Your expression "getting out of the way” requires some defining. I suspect that what's being referred to in this and the first thread is something that's NOT being lost, as opposed to something that the camera adds. "Getting out of the way" would therefore be a reference to not losing whatever the X factor (or factors) happens to be.

From what I've read in the above link, micro contrast is something that will be there until it's lost, which is why lenses with a low element count give better micro contrast. I suspect that speculation about what's not being lost could be fruitful.

In a recent thread (HERE) we were discussing the possibility that flagship cameras produce images that have a special, elusive quality to them. However, in that thread there wasn't much discussion about what that elusive "something" might be. Perhaps the followers of that thread were wary of suggesting specifics. That's understandable, given the elusive nature of what was being discussed. In this thread I'm willing to offer my own suggestions and I invite further discussion and specific suggestions.

Some of the possible ingredients of that special "something" might be:-

Clean blacks and shadows. By "clean" I mean smooth and noise-free. Noise is present throughout the whole range of brightness but it's more noticeable in the darks. Noise is added by the camera and it doesn't have anything to do with the reality that was captured, so its presence is a reminder of the un-reality of the photo.

Robust highlights. By "robust" I don't just mean bright, I mean vivid in the sense of being contrasty and having strong colours. A lack of contrast affects all levels of brightness but the wishy-washy look that it causes is more noticeable in the brights. The same can be said for a lack of colour strength. A wishy-washy look may in some cases be desired, but when it's not specifically wanted it's a negative as far as image quality is concerned, and it's another reminder of the un-reality of the photo. Another factor may be that since the bright areas of a photo tend to draw the eye, weak colours or a lack of contrast will be more noticeable in those areas.

Sharpness where it's needed. Most photos don't need to be pin sharp from front to back but the simple fact is that a lack of sharpness where it's expected is a negative as far as image quality is concerned. Sharpness is another factor that draws the eye, so if there's a specific subject in a shot it's important for that subject to be sufficiently sharp. Usually that means making the subject the sharpest part of the photo. That will usually be true even in cases where the intention is for the shot to have an overall softness. If maximum sharpness is to be found somewhere other than on the main subject it will be a negative as far as drawing the viewer's eye is concerned, and in most cases it will make it harder to discern the photographer's intent.

Contrast, saturation, sharpness and noise can all be worked on in post processing. However, the simple fact is that in most cases it would have been better if the contrast, saturation, sharpness and smoothness had not been lost in the first place. There's always a limit to how convincing repair jobs can be, even if you have expert level PP skills.

So there you have it . IMO the ideal camera/lens combo is one that gives good contrast and saturation (particularly in the brights), doesn't introduce noise (particularly in the darks) and provides a sufficient level of sharpness.

Some might also want to include colour accuracy. However, I would say that the eye is fairly tolerant of errant colours and unwanted colour casts so in general terms it's not a critical factor unless the colour errors are extreme. For that reason I would say that while colour accuracy is often an important factor for professional photographers, it's not part of that special "something" that flagship cameras have, especially since colour accuracy is not exclusive to flagship cameras. (To that I could add that if anybody wants to discuss colour science, perhaps they should start their own thread).

Probably too early in the morning for me to get immersed in such technical threads (this one and the one it eludes to), but I read the article cmc linked us to and I have a question. In the "How to see it" section of the article it seems to imply that if one takes a photo --- converts it to a B&W image --- then converts it back to color, the resulting image "will showcase a large variety of tones of each color."

First, if one does this, does it mean that the resulting color image will show a marked improvement over the original?

Second, if that is the case, since I have zero experience changing my images to B&W, how specifically would I make these 2 conversions? If there a "software of choice" that does this best?

Probably too early in the morning for me to get immersed in such technical threads (this one and the one it eludes to), but I read the article cmc linked us to and I have a question. In the "How to see it" section of the article it seems to imply that if one takes a photo --- converts it to a B&W image --- then converts it back to color, the resulting image "will showcase a large variety of tones of each color."

First, if one does this, does it mean that the resulting color image will show a marked improvement over the original?

Second, if that is the case, since I have zero experience changing my images to B&W, how specifically would I make these 2 conversions? If there a "software of choice" that does this best?

Right. Only “as discussed so far”.

Thus far, your opening post is the dominant body of thought. I take no exception to any part of it, and acoarst you posted it to attract more input beyond your own. (So let’s do that !)

I find your parts 1 and 2 (of 3) could combine under “dynamic range”. Part 3 is about the quality of the image while it’s still strictly optical, before the sensor does what sensors do (not ignoring all the electronics beyond the sensor).

So, it seems we hafta form a really good image and give it a great reception (digitize it optimally). With anything less, the special something cannot happen. Yet the conditions that allow the special something only *allow* it. They don’t creat it, don’t guarantee that it will be evident in every image.

It seems to me that there are many intangibles involved. And I do NOT mean the variables of camera use or user’s technical know-how. Optimal camera handling and user technical skill are already assumed. I mean situational intangibles, not controllable variables.

I strongly suspect that the special something derives from a nontechnical user input or influence. The finest sports gear will not make a duffer into a great athlete. But such gear has a great enabling role. It “gets out of the way” of those athletes who bring a special something to their sport.

Many observers associate the classic M-Leicas with “The Special Something”. Yet they use the same film as any other box, and the lenses on them are not always outstanding. But the classic Leica is really great at “getting out of the way”. Acoarst that same Leica is totally “in the way”, a real major obstacle to success, in the hands of the wrong user.

In a recent thread (HERE) we were discussing the possibility that flagship cameras produce images that have a special, elusive quality to them. However, in that thread there wasn't much discussion about what that elusive "something" might be. Perhaps the followers of that thread were wary of suggesting specifics. That's understandable, given the elusive nature of what was being discussed. In this thread I'm willing to offer my own suggestions and I invite further discussion and specific suggestions.

Some of the possible ingredients of that special "something" might be:-

Clean blacks and shadows. By "clean" I mean smooth and noise-free. Noise is present throughout the whole range of brightness but it's more noticeable in the darks. Noise is added by the camera and it doesn't have anything to do with the reality that was captured, so its presence is a reminder of the un-reality of the photo.

Robust highlights. By "robust" I don't just mean bright, I mean vivid in the sense of being contrasty and having strong colours. A lack of contrast affects all levels of brightness but the wishy-washy look that it causes is more noticeable in the brights. The same can be said for a lack of colour strength. A wishy-washy look may in some cases be desired, but when it's not specifically wanted it's a negative as far as image quality is concerned, and it's another reminder of the un-reality of the photo. Another factor may be that since the bright areas of a photo tend to draw the eye, weak colours or a lack of contrast will be more noticeable in those areas.

Sharpness where it's needed. Most photos don't need to be pin sharp from front to back but the simple fact is that a lack of sharpness where it's expected is a negative as far as image quality is concerned. Sharpness is another factor that draws the eye, so if there's a specific subject in a shot it's important for that subject to be sufficiently sharp. Usually that means making the subject the sharpest part of the photo. That will usually be true even in cases where the intention is for the shot to have an overall softness. If maximum sharpness is to be found somewhere other than on the main subject it will be a negative as far as drawing the viewer's eye is concerned, and in most cases it will make it harder to discern the photographer's intent.

Contrast, saturation, sharpness and noise can all be worked on in post processing. However, the simple fact is that in most cases it would have been better if the contrast, saturation, sharpness and smoothness had not been lost in the first place. There's always a limit to how convincing repair jobs can be, even if you have expert level PP skills.

So there you have it . IMO the ideal camera/lens combo is one that gives good contrast and saturation (particularly in the brights), doesn't introduce noise (particularly in the darks) and provides a sufficient level of sharpness.

Some might also want to include colour accuracy. However, I would say that the eye is fairly tolerant of errant colours and unwanted colour casts so in general terms it's not a critical factor unless the colour errors are extreme. For that reason I would say that while colour accuracy is often an important factor for professional photographers, it's not part of that special "something" that flagship cameras have, especially since colour accuracy is not exclusive to flagship cameras. (To that I could add that if anybody wants to discuss colour science, perhaps they should start their own thread).