Leica M Monochrom: best pics

I'm seeing a heck of a lot of blown highlights in these MM shots, when the conditions are anything other than flat overcast. In flat light, the results look superb and have masses of potential for tweaking, but I am not so sure this is a camera for contrasty light. Could be processing issues, but if so, a lot of people are struggling. I see most of the tonal range looking OK, bu the white are just gone, or have no texture/separation.
 
Which shots are you referring to? Can you point to an example?

I was looking at someone's shots recently, and the shadows looked totally blocked. Checked the shots out on another computer, and they had plenty of detail.

As far as the Noctilux goes, I am getting used to it, and it's been the primary lens on the Monochrom for a while. I still need to put myself into situations in which the lens will excel.
 
Turtle said:
I'm seeing a heck of a lot of blown highlights in these MM shots, when the conditions are anything other than flat overcast. In flat light, the results look superb and have masses of potential for tweaking, but I am not so sure this is a camera for contrasty light. Could be processing issues, but if so, a lot of people are struggling...
Click to expand...
Not true, in my view. I find this camera has huge dynamic range, which can be optimized by exposing for the highloghts and lifting the shadows. This is discussed in the thread on my review of the M-Monochrom.



—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)
 
As a quick follow-up, there's an article in the current LFI magazine which discusses this very subject. The article suggests that "highlights were captured by the sensor, and only appear clipped in the JPEG; consequently, they can still be salvaged". The article goes on to say that "given its dynamic range, the Monochrom is no more prone to clipped highlights than the M9, but it may appear that way for the someone familiar with the latter." If you read the full article (on pages 56-60), you'll get a better idea of the latitude of this sensor.

I think you are right, however, that there is definitely a learning curve that happens with this camera in terms of exposure (at least I had to re-learn some things!), but personally I haven't noticed any unrecoverable details in highlights.
 
This is a good example of what I am talking about. Bright sweater, which is lacking texture and separation in the higher values. Quite a few of the landscaped by Dave Martinez also look quite hot in the highlights, where the rolloff is very quick.

Maybe the MM is no worse than the M9 (if you underexpose and then open up shadows) but with the same exposure technique, one loses the colour channels and a certain rescue potential. If you underexpose, I guess you are losing useable ISO speed.

Compared to D800 images, the Nikon would appear to have much more flexibility in the files when it comes to dynamic range and these MM files are IMHO even more 'digital' looking as a result.

L1004691low_zpsd36e9051.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Some here look a bit wishy washy in the higher values... kinda anaemic and lacking in substance, but close to being decent. If they were darkroom prints, you would revisit contrast and exposure, or possibly flash the print a little to give more substance to the textured higher values.

airfrogusmc said:
L1003752_zpsa1e848bf.jpg


L1003657_zps2dc12c2a.jpg


L1003620_zps030ef478.jpg


L1003701_zps3f8a3c0b.jpg


L1003733_zps17c1e1f3.jpg


L1003635_zps95635891.jpg


L1003594_zpsb3f028ed.jpg
Click to expand...
 
In the first shot with the young woman and the sweater, I can see texture in the main body of the sweater and the sleeves. It's a bit hotter in the shoulders, but not (at least to me) objectionably so. Many of the other shots cited look like they were done in flat light, such as the third shot in your second post (looks like one of those white sky days), though I do see the scarf on the left side as being a bit blown out). The fourth, six and seventh in the second post also look like flat light. The only other one that I can see on my screen that has 'hot' highlights is the 5th shot in your second post in the white sweater that the young woman is trying on (shadows also look a bit blocked). I'm sure there's always room for improvement for all of our shots though....or maybe just mine!

I suppose I could personally do a comparison between the Monochrom and a D800 (as I have one), so we could really see a side-by-side comparison....if that's of interest!
 
Turtle said:
This is a good example of what I am talking about. Bright sweater, which is lacking texture and separation in the higher values. Quite a few of the landscaped by Dave Martinez also look quite hot in the highlights, where the rolloff is very quick.

Maybe the MM is no worse than the M9 (if you underexpose and then open up shadows) but with the same exposure technique, one loses the colour channels and a certain rescue potential. If you underexpose, I guess you are losing useable ISO speed.

Compared to D800 images, the Nikon would appear to have much more flexibility in the files when it comes to dynamic range and these MM files are IMHO even more 'digital' looking as a result.

L1004691low_zpsd36e9051.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Its got detail on my screen and the print. No funky glowy blocked highlights just white and white detail zone VIII with some specular highlights of the shoulder of the film curve in the B/G on the railing. Just like shooting transparency film. And the low noise gives you lotsa room in the toe but again do not expose to the right but shoot like you would Kodachrome about 1/3 under becasue the room in the shadows is just wonderful.
 
I also wanted to say I am an old zone system guy and have done the tests and shot portfolios and for landscapes its a great tool and the basics are good for all photography but for street work its about the moment not so much about all the tech stuff that the zone system is about. In all of the example you posted the girl trying on the sweeter a couple of the rows of patters on the top of her shoulder and the arm and only the very hottest are a little blocked but that doesn't bother me. Its not nasty looking on a print. If it were a shot abut the sweeter then it would be an issue but to me its about the moment and in my opinion it doesn't distract from that.

What I find amazing is an 18 mp camera can be compared sharpness wise to a 36 mp camera.
 
Just looked at this very shot on my wife's laptop, which is calibrated differently than my larger iMac, and yes the sweater looks blown out. On my 27" iMac, the shot looks totally different -- less contrasty, definite detail in the sweater. So screen calibration could factor in here!

In reference to the D800, I am amazed that you can get a new 36mp camera for under $3k, but that's a whole other conversation!
 
Vince Lupo said:
Just looked at this very shot on my wife's laptop, which is calibrated differently than my larger iMac, and yes the sweater looks blown out. On my 27" iMac, the shot looks totally different -- less contrasty, definite detail in the sweater. So screen calibration could factor in here!
Click to expand...

I would say because it looks good on my mac too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom