the most accurate, but is difficult to detect in low contrast conditions. The best strategy is to focus with the alignment option and to do fine tuning with the contrast option.
It also makes a difference in accuracy if one focuses from infinity to 1.5 meter or from 1.5 meter to infinity.
A check with the Live View function of the MM2 indicates that the rangefinder is as effective as the Live View 10x focus peeking. Very critical focusing even indicates that the RF is more accurate than the Live View FP option.
The test with the Siemens Star shows that the distance between 2 and 5 meters gives excellent results at f/3.4 and somewhat better results at f/5.6. At infinity the lens is at its best, but then details are rather small and enlargement will inevitably produce a loss in clarity and crispness.
The lens has obviously a steeper learning curve than a 50 mm or a 35 mm, but rewards the photographer with very crisp and clean framed sections of the object of interest. The designation ‘Apo’ is fully deserved.

The dysfunctional Leica

2016-09-04T18:31:25+02:00

In an interesting article, Rolf Sachsse ( a German photographer, author and university teacher at Hochschule der Bildenden Künste Saar), points to a discrepancy between the way an object looks and the way it handles. Everybody is familiar with the fact that a BMW motorcycle stops working at a most embarrassing moment, that the Macbook crashes when it is most needed, an exclusive fountain pen starts to leak when the signature is required and a modern digital Leica stops working because of unexpected battery failure. The original Leica is admired because of its ergonomics and design, but in reality the change of a roll of film is cumbersome, the setting of the shutter time is difficult, the size of the body does not accept accessory attachments and the transportation is clumsy.
The least discussed aspect however is the tiny viewfinder. It worked only for photographers who were trained to concentrate their vision upon an area of less than one square inch, as with a rifle or a telescope sight. The Leica photographer had to focus very intensely on its subject and this is the main reason why Avant Garde photographers in the 1920s dropped looking through the viewfinder and also did abandon the rules of the central perspective that had to be followed when looking at the focusing screen of the large format camera. The freedom of expression that the Leica camera allowed was related to its dysfunctionality and not to its superior handling characteristics as universally claimed. This is an interesting viewpoint. The compact format and easy portability allowed the artist to take the camera everywhere and not looking through the viewfinder freed the artist from the canon of the central perspective, allowing him/her to follow new visions like the slanting lines and contrasting diagonals, for that time a really novel perspective.
This aspect of the dysfunctional elements of the Leica CRF camera is even relevant today. The Leica viewfinder with its small rangefinder spot in the centre does force the photographer to focus on a central element of the object, disregarding the composition. When you take a portrait, the natural mechanical focus will be on the eyes, but that is often not the ideal composition for the portrait.

It is not only the marketing imperative that forced Leica to adopt the autofocus in all recent products (S, SL, T and Q). It is also quite logical that many users/reviewers of current Leica products prefer to adopt the SL and T as their main camera. It makes life much easier and the score of successful photographs is higher than with the digital CRF models. The AF cameras, made by Leica are however mainstream models that follow the canon of today’s artistic guidelines. As with the original Leica, the current CRF camera has limitations that give the photographer the freedom to break out of the conventional rules. Here lies the significance of the CRF concept in the current photographic landscape. To work within its limitations demands much of the photographer’s ingenuity and to work beyond its limitations foster the visual creativity.
Leica’s decision to focus on professionalism as the main theme for this year’s Photokina (2016) is logical and a bit desperate. The world of photography is clearly segmenting into two parts: the smartphone users and the professionals, defined as expert photographers who earn their living by accepting orders from clients. The Leica M camera has always occupied a part of both areas. It was and is the preferred camera by well-heeded amateurs who record their personal memories with a very expensive cult-product. It was (and for a few it still is) the preferred tool for photo-journalists who valued the reliability, the quality and the inconspicuousness of the camera. More and more however the amateurs dominate and the demography indicates that they are a shrinking lot. Recent reports indicate that the slr will be reduced to a niche (professional) status and the mirrorless camera will be the main system in the photography world, dominated by smartphone imaging, which is basically very cheap. So the world of photography becomes this: a cheap and easy way of photographing with a smartphone and a world of commissioned photography that is expensive and where the high cost of equipment can be tax deductible.
The Leica S-system failed to impress the professional market and the SL is a second attempt to break into this market. Leica has to make sure that the high price of their products can be justified. The luxury argument is one option (see the T, Q) and the professional option is the other (S and SL).

What is neglected in this strategy is the historical role of the rangefinder camera. The success of the Leica CRF has been based on the use by scientists and innovative artists and amateurs. These are the groups that the Leica management is now neglecting, swimming with the mainstream.
This are really interesting times, when the new Hasselblad at the high end and the Olympus Pen F at the other end are closing in on the traditional niche that Leica has occupied for decades.

New book Leica lens saga

2016-08-31T21:07:56+02:00

My new book "Leica lens saga" has been sent to the printer finally. It is a fresh look at the methods of design used for the Leica lens from Berek to Karbe. The information is new and nowhere else available. This is my approach: not repeating what every one knows already and expects to read. It follows the steps from opto-mechanical design to opto-mechatronics designs and from pre-computer to computer supported design. It really shows the backside of the lens.

The example file (content and introduction and part of the first chapter) can be downloaded here as a PDF.

The book will be available end of september at a price of Euro 65 for worldwide shipping (including Europe) and Euro 50 for Netherlands and Belgium and for members of the Leica Fellowship England.

The book is a limited edition and you can inform me of your buying wish at erwinputs@kpnmail.nl

You can now preorder the book. Please pay Euro 30 as advance money with paypal: erwinputs@kpnmail.nl

Thank you very much

Erwin Puts

The book series is constructed like this:
Leica Chronicle: a review of the history of the leica company and its products (lenses and cameras) (sold out)
Leica Practicum: the theory and practice of Leica photography related to street photography and zone system (sold out)
Leica lens saga: what it means to design a Leica lens (now available)
Leica photography: techniques of Leica photography digital and film (to be announced).

Comfort Zones

2016-08-20T11:50:04+02:00

When I was a student at the university, I got advice from several professors about the approach to write my thesis. One told me to start with the conclusion I like to defend and then find in the library (there was no internet then) any books or articles of whatever intellectual quality to support my story. Another one told me to start with a review of my theme and then read books about it and collect as much conflicting information as possible within a reasonable span of time. There are so many books about everything that you can read a lifetime and not even knowing what it is all about.
The first advice is what we now call the comfort zone. This is the most popular attitude on the internet. One has to find persons like oneself to trust and to get advice from. One starts with buying a Leica camera or lens and then you select those reviews that are positive so the buyer feels comfortable with the choices. Then one follows persons who write that they too use the product and like it so much. That is nice to know and makes one feel being part of a group of likeminded persons. Of course the reviewer or commentator will throw in some critical comment to make sure that he sounds serious, because you would never take advice from just some one. And one avoids being confronted with opinions that may not support the good feeling in the comfort zone.
The other approach produces psychological resistance. It is sometimes called the cognitive dissonance, because humans do not like to confront themselves with conflicting information. Still this is the most scientific way to do things. You only learn something when the information is surprising or unexpected. This is the basis of information theory. One adds a bit of information to the knowledge base when the outcome of a choice is not expected. When the outcome is expected you know it already and it will not give additional information. This is then the usual situation: we believe what we already think to know and we look for persons who agree with this view: the continually confirmed vision.
It is not new: in the Middle Ages the villagers chased a person away outside the village borders when he dared to have a different opinion.
Facts are less important than opinions. That is an unsettling view. Facts exist outside a personal domain and can be verified or refuted. They are not owned by an individual but are free floating in the intellectual space.
The Leica management level seems currently only be interested in opinions and is unhappy with facts that contradict their views. It is the classical attitude of German Management, exemplified by the current problems of VW. Critical comments are not welcome in this culture. Some see in this culture a danger for the future role of German innovation and engineering. The innovative power of the Leica company is at this moment in time at a low tide. Leica admirers may adopt every new product with the usual hype but at the core there is not much what one can see that might be classified as disruptive renewal. The original Leica I was truly disruptive as it ushered in a totally new style of photography and a new concept for the photographic camera. Compare this one with the most recent announcement, the SL, and the difference is striking. There disruption and innovation, here mainstream and fine tuning including a sprinkle of optimization.
By the way, my new book is now at the printer in Lithuania.

Digital technology is transitory and fleeting

2016-06-21T10:12:52+02:00

Long ago, that is about twenty years ago, one would buy a Nikon F4 or a Leica M6 with the pleasant thought that it would be a camera for at least ten years of photo pleasure.
Now when buying the M240 or the M262 you know that the camera model will be obsolete within five years. What is new in one camera today is ubiquitous in all cameras the next year. The Leica M8, once proudly announced with the LUP, the strategy with which Leica tried to evade the obsolescence problem of all electronic equipment, is now completely forgotten, a relic, but only ten years old.
The so-called technological progress does not enhance user satisfaction and does not improve the quality of the photographic content or the capabilities of the user. That is why companies like Canon and Nikon are in trouble. More technological progress does not translate in better and/or different photography. The user does not want to buy another camera that promises more of the same.
That is why only niche companies flourish. They offer the illusion of something different. In reality, these products have basically the same technology as all others, but a smarter package. Fuji bets on retro-design, Sony on effectiveness, Leica on luxury and nostalgia. Whatever the package and the technology, today’s serious photography is not different from the great photographs made during the 1950’s. A recent exhibition about the (Leica)-photographer Werner Bischoff is a clear indication. What is different is size and clarity, thanks to digital technology that has changed continuous signals to discrete signals and signal processing from amplifiers to repeaters. This is a major change, increasing the fidelity of transmission.
It is certainly a truism (and not exactly true) to say that society has been changing from a material goods society to an information service society. Some time ago a new camera system was a real novelty and people were eagerly waiting for any news about the Canon New F1 or the Nikon F2. Only a handful of respected magazines and journalists informed the photographer about the virtues and effectiveness of a new camera or lens. And one had to wait sometimes a for a year before one could read about it.
In his book “Too big to know” Weinberger points to the significant differences between data, information, knowledge and wisdom. It takes time to move from the analysis of data to the formulation of knowledge.
In the current world of internet data exchange there is no such time lag. Blogs reporting about a new camera or lens are often online before the official announcement has been made. It is well-known (Kahnemann) that human decision making takes place on two levels: a fast superficial level and a slow deeper layer. The choice for a photographic product is almost always made in the superficial level, and the deeper level is only required when a justification is needed. Luckily for everyone who has this need for justification there is always a blog or report that is positive or negative about this specific product. There is a random choice for justification. Products come and go in an endless stream of announcements. And a product three years old is forgotten and obsolete.
The blogosphere has good and bad characteristics. There is now an abundance of data and opinions (information), but no longer experts whose knowledge and wisdom we can trust as a guidance for decision-making and for the increase of our own wisdom. The original thinkers about the role and use of information (in a wide sense) noted that surprise was an important characteristic of information. If a piece of information does not add to your knowledge because it is known already or can be expected there is no real increase of information. It is part of the human propensity to homophily (we prefer people and opinions that are like us). But real information has to surprise. This is what Darwin accomplished when he wrote about evolution theory. There is however no grain of surprise in blogs about Leica products: the information that is being produced holds no surprises at all. The good point is that anyone can use what he likes from any blog. And an even better point is that one can read what one does not like and so can make a start with building a knowledge base of metadata (information about information) and see the structure (knowledge) in someone’s writings. If you have knowledge about knowledge (the next stage) one starts to acquire wisdom.
Reports about the results of pixelpeeping-actions are the lowest level of data gathering. Most reviews are comparative and this is in fact a relic of classical car and motorcycle reviews. A motorcycle that can do the acceleration of 0 to 60 miles in 5 seconds is better than one that needs 7 seconds. A camera with a faster AF or a faster sequence of pictures in one second or a larger number of pixels or a bigger sensor must be better than one that is less endowed with one of these characteristics. But data gathering and information processing is not what one wants to read or reflect upon.
Knowledge-building however is not possible in today’s transient digital world. Who wants to read about the Leica M-E since its production has been stopped. It still is a fine camera and real knowledge about it would be an asset to help you gather metadata about the Leica product range.
This then would be one of the solutions for the data overload and opinion overload on the internet: create connections between information and create metadata to build your own knowledge base.

Photography needs a revolution, again

2016-06-20T09:38:41+02:00

Photography started as a tool for scientists to record the physical world without human intervention that introduced subjectivity in the final image. It was also a tool for artisans who needed a way to improve and increase the production of paintings. The tool was quickly adopted by artists and travelers to record scenes for later study and distribution. The wealthy came third and used photography as a hobby. Being a complicated technical process, photography had limited appeal and was used by the more adventurous persons, often women. At the end of the 19th century, Eastman simplified the process and in addition enabled the widespread use of cinematography. Barnack started the revolution by constructing a camera for easy snapshot use, paving the way for the ubiquitous snapshot camera that introduced the world to a new visual culture. The 1950s were undoubtedly the great years when the snapshot came of age and became an art form when the so called street photography or documentary photography was adopted by visual artists.
The introduction of the smartphone and the digital camera changed everything. Photography evolved into a commodity and integrated with consumer electronics into one wide-ranging image culture. A modern digital camera is a package of flexible circuits and integrated electronics, loaded with software to process the rain of photons recorded by the lens and the sensor.Several times during its history photography has stood at the crossroads, often artistically and often technologically.
Now for the first time photography is walking a dead-end path, artistically and technologically. Incremental technological improvements, the culture of the selfie and the visual notebook, a sales plateau for the species of the single lens reflex and a lack of real innovation in the species of the mirrorless camera are all indications that the industry as a whole lacks the kind of challenge that for instance the car industry is facing with the driverless car and the new ideas about mobility. A few niche companies, Leica among them, luckily, are flourishing by cultivating the turf they occupy. Perhaps Leica will be able to repeat the Barnack revolution, but 2020 is not 1920.
The new Pentax K-1 is an amazingly fine camera, but it does not sell at all, because it does not impress, notwithstanding the array of technological features.
Photography is now in a dangerous situation where users of the technology assume that more technology can compensate the lack of creativity. This is logical: the technological progress has created convergence to one common perspective. Despite the so-called flexibility of the tool, the truth is that the modern camera envelopes the user in a straitjacket. The original miniature snapshot camera had a lot less technological features built into the camera, but as a platform for creativity is was open for any visual innovation.

Leica's true DNA

2016-06-15T10:46:31+02:00

The Leica brand sits high in every recent (2016) listing of German luxury brands, occupying positions in the top-5. This position is of course the result of a relentless focus on ,yes, a luxury image, that consists of a very high price, the choice of noble materials and metals and a production process that emphasizes the manual assembly as a craft. On the other hand Leica is also claiming an advanced position as a leader in technology (of digital imagery).
Is this focus on technology a wise decision? I am not sure. Technology has one weakness: it is transitory and there is always a new wave of technology that will supersede the present one: see the fate of the iphone, once the premium smartphone and now struggling to hold its position. The same can be said of the current slr camera. This species of camera is also struggling to fend off the low-end competition of the smartphone and the high-end competition of the mirrorless camera.
Apple traditionally focuses on design and simplicity as the main characteristics of the products and not to forget the quality of its products (hardware and software).
The quality aspect is part of the Leica DNA: when Leica produced a (small) range of mechanical-precision cameras and lenses, the mechanical and optical quality were, from an engineering and user viewpoint, the best one could get. It had a decisive advantage in practical and technical photography and was a safe investment.
Design and technical-engineering quality as the principal part are what distinguishes a high-quality company, not necessarily the feature list, because this will always be transitory.
Leica is indeed in the forefront of some features of modern camera technology that will inevitably be superseded: the AF of the SL is very fast, but there will be undoubtedly a new product that will be faster and so with most features: number of pixels of the sensor, the high-res viewfinder and so on. The T on the other hand has a slow AF and because Leica stresses its technological advantages, it gets moderate reviews.
Form a standpoint of design Leica is not showing its best: the S camera is like a sumo-wrestler: solid, but not elegant. The SL has the silhouette of an old industrial product, more a tractor than winning the concours d'elegance. The X and Q are acceptable and the M is too thick which distorts the elegant profile it had when compared with the classical filmloading cameras.
The quality of the product is beyond doubt, but there a number of glitches, some serious, some not. The frequent software updates and the material problems show that the products are thrown on the market too early.
For me the quality of the product, the ergonomic and elegant design and the practical usability in current photographic challenges is more important than incorporating the latest technological feature.
The SL seems to be Leica's spearhead in the current product portfolio. It does indeed incorporate some high-end features that the competition has difficulty matching. But it is too big and too heavy. It is certainly not a Barnack camera that was lightweight and nimble and could fit in a pocket. The Leica I was Barnack's response to the problems of the photographer of the period: working with big and heavy cameras. The SL has one advantage that the large-format photography lacks: it has a high speed, it is almost instantly responsive and can be used in all photographic conditions thanks to the digital (post-processing) technology.
What would a new M look like when modern digital technology would be merged with the design and engineering principles of the Leica I?
It could be a body with the shape and size of the III-series ( I advocated such a body shape and size for a long time since meeting Mr. Kaufmann for the first time). The sensor needs to surpass the current 24 Mp not because of optical necessity but because of market pressure. I dream of a possibility to switch between improved colour reproduction and monochrom capture to avoid the need to buy a body with a Monochrome-pattern and one with a Bayer-color array pattern. The original Barnack camera did not have a rangefinder and the viewfinder was probably an after-thought, when one looks at the construction that was evidently loaned from a field camera. The field camera by the way already had the option of live view, be it that the photographer had to look at the ground glass and later insert the photographic plate. The trend to a compact, versatile and high-performing camera system, initiated by Barnack did end with the SLR body shape. The notable exceptions are the Pentax LX and the Olympus OM 3/4. It is very strange that the current micro-four-third bodies do indeed approach the shape factor of these classical bodies, but need a very small sensor footprint to shrink the body size, and then need a relatively huge lens to compensate.
The big and heavy SLRs made by Canon and Nikon are rapidly becoming obsolete. Between these bodies and the smart phone shape there is a huge gap. Most camera systems tend to Canon/Nikon shape and size. The Leica M8/9/240/+++ may be described as compact and compared the others on the same level of performance they are compact, but compared to the original Barnack camera they may loose some weight and have a smaller volume.
It is not only the physical size that counts. The Zeiss Contarex was interpreted as big when the actual dimensions were not so different from the main competition. The same applies to the Leica R8/9. Dimensions not that different from the original Leicaflex I, but a world of difference in visual impression. The Leica M5 had almost the same dimensions as the M4, but was perceived as a large camera.

The Leica M-D

2016-05-08T10:59:36+02:00

The current range of Leica digital rangefinder cameras comprises two types, the M 240 derivatives and the M8/ M 220 derivatives. The type 220 (the M-E) is derived from the M9 (10 704) which shares the top cover silhouette with the classical film loading M series. The type 240 shares the silhouette with the original M 8 type. So we have the M8 - M8.2 - M (240/246) and the M9 -M-E - M (262) and M-D (262). The additional element is the sensor from 10 to 18 to 24 Mp that has been included in these model ranges.

There is no logic at all behind these two main and slightly different configurations. For now the M9 silhouette is related to the film-loading cameras and this might be the trend: the most recent M-D is as close to the MP or M-A as is possible within the functional profile: no monitor screen and no video and live view. The film-loading cameras obviously have no such features because they are using film rolls only. The message that Leica tries to communicate is not really clear. The M-D is indeed a camera close to the function set of a film loading camera. No instant display, only raw images, no video and no live view. When taking pictures with a M-A you have (a) to wait a few hours/days to have your colour film developed and printed in a shop or (b) wait some period before the bw processing in your darkroom is finished. With the M-D you have at least to wait till you upload the files to the computer and use your favorite DNG processing engine. If you have a laptop while taking pictures with the M-D the delay is minimal.
Leica claims that the M-D enables the photographer to experience the basic aspects of ‘real’ photography: only select aperture, shutter speed, ISO speed and focus/frame the scene of interest. You can do this also with an M 240/246 when choosing not to use the monitor. This is an act of deliberate choice and psychologically not easy to accomplish. When the function is there you want to use it. The difference is the confidence of the photographer in his/her own abilities. Using an M-D the Leica photographer is able to emulate the emulsion-based workflow of the M6 and M7 with the added convenience of the computer-based post-processing. One can look and study one’s images at the end of the day or (when a compact laptop is part of the gear) even at the end of a session.
The discussion about the convenience of not-having-a-feature is almost identical to the discussion about the M-A and the MP: deliberately shutting off the internal exposure meter and voluntary using an external exposure meter gives almost the same feeling as using an M-A or (M2, M3, M4, M4-P) and using the external exposure meter by necessity. It is a matter of discipline and conviction.
The same antithesis we see between the M Monochrom and the regular M. It is easy to convert a color image into a monochrome one during a post-processing session, but one knows that such a black-and-white image is not the ‘real thing’.
The Monochrom and the M-D (including the M 262) are good examples of the art of choosing what to leave out. It is the art of subtraction compared to the art of addition. You need to be a person with a strong conviction to pay more for less and this is precisely what Leica is betting on. Leaving out Live View and Video is a matter of de-activating and/or scrapping some software algorithms and leaving out the monitor display is a matter of simplification of the manufacturing process. Leaving out the Bayer pattern is less easy to accomplish by the way.
The M-D would be interesting when the price level would be on a par with the M-A as both are minimalist (subtractive) cameras.
The significance of the M262 and M-D is the shift in marketing strategy. Leica has too many cameras that are swimming in the same pond. All hope seems to be placed in the SL because this is a most flexible camera with clear development potential. And it sits comfortably with the mainstream of camera development. The M on the other hand is a niche camera at the end of its development cycle. Introducing a hybrid or electronic view/rangefinder would and AF would put it in direct competition with the SL and introducing a new sensor with a higher pixel number would jeopardize the SL and S cameras lines. The only option left is to adopt a subtractive design strategy in combination with some unique lenses (unique in performance, physical size and specifications). It is of course possible to adopt an additive strategy for the M (software is cheap and will not change the body shape or the manufacturing process). Such an approach would be confusing for a product strategy that is already burdened with an ‘embarras du choix’.

Digital is becoming boring?

2016-04-21T11:30:28+02:00

There is global indignation about the greed of managers in finance, services and industry. Indeed there is no valid argument for receiving a salary package of 20 million dollar for failure (see Yahoo’s CEO). And when the amount exceeds a hundred million one may ask what someone would do with such an amount. Not pay taxes (see the panama papers) for sure. You could buy three months worth of the output of the Leica company for instance. Remarkably enough this attitude that it is never enough combined with a simple rule of addiction (more demands even more) is still effective in the camera industry. The car industry has left the “more is better” rule and starts to change into a more sober attitude, preaching now environmental responsibility and electric engines as the solution to all evils.
The camera industry and the consumers are still in a more infantile attitude: here the more-is-better rule thrives. As soon as a 135 format sensor has 20 millions pixels, the demand is for 40 million and when there is 40 million, the consumers cry for an eighty million pixel. What you could do with this amount is unclear. Technically it will reduce moiré for sure and will eliminate the lowpass filter, but the photographic advantages are limited. The parallel is the classical Kodak Technical Pan: an emulsion of very high capabilities but it failed in the market because there were too few motives that could benefit of this performance. Of course one will say that a high amount of pixels and a high speed will allow for sectional enlargements of pictures made in complex situations. And this is undoubtedly true. There are always limits to push and even cross. For most photographers (see Facebook, Instagram and a host of other websites where the daily output of the average photographer can be studied) the middle of the road situation is the usual experience. Modern camera technology makes it very easy to cope with almost every complicated condition.
There is hardly anything meaningful to say about digital technology. The ‘fine print’ of digital technology is there to be read but who does and who cares.
A few bloggers perhaps, whose verbose stories mask the obvious content. One can write easily twenty pages about the Leica SL, but the main message is simple: it is an excellent camera, that does not excel as an innovator and au fond matches (most features) or slightly exceeds (some features) the relevant competition, where ‘relevant’ means cameras with the same level of features and/or performance.
The reviewer in a German daily paper who wrote that the new Olympus Pen is a marvel of nostalgic design and an excellent performer also noted that Olympus (against their own statement) did join the pixel race. The result: more detail in clear day photography but less performance in low light photography.
This is the obvious conclusion: technological progress is always a balance between conflicting characteristics. Now that Leica wants to play in the same league as the main digital competitors with appropriate features and performance, the rule of the common denominator becomes unavoidable.
Much more interesting is the analogue domain. Like the vinyl music industry, there is a revival in film emulsion use. While Leica lenses loose some of their interesting features when coupled with a solid-state sensor, the same lenses get personality and increased quality when they function as image projectors on a film loading camera (from M3 to M-A or MP/M7).

Canon VI-L

2016-04-18T21:45:13+02:00

Hardly noticed by the rangefinder cognoscenti, the Canon models IV, V and VI (the 7 was a different product, famous for its .95/50 mm lens) are now recognized as true rangefinder cameras with more than a small dose of Leica DNA. I personally own and use the Canon VI-L that was being produced during the period of M3 hegemony. For some reason there was hardly any competition, even when the VI-L was manufactured 10,000 times, presumably less that the M3 during the same period.
The canon camera is a model of simplicity: the rangefinder has a different mechanism, but is quite effective. The main characteristic of the Canon is its indestructibility and its reliability. Not only the German engineers knew how to design and build a camera!
I am using the Canon with the venerable Weston Master V as an independent exposure meter. The additional Canon clip-on meter is not available anymore. The camera has very reliable shutter speeds, even more accurate than the Leica M3 speeds (both cameras were CLA-ed and adjusted).
The feeling is identical. The finder is less clear, for sure, but the procedure (view, focus, fire) is the same. The shutter noise is slightly different: more like the modern digital M. The shutter noise is a slight click and not like the M3 that has a more prolonged smooth noise. The shutter release pressure is very important and in this respect both cameras show a subtle difference. The M3 (and the M-A) have the pressure point at the top of the shutter pressure, whereas the Canon has it at the bottom. You have to press the finger more firmly downwards to release the shutter. In this respect the M3 and M-A are more adjusted to the sharpshooter philosophy.

I can only recommend to buy an older Canon RF model and compare it to a modern filmloading and/or imager-equipped M body and start reflecting on what you loose and win. It is a rewarding experience and much more valuable than studying lens reports.

Industry 4.0

2016-04-18T21:12:31+02:00

The fourth industrial revolution is imminent. The two main points? Flexibility in production and closeness to customer wishes! The times are over that a company produced a number of different products that were dedicated for a certain market segment. The future is for companies that have a modular production strategy that is able to react very precisely and timely to volatile consumer wishes and whims.
The Leica a-la-carte program is a primitive version as is the long list of options that car manufacturers offer as options to choose from. The really modern company allows the user to create and assemble his product completely from scratch from the several product ranges that the manufacturer offers and will even allow the customer to change his order during the production time.
For Leica this would imply that the user starts with a M-model but can add components from the Q or T or SL and can change his wish for a certain type of rangefinder just before it will be assembled.
The current strategy to upgrade the software with new features is old-fashioned. This approach still limits the user to select one specific product range. Within the Leica product range there is now so much overlap that a dedicated webpage is needed to give the user information about what product is suited to what goals. Why is it not possible to include in the M a touchscreen as seen in the T or a Q with a rangefinder like the M.Why can I not order a M-A with a .85 finder or with the hi-res finder of the SL. I know that engineers will protest and claim that this is not possible.
When and if the Leica product managers will work together to create one platform from which all products can be assembled, this will be daydreaming.
The company however cannot continue in the current fashion

The Leica rangefinder landscape

2016-04-15T11:58:57+02:00

There are only four classes of Leica rangefinders since the announcement of the Leica I in 1924/1925. In more than 90 years Leica engineers have only four times changed the concept. The first class comprises all threadmount (some prefer screw mount) cameras, all based on one body style, neglecting for the moment the subclass of the strengthened Leica III bodies around 1945. The second class comprises all M models without internal exposure metering, culminating in the M4-P and now the almost identical M-A. The third class comprises all M models with internal exposure metering and additional electronics. This group starts with the M6 and ends with the M7. The fourth class comprises all digital M cameras starting with the M8 and ending for now with the M (type 262) and its rumored derivatives. The trend within this last group is for simplicity and minimalism, shedding video, Live View and even the display screen on the back. This is a welcome trend and should end with an M3 type as a digital capture engine.
It is my claim that the three models that have been identified (M4-P/M-A, M7 and M8) are the least mythical and the most important in the genealogy of Leica RF lineage.
The M7 is a pivotal camera, introducing to the critical and conservative Leica owner/user, a level of electronics/automation that the competition had been lucky enough to have for decades. The Olympus OM-4 is the benchmark camera for this type of automation. It might be that the Leica windmills are turning slower than the competition, but this has one good advantage: there is no technological coat forcibly put on. The current M (T240) (a stupid identification scheme: why not simply call it M9.2 or M10) is for many aficionados a bridge to far and overloaded with features and gadgets. The M (262), why not simply M-B(asic)?) is the obvious answer. The SL is the camera that will presumably cater for the photographer suffering from featuritis and a big ego to accompany the size of the camera The S is for sumo wrestlers who need to impress their clientele.
Let us return to the M7. I am now using the M7/0.85 that I bought many years ago and has been stripped from all synthetic material components by a competent repairperson and loaded it with Kodak Tmax 400-II. This film is developed in Paterson/Adox FX39, a classic among the film developers. The lenses used are the two best 50 mm lenses in the Leica stable: the Summilux-M 1:1.4/ 50 mm ASPH and the Apo-Summicron-M 1:2 50 mm ASPH. (When I really want to be unobtrusive I use the Summarit 2.5/50 mm, a very compact lens that is very well suited to street photography. The new 2.4/50 mm is no different in image quality, but has a more elegant mount. It protrudes only three cm from the body.
The M7 is a very efficient photographic engine. Set the aperture, check the speed when you feel that the ambient light is too low for comfortable handheld shooting (we do not want to destroy the details so accurately captured by the optical system) and adjust your shooting style. The shutter speeds are very accurate, even the 1/500 and 1/1000 can be used as intended. Accuracy is however not really required: a 30% tolerance can be handled by the film latitude and even the digital cameras can handle a quarter of a stop difference from optimal. The viewfinder with the .85 magnification is a joy to use and lacks the somewhat tunnel vision of the digital cameras.
The electronic governing of the speeds and the low mass of the curtains are responsible for a near-silent operation that is not even approachable by the new M (T262). Many overindulged digital users may argue that using film is an act of Luddism and a frenetic effort to stop innovation and modernism. At least that is Leica’s current stance. Using film however is an act of photographic honesty that pays homage to the object that is being photographed. Putting any object through the post processing mechanisms of Photoshop and friends is the wrong way to treat an object with respect. That is indeed the attitude of the great classical Leica photographers. The M7 loaded with a higher-speed film (Tri-X, 400Delta and T-Max 400, and even HP5) is the best instrument to add ease-of-use, and efficiency to honesty. When a proper darkroom is out of the question the Ilford XP2 is the film of choice. Or when color is important use the Kodak Portra 400. You will be amazed how much fun it is to stay away from the computer screen and be on the street again.

The Huawei connection

2016-04-08T11:08:22+02:00

The joint announcement by Leica and Huawei about the new smart phone (P9) with a dual camera/lens may mark the end of the Leica company as a dedicated camera and optics firm to a company that is being profiled as a photographic equipment maker. There is a clear trend in the photographic market. Traditional still photography is being attacked from two different trends: (1) the trend to cinematography, inspired by countless youtube movies, but also by a changing trend in artistic and commercial photography. Camera makers like Canon and Nikon adapt to this fashion by incorporating video features in all their camera ranges. (2) the trend that most image makers adopt the smart phone as their preferred tool for making and distributing images.
Camera makers see the writing on the wall and adopt one or more of the following strategies: (1) dig in the niche they are occupying (Phase One); (2) expand into new market areas (Canon into surveillance, Fujifilm into cosmetics) or (3) reduce dependency on photographic products (Nikon with lithography, Sony with sensors, Canon with office equipment). Every one of these strategies may make sense, depending on the market profile and specific expertise of the company. Leica however does seem to follow every possible strategy: niche products (M line), expand into other markets (smart phone supply) and reduce dependency (cine lenses).
For now the most interesting is the Huawei connection. As usual there is a broad array of descriptions what is going on: from Huawei using Leica cameras and lenses to Huawei using Leica certified optics.
The truth is difficult to find. A few things are easy to discuss: Leica has no production facilities to produce millions of tiny optical systems required for the smart phone. This leaves two options: Leica can design an optical system for the phone and sell/licence this to Huawei. Leica gets a design from Huawei and improves this with their optical expertise and/or certifies the Huawei product as conforming to Leica standards (this is what happened with the Panasonic-designed lenses).

Inage from Cine Still 50 ISO

2016-03-31T22:35:27+02:00

Below you will find a picture of a friend of mine, shot on Cine Still 50 ISO and scanned with Silverfisst. The reproduction as as close as possible to the original negative. The camera is the Leica m-A, the lens is the Summilux 1.4/50 mm ASP at f/2.8. The image quality is very high and different from what you can expect from digital capture. There is indeed a flavor of the seventies of the previous century. There is no grain at all and the highlights are very finely nuanced. The two lower pictures iare with the SX 50 mm at 1.4! The quality is very good and the imagery quite convincing.

Luxury brands listing 2015

2016-03-29T13:58:45+02:00

Every year the German luxury companies are ranked according to a range of criteria. The 30 companies listed represent the luxury brands based in Germany and comprise watch manufactures, fashion houses and furniture companies. The only optical company is Leica that dropped from place 9 in 2014 to a shared place 10/11 with Poggenpohl, a kitchen furniture maker in 2015. The overall comment by the bureaus for mark branding: German companies excel in their focus on luxury materials and precision manufacture, but lack superior design and that elusive quality “Thrill and Entertainment” or the German companies are not ‘sexy’. As far as I know companies can never be sexy, because this characteristic is reserved for a handful individuals of the human race. See Esquire if you are in doubt!
Exclusive materials and precision engineering are indeed the main characteristics that distinguish Leica from its competitors. Design is not Leica’s forte: see the recently introduced Leica SL. “Thrill & Entertainment” is only applicable to the dwindling number of aficionados and ambassadors and ‘sexy’ is of course not at all appropriate.
Being listed as a luxury company was anathema for the Leitz family, once the owners of the Leica brand and factory. It is indeed remarkable that choice of materials and precision engineering is now part of a luxury profile. In the classical Leitz days, materials and precision engineering were elements of the functional requirements of the camera and lens because it ensured the high quality and durability of the equipment as required by the photographers.
The overall comment about German luxury brands is the focus on functionality and low profile. The three top companies are (3) Burmester (entertainment electronics), (2) Glashütte (watches) and (1) Lange &Söhne (watches).
Leica’s place in the luxury brand listing is a recognition that they definitely have shed their profile as a dedicated manufacturer of precision engineered photographic products. The Leica T is a good (bad if you wish) example of the strategic confusion between luxury (sexy?) and functionality that the current Leica management has not yet solved. The luxury market is very lucrative and commands prices that can be twenty times higher than one pays on average for mainstream products. That is why Leica can ask such elevated prices for their products. The real technical or performance differences with the competition are becoming less important. This is then the true dilemma for the Leica owners and managers: stick to the high prices (needed because of the profit margin) and stay in the luxury market or evolve into a company that manufactures high-performance photographic equipment for the twenty-first century, as Leitz did for the twentieth century. And if you wish to see real Thrill & Entertainment the current range of camera made by Fujifilm is a fine example.

Image engineering camtest

2016-03-25T13:33:24+01:00

A few days ago I received the new test chart by Image Engineering, the company that produces software and test charts used by many important camera makers and optical institutes. The products are extremely expensive and therefore not suited for particular use. Now they have changed their business model: you can buy a chart for about Euro 100 (excluding charges for transport) which has a handful of Siemens stars, a slanted edge picture and some others for colour rendition, sharpness and texture rendition. The chart is 1.20 meter wide and is easy to set up. You take the usual series of pictures and uploads the JPG files to a new site where the files are analyzed and published. You can see the results for yourself. And you can also compare the results with others.
Here is an illustration of the chart.

The great advantage of this method: it is cheap, you do not need to buy additional software and become an expert and most importantly you make yourself independent of the many sites where results are being published and discussed. You get a sound basis for evaluating your own lens/camera combinations and have no longer to rely on others whose methods and procedures are not always clear and certainly not comparable.

One word of warning: photography has to be fun and creative and spending too much time doing comparative tests is not good for your emotional and mental health.

New visions

2016-03-16T16:31:43+01:00

Ernst Haas, one of the lesser known Leica photographers (he used the Leica R and his subject were landscapes), remarked: “I am not interested in shooting new things - I am interested to see things new.”
This is indeed the essence of photography and in fact all creative visual arts. He explored the technical capabilities of his Leica equipment to find the tools and the technique that allowed him to see things in a new way. His approach is far removed from the style practiced by the community of pixel-peepers and selfie adepts. There is nothing wrong with knowing the limits of your equipment and/or testing what a certain lens/sensor/Raw-engine combo or a lens/film/developer combo can do for you. I have always argued that sensible testing is a must, but also that it is not easy to equate test figures with real picture taking. Most testing is done on tripod in even and clear illumination and this is not the same as working handheld, even at high shutter speeds.
Recently I am working with Leica M-A, Ilford FP4+ and FX39 to produce clair-obscur pictures or chiaroscuro pictures. The exposure meter is the Gossen Starlite 2 in ZoneSystem mode (spotmeter 1 degree). The Cinestill film I used earlier had two big advantages: no grain to speak of and an extended dynamic range (exposure for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves). The Ilford film is more restricted but should be good enough for most scenes. We will see.
The next stage is the darkroom and here I have installed a new safelight from Heiland: the LED safelight. It will evenly lit your darkroom and can be switched between red and white light for inspecting the pictures under daylight conditions. (http://heilandelectronic.de/led_darkroom_light/lang:en).

Anything that makes the analog processing easier and more foolproof is welcome as it lets you concentrate on the basic goal: making the most satisfactory pictures that seduce you to move on.

Halo revisited

2016-03-14T16:07:35+01:00

An amazing number of people have responded to my last blog about the red halo around specular highlights in Kodak CineStill film.
Almost half of the responses referred to optical causes (related to the lens) as the likely cause for the phenomenon. This is not the case. There is nothing wrong with the lens and a lens does not produce these effects (at least not with the colour red).
The majority of responses referred to the special treatment of the CineStill emulsion: there is indeed a removal of the black anti-halation layer below the film base. This removal of the so-called rem-jet layer makes the film suitable for development in normal C41 chemicals (instead of the special ECN-2 chemicals.
The removal of this layer allows the light rays to hit the safety film base and possibly even the black pressure plate of the Leica camera.
Only a few persons (Axel Schwalm gave the most elaborate answer) provided a solution for the obvious question why the colour of the halo is red and not white. It would be white when the cause is a diffusion effect or caused by flare. The logic is that the light rays are reflected from the base and expose again the lowest red sensitive emulsion layer and are then being stopped by the gel interlayer.
See diagram below.

Classical Arri- films also show this behaviour of red halos around specular highlights (often head lamps of cars). So it is not only the removal of the rem-jet that causes the phenomenon.

I wish to thank all respondents for their effort and advices.

Question

2016-02-26T21:04:04+01:00

There is an enduring discussion about the advantages of analogue versus digital or digital versus analogue. A new series of articles about this theme will be published soon on this website. Below is an example of a small section of a file that was the result of a scan of a negative of the Kodak Vision 3 film made for use in a standard 35 mm camera. In this case the Leica M-A with Summilux-M 50 mm ASPH. Exposure was made with the Gossen Starlite-2. The negative was scanned with the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and processed with Silverfast software. The small section shows several important aspects: there is no grain (not surprisingly: ISO 50!), the dynamic range is indeed very high: see the details in the dark parts. Most interesting is the performance in the specular high lights. There is no smearing as is usual with digital capture, but there is a strange red halo around the bright spots.
The question is: what is this? Send answers to my email address: erwinputs@kpnmail.nl

The cult of repairing things

2016-02-24T10:47:51+01:00

The famous book by Lipinski “Miniature and precision cameras” discusses in depth the mechanism and construction details of the Leica III. The book was published in 1955 and the M3 was just on the market. He noted with some admiration that the Leica camera was constructed with so few parts and that there is really nothing inside the body. What is not there cannot become defect. The legendary longevity and reliability of the Leica camera is surely connected to this mechanical frugality. Over the years more and more features were introduced into the body and the M6TTL may be considered the final step before the M7 reduced the number of components. The trick was electronics, then a major step, now a rather primitive technology.
My M3 is now more than 50 years old, can be repaired by any competent service engineer and will continue to function as originally specified by another 50 years.
The other side of the medal is the modern M: an opto-mechanical-electronic construction that inside shows no resemblance to the gears and springs that populate the M3. The digital M cameras can hardly be repaired and one has to cross one’s fingers that the durability matches the price and the functionality. (The SL’s mechatronic construction is even less repair friendly). The disaster of the M8 does not bode well for the digital M products. One has to make a clear distinction between durability and longevity on the one hand and reliability and precision on the other hand.
The older (pre-digital) Leica’s are without doubt very durable and the reliability and precision is the result of careful choice of materials, assembly and adjustments.
The digital M’s durability is a big question mark, but the short product cycles and necessary (?) replacements every four years mask the problem. The precision on the other hand is now greater than it was because of the tight integration of software with the electronics and mechanical components inside the camera and much better manufacturing and assembly methods. The computer as example now does the rangefinder adjustments, that had to done by hand by experienced and trained workers.
The modern consumer electronics economy thrives on regular improvements and regular replacements of products. This strategy is very much ingrained in the mind of the consumer. As soon as a new product has been announced the discussion starts already about the successor model. There are only a few companies that resist this attitude. Rolex advertises with the fact that you buy a Rolex for your grandchildren. An M3 was also bought with the intention that it would serve a lifetime of photographic activities and might be a good component in an inheritance. The current digital M will not be part of the photographic heritage in 25 years.
I still own an M8.2 and it suits me well. What it does and how it does it, is very satisfying and the performance is almost as good as what an M (240) does. Pixelpeepers would claim otherwise, and bottom line they are correct. The important question is not what the camera can do, but what you expect from the camera and what you need from a camera. There is however always that nagging doubt that I do not want to become too much attached to the M8 in case f a fatal failure. This approach also applies to the Monochrom 2. A fabulous camera with outstanding performance, but again: what happens when the electronics die? Buying a new or improved model and throwing lots of money away?
The new M-A I use with confidence because it can be repaired by the same person who services my M3 and M7.
The possibility of repair creates a bond that goes beyond the stark functionality and performance of a product. Appreciation of value is closely connected to repairability and longevity.
Let us be sane again: the A4 print made from a negative exposed in the M3 is identical in visual and technical quality to the same sized inkjet print made with the Epson 3000 and a RAW image file extracted from the pixel array bombarded with photons in the M-240. This is a sobering conclusion. Of course it is nice to be able to shoot 500 pictures in one hour without replacing rolls of film, rely on exposure bracketing to get the correct exposure and have LV with a smart electronic horizon to hold the camera level. This line could be projected in the rangefinder too I suppose.
I once asked the engineers of the digital Leica camera why it was not possible to create a modular camera that could be upgraded component by component when the modules themselves could not be repaired. The answer was quite simple: to change the sensor would imply to change the whole printed circuit with all electronics and connections. This is almost like assembling a new camera. It ca be done however and LG has demonstrated a start with its new G5. The ill-fated LUP (Leica Upgrade Program) for the M8 was a marketing failure. but is was the expression of the engineers of Leica to hold on to the traditional values of the company. If an M9 fails the response of the company is simply: buy a new M.
Instead of more features I would plead for less functionality and more modularity.

Progress on my new book

2016-01-28T16:54:45+01:00

It has been quiet for some time about the progress of my new book about Leica optics. It proved to be a much larger task than I had imagined. Now I can say that the draft of the book is ready and I can no start with finalizing the content and lay-out. To give you an an impression of what the book will cover I have included a PDF-file which is a kind of introduction on the topics that the book will discuss. This is not a detailed table of contents, but a reasoned review of the content.
****
Here is the link
****
The next book (no date yet!) will discuss the Leica camera technique for silver-halide photographs and solid-state images. The two main cameras will be the Leica M-A and the Leica Monochrom II. The Leica M7 and the Leica M8.2 will also be discussed. There is evidence of an analogue revival as the recent announcement by Kodak of a new Super-8 camera and films can document. The main part of this book will focus on the silver-halide photography and the techniques for precision miniature photography. I know this is a niche domain but one that gives you direct control and enough insight into the photographic workflow and documentary approach. I will in addition look at the techniques of signal processing and image reconstruction to give sufficient background for the digital workflow to evaluate its advantages and black holes.

Vanishing photography

2016-01-25T17:09:00+01:00

Why has photography vanished? There are two facts that undermine the belief in the phrase: new technique - old values.The first fact is the composition of a digital file: it is nothing more than a bunch of data, like any statistics data base. It is also accessible by the modern technology of Big Data. Face recognition is only one example. Many cameras have this feature and adjust focus and white balance and exposure to this data selection. Lightroom and the likes search the database of image data and select the files with the same face. Behind this process that seems to be a convenient feature lurks the algorithm. An algorithm is a mathematical set of rules that work autonomous and without human interference and are self-correcting. Many computer programs include software that can debug the program and correct it. In digital cameras many algorithms are active in focusing the lens, compacting the picture, enhancing the captured detail and the base sensor sensitivity. Even exposure is decided by algorithms. This is all very helpful, but the bad point is that we do not know what happens. We see only the result, not the original input and certainly not the manipulations during processing the file. This is the fundamental even paradigmatic change from old (documentary) to new (fluid experience) photography. It may still be called photography, because it is a convenient and recognizable term, but who now would call a modern automobile a horseless carriage? Algorithms correct optical aberrations (like distortion and vignetting), but do we have any idea what is happening. Programmers and their code are becoming even more important. The frequent updates in camera software are an indication. And almost every problem detected in cameras will be solved soon in the next update, is the standard response by camera manufacturers.
The algorithm is a powerful tool, but also a dangerous tool. This technology enables machine communication and automation 'under the bonnet'. We do not have a clue what programmers have constructed and we do not know how the many algorithms work inside a camera. In the past it was Kodak's slogan: you press the button, we do the rest. Now it is: you press the button and the program takes over. What the program does, we do not know and it seems that many photographers do not care. But a photograph as a fixed physical print, the heritage and genesis of which can be controlled and judged is gone. Now we have a data set that is fluid (continuously changeable) and can be manipulated by unknown algorithms. This difference may be downplayed and many experts in the field do dismiss it as useless philosophical musings far removed from the photographic practice.The photographer does take the picture and does upload it (current) or print it (less current) and therefore is in complete control.Technical details (the algorithmic processes) are irrelevant and not interesting. We are however burying our heads in the sand.

The algorithm threat

2016-01-23T18:38:56+01:00

When the digital tsunami blew over the photographic landscape and killed Kodak, Agfa and many others (including Leica that hardly survived the storm) I concluded that the photography as we had known it for a century was dead. I was severely ridiculed for this statement and in hindsight I have to say that I was only half-right. Photography is not dead, it has simply vanished, like dinosaurs and Renaissance painters. Some relics and artifacts may be found, but in essence they are gone. So is photography. There are may persons who claim and indeed believe that current digital photography is simply classical (that is chemical) photography with new technical means. This approach is also visible in Leica's advertisements: old values can be renewed and rejuvenated in a digital coat.
Why has photography vanished? There are two facts that undermine the belief in the phrase: new technique - old values.The first fact is the composition of a digital file: it is nothing more than a bunch of data, like any statistics data base. It is also accessible by the modern technology of Big Data. Face recognition is only one example. Many cameras have this feature and adjust focus and white balance and exposure to this data selection. Lightroom and the likes search the database of image data and select the files with the same face. Behind this process that seems to be a convenient feature lurks the algorithm. An algorithm is a mathematical set of rules that work autonomous and without human interference and are self-correcting. Many computer programs include software that can debug the program and correct it. In digital cameras many algorithms are active in focusing the lens, compacting the picture, enhancing the captured detail and the base sensor sensitivity. Even exposure is decided by algorithms. This is all very helpful, but the bad point is that we do not know what happens. We see only the result, not the original input and certainly not the manipulations during processing the file. This is the fundamental even paradigmatic change from old (documentary) to new (fluid experience) photography. It may still be called photography, because it is a convenient and recognizable term, but who now would call a modern automobile a horseless carriage? Algorithms correct optical aberrations (like distortion and vignetting), but do we have any idea what is happening. Programmers and their code are becoming even more important. The frequent updates in camera software are an indication. And almost every problem detected in cameras will be solved soon in the next update, is the standard response by camera manufacturers.
The algorithm is a powerful tool, but also a dangerous tool. This technology enables machine communication and automation 'under the bonnet'. We do not have a clue what programmers have constructed and we do not know how the many algorithms work inside a camera. In the past it was Kodak's slogan: you press the button, we do the rest. Now it is: you press the button and the program takes over. What the program does, we do not know and it seems that many photographers do not care. But a photograph as a fixed physical print, the heritage and genesis of which can be controlled and judged is gone. Now we have a data set that is fluid (continuously changeable) and can be manipulated by unknown algorithms. This difference may be downplayed and many experts in the field do dismiss it as useless philosophical musings far removed from the photographic practice.The photographer does take the picture and does upload it (current) or print it (less current) and therefore is in complete control.Technical details (the algorithmic processes) are irrelevant and not interesting. We are however burying our heads in the sand.

new films and more

2016-01-09T14:41:00+01:00

Tarantino’s newest movie (Hateful eight) is shot on film and additionally also in widescreen (70mm). The film is already famous for its impressive views and colourful images. There is one film on the market for 35 mm shooters that comes very close to the famous Hollywood impression. This is the Cinestill 50Daylight Xpro C41. The speed is ISO 50 and its emulsion is Kodak’s 50D cine-emulsion. Today I ordered a handful of these films at FotoFilmFabriek in the Netherlands, but there are very many worldwide dealers around. This film might be able to revive the classical look of Leica images from the 1950s. I just put fresh batteries in my M7 that will be used alongside the M-A and the Canon VI-L. The next few months I will abstain from the digital capture technology and concentrate on analog picture taking. For BW I still use Ilford ISO100 and Kodak ISO400, developed in FX39. A very classical but also very potent combination. Printing will be done with the Heiland LED module on the V35.
*
The German photographer and blogger Jörg Langer (Digitaler-Augenblick.de) has posted an interesting comment on the fact that in the blogosphere (for photographic themes) everything will be commented upon and everything will be discussed in most cases in a negative sense. The current hype around the new Nikon D5 and D500 is the proof. You can read the blog yourself (if you can read German). My point is this: the blogosphere discussions are (with a few exceptions) totally superfluous and selfishly pre-occupied. There are millions of hours wasted every year that could be used for more productive activities. The world might be a better and more prosperous place.
*
A number of years ago a Dutch scientist and cultural researcher said that the demographic shift in the Western world with its sharp rise in the ageing population would introduce a major shift in cultural trends and values. Basically he said that most 40+ persons are mainly occupied with risk-evading activities and are looking at the future with distrust and a bit fear. This attitude invites a tendency to negativism and nostalgia, which can be clearly seen in the hopelessly confused discussion in Europe about how to handle the stream of refugees coming from war-torn areas. This is a problem that we have since the 1960s and the politicians have not learned how to cope with it. Nothing learned in 60 years! The discussion in the blogosphere about the respective merits and (more often) defects of photographic equipment (what is new is always better, but always not good enough!) reflects this lack of a serious learning curve. Impressive and innovative photographs can be made with many cameras, old and new. Why the Leica SL gets many thumbs up and the Nikon D5 gets many thumb downs is a riddle. But basically both discussions are irrelevant. If you wish to buy one or the other, be my guest, but stop arguing about your choice. Enjoy and give evidence that you are worth one or the other.
*
By the way: this text has been written while listening (in the background) to the new album by Roger Waters: The Wall

**
The well-known Law of Moore about the ever shrinking and ever fasting microchips is at its physical end. A microchip with the size of a finger nail has 10 kilometer of copper wiring producing much heat. The path of progress will be slowed down and for the first time in a long period designers do not have to find new products that enable the power of the new smaller and faster chips. The new period will be one of much slower technological progress that, as paradoxically as it may sound, will give real innovation a boost. Perhaps the age when product cycles were measured in decades instead of months will return. A new book by professor Robert Gordon (The Rise and Fall of American Growth) argues convincingly that the last twenty years have seen no serious technological breakthrough that has improved the productivity of the economy. Life may be easier because of the smartphone and the associated gadgets, but easier is not the same as more productive. The same can be said about digital photography: it is cheaper and easier, but not more productive. Prices for photographs have been reduced and the average photographer is not more productive than previous generations. Thee is a difference between taking more pictures and adding value to the photographs that have been made (value in economical and perhaps artistic sense).

goal for 2016

2015-12-24T10:27:50+01:00

Photography has scientific roots as I told in my book ‘Leica Practicum” and recording the real world (the ‘unseen’ world) was a major preoccupation of the scientists/photographers of that period. When the Leica camera was introduced in 1924-1925 this focus on recording real life was even enhanced and as a response Leitz made a wide range of scientific accessories to enable the photographer to record life as never seen before. The photographic style did not change over a long period and the urge to record life (for documentary and/or remembrance purposes) dominated photography. The famous street photographers added a humanistic touch to this urge and their photography became known as testimonial or evidential photography. When the cheap and easy method of digital photography conquered the world the style changed again. Now the essence of photography is the so-called propaganda photography, very skillful in the hands of commercial advertisement and publicity photography, but also creeping into the journalistic photography. Notorious is the method of embedded photography in war zones, but it is also visible in more normal situations as press conferences and official photo-opportunities. The selfie is the most recent instant of this propaganda-style because the selfie is simply made to demonstrate how happy, rich or popular the maker is. There is a subtle but important difference between a 1950s box camera photograph of a holiday scene, made for personal use (remembrance), and a 2015s smartphone selfie, made for propaganda purposes because this image is instantly uploaded to the social media for public consumption and not for preserving a memory.
When one encounters a photo with the text attached, ‘made with Leica abc and lens xyz’ (and one may easily exchange Leica with Canon, Nikon or any other high grade camera system) there is a snippet of propaganda involved, because this statement has not only informational, but trivial value, but also demonstration value. It is intriguing that it is no longer possible to differentiate between camera types on the basis of the content or technical quality of the image (as was the case with analog pictures in the period 1950 -1980). When one looks at the various images in the camera brochures, issued by the main camera makers, it is very difficult (if not impossible?) to discern in these images that are clearly intended as illustrations of proof of performance the characteristic quality of the camera that is being profiled or in modern terms framed. The impact of post-processing and prepress technology is evidently at work here, but even when one looks at the raw images (the non-manipulated negatives so to speak) the digital technology is the great equalizing force that reduces most pictures to a common denominator. It is the challenge for 2016 to start making pictures with a true Leica substance and style.

Essence of Leica RF photography

2015-12-20T14:27:19+01:00

What is the ‘essence of (Leica) rangefinder photography’? I tackled this question (with an emphasis on the word ‘Leica’) in my book “Leica Practicum”. The most recent Leica M 262 ( an appropriate designation would be Leica M-E II (E for essence?)) tries to embody the purist characteristics of the classical rangefinder photography. Leica itself seems to be unsure what this concept might represent. When reading the marketing texts one gets the impression that ‘pure’ implies simple (no electronic viewfinder, no live view, no video mode)and when one concludes the logical reasoning the other cameras in the M range (M, M-P and MM-II) are not-pure and by implication do not embody the spirit of classical rangefinder photography. I am at a loss what might be the difference between modern, classical, analog or digital rangefinder photography when one accepts that the technology is different but the photographer’s eye is not. If one wishes to write with clarity and precision (as demanded by Strunk and White: The Elements of Style) rangefinder photography is nothing less or more than photography with a rangefinder camera. When I take pictures with my Canon L ( a classical rangefinder camera) I am cultivating rangefinder photography. The adjective ‘pure’ is a difficult concept because there are so many different meanings ranging from undiluted to unadulterated. Pure is often used in relation with simple and then the Canon L (no exposure meter, only a film cassette) is identical to the Leica M-A, also a very simple rangefinder camera. In the past Leica was infused with the engineering spirit, a spirit that may be equated with precision and clarity: you cannot build when you do not have a clear idea what it is what you wan to build.Now Leica is infused with a marketing spirit, a spirit that may be equated with nebulous speak and buzz words. It is a pity that many writers about Leica photography have adopted the same style. It would be nice when the reporting about Leica would become more scientific.
*
A study by the university St. Gallen (Switzerland) about the real world market leaders in several segments shows a broad array of companies. The study uses a number of criteria to differentiate between real and self-promoted status as a market leader. On the list you find Jenoptik, Leitz GmbH (Oberkochen) (no relation with Leica, Wetzlar) and Schott AG, but no Zeiss or Leica.
*
The Austrian chip manufacturer AMS (austriamicrosystems) produces parts for Apple products and Apple is indeed one of its main customers. AMS has connections with Texas Advanced Optoelectronics Solutions. In fact Apple seems to be the main customer of AMS and now Apple seems to have withdrawn a number of orders. (I write ‘seems’ because the info is from the Swiss magazine Finanz&Wirtschaft and they write that Apple does not comment on who supplies parts for their products). One of the many partners of AMS is by the way Fujitsu! On November 20 this year AMS announced that it had bought CMOSIS (since 2013 owned by venture capitalist TA Associates). This action is seen as a (successful) attempt to balancing their dependence on one customer. The amount of money is not known but AMS has a yearly turnover of about 500 million Euro. CMOSIS’ has a portfolio of low noise, global and rolling shutter, high dynamic range, and high frame rate image solutions serve a broad range of markets including machine vision, medical, broadcast, traffic, scientific and photographic imaging. CMOSIS does not manufacture the chips themselves but the Leica sensors are made by a company in France. Presumably the chip production will now move to Graz in Austria. What impact this move will have on the sensors that are being used by Leica is not yet clear.

ten years M8

2015-12-04T09:53:00+01:00

In 2016 the M8 celebrates its tenth anniversary. It will be a modest ceremony and Leica will not pay any attention to this. Since the M8 in 2006 we have seen a steady stream of newer and (if we have to believe the many comments) every time better models. If you had followed the advice to buy every time the new model M9, M240, including the Monochrom and the several P-models, you would have invested more than $40000 over a decade. Perhaps you had part-exchanged the previous models and collected (at an average second hand price of 40 - 50% of the new price) some $15000 - $20000. Still a net investment of more than $20000 in ten years time (a mere $2000 per year one may argue).
When you had bought a M3 in 1955 it would be still on the market, essentially unchanged and worth the same as when you bought it.
That is progress! It is also possible to look at the developments from a technical and artistic perspective. Technologically there is no doubt that the digitalization of the photographic progress has benefitted the technically inclined person. It is a matter of quantum efficiency: the silver halide molecules have a QE of less than 10% and the solid-state transistors have a QE of around 40%. Artistically however there is a complete standstill. And this is a pity because one of the main arguments to buy digital cameras and the associated technology is precisely this advantage in the artistic possibilities. I do not refer to the many manipulations done with Photoshop and its clones: these are fads and fancies. When one flies over the many notices that dedicate themselves to promoting the newest Leica product as the best ever, one sees a remarkable phenomenon: the images that are inserted as examples for the technological and artistic capabilities of the product not only look surprisingly indistinctive but show no progress at all in the main theme: expanded artistic expression. That most pictures are indistinguishable from the previous generations may be taken for granted.
My advice for 2016 (the celebration year if ten years digital M) is a simple one: stop reading about new Leica products by the evangelists, stop buying new Leica products (or if you really need one buy the M-A and the M262) and devote the full year to improve your artistic capabilities. This at least is my intention for 2016: January: finish the book about Leica optics, and then take some time to explore new artistic avenues with the MM2 and the M-A or even the M3.

Leica SL, some thoughts

2015-11-26T15:59:57+01:00

Today I am returning the loan Leica SL to the factory. The report will be published over the weekend. (I need some time for analysis and reflection!). A few impressions (hors catégorie) I wish to share. It has been remarked that the current state-of-the-art of digital photography makes it very easy to take high-quality pictures easily without knowing about the technical details of photography or having much experience. This is indeed true and the SL does prove it. The camera is very easy to use (but has a steep learning curve to find out what works best in what conditions) and the quality of the pictures is second to none. The many digital assistants with its long range of options compensate every shortcoming or lack of expertise of the user. The casualness with which one can produce excellent imagery is reminiscent of the ease of use of the original Barnack camera. The other side of the coin should not be forgotten. In Barnack’s days the photographer had to stick to some well-proven techniques and standard material to make the picture one had in mind. The modern digital photographer can use the SL as a point and shoot camera and produce pictures with a quality most analog photographers can only dream of. This is the snag: when one restricts oneself to capturing the usual content (landscapes, close-up nature scenes, portraits, pets, family, urban scenes in ambient and hardly available light and so on) the act of photography is in danger of becoming boring and so are the almost boring results because of the achieved perfection. Indeed the effect of the lazy eye of the photographer is becoming visible.
The potential of digital photography in combination with the possibilities of the SL (to restrict myself to the Leica marque, but one could easily add Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon and Nikon) open a vast und unchartered territory for exploration. When the message of the SL has been grasped (beyond the claim that Leica now can match the competition in features and capabilities) one understands that the camera allows one to shift the boundary of traditional photography. There is no expertise required anymore to produce high-performance imagery classical style. In order to explore the new territories of imagery one has to discard all notions about classical M-style photography and look with a fresh eye at the features that the SL offers. On the surface the SL reminds me of a Mercedes-Benz G-type: sturdy, flexible and with an industrial workmanlike design. The G has a two-sided character: a luxury vehicle that hardly ever sees the rough terrain for which is has been designed and an expeditionary vehicle for the adventurer who boldly goes where no one dared to go. You might buy the SL for its red dot character and use it to take the pictures you always made, but now with more ease and a greater chance of success. But then you do the camera and yourself a disservice. The first two weeks of my experience with the SL were devoted to get to grips with the many features, the size of the camera/lens combination and to start unlearning the classical reflection of comparing the SL to the M. The last two weeks were dedicated to exploring the potential of the camera. The overall performance is as said at the start beyond dispute. There are a few critical points that are discussed in the review, but none that has an excessive impact. The only comment I wish to make here is the fact that Leica has chosen to follow the path of the competition in offering every conceivable option. I know the usual comment about this feature-overload: it does not hurt when one can neglect them. The core of the matter however is the fact that Leica may have recovered lost ground, but is now (to talk in Tour de France terminology) part of the tȇte de la course , but is unable to secure the lead position. When the designers had selected a more limited amount of the most useful features and had optimized these to perfection, the status of the SL might be different. As it stands now the SL is a very potent performer, has loads of very smart solutions, but lacks the true Leica-DNA that made the Wetzlar cameras unique. On the other hand this might be the way to secure the survival of the company. Being the first among equals may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for being unique.

Reflections on testing the SL

2015-11-16T14:08:23+01:00

With a strong dose of self-reflection I might say that the ideal of independent and objective reporting about photographic products based on profound knowledge of the technical and engineering issues involved has been evaporated in recent times. The days that individuals like Goldberg or Crawley reported on the state of the art in technical photography are gone forever I am afraid. One may excuse and exclude the often cringeworthy technical prose in the current Leica brochures because these texts are written by marketing professionals who may be experts in communications theory but obviously lack the necessary engineering and photographic background. One may also exclude the personal statements by Leica users whose proudness of ownership and admiration for the Leica company and its products outshines the commonsensical assessment and acceptance of the cold reality. One may however not exclude the field and magazine testers who are either splitting hairs about minute details or are extolling the product and in the wake of this simply sing one’s own praises. Most German magazines go too far in their eagerness to profile a camera/lens system as a list of numbers from (as example!) the Uschold or Image Engineering labs. Because it can be measured does not automatically imply that it is relevant. The prose that accompanies the listings and product pictures has an unbearable lightness (to loan part of the title of Kundera’s novel) that leaves one often speechless.
It seems as if every writer assumes that the reader is either a nitwit or a novice. I do not like to be approached as a person who wants to be convinced by some illustrations and some impassioned prose of the superiority of the product. The usual countermeasure is to make some critical remarks to show one’s independence and expertise, but this falls short of the real issue: to inform the reader how the system works and how and why it can improve one’s photography. This is in my view the main topic of any system review, including of course the SL system (and also the S, M, Q and T systems). I like to read a report that informs me about the working and capabilities of an optomechatronic camera system in such a way that the content allows me to make an informed decision whether choosing this product helps me to make better images or helps me to become a better photographer. A camera system after all is a technical instrument for taking pictures and should be evaluated with this perspective.

The bandwidth of camera reports oscillates between pixel-peeping and number-crunching on the one hand and the emotional/entertainment/egocentric storytelling on the other hand. Both approaches are losing appeal and relevance in the contemporary camera landscape where manufacturing quality and design goals are rapidly converging to the what I would call ‘unicorn’ - profile. A one-size-fits-all strategy is evolving based on very powerful software technology and in-depth applications of information technology. Many articles and reports, even so-called lab-tests, are devoted to a hunt for real differences between the micro-four-third technology, the APS-C technology and the ‘full-frame’ (35 mm size) technology. The medium format cameras are often neglected, but understandably so. These cameras are extremely expensive and offer a range of features and a performance level that is beyond the capabilities of most reviewers to handle and assess in an informative way. And last but not least: buyers of this type of cameras are a very conservative group, they know what they need and these persons are in most cases rather immune for the trending topics in the blogosphere.
It is a bare fact that it is increasingly difficult to make sense of statements (when true!) that camera A has a dynamic range of 12.3 stops and camera B tops this with a range of 12.7 stops or that camera A has the same noise level at ISO 6400 that another one has at ISO 3200 or that camera A has a limiting resolution of 1823 Lp/ih and camera B can boast only a value of 1798 Lp/ih. It is quite logical that the drudgery of finding really practical differences between the Leica SL and the Nikon D4s or Canon 1X D might impel some reviewers to throw in the towel and relate their opinions to the level of expertise as the measure of all things.
The difficulty that the photographic community and the camera manufacturers experience to attach to their products a sharply defined profile (the logical consequence of the converging trend noted previously) gives rise to a focus on the list of gadgets and to the empty categories of ‘professional - enthusiast - amateur’ class of cameras. Especially the adjective ‘professional’ has emotional connotations. When a camera is labelled as ‘professional’ it is at least outside the mainstream and choosing such a camera adds some cachet to the owner or so it seems.
What ‘professional’ entails is not clear. According to the dictionary ‘professional’ refers to a profession and professional also refers to qualities that are attributed to this profession. Usually professions are identified by their organizational structure that ensures that certain standards of quality and expertise are upheld. The photographic profession is a very loosely defined collection of individuals who earn money by taking and selling images. I assume that smart-phone users sell more pictures that the Magnum members.
What is really meant with the adjective ‘professional’ is a reference to the heavy-duty qualities of a camera system in contrast to the light-duty profile of a so-called amateur camera system. A heavy-duty system is built to tighter tolerances with sturdy components for long-lasting service with a high level of reliability. In this sense the Leica SL certainly qualifies as a heavy-duty camera system, albeit that most owners will not be working professionals in the sense of a money-making activity.
There are some valid reasons to look at the Leica SL as an autonomous system, and not because a comparison with heavy-duty systems of the competition might be impossible or unnecessary.
There are three questions that a prospective buyer who has already invested in the Leica world might wish to have answered.
(1) Does using the SL makes me a better photographer? When ‘better’ is interpreted in a creative and artistic sense, the answer is simply negative. Creativity (like sex) sits between the ears, but is has to be said that the range of possibilities of the SL might trigger some brain cells to try another approach to the same challenge.
(2) Does using the SL helps me taking technically better photographs? The answer is a qualified affirmative. The answer is negative when one looks only at the maximum achievable image quality. In the important technical benchmarks (exposure, definition, detail reproduction, tonality) the SL operates in the highest league, but sets no new benchmarks. The answer is yes when one looks at the ease with which these results can be achieved. With expert knowledge the Leica M produces results that equal or even surpass the ones possible with the SL, but given only a modest level of technical proficiency, it is very easy to produce results of a very high order. Let us rephrase this statement a bit: given the numerous assistants provided by the SL, the score of success is much higher than with a Leica M, especially when one considers the sharpness of focus.
(3) Does using the SL helps me to take photographs that are different or new? Here the answer is a clear affirmative. The close focus ability with its excellent image quality invites one into a territory not often set foot on. The high ISO values coupled to an effective image stabilisation mechanism allows one to take pictures without tripod in that fascinating part of the day (twilight and early evening). The AF ability of continuous focus tracking or focus following (while not as comprehensive or effective as the phase detection technology of the high-end DSLR competitors) gives one the opportunity to capture objects in movement that are difficult or impossible to grasp without AF. While it is possible to capture the exact moment of dynamic movement with the manual M camera (with pre-focusing or focusing into the movement) it is much easier with the AF options of the SL and again one is invited to “boldly go where one has not gone before”.
Mechanically the body parts of the Leica SL are milled from solid blocks of aluminium, a technique that Leica is very proud of. The usual technique is to use a aluminum chassis enclosed by a polycarbonate shell. Both engineering approaches are equally valid and in terms of accuracy of finish and durability only time will tell.
Part two of the SL report will be published soon.

Leica SL: first impressions

2015-11-03T21:11:06+01:00

In a rather critical article about the Leicaflex the German magazin ‘der Spiegel’ wrote in 1965 that this camera failed to live up to the expectations. With a weight of more than one kilogram and a price-tag of 1510 D-Mark (in 1965!) the camera piled up all technical tricks that the competition already offered in one body. The reporter referred to the then actual Mercedes-Benz 600 and noted that the Leicaflex was the result of “perfektionssüchtiges Sammeleifers” (in a free translation ‘the enthusiastic compilation of components driven by an addiction for perfection’). It is by the way remarkable that most reviewers refer to the Leicaflex as the source of inspiration for the new Leica SL (possibly triggered by the name Leicaflex SL). When one takes a critical look at the SL, the clean almost Bauhaus-like contours and the prominent logo on the (fake) prism reminds one of the Leica R3. The R3 was a cooperation between Leitz and Minolta and the SL has its fair share of Panasonic DNA.
The Leica SL does indeed incorporate almost every feature that the competition has, including (not exhaustive!!): optical image stabilization, automatic sensor cleaning function, WLAN and GPS, full video capture options, remote control with apps, automatic switching between monitor and viewfinder, touchscreen selections, six soft keys, five AF choices, four exposure modes, three exposure metering modes, five motor drive modes and so on. The buttons around the monitor are loaned from the S-model and the touchscreen options are from the T and Q models. It is possible to mix all options and this give a wide range of choices. It takes some time to explore these options and select the ones that are appropriate for one’s personal style of photography and/or the conditions of the photoshoot.
This range of options has always divided the community: there is one argument that states that it is fine to have all options in order to choose or ignore what one likes or dislikes and the other argument states that a minimalistic approach would be better because it defines the character of the camera.
On fully automatic (the green choices on the Canon camera models) the SL is extremely simple to operate and the results are excellent. Finetuning the options gives results that are more appropriate for one’s personal taste and expertise, but one has still the feeling that the camera makes the decisions. The option is to go for fully manual (this can be done, but takes some effort to exclude all friendly advising from the camera software) and than the camera is a very fine tool indeed.
I was at first put off a bit by the weight, but a stroll through the city streets during three hours convinced me that weight is not really a problem. The camera balances well even with the 24-90 lens attached.
The main (philosophical?) distinction between the SL and the S and M is the level of expertise needed to produce excellent results. When using the M or S the operator input and expertise are required or useful for the production of excellent imagery. When using the SL the camera and lens software take care of everything. The resulting images are second to none in the Leica scuderia, but the nagging question is: who made this picture: me or the camera?
This is indeed the modern trend: user input is replaced by computer intelligence. This was the message of the Leica R3: a fully electronic camera that limited the user input to the selection of options and to the control over the composition of the image. The Leica SL takes this approach several leagues further: it is the very capable digital assistant for the photographer and videographer. The full report will tell you how good the assistant is and where user expertise is needed.

Crawley's rules

2015-10-25T16:36:20+01:00

I am working on a book about Leica optics, as most of you may know by now (the planned publishing period is January 2016). In this book I give detailed information about the approach and thinking of Berek behind the many epochal designs he constructed and/or influenced. One of his important insights is the study of the character of a design and by implication its potential for a range of applications. This is the same approach that L. Kölsch has promoted since his appointment as chief of the optical department at Leica. You have to know about the inherent capabilities of a design before deciding upon its character and its strengths and weaknesses. Every lens has potential but will be definition not be perfect. Studying its character takes some time. It is now popular to look at color fringes as the main criterion of image quality. It is only one element of the complex character of a lens, and in many cases not the most important. It is however a symptom that is very easy to detect when using digital capture media and some techniques of pixelpeeping. Is it relevant? I doubt it but some reviewers, popular on the internet have made it their signature. You can not however define the character of a lens, in Berek’s perspective, by looking at one of a multitude of parameters that as a sum define the character of a lens. The same goes for a complex camera. Here again we have a difference between having an opinion based on a limited period of experience and an analysis and characterization based on use during an extended period of time. It is a curse of the modern media that a scoop is worth more than a thorough analysis and being the first to report about a lens or camera is more important that giving yourself the time to make a considered assessment of a product. The pace of innovation is such that a report of a product may be already obsolete when the report is being published because the product has already been superseded by an improved model.
This was different in the time when Geoffrey Crawley laid down the rules for excellent technical reporting. One of his rules was the requirement to use a camera for a long period of time (at least half a year to become acquainted with the subtle details of is operation). This was possible in a time when a top camera had a life span of at least a decade. The pace of improvement is now much higher but the basic rule of the extended period for a thorough analysis is still valid. No one would now involve in a report about the Leica T or Q, even when these products are highly relevant in today’s scene and I have yet to read a review by some one who revisits or even revises his original verdict about the product because an extended exposition to the often hidden capabilities might reframe his conclusion.
Formulating a series of opinions is a vastly different action that trying to define the character of the product. Crawley noted that a review should be constructed such that after reading a review any prospective user or buyer would know exactly what to expect of this camera/lens and when and if the camera/lens would be useful and an improvement in his/her photographic practice. Reading current reviews about Leica cameras (Leica S, SL, Q, T and son on) I know what the reviewer’s opinions are, but I have no clue what the camera’s character is and why buying such a camera would be beneficial to my own photographic practice and photographic ambitions.
This is one of the reasons why I have not reported on the Leica SL. This is a very important camera and deserves some reflection. One of the main conclusions is that this camera ends the myth of the Leica camera as the basic tool for the technique of the decisive moment as HCB defined it. Why and how will be part of the report. Expect the report somewhere is December 2015.

The new Leica SL

2015-10-22T16:51:30+02:00

It seems to be Leica’s current strategy to produce a full range of products from basic amateur cameras (the Panasonic re-branded products) to the high-end professional market (the S medium format and now the SL miniature format). The Leica M is as for now the iconic product, but seems to have lost the status as the camera for the professional and is now framed as the camera for the traditionally inclined enthusiast. Below the M the line-up comprised the low end rebranded Panasonic products and the X-series, quickly filled in with the T and Q cameras, both framed as high-grade models. The T offers interchangeable lenses, and an APS-C sized sensor. The Q had a fixed lens with optical zoom function and a miniature sized (24 x 36 mm) sensor. The M offers the classical line of interchangeable lenses and the classical miniature format. Above the M there is the S, framed as the new format for the professional user. If you place the current Leica offerings in a diagram you will see this:
Three formats: 30 x 45; 24 x 36 and APS-C
Three finder systems: SLR, CRF and EVF
Two types: fixed lens and interchangeable lens with AF and MF
The Leica S is 30 x 45, SLR and interchangeable lens, AF
The Leica M is 24 x 36, CRF and interchangeable lens, MF
The Leica T is APS-C, EVF and interchangeable lens, AF
The Leica Q is 24 x 36, EVF and fixed lens, AF
The Leica X is APS-C, EVF and fixed lens, AF
Above the S there is the Sinar range and below the X there are the Panasonic cameras
In this line-up there are obvious holes above the M and below the M. The M itself might be updated to a camera with 24 x 36 mm sensor and AF, but this would require a full new range of lenses. AF lenses are always bulkier than MF lenses and this would jeopardize the M and in addition make the CRF mechanism obsolete. A full range of new AF lenses would certainly require scarce resources and lost of investment money (see the slow expansion of the S lenses and the very meagre range of T and SL lenses). It is an option, but not for the short term. Below the M there is some tiny space between the T and the M, but whatever you position there would challenge the Q and the M itself. The dream candidate for many Leicaphiles would be a kind of Leica CL, but either it is too close to the M or not close enough and will soon lose its market attraction. What about the slot between the M and S? A CRF version with a the large S-sized sensor is unlikely to demand attention (see the Texas Leica made by Fuji). A digital version of the Leica R, but with manual focus and reflex finder would be as unlikely because Leica wants to capture the current digital market, where AF, EVF, and a 24x36 mm sensor are required parts of the Lastenheft, as the success of the Sony Alpha7 proves. The Q has all of these, except interchangeable lenses. The new camera has to be sufficiently different from the M and the T to avoid internal competition and in this perspective the SL makes sense. The SL is a strapping camera, close to the size of the original R8 and the current S. It is also a heavy camera that tips the scale at almost two kilograms with the only lens currently available, the 24-90 mm.
See the listing of dimensions.
Dimensions (HxWxD) and weight in grams
R8: 101 x 158 x 62; 890
R4: 88 x 138.5 x 60; 620
Leicaflex: 97 x 148 x 57; 770
Leica S: 120 x 160 x 80; 1410
Leica SL: 104 x 147 x 39; 847 (with battery)
Leica M/240: 80 x 139 x 42; 680

The Vario-Elmarit-SL 24 -90 mm ASPH has an impressive performance from infinity to the close-focus range and its layout is optimized for fast and precise AF. The MTF graphs promis a performance that lies generally above 60% for the 40 lp/mm and is evidently, but perhaps un-intentionally, extremely close to the S range. The zoom range is almost 1:4, more than the 28-90 range for the R system and the SL lens has a constant 1:2.8 to 1:4. The other side of the picture is a very complex design with 18 elements and four aspherical surfaces. This optical design is un-Leica-like in its complexity, but presumably necessary. The design shows the “Japanizing” of the SL lenses, including the OIS feature (optical image stabilization).

The Leica SL has the potential to be a strong competitor for the Leica S, where its size and weight are not a disadvantage. When compared to the M, it scores high on the criteria of optical performance and versatility. The big Japanese companies follow the strategy for a camera range with clearly segmented areas where one can move upwards in specs and performance. The current Leica strategy is far removed from the clean upward mobility line of Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji. Leica is creating a range of cameras and camera systems that overlap each other and that are even in direct competition. Where the Japanese follow a strategy of evolutionary steps, Leica is clearly engaged in a learning process of catching up with the Joneses.

Luxury

2015-09-10T12:20:02+02:00

Some time ago I saw a picture of a commentator/photographer using an M6 with an Elmar 2.8/50 mm. This is hardly an iconic combo. Yet the Elmar 50 mm lens, especially in the 2.8 version was once the standard lens for the M camera. In the books by Kisselbach and Scheerer/Makovec the 2.8/50 mm is described as the universal lens and Kisselbach in addition remarks that 95% of the pictures made with a Leica have apertures smaller than f/4. This is also the logic behind the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 that also has an aperture of f/4. The current focus on very high-speed lenses (1.4 - 0.95) disregards the problems in practical use. The usual comment is that the full aperture allows a shallow depth of field, but only a limited number of picture opportunities are suitable for this photographic technique. The number of pictures that lack sharpness because of focusing errors increases exponentially when the high-speed lenses are used at full aperture. These considerations do not diminish the importance of the high-speed lenses, but ask attention for the fact that high-speed is not all there is.
The same argument may be applied to the Leica cameras. Most attention goes, naturally, to the current and suspected models because they offer the most features that contemporary buyers want to have. I wish to discuss two camera models that are almost forgotten, but play a very important part in the history of the Leica M camera. Without these two models the Leica M would be nostalgia, like the Nikon F or Canon VI. The Leica M4-2 is in essence the M6 without internal exposure meter and the camera that, made in Canada, secured the survival of the line, because in Wetzlar at that time the rangefinder was seen as a lost battle. The CRF camera barely survived, but the continuing sales of the model and the disappointing sales of the Wetzlar-SLR-cameras secured its survival. Leica then put all its efforts on the development and sales of the M6/M7 and the many versions and special editions, hoping that the cartridge-loading CRF would carve out a niche in which it could sit out the digital tsunami. The M8 was Leica’s answer to come out of the niche and directly confront this tsunami. This model, even with its flaws, gave the Leica community and its investors the confidence that Leica could deliver products that had the chance to compete successfully in the new world of digital photography. The M4-2 and the M8 were designed as cameras for the working professional. The current line of M models is dangerously close to becoming luxury items. This strategy is good for the profit of the company, and good for the users who can show that they own cameras with expressive characteristics. Canon, if the rumors are correct is developing a 120 Mp EOS-SLR, and continues to be the frontrunner in the race for workhorse products. One may question the usefulness of this amount of pixels, but one can see its potential in the current Q where the digital zoom function shows the road ahead.
There are in fact only three motives for buying stuff: survival (houses, food); love (washing powder, coca-cola, sweets) and procreation (luxury articles, deodorants). The first one is about the head, the second one about the heart and the third one about the reproductive organs. The Tesla is a good example: this is a car that shows that the owner cares about the future and is concerned about his offspring. Buying a Tesla is a statement, not a choice for a certain style of mobility. The motive for buying the current Leica cameras is situated halfway between the second and third level of motives. This may explain the mixed message that current Leica products deliver.

wisdom of the crowd

2015-08-08T11:06:09+02:00

The ‘wisdom of the crowds’ is the conviction of modern marketing managers. The argument is simple: this wisdom is the statistical average of all individual opinions and choices and rules out the extremes. It is therefore a safe bet: a product that is being liked by a large number of persons must be a good seller and an improvement of such a product must even be a better seller. The wisdom of the crowds has a dark side however: it is the psychological bandwagon effect and the individual’s need to belong to a group. There is yet another aspect: repeat a story hundreds of times and read an opinion everywhere on the internet and you automatically assume that this is right: not only by brainwashing (you read it anytime), but also by argument: all those people cannot be wrong, can they?
The wisdom of the crowd would never have agreed on a theory of evolution that Darwin developed and Galilei was threatened with torture for having the correct opinion, but indeed against the wisdom of the crowd that believed otherwise. The list is endless. Even within the Leica history we see this phenomenon: The Liliput camera would not succeed was the crowd’s wisdom and it was the crowd’s wisdom that the R8 would become a success. The wisdom of the crowd said that the T will be a great success-story if you believed the glorifying reports, but the T has already been neglected by the crowd. Now the Q has the honor of being praised by the crowd, and it is just too awful to think what might happen if or when the crowd is wrong which is not unlikely.
Capa was a great photographer and his D-Day pictures are the greatest war pictures ever taken. It is a pity that some stupid lab assistant ruined the pictures and, yes, Leica still claims that some iconic pictures by Capa were made with a Leica. All three are wrong, but conventional wisdom thinks otherwise. Capa did not take his pictures with a Leica, but with a Contax and a Rolleiflex. The D-Day pictures are not ruined: Capa simply did not take more pictures because he was, understandably, paralyzed by the inferno on the Normandy beaches.
Was he a great photographer? I do not think so. Much better war pictures were made by Don McCullin, but he has a less powerful lobby.

Photon distribution

2015-07-09T19:54:07+02:00

To give some practical evidence for the theoretical study about the photon count I exposed the MM2 for 20 seconds with closed lens cap and in the dark. This should ensure that no light would enter the camera. In theory every pixel would have the value = 0. There is an automatically running noise reduction program by Leica (Request: give us the menu option to deselect this option). It is not known what the program does.
The analysis program gives an exact count of every pixel and it can be seen from this selection that the values range from 0 to 12 in this section of the sensor surface. Where there should be zero levels you will find 12 levels, roughly comparable with photons.

This conforms with the random or Poisson noise. Looking at the whole picture I detect four quadrants with equal area, but different noise pattern. See below the section where the four quadrants meet. It is intriguing to see that the top half of the sensor exhibits noise and the lower half almost none. So depending on the area where you look, the noise impression may be different.

A statistical count of all values gives this graph. Note that there is indeed a heavy concentration of the levels = 0 and = 1, but also quite a lot pixels with higher levels.

Below you find a section of a picture that was overexposed and should show identical pixel values. Note the variation and the fact that some cells exhibit values around 4000. Some persons showed a surprise that the nominal value for maximum white is 3750 and not 4096. The reason is explained in my book Leica Practicum: it is the standard safety level to account for heavy overexposure.

Photon count

2015-07-08T20:10:08+02:00

A CCD and CMOS sensor consists of an array of light detectors that count incoming photons at each location (pixel). The 'count' is in fact the registration of an electric charge that is knocked loose from the semi-conductor material by the incoming light energy. The maximum number of 'counts' is determined by the bit depth of the computer. A 12 bit storage register has a maximum level of 4095 counts/photons and a 14 bit register can count till 16383 photons. The CCD/CMOS sensor reacts linearly to the levels of light energy and doubling the exposure will double the amount of photons (excluding noise and random fluctuations).
The total number of photons that can be counted depends obviously on shutter speed, aperture and sensitivity of sensor. This is analogous to the response of silver-halide crystals in emulsions.
We will approach the issue from two directions: how many photons are available at all in reality (photon flux) and how many photons can a pixel receive before saturation sets in.
In full sun the number of photons reaching the earth is staggering: 3.6 x 10^21 photons per second per square meter. Let us assume that the standard exposure time is 1/60 second. The lux values (classical exposure meter) are: full sun: 80000 and overcast outdoors: 1000.
Because the number of photons is related to the size of the capture area and the exposure time, we need first the area of the pixel in μmeters^2. The area of the pixel of the Leica CMOS sensor is 36 μmeters^2. Dividing the total amount of photons by this value (I used 35 μmeters^2 )and then by 1/60 gives a total of 2.6 x 10^8 for full sun and 3.3 x 10^6 for outdoors overcast. To put these figures in perspective: a star gives 0.33 photons under the same conditions of shutter speed and area.
It seems that there are more than enough photons to saturate even a 16 bit sensor. But now a problem arises. The photons arrive at the pixel in a random fashion. This means that the average number may be constant because it refers to the intensity of the light. What we need however is the probability that the pixel receives a certain number of photons. This probability can be calculated with the help of the Poisson distribution, a statistical tool. When the dynamic range is very small, (2^2) we have only 5 counts, where 0 represents black, 1 equals 1/4 tone, 2 equals 1/2 tone, 3 equals 3/4 tone and 4 equals white. Now let us expect that only 1 photon will hit the surface. The Poisson distribution tells us that for this case the chance of getting 1 photon is about 1/3, but there is also a change of 4% that the pixel will receive 4 photons. The full table is this: 36 % = 0 photons; 36% =1 photon; 18% = 2 photons; 6% = 3 photons; 4% = 4 photons. The Poisson distribution is also valid when the number of expected photons rises, but there is still a variation. When you expect 4 photons there is a 90% change that the actual number will be between 1 and 7. The statistical expectation has to be combined with the standard deviation and then you get the expected relative variation in pixel photon count (or brightness). To give an example: when you expect 20 photons you have a 99.7 % confidence that the actual number of photons will be between 10 and 30 and 68% chance that the number lies between 15 and 25. The more photons you get the more the relative variation becomes lower. But there is another issue! This is shot noise or Poisson noise.
When a pixel gets 16, 17, or 20 photons, the sensor must establish what value is the true mean because only then you get the real value without the noise and the random effects. But the sensor has no way of knowing what this true mean actually is. We need a trick! One way to do it is to group the pixel counts into ranges with boundaries that reflect the limits of the standard deviation (SD). These boundaries represent the confidence limits and are expressed as SD's. If the boundary is set at ± 1 SD, then we may expect with a confidence of 68% that if the photon count falls within a certain partition it is close to the central mean of this partition.
Now the Poisson distribution has the valuable property that its mean equals the square of the standard deviation. If we want that the photon count for the highest photon count for a 16 bit dynamic range is for 99.7% correct (4 SD's!) we have to multiply 65536 (2^16) by 4 and square the result. This produces the unbelievable number of 68,719,476,736 or 2^36 photons that must hit a pixel to be practically certain that the maximum brightness value has been recorded. So many photons are not available at all. For a 14 bit sensor and for a much lower level of certainty (2 SD) the number is still too high: (16384 x 2)^2 = 1.1 x 10^9. Even 14 bit resolution is impossible to reach. A 12 bit resolution is more to the point. Now we can expect 6.7 x 10^7 photons at the maximum brightness level and because we have fixed the SD at 2, the pixel count can actually be within the top brightness range. Remember that all these numbers assume a shutter speed of 1/60. When using higher shutter speeds even less photons will hit the pixel surface and the real dynamic range will be even less.
Conclusion 1: if we wish to exploit the full maximum range of a 16 bit dynamic range the total photon flux in real life is not high enough. A 12 bit dynamic range is much more realistic. With a 16 bit storage register you create an illusion of a very high dynamic range that is impossible to use in real life situations, especially at higher shutter speeds.

To cover all gradations of tonality we want to record we need the range of 1 to 1 million photons per pixel . This range is needed because of the linearity in the dynamic range and to get useable values in the dark areas. This range is not possible to capture even when using a 16 bit resolution that has a maximum brightness value of 65535, much lower than the 1 million that should be covered. This implies that the maximum tonality for perfect imagery can not be reached.
We can also approach the issue from the technical side: the maximum capacity of a pixel (the full well capacity) in modern sensor technology is about 1700 electrons or photons per square micron For the Leica CMOS this amounts to 36 x 1700 = 61200 photons, much more than the possible 4096 values that a 12 bit storage register can handle and much less than the required one million. A bit depth of 16 does not improve the situation much because we still need compression at the maximum brightness side and the electron charge has to be converted to an integer in the range from 32768 to 65535. There are now 32768 brightness steps in the maximum brightness range and it is impossible to differentiate between the brightness steps of say 40023 and 40024.

The 12 bit resolution has a maximum value of 4095. How to relate 60.000 to 4000? The trick is square compression before digitization. One can extract the square root of a number and use that as a replacement. All these calculations assume that all possible photons will indeed be captured by every pixel. Even a 1,4 lens will reduce the number of theoretically possible photons. In reality you may be lucky to get 600 photons in a pixel when not photographing in bright sunlight. The camera hardware will actually amplify this value in the analog domain before it is being converted in the ADC domain with a gain factor.
Conclusion 2: the full well capacity of a typical modern pixel is 1700 photons per square micrometer (micron). The pixel area of the Leica CMOS sensor is ± 36 square micron, so the total number of photons before saturation is about 60000. Leica uses a compression scheme to match the range from 0 - 60000 into the 12 bit dynamic range from 0 - 4095.
Conclusion 3: to get full tonality we need about 1 million photons to cover every possible step in tonality that the human eye can perceive. Because of transmission losses, hardware issues the actual amount may be several million photons. In full sun this is possible, but in less favorable situations the Leica pixel will be able to capture only less than 350000 photons. A higher ISO value does not really help: this only artificially increases the photon count by a gain factor.
Conclusion 4: in low to average brightness levels, at moderate ISO values, with shutter speeds around 1/60 and apertures around 1:2, the actual count may be around 600 photons/pixel. The dynamic level is then artificially increased in the Gain Stage. This is contrary to the working of silver halide where a low density simply implies a low contrast and a low dynamic range.
Final conclusion: the 12 bit resolution of the MM-2 is not a compromise solution but a logical choice given the practical and theoretical issues of photon flux, full well capacity, ADC converter technology and the demands of tonal range and tonal separation.

Opinion versus fact

2015-06-21T12:10:51+02:00

There is a quite strong and (on face value) convincing argument for abandoning the scientific/lab analysis of the performance of lenses as stand-alone units or in combination with film or sensor performance. The argument goes like this: when a lens is good enough for the tasks that a photographer wants to accomplish and when this lens suits the style of the photographer there is no reason to check the absolute performance of the lens. The inherent image quality of the lens is made relative to the demands and views of the photographer. The yardstick or benchmark for the image quality is defined relative to the personal requirements of the photographer.
What, you may wish to ask, is the value of someone’s opinion, even if it comes from a highly esteemed or successful photographer, about a camera or a lens? If HCB (to give some example) would note that some lens he uses, let us say the Summarit 1.5/50mm, suits his photographic style and he is very happy with this lens, what can we conclude about the true or real-life performance of this lens?
It is true that the current practice of comparative testing (using test charts and some analysis software or using an elaborate three-dimensional setup with many solid objects) has been over-hyped and has lost much of the relevance it potentially might have. It makes no sense to note that lens A has 2123 lp/ph at the edge and at aperture x and lens B at the same position and aperture records 2187 lp/ph. It also makes no sense when one notes during a pixel-peeping session that there is a slight amount of color fringing at some unsharpness edge in the background and concludes that the lens in question is now less good than it could be or as might be expected by the reviewer. In this case the yardstick is an unrealistic ideal of optical performance. What we have now is rather depressing when we are interested in the true performance of a lens: counting line-pairs does not work, personal views are too individual and subjective, pixel-peeping is a dead-end. The practical photographer may repeat the remark that one is not interested in an assessment of factual image quality as long as the lens suits the personal style and requirements of the photographer. But imagine that we have two photographers one who asserts that the lens suits him well and another one who claims that this same lens is for him disappointing.
The only solution would be to establish the true performance of the lens. We have to make one important addition to this sentence and that is hat we want to establish the true performance that is relevant for the photographic practice in general. There are several aspects to consider: the image quality relative to the range of apertures, the image quality relative to the magnification or object distances (close, medium, infinity) and the image quality relative to the film or sensor area (center, corner, edge). The image quality itself might be defined as the definition of fine detail (contrast at the edges of textural detail) and the loss of contrast due to flare and inherent image aberrations. No lens is perfect and every designer will make a reasoned balance between the many conflicting demands. Any lens review or test should explain or demonstrate these choices and the effect they have on the inherent image quality and present the facts in such a way that the user can make an informed decision based on these facts.

mechatronics

2015-06-20T09:05:03+02:00

Camera tests in the past were based on the view that cameras were precision-engineered mechanical products that could be dissected in several neatly separated parts and every part could be valued and measured according to some standard. Shutter speeds were measured, optical performance analyzed and film emulsions were compared in several developers. In many situations the necessary equipment was not available and reviewers tended to sketch personal opinions and practical experiences as a substitute.
Modern digital cameras however can no longer be reviewed in these technical-scientist and opiniated-experience traditions.
A modern camera (we can safely forget about the additional word ‘digital’ as every camera is a digital one) is no longer primarily a precision-engineered mechanical product, but an opto-mechatronic product. I wrote long ago about the transition from opto-mechanics to mechatronics. This does not imply that the precision is now less than in the past. On the contrary: mechatronics often demand a much higher level of precision than classical tools do, but mainly it is the difference that counts.
Take as example the recent Leica Q. This is a complex and integrated opto-mechatronic product that can hardly be reviewed in the classical traditions.The Q has a very slim body and a relatively large lens unit. This lens unit incorporates a leaf shutter with certain dimensions and the optical construction must be such that all the light collected at the front will pass through to the sensor. There is also an optical stabilizer that requires an additional lens group. The AF has to be fast and this requires a lens group with hardly a moving mass and also a stepper motor that must be located somewhere in the lens unit. Looking at the lens with only the specifics of aperture and focal length (as we do when looking at Leica M lenses) is the wrong way. The lens is now an opto-mechatronic unit and should be evaluated as such. This does not mean that classical parameters as performance should be neglected. Again on the contrary. The fact that the Q offers a digital zoom with the classical Tri-Elmar steps (28-35-50) implies that to hold the image quality over this range the performance of the lens must have a reserve or excess-performance that may not be visible when looking at the 28-setting, but in comparison with the 50-setting becomes important.
Modern and progressive automotive (car) journalists (not the types of Top Gear!) have made the transition to the view that a car must be viewed as a total and integrated concept that should fit in with current mobile lifestyles. The time that one could characterize a car by summing up a list of parameters (top speed, weight, fuel consumption and so on) is definitely gone as is the time that a review should be filled with personal statements (‘I like….’, ‘in my view….’ and so on).
The Q and even the T and X should be approached as a total package that supports or fits in or even enlarges the creative scope and concepts of the image maker/user, not as one of many tools for the almost obsolete concepts of street photography or landscape photography.

X, T and Q

2015-06-15T22:56:41+02:00

These might be simply letters in the alphabet or they may refer to cameras models marketed by a famous company in Wetzlar. There is hardly a year between the introduction of the renewed X ( with fixed 1.7/23 mm lens and APS-C CMOS sized sensor ) and the new Q (with fixed 1.7/28 mm lens and 135 CMOS sized sensor). In between the company also introduced the T with interchangeable lenses and also an APS-C CMOS sized sensor). All three seem to occupy the same area. Leica is increasingly profiling itself as the premium photographic company that combines a luxury brand with a technology brand. By the way: this is the same profile as that other iconic company is promoting: Apple. The Q (derived from the master engineer in the James Bond novels or from the Audi Q range) has a number of smart features and indeed the AF is really fast (at least in the prototype that I have been handling). Leica learned the lesson from the less than successful T that has a slower AF system. As I see it, Leica is at the crossroads. The M is the only product now in the Leica range without AF and they are under pressure to deliver a new system that would combine the iconic features of the M with AF. New lenses would be required and we see how problematic that is when one looks at the pace of introduction of T and S lenses. The main question is what would be the advantage of incorporating AF in the M system. The obvious answer is not the critical one. AF will certainly speed up the process of taking sharp pictures and many users of the M are old enough to have eye-sight problems. An M with AF lenses and EVF would hardly be different from any camera on the market nowadays. The T and Q systems have two functions: first to show that Leica is present in the lucrative high-end aficionado domain of buyers who refuse to accept that any current smartphone will produce comparable pictures. The second function is to demarcate the domain of the classical M. Every new introduction of an indigenously designed and manufactured Leica camera and a rebranded Panasonic camera poses a threat to the M system, because Leica lacks a clear marketing strategy and promotes every new camera with the same characteristics that relate to the classical RF values with some currently popular features thrown in. The Wired review of the Q notes that the Q has some advantages but with a price tag this high the company has a challenge to convince most prospective buyers to buy one. The reviews I have read are really trying to do just this. The Q is a most pleasurable camera to use and produces excellent quality results, but to say otherwise would be a disaster: when using a 24 Mp 24x36mm sized sensor and an excellent lens and current image-processing hard- and software one would not expect anything below premium quality. This is no longer the defining characteristic. Sad but true. Handling-wise the Q is a mix from elements that the X and T already offer and here we see a slow progress to one common specific Leica standard.
It has been noted (already long ago) that Leica is basically not a very innovative company (with the exception of the original Barnack camera) and is at its best when their engineers can improve on the results designed by others (see the M3). The original Leicaflex is a fine example of this approach and the Q fits in this tradition and seems to be a dedicated improvement on the Sony RX1.
As with the Leica T, the Leica Q is in danger of missing the boat. In the past there was a niche of high-tech high quality film-loading camera with advanced specifications (the Minolta TC-1 and Nikon 28ti are the obvious examples), but they did not succeed in the market. The Leica Q is very expensive and while its feature range is quite convincing, it does not justify this price tag.

Leica's future

2015-04-07T20:46:15+02:00

Every time that Leica starts to issue special models of the M-series one is inclined to become suspicious about the state of the Leica company. There was a peak in M6 special models at the end of its commercial life and there is now a peak of special models of the M9 and M cameras. The recently announced change of CEO is another indication that the Leica company is not in the feel-good-shape that the new headquarters in Wetzlar try to convey on the visitors. Some time ago I wrote about the smartphone-menace to mainstream photography and Leica tried to counter this trend with the Leica T. I was alone in noting that the T was not a smart product (the rest of the world gave the camera the usual designations of ‘milestone’, ‘innovative’, ‘brilliant’ and so on. Words are easy to employ! Now there are serious indications that the sales of the T are not as hoped for. I was also almost alone in noting that any M (with whatever specifications) has a limited sales appeal for a limited group of persons, not necessary photographers and that sales of M cameras after a peak will inevitably drop. This is a marketing and engineering problem, because the double goal of preserving the DNA of the CRF and creating a totally new and modern CRF is like squaring the circle. The Fuji X-series has some success, undoubtedly, as a modern version of a classic CRF, but lacks the true DNA of the Leica CRF. The smartphone has almost killed the compact digital camera and in this segment the D-C-V and X series of Leica are the obvious victims. Add to all of this the tremendous success of Apple’s iPhone 6 and the recent campaign by Apple to promote the photographic capabilities of the ‘6’ and it is clear that the compact digital camera will be extinct in the near future. Many observers have remarked that the main problem of the current generation of high quality digital cameras (dSLRs and dCRF) is the fact that modern electronics are embodied in traditional ‘analog’-camera bodies that are not easy to use for the iPad and smartphone generation. It is indeed preposterous that you need to wade through hundreds of pages of manual for a product that only should need a few very simple actions to work. Compare the Leica M-A with the Leica M and you see what I mean. When Leica announced the intention to grow tenfold it was clear that the then current range of products was not suitable as a platform to support such an ambitious goal. Not only the product portfolio, but also the company’s infrastructure, organization and culture were not suited to accomplish this goal. It is one to build a larger factory, buy new machines and hire additional people, but it is two to make it happen. Captain Kirk and his Vulcan companion might be able to achieve this, but for mortals it is a different story. The string of problems that have erupted from the Leica factory are an indication that the combination of fast product introduction and higher production levels cannot be handled with good success, at least not by a company with the Leica-Solms heritage. I am sure Blackstone has observed these events with growing concern and has acted as any investor who looks exclusively at the return on investments would have done. I am also sure that this (the ambitious goals) is the reason why Hermes pulled out of the company after discussions with Lee. In discussions with Leica personnel, there is ofter a reference with the Porsche analogy. Porsche started as a high-quality low volume niche producer and managed to evolve into a high-quality-high volume special product manufacturer. Leica seems to want to follow the same route, but lacks one distinctive commodity. This is for the next story.
/article-content

Curves

2015-04-07T20:43:45+02:00

Looking at Leica’s history since the 1930s and the intense rapport between the Leica products and the user community, one has to conclude that the core of this rapport is not the ultimate performance, even if this is an important aspect. Basically it is the strong bond of sympathy for the product itself, for the ideas behind the product and for the people who design and build these products.
It is now almost usual routine on the countless blogs and sites to make quantitative comparisons and produce ratings based on some standard, derived from the issues of the day. When Nikon offers a 36 Mp sensor, this is the yardstick every one has to conform to and when Canon offers a 50 Mp sensor this is the new norm. When Olympus announces an improved and highly efficient technique of image stabilization, this is immediately the standard and every camera that does not offer the same or a better technique is obsolete or at least behind the state of the art.
The numerous counselors in the blogosphere who tell Leica how to ‘improve’ the current products invariably point to one or more features that the competition has and Leica’s products are lacking. Keeping up with the Joneses however has never been Leica’s forte.

The main issue is however a different one. It is quite human to assume that the future is a regular and smooth continuation of the past and present. We have trouble identifying a disruptive event or product. The smartphone was introduced in 2007 and in combination with the internet (very disruptive, but no one identified it as such) it is about to change the whole of industry and even culture. In a few years time every one on this globe will walk around with a product that has more power than a super computer and will be connected through the internet to everything and everybody.
Mathematically the view that the future is a continuation of the past can be represented as a linear graph or somewhat more sophisticated as an S-curve. The catastrophe theory assumes a nonlinear curve, but it is ore likely that we will be confronted with an exponential curve when we want to discuss growth patterns in the future. Moore’s Law (in computer chips) is one example of an exponential curve. The bad point is that exponential curves start as innocent linear curves and therefore are easy to disregard.
We are also accustomed to the Normal Distribution. That is a curve with a clustering of values around the mean and a proportional distribution on both sids of this mean value with ever diminishing numbers.
In this digital age another curve is emerging: the Power Law Distribution (PLD) which is a curve where a small part of the population gets a disproportional part of the available total amount. It is also known as the-winner-takes-all-principle or the 80/20 principle.
Because the internet is a transparent, powerful and globally operating medium any internet-surfer will be instantly aware of even small differences between products and services and can therefore demand the best available. There is no reason to be satisfied with second-best. This is the underlying cause of the fact that most proposals for improvement of Leica products are limited to incremental changes (faster AF, more features, more pixels and so).
Because the ‘best’ is an elusive category, there is a tendency to equate ‘best’ with some quantified ranking to evade discussion. It is easy to claim that the Zeiss OTUS 55 is much better than the Leica Summilux ASPH 50 because the OTUS has 70% MTF at 50 LP/MM and the Leica ‘only 60% MTF at 40 LP/MM, but when you talk about the superior ergonomics of the Leica lens this issue is dismissed as being emotional or subjective or an opinion or a matter of taste or personal judgment. As if the equation of image quality with MTF values is not an opinion or a matter of taste or judgment!
It would be quite naïve to assume that Leica’s engineers and/or marketing planners are not aware of the position and ranking of their products. It is customary nowadays to have the products of the competition on the desk next to their own products.
The PLD for high end cameras shows a disproportional amount of sold products made by only two manufacturers. All others being located in the tail part of the curve. If you want to be in the peak of the curve, you have to offer products that are quantifiable and transparent the ‘best’, which is the same as most-sold or most-popular or most-admired.
When you are in the tail there is room for individual and distinctive product management.

Mr. Crawley concluded at the end of his report on the Leica M5 that Leica is offering a bottle of clean fresh water in a Coca Cola world. He showed respect and sympathy for a unique product and for the engineers who followed their drive to produce this product and who let themselves not be swayed by the issues of the day.
There is a strong analogy with silver-halide emulsions. The Kodak Tri-X film has more grain and less resolution than comparable products like the T-Max 400-2 and the Ilford Delta 400 Pro. Yet the Tri-X is a favorite among BW photographers, precisely because of its so-called shortcomings. The TX-400 has a list of characteristics that allow photographers to record images with a special flavor. It is an aesthetically important technology that somehow influences the way we see. Tri-X pictures have a realistic, almost steely look that departs from the glossy, slightly pearly perfection that the medium speed films of the day have. Its authenticity generates a feeling of sympathy for the film and its use. Very creative photographers can employ the characteristics of the emulsion to produce pictures with a different look.

The M-A, the M8.2, The M Monochrom and the X-Vario are also products that are unique and can become important tools in the hands of creative photographers. These cameras are consciously positioned in the tail with a limited range of features, but every feature is a component of a vision about photography and the cameras have a distinctive personality. As with every personality, no one is perfect and a personality is always a mix of strong and weak points. It makes no sense to continue to stress the weak points and forget about the strong points. Imagine that you are constantly confronting your best friend with his/her weak points instead of stimulating the strong points.

The mix of these two trends (exponential curves and the existence of the PLD) guarantees that the future will not be predictable as a linear extension of the present. I bet that the Leica people, responsible for road maps to the future, are thinking along these lines and are not busy with linear and incremental upgrades.
/article-content

Celluloid

2015-04-07T20:43:15+02:00

The Italian movie ‘Le Meraviglie’ is an important artistic document. The content and the message are a true comment on modern worries. The movie has been shot on celluloid or in Italian ‘pellicola’ and the maker of the film (Alice Rohrwachter) has chosen this medium with conviction. Her argument is that digital film making is faster and easier and more practical than working with pellicola, but not necessarily produces better results. This indeed echoes the current position of many Leica photographers who claim that digital makes photographing cheaper, easier, more practical and technically superior, but on the other hand that digital imagery has not changed or improved since the golden days of celluloid-photography. Alice Rohrwachter makes the observation that fast and practical are not synonymous with good. Many things are not good when done fast: a good example is lovemaking.
Since I own the Leica M-A I have not made any digital images. I work now almost exclusively with Tri-X, developed in a tanning developer, made by Moersch (Tanol). This developer produces an extended tonal scale and reduces the grain impression. The results on A4 prints are excellent and show all the characteristics of true Leica pictures. It are pictures with personality and clearly different from the smooth digital representation. I am not abandoning digital technology, for obvious reasons. I have to say that working with celluloid and following the technique of the photo detective (explained in my book Leica Practicum) is satisfactory and fits with the Leica tradition.
This technique is evidently different from the style of Winogrand or the decisive moment approach. There is much confusion about the true meaning of this decisive moment style. The interpretation most often observed in articles and discussions is the idea that the photographer has a mental format (a previsualized image) that he wants to capture in the real world on the streets. The moment that the real world configuration matches the mental image is very fleeting and exists only for a fraction of a second. The photographer has to snap this situation during this very short moment that it exists and the camera needs to respond instantly to the photographer’s pressure of the shutter release button. This is the background when there is a complaint that some camera has some shutter lag and therefore is not suitable for the decisive-moment-style. But the idea of strolling around and encountering a surprise moment tat has to be captured instantly is not the way Cartier-Bresson worked. The title of his book ‘Images a la Sauvette’ means ‘Images on the run’ and explains a style of photography. He has no preconceived idea, but wants to be in unity with the situation to reveal its significance. He is conscious of a situation developing to a certain state and in practice he even works consciously to steer the development in the direction he wants. This explains the observation that he dances around when he is taking pictures. This approach implies that the photographer is not taken by surprise, but is already dedicated to take pictures. He then has all the time in the world to make his camera ready for action. The possible time lag can be countered by activating the camera. To be really honest, I do think that the quickness of response of the photographer is the most important part of the time lag.
The digital photographer can shoot at will to capture the moment, but the celluloid photographer has to be more attentive to what is happening and to be more conscious of when the moment is there. Indeed it is known that CB was one bundle of nerves when he was photographing, because missing the moment was aways a possibility. But missing the moment is more about the mental or emotional component and less about the precise moment of pressing the shutter, however important this is as a technical issue.
This train of thinking does not neglect the fact that some cameras have a shorter time lag than others. The M-A has no time lag at all, technically speaking, but even the digital M has some time lag, perhaps less so than the X or X-Vario, but it can not be neglected and one has to give it some attention when taking theses pictures on the run.
/article-content

Augen auf!

2015-04-07T20:42:24+02:00

The current exhibition of iconic Leica pictures “Augen auf” (“Eyes open”) is in many respects a milestone. It shows in historic detail the rise of the Leica camera from a niche product for cognoscenti to the inevitable tool for the professional photographer, the camera that became a witness of the century and specifically of the turmoil of city life. It is also a showcase and may I add a testimony of the power of silver-halide Leica photography. And here we see the other side of the coin. Leica in the digital age has again become a niche product for the cognoscenti and a select group of professionals. The exhibition shows that the role of the Leica has been taken over or (more accurately) is on the verge of being taken over by the smartphone. Current Leica images, made with a digital Leica camera are often critically sharp, very confronting and often close-ups of socially marginalized people. The sympathetic and humanistically sensitive eye of the French documentary photographers is gone. Being ‘critically sharp’ is no longer a standard feature of Leica photographs. Nor is the camera unique in its compactness or unobtrusiveness or ease of use. These characteristics today apply also to the smartphone or the mirrorless compact. In a sense this is the ultimate proof that Barnack was right.
I am aware that many comments will focus on the quality of the lenses, the quality of the material and the immaculate finish of the product as being some of the main reasons to buy and/or use a Leica camera. We have to admit on the other hand that Facebook and Youtube and all other media are great in communication and even greater in democratization of the photograph. If pixel-peepers would have existed in the heydays of the Leica photography (1930 to 1980) hardly any picture would have been passed the test: they are too grainy and show much less detail than could be observed at 200% at a typical computer screen. It is really a pity that the evaluation of photographs and the performance characteristics of lens/camera systems has been usurped by a small band of short-sighted individuals and that the masses follow their lead. I am and always will be an advocate for the technical qualities of a picture, but define these qualities as tonality, crispness of fine detail in the midtones, separation of highlight and shadow detail and depth preservation. These are the characteristics that give a picture its impact, perspective and allow for an accurate rendition of a slice of reality. And these are the characteristics that were and are cherished by Leica optical designers and camera engineers.
Leica for a very long time has been sitting at Olympic heights with the implementation and improvement of these characteristics, but nowadays many others have adopted the same view and Leica is no longer alone on the top of this Olympic mountain.
Leica can with good justification claim that their lenses are still best of class when the size is included in the equation, a fact that is hardly appreciated by many reviewers.
We have to accept that in these days the Leica myth has more nostalgia than future. The exhibition is a proof that the future is not a continuation of the past and even Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall.
/article-content

15 year cycle in industry

2015-02-25T17:40:24+01:00

When you review the development of the camera technology since 1960, one can discern a 15 year cycle. The period of the full mechanical precision engineered camera started around 1950 and ended in 1966 when Konica announced the Auto Reflex. The trend to automation culminated in the Canon A-1 in 1978 and found its peak with the Canon EOS 1 in 1989. The autofocus period started with the Minolta 7000 in 1985 and ended around 2000 with the announcement of the Kodak DCS series in 2002 and the Canon EOS D2000 in 1998.
Around 1985 there was much discussion in the industry about the technological platform reached by the then current engineering and innovation. Cameras were developed to the end of the lifecycle and no more inventions or innovations could improve the state of the art. At that moment the introduction of autofocus saved the industry and again a platform was reached around 2000 when the industry embraced the digital technology (supported by advanced software and electronic components.

Now in 2014/2015 the innovative cycle has ended. One sees a convergence of smart phone technology, conventional camera technology and social media platforms that define a new cycle. The current strategy of the main players is a simple one: add more features and deliver incremental improvements. There is hardly new thinking behind the approach to increase the sensor size or pixel amount and/or decrease the body footprint and to add more AF points or more exposure options. Even the switch from CCD to CMOS is not an element of new thinking.
One sees the current innovation stalemate in the diversion to cinematography and video options in still camera bodies. Video technology is a mature industry and the incorporation of this technique in a still camera body belongs to the marketing department, not the research department.

The recently announced Leica M-P, beautiful as it is, points to the same diagnosis. Leica seems to focus primarily on design and special materials to give the products a special status and appeal. The move from M to M-P is practical identical to the move from M8 to M8.2 or M9 to M9-P. And the special 100-year edition of the Monochrom is basically the standard Monochrom with stainless steel body parts. The special edition Leica M-A is the standard MP without the electronics of the current MP. (Do not confuse the MP with the M-P!).

If there is new thinking behind these products (or perhaps one may call it 'old thinking') is the trend to simplification, enhanced by the addition of elements of 'Manufaktur' and luxury. Again this is simply the revival of the classic Leica Luxus models.
So the next cycle of the camera industry may be defined by two trends: a return to classical values(Leica M style) and/or a shift to smartphone/movie (YouTube) amalgamation. (Leica T style??)
It seems that Leica is betting on both horses, while Nikon and Canon are still imprisoned in the gadget paradigm and are deliberating between mirrorless cameras and dSLR evolution.

Breitner and the snapshot

2015-02-25T17:39:23+01:00

Yesterday I visited the town of Dordrecht to pick up a box of Adox films (CHS 100 II). This film has a classical emulsion on a most modern back layer with two anti-halation layers. Once the focus on fine grain was the holy grain in BW photography, but now the focus is on edge detail and outlines. That some grain may be visible, adds to the flavor of the print. There is still a technical and emotional difference between a black area made from silver halide and one composed of printer inks ad a white area that is simply bright paper (inkjet print) and a white that is made from the reflection of a silver halide layer.

The second reason to visit Dordrecht was the (small) exhibition in the Dordrecht Museum of pictures made by Breitner around 1900 with his Kodak box camera. Breitner was a Dutch painter, but also a passionate street photographer and, noblesse oblige, produced pictures of nude models as inspiration for his paintings. I am by the way always amused by the use of the term ‘nude pictures’, now popular again because of the stolen selfies of more or less famous individuals. A picture cannot be nude, as a person can. We have pictures of nude persons.

Anyway: Breitner was a master of street photography, long before the genre became the focus of attention of Leica photographers. His pictures are outstandingly good examples of real black-and-white prints, when a master printer is in the darkroom. Due to technical limitations of the Kodak box and used film, some pictures are blurred an/or a bit under exposed, but they do show exactly what the painter saw. In my book “Leica Practicum” there is an extended discussion about the differences between seeing with the eye and seeing with the camera, but in Breitner’s case the difference is small. His pictures are true snapshots, in my view the best genre for photography and fully neglected by current photographers. The so-called modern street photography, as exemplified by current artists who stage the scene, is far removed from the original snapshot and the selfie is a totally different genre. It is not a coincidence that snapshots were the preferred domain of painters, because the snapshot shows you what the eye missed when looking at a scene. It is part of the unconscious reality, that only photography can capture in a scientific (unbiased) way.

Landmark

2015-02-22T19:56:43+01:00

Sympathy

2015-02-22T19:54:06+01:00