blackest Loc: Ireland

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860536-REG/Leica_10760_M_Monochrom_Black_and.html

Looks nice but its $7995

Does come with lightroom and silverfx as part of the bundle.

You actually need to use coloured filters with this.

on the other hand my camera (and yours probably) allows me to choose black&white jpegs and offers a number of coloured filters including IR simulation. This I find useful when set up for IR or black and white photography.

"Continuing to embody the classic themes of traditional black and white photography, the iconic design of Leica M-cameras is carried forward by the Leica M Monochrom. With a matte-black finish on the chromed top deck, it allows the camera to be an unobtrusive tool--so you can capture candid moments discreetly. Even the red Leica logo is missing, and only an engraved script on the accessory shoe reveals the product name at all. The camera features a particularly soft leather trim that provides an ideal grip, perfectly complementing the camera's understated character. The camera package also includes a genuine leather carrying strap in premium full-grain cowhide. "

I guess even Leica recognise the potential hazards of street photography with an $8,000 camera.

Jcmarino

Neat, your ACR is what I consider #3, almost the same as I do in Lightroom and your Nick, my #4.

#3 is kinda what I need to do and #4 is anything I want to do. The photo does not need it. I do it to settle my own creative thirst.

Good job on those.

bobzeller Loc: San Angelo, Texas

The camera was just the first tool he used to make his creations.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

In my view manipulation turns any photo into an image. Whether using film or digital... Photo,is what is captured by the camera. Manipulate that and you are creating an image.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yes. I'm also wondering that.
Makes him look like an irrational hypocrite who has made it personal rather than objective.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Or you are just being trolled?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

It is not about whether you say you like mine or his.
It isn't a contest and I don't care which you prefer.
You challenged my ability and judgement level as to whether I was allowed to have an opinion on whether his images are processed or not.
Like Dman said, it is obvious to those who know what they are looking at, the processing that has gone into his shots.
From your responses it is obvious that you either don't know what you are looking at, or your "need" to prove me wrong won't let you voice a rational opinion.
The processing that he has done is glaringly obvious to anyone with any modicum of proficiency with editing.
Like I said, if you cannot see the processing that has gone into his images, then you really shouldn't be having an opinion on the matter. You do not know what you are talking about.
Now, did you have any images on UHH or anywhere so that we can check your credentials?

Picdude Loc: Ohio

As I've said many times before, I take pictures so I have something to use my Post Processing software on. Some days I want it to look like reality, some days like pure science fiction. Sometimes I do a version of each with the same photo. Art (be it in the eyes of the masses or the individual) knows no limits or bounds. The main reason the controls have so much lee-way built into them is, IMO, because the programmers realize the amount of change required for each image is determined only by the software user. That then leads me to believe there is really no right or wrong way to use the software, nor is there a true "Intended Use" for the package. So tweak that image as hard or a little as you want, and if it looks good to you (or whoever you are selling the image to) then you have performed just the right amount of adjustment. Have Fun!!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yep, I'll go along with that.
But I bet you don't advertise them as "virtually SOOC".

watchwinder Loc: Churubusco, Indiana

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Yes the saturation was increased but I also notice that you lost detail (clipping) in the shadows. Over all, you added greater depth to the image but I think you could have preserved more detail with a different technique.

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

Here's a pic I took of some orchids. I did plenty of PP so you'd enjoy them. LOL

Picdude Loc: Ohio

:D :D :D - You're exactly right. Of course, on the other hand, I usually don't advertise them much at all.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I believe along with better composition, different camera settings (wider aperture) and good post processing technique would have rendered a much better image.

Please this is not meant to be personal but a learning moment. In the first picture, the background is a distraction, you could have eliminated the problem with a wider aperture and cropping. You could have shot close up with 90% of the frame the flower. Instead the background takes up most of the frame and focus is lost.

As for the second flower, the angle from the top creates a flat image that no amount of post processing could resolve. Again, a wider aperture, a closer shot, that is offset and a different perspective would have rendered a better image.

While post processing is important, composition and light must be part of every shot.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I have looked at the images on line and there is a significant amount of post processing including exaggerated detail from sharpening techniques. I see image toning from single image HDR techniques. I have no idea what fake means. The images are not fake but enhanced. There is nothing wrong with that . He has some images with have been obviously corrected for high dynamic range. This something no one can get right in the camera with out the assistance of merging multiple exposures or other advanced post processing. No one gets in all done in camera. It is not possible nor is it intended. RAW files are always flat and require, absolutely require post processing.