I think you would be fascinated by this discussion…
Leica M11
A lot of thought on the desired design, and what seems to be the final product, not yet released.
Which are your favorite one or two images?
this or
and
and this is actualy a one file image
These three because it’s a burst of three and still three different colors amazing:
(sorry too much for just two… 
)
( the video is still processing i nthe cloud to be ready to see. few minuts i hope)
To my eyes, this looks the most like a “finished” image. I wish it had less space at the top, and more at the bottom, but I like it.
Two suggestions, from me, which means it’s just my opinion, nothing in any way “official”, first would be to make your signature a small size compared the image, as all of you suggested to me some time back, and the second, which I like but it might be meaningless, is to make your signature one color from out of the colors in the image, so they match. Perhaps red?
I like the “ghosty” stuff at the left (smoke?), and wonder if there is more color to be found in the mostly white areas at the bottom? If there actually a “real” background available, I’m wondering if that would add to, or detract from, the image.
Oh, and maybe make the copyright image smaller, so your name is more prominent. Maybe your compter name, rather than just “Peter” ???
i just bashed the copyright in and yes i think your right a tad smaller can be better. it’s characters so i can’t make the “c” smaller.
About the first image you picked i see the flaws of merging, artifacts, so i think that one is “trashed” or maybe i can “repair” it.
these are the ooc jpegs.
foto.zip (14,8 MB)
good point.
after my first good look at the results i think i pay some attention about the “copyright stamp” and re export them.
( i often throw away a hole folder of firsts drafts (run through deepprime so i can see the effect’s in full.)
(these are all “first drafts”)
i think if someone has a idea or a question of a image type i upload that file for free editing.
i am not afraid someone steels it because i am not that good that it will be used commercialy! But i don’t want to spam this thread full with 50 shots 
like this?
i am thinking of playing with the smokes depths let more in and local edit more “housestructure” out by hand.
new day tomorrow.
thanks for the suggestions.
Have a look at this…it might serve for fireworks too:
https://markus-enzweiler.de/software/starstax/
i will thanks, later.
my eye’s are tiered.
and i need to think about if i can bennefit from again an other application to learn.
i have also combineZP… (i try that tomorrow or so.)
i need to see if i can lose this otherwise no combining.
I suspect that one difference in how you and I “see” photography is what we try to do with our photography. For the photos I’ve been posting here, many of which could be called “landscape photos”, I accept that the larger DSLR and now Mirrorless cameras have an advantage - all those technical capabilities put these cameras ahead of the Leica cameras, so I’m often trying just “to keep up”.
But that’s not the kind of photography the Leica cameras were designed for. As I see it, the original, and current purpose for them, is “people photos”, and “photos of life”. For those tasks the much larger and heavier and more obvious and louder cameras are at a disadvantage, where the small, light, quiet and simpler Leica cameras blend right in.
This is a video I just watched, on how to get the most out of a rangefinder camera, but just watching this shows a very different direction in photography than the things we’re even discussing in this forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzT1-v8LD6c
With the photography we’re discussing here, we want a tripod, and we want perfect exposure, and perfect focus, and we use PL5 to optimize everything. But with Leica cameras, both film and digital, they were used mostly hand-held by reporters, street photographers, and so on.
(…and I guess I ought to add that for me, the camera is a small part of my photography, it’s the photographer that creates great results, and this same photographer would likely get excellent results regardless of which camera he or she was to use. I am 99% sure that the weakest link in my own photography is me, and that I constantly need to be learning new things just to stand in place.)
In fact, apart from cleaning the viewfinder and rangefinder instead of cleaning the viewfinder and lens on a DSLR, the other four points he brings out are common to using all cameras. Unfortunately, most photographers never get to know their cameras well enough to be able set them up without using the viewfinder so Tip #3 goes straight out of the window. Tip #4 really isn’t that relevant when you have a half decent zoom lens, where you can “get close” without having to put the camera in the subject’s face, or even make the subject aware you are shooting them. I could never take such intimate portraits as this…
… were it not for using a 135mm lens from far enough away that I was not standing on the stage next to him.
Certainly for fireworks, one needs a tripod and a Leica is never going to be any good due to its limited capabilities. I still think there is a lot of kidology with the Leica brand and people somehow get to believe that, for street photography, there is really nothing to beat it. Personally, I can’t justify a separate camera just to shoot one particular style of photo… unless it’s an LF camera, when you are no longer fiddling around with all the limitations of a 36mm x 24mm frame size. What’s more, you can pick up a decent new LF camera for a lot less than a Leica
But, like you, I am the limiting factor in my photography. Unless I know what I am doing, no matter what brand of camera or how much I spend on it, my photos are only ever going to be, at best, average.
I had a meeting with a couple of our club photo members yesterday, trying to work out how to put across the basics of photography to new members, who have never done anything much more than taking snaps on a phone. It’s amazing how much acquired knowledge we, more experienced, photographers have accumulated over the years that we assume everybody should know. Then there’s the “simple” question - “what ISO should I use?” - the answer is “it depends…”. “What aperture should I use?” - once again the answer is “it depends…”. Explain to a total newbie, in their retirement years, why aperture numbers are so weird. The common response of most people nowadays is “well, why not just leave it all on automatic?” - Aaaaarrrrgghh!
I mostly agree.
I would go further - most people never get to know their cameras, period. Everything is set to (A)utomatic, like on their phones, which I think for most people are their only camera.
This I disagree with - with a long zoom lens, yes, you can get as close as you want, but you lose the “atmosphere” of what was going on around the subject, which is usually the whole point of taking “candid” photos. It’s not the same thing. If this fellow was playing in a band, if you got close, and used a wide lens, you would capture not just the person, but the surroundings, putting the viewer “into” the picture. To me, that’s “candid photography”, not standing far away and getting a close-up of only the person, like what you showed here. I know what you mean though - taking the above photo with a 135 is easier and less stressful compared to taking it with a 28. But this is where a small, quiet camera like the old rangefinder cameras excel - a big bulky DSLR attracts too much attention. An old Leica attracts no more attention than a mobile phone - in my opinion, and my own past experiences.
This I also disagree with. The Leica (or any RF camera) might not be AS good as a DSLR, but I’m sure I would get my photos anyway, but I’d have to crop later as I don’t have a 200mm lens that fits my rangefinder cameras. I don’t see my Leica as having “limited” capabilities - instead, I see it as having different capabilities. A tripod would be a necessity in any case if we’re taking long exposures.
Agreed, sort of, but I’m sure I can do just about anything with a Fuji as I can with a Leica - or any of the other rangefinder type cameras that one can buy used. The Fuji has features that leave the Leica in the dust when those features are needed.
I totally disagree with this, as you know and understand so many things that most of us, myself certainly included, struggle with. The most important part of any camera is located twelve inches behind the camera, and to me, you’ve got a huge start over any of us.
Your last paragraph is so true - I have failed to teach anyone about “photography” such that they could go off on their own and do it. Most of them don’t have enough time, and nobody seems to understand why they should even care, now that modern camera can do it better than they can - ISO, shutter speed, aperture - it’s a lost cause trying to teach most people, who I know will just put their camera on (A) and let it do their thinking. When I was growing up, until I understood that stuff, my images came out lousy. But back then, learning about how to use a camera was essential, unless you had a “box camera” (like I started with).
Added later - this is the kind of photo I prefer:
Why not stick to the phone, where all you have to care for is composition?
I shot 645 format for 20 years, most of it with a waist level finder, which helps to see the picture rather than looking at something through a hole…
This person thought buying a Leica would solve all his problems. He was wrong. Interesting story to read, and to see how this fellow got things sorted in his life:
https://erickimphotography.com/blog/leica-street-photography-manual/
I had a head start on all this - I grew up using a 1936 Contax II 35mm rangefinder camera with 50mm lens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax_II
Back to your post - while you can deal with “composition”, the phone will edit and distort and improve your photo to look pretty - it’s beyond your control. Automatic phone camera apps do that. The only way around it is to install your own camera app on your phone, that doesn’t mess around with your photos as it seeks to make them “perfect”.
The problem, for me, with a wide angle lens from close up, is the distortions at the edges that come with it. At the concert in question, all I had to do to get the whole band in was to zoom out to 32mm…
… which is where you get to see the problem that I have with all the mike stands, foldback speakers, music stands, etc, which start to dominate instead of being able to focus on the musicians.
Unless the small old rangefinder camera is being held by a 6ft tall, slightly overweight woman moving around on stage, at which point, the camera is the least of the distractions 
Yes, but you don’t get to see all the rubbish I ditch in order to get from my head to the finished print. And what I do know has been learned by making mistakes over the past 56+ years since my dad showed me how to use a Box Brownie and develop and print from a negative. I owe a lot to my dad 
Absolutely! And this is what I’m attempting to do with our beginners.
It’s also great for candid photography because nobody thinks you are taking a picture when you are apparently inspecting your belly button
We can always change a “pleasing” phone shot with ease, getting a bad composition right is not that simple though. A different crop can do a thing or two, but not in every case.
it’s called a waist level finder, for some it is a belly level finder though 
This is a good example of how we differ, and what you consider as dominating the image instead of focusing on the musicianS.
My brain works differently, always has, always will. To me, if the lead musician was my subject, I would want to get very, very close, make sure he was the main part of my image, and all the other people, mike stands, speakers, ceiling lights, and so on were just “props” to get me the best possible photo of him, and all the other stuff, better yet if it’s not in focus, was just “props” leading into this picture of HIM. That’s what I do in India, reasonably frequently. Obviously this would be a horrible idea if my goal or request was to get a picture of THE BAND as you did. I’ve usually got a one-track mind, and anything else in the picture must be there to make my subject look better, and focus (or not) is one way to do this, with my lens wide open.
My Nikon is much better at focus than I am - press rear button, and focus is achieved, but in a photo like this, rangefinder works better for me.
There’s another difference between you and I. You have this rectangular box, and you fit everything beautifully into that box. I rarely see the box - I see the subject, and anything else in the image is either making my subject look better, or detracting from my image, so I used to keep moving until I got what I wanted. Nothing else in the photo mattered to me - it was all just “props” to enhance what I was trying to capture.
Easy for me to say, but to me, I get so wrapped up in the moment that I lose track of everything else. I don’t dare even think if I’m a distraction, but I try to avoid it, when possible. If it’s a choice of being a bigger distraction for a moment, and getting a better photo, I don’t have time to even consider that. On the other hand, I rarely got “on stage”. I was walking back and forth in front of the stage, much lower, which gave me an even better angle looking up at the subjects.
I used to be more agile - I’m not sure if I could even do these things today. Being 78 I am constantly aware of my balance, or lack of.
For my play photos, I assume my “job” was not to capture “the play”, but rather to capture highlights of the stars in the play.
Meanwhile, the people in charge of the production told me over and over again that they far preferred my small, black, soundless and fleshless camera to what everyone else used. I’ll never forget this.
As to distortions from a wide angle lens, I was oblivious to all this. Distortions were unimportant, as long as the subject of the photo looked good and the surroundings made the subject look even more important.
Yes, that’s a big plus for a waist level finder, but I never had one back then that I could use. My cameras were Leica M, and Nikon F or F2. I always meant to buy a waist level finder, but could never afford one.
Here’s what you are up against:
How smart phones modify our photos
Did you notice, that your answer / the video has nothing – really nothing – to do with composition @platypus was talking about?
Certainly. Completely separate issues.
I disagree with the first sentence, as I don’t think I can recover the original, as-shot, image - all I get to work with is the image the phone said it captured, but then modified.
To me, the “good composition” has to be achieved before and during anything/everything else. I don’t do it “right” - I tend to de-focus my eyes, and see “shapes” instead of “details”, and I try to take the photo when both everything I do want in the image is looking good, and everything else is NOT in the picture. I was taught that in Art School - squint my eyes, and pay attention to the shapes, and then colors, and lastly to the details. Very often I’ll take several photos until I get it right.
So, to answer your question, yes, I know they are different topics/subjects, but I suspect @Joanna has a much better way to do it, with precision, getting everything right, then taking the photo. If my camera isn’t on a tripod, I’m not all that good at doing this…
Do you mean something like this?
To my mind this is starting to get confusing. It is difficult to separate out the trumpet bell from the guitar behind, but I often don’t have the time or the space to “rearrange” everything to avoid situations like this.
I don’t see the “box”, because I know I can, if necessary, crop afterwards, so the primary aim is to ensure that the “box” is large enough to allow for that. What I do sometimes do is to rotate the camera to “fit” the subject…
… for a solo subject and…
… for the sax section. Think of it as following a lead sheet, where the set of photos describes the whole piece of music including the solo or group features. Jazz concerts especially suit this kind of narrative and, in order to appreciate the individual shots, they should be viewed as an “assembly”, rather than trying to get everything into every picture.
But then you still stumble across times when the lighting was unintentionally set up in a way typical of the famous Studio Harcourt style, which despite there being a group, simply invited me to take a couple of portraits in that style…
Which is essentially what I do at jazz concerts.
The D850 has a fairly quiet shutter and it also has a quiet mode; and I never use flash, preferring to shoot at around 10,000 ISO, which is no problem with DeepPRIME in post-processing with PL5.
Fortunately, most of the beginners in our club only use their phones for making calls and taking snaps of family and friends.
Hey, don’t you go putting that precision stuff on me 
Occasionally I might get it tight in the camera but, more likely, I tend to have to to frame to allow myself the possibility of cropping if necessary. I also tend to delete instantaneously if I can see it went wrong.