Recording Is Not Photography - Thoughts On The Rumored Leica M11

Well, the rumor mill has reached its apex with the upcoming Leica M11 to be announced sometime tomorrow. From what the grapevine is asserting, the Leica M11 is going to be a 60 megapixel monster with a monstrously ugly external viewfinder. Beyond that, I really cannot find any new function or feature worth mentioning. There is nothing exciting to report about the M11, other than it being new. That said, I might get one because I would like a better camera than my iPhone 12 to record life’s events. Film is much too precious for casual recording.

For me, the Leica M11 would be a wonderful upgrade from my iPhone 12. True, it would be a pain to take out of my bag for whenever the opportunity arises. But, think of just how useful it can be. I can take high quality close up photos of my omakase delight with an APO 35 - if I still partook in tasty indulgences from the sea. On top of that, I can also digitally zoom up to 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, or more for that 3, 2, or 1 megapixel image - give or take. In that way, the Leica M11 would be a next level upgrade to my iPhone 12 for snapping visual records.

But, why would I reduce the Leica M11 to a recording device? After all, the Leica M11 is made for photography. It descends from that very proud tradition of M-mount rangefinders favored by the great masters. Still, when I think about that 60 megapixel sensor, I really wonder what’s the point of so much resolution in a screen based world where 6 megapixels is more than enough. The only conclusion that I can logically put forward is that the extra oomph in resolution is intended specifically for after the fact digital cropping in post (I mean zooming).

Admittedly, I have a real problem with that kind of exuberance. Mind you, it’s not as if I am one of those purists who denounces digital tinkerers more crop-happy in post. I mean, I’ve been known to fine tune the odd photo with a little after the fact cropping. That said, the fine tuning I carry out is a far far cry from the Hail Mary digital zooming typical of normal lenses impersonating telephoto lenses. With such overreaching ambitions, it really makes one question the intent of high resolution sensors made for digital cropping (I mean, digital zooming).

All that megapixels for digital cropping must have a purpose. It is not as if we are all pining after the Leica M11 because we want to print billboard sized photographs. That outsized 60 megapixels means something more. But, what? As a cynic, one could say that the folks at Wetzlar have nothing left but megapixels to pull out from their bag of tricks. Clearly, that is the case (with in-body electronic viewfinders off the table). That said, the fact that more resolution is their go-to position is a problem we must discuss, given the malignant consequences.

It has to do with framing, which then has everything to do with how we perceive the practice of taking a photo with a camera. You see, back in the days of film to just a few years ago when 20 megapixels was the norm, the way we framed an image was carried out with much more care, owing to the limitations of the media. In other words, there was less margin of error in framing because every grain or pixel in-frame did count in preserving image quality. This means the act of cropping erodes image quality, given that it upscales each grain or pixel.

But with 60 megapixels under the lens mount, what’s the point of following that same practice? If one requires only 20 megapixels for a perceptibly high quality image not plagued by the bane of upscaling, one only needs to capture the photo opportunity on less than half the frame. For that reason, what is even the point of framing a photo opportunity optimally? An oversight in framing can be reworked after the fact in post. As such, the act of framing has in fact been rendered unnecessary, seeing that it can easily be optimized in post by cropping.

Shoot the camera towards the direction of your subject. You don’t need to be at the optimal shooting distance at all. You can even be a whole football field away from your subject. With 60 megapixels at your disposal, you can crop the image in post to make it look as if you intentionally photographed your subject much closer up. It does not matter that more than half the actual frame ended up on the cutting room floor after the crop. All that matters is that your final extreme crop can be passed off convincingly as an intentionally framed photograph.

In my opinion, that’s just plain wrong. Maybe, I’m just old fashioned. A photo should in good faith demonstrate a photographer’s intent in framing. Without such unspoken standards, what’s there to stop anyone with a high resolution camera from documenting whole streetscapes indiscriminately from afar, only to crop out sections of it to fabricate photos which feign skill in photographing strangers up close and personal. Once we go down that slippery slope, we’re no longer practicing photography anymore. Rather, we’re just recording visual data.

Contrary to mainstream thinking, recording visual data is not photography. Case in point, when I take a record of my utility bill on my iPhone, I’m not practicing photography. But, what if I were to take a record of that same utility bill on a Leica M11? Would that count as photography? Surely, taking a record with a descendant of that very proud tradition of M-mount rangefinders favored by the great masters would count as photography! And if I were to take high resolution records of whole streetscapes and then crop it exuberantly, would that count?

Intuitively, we all know that visual recording along with digital cropping (I mean zooming) is not photography. I mean, if it crops like a duck. Even so, let’s take this discussion one step further. To fully address it properly, one must first remember what photography is. According to the contributors on Wikipedia, photography is the art, application, and practice of creating a durable image by recording light. By that definition, one must wonder if exuberant digital cropping (I mean zooming) of high resolution visual records actually count as photography.

Let us break down this definition. To satisfy the conditions for photography, art, application, and practice must be involved in the image taking. What does that mean? With regards to application and practice, I believe that is self explanatory. Application refers to the act of capturing the image. It’s when we click the shutter to record the photo opportunity on a camera or recording device. Practice refers to the process of capturing the image. It’s when we decide on the aperture setting, shutter speed, and focus, when recording the photo opportunity.

Ilford Delta 400 @ 50mm Focal Length. Image has been edited to remove photobomber and signage. Nothing exuberant. Just some fine tuning.

But, what about art? What does that mean? According to the contributors on Wikipedia, art is a human activity that involves imaginative or creative talent that’s expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas. In short, what this means is that art requires thought in order to convert a potential photo opportunity into an optimally captured photo. Implicitly, that requires intent in framing, which explicitly means that the sort of exuberant cropping that leaves much of the frame on the cutting room floor isn’t photography.

In connecting the dots, it’s more than clear that visual recording isn’t photography. Based solely on Wikipedia, visual recording only satisfies the first two conditions of what photography is - being application and practice. However, it doesn’t involve art, since visual recording requires no imaginative and creative talent. After all, it is not as if you need any talent to record whole streetscapes at very high resolution. Thus, visual recording is not photography. And by extension, digital cropping (I mean zooming) on high resolution sensors definitely isn't.

If visual recording is not photography, then what is it? It is the act of capturing visual data for the sole purpose of manipulating that data off-camera in post processing. Why would anyone want to do that? So that they can undergo the process of image fabrication. Knowing that, you can see where the problem lies for a camera like the Leica M11 - being a descendant of that very proud tradition of M-mount rangefinders favored by the great masters. It means that 60 megapixel sensor is really intended for image fabrication and not for photography!

Mind you, the fact that the Leica M11 is actually the perfect recording device is why I’m thinking of getting one. Paired with the APO 35, it really is the all-in-one camera to take on holidays - that is if I ever have the resilience to set foot outside of Hong Kong again (given the ridiculously punitive quarantine horror awaiting me upon my return). Other than any make-believe trip abroad, the Leica M11 paired with the APO 35 is perfect for recording anything else encountered during the course of a day, in high quality - up close or a whole football field away.

That said, does this mean I have forsaken film? Silly rabbit, of course not. Like I already stated, the Leica M11 is only slated to replace my iPhone 12 for taking visual records. I still intend to use film to practice photography - that is to frame the photo opportunity with intent and preserve as much of the image capture as possible. And as for using film to take visual records, that is no longer feasible since the film I prefer is impossible to find and too precious to waste on anything but photography. So, falling back on the Leica M11 just makes more sense.

Of course if the Leica M11 offers the option of saving different RAW image sizes - like small 18 megapixel DNG files - I might consider using it for photography. That said, my heart still beats for grains over pixels. It is not as if my expression of photography on this blog ever requires 18 megapixels for presentable images - let alone 60 megapixels - since every image I take is optimized in framing and intended for onscreen viewing. Hence, I never need to fall back on exuberant digital cropping (I mean zooming) and subsequent image fabrication.

Special thanks to Ania for accompanying me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Jan 12 Recording Is Not Photography - Thoughts On The Rumored Leica M11

Disclaimer

Jan 12 Recording Is Not Photography - Thoughts On The Rumored Leica M11

Mar 7 Photography as an Expression of Personal Freedom

Dec 8 Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH - First Impressions