Best Monochrome Options 2025 - Leica? Converted Files? Converted Cameras?

mrtoml said:
YMMV 🙂 I use it all the time now. I am using the browser version of lightroom cloud. Are you using that or the app?
Click to expand...

I’ve used both. I find that essentially all conversions take the highlights too far back from the actual point where they become white to meet publication standards (I deliver ready to publish both in print and on the web jpgs with a prescribed overall contrast and a prescribed contrast within 4 density ranges) and I can’t easily recover them (my own ineptitude is evident here). It’s why I continue to use a monochrome camera. I’m shooting at high (sometimes very, occasionally extremely high) ISO under artificial lights that I can’t control. On desktop applications I can get things how I like if I can use a luminance only conversion without demosaicing, or with a Silver Efex pre-set that I built very carefully a long time ago. Other programs haven’t worked for me. Speed complicates everything; I need to deliver the photos before the show is finished. I’m not allowed to take a laptop into most venues, and I’d prefer not to shoot, leave the venue (always complicated, sometimes impossible) and work on the photos on a laptop in my car; a lot of the venues are in places where this isn’t safe.

preview_L1009838.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Freakscene said:
I’ve used both. I find that essentially all conversions take the highlights too far back from the actual point where they become white to meet publication standards (I deliver ready to publish both in print and on the web jpgs with a prescribed overall contrast and a prescribed contrast within 4 density ranges) and I can’t easily recover them (my own ineptitude is evident here). It’s why I continue to use a monochrome camera. I’m shooting at high (sometimes very, occasionally extremely high) ISO under artificial lights that I can’t control. On desktop applications I can get things how I like if I can use a luminance only conversion without demosaicing, or with a Silver Efex pre-set that I built very carefully a long time ago. Other programs haven’t worked for me. Speed complicates everything; I need to deliver the photos before the show is finished. I’m not allowed to take a laptop into most venues, and I’d prefer not to shoot, leave the venue (always complicated, sometimes impossible) and work on the photos on a laptop in my car; a lot of the venues are in places where this isn’t safe.

View attachment 4882525
Click to expand...
Can't you just put the highlights wherever you want 'em with curves?
 
brusby said:
Your highlights look correct in color but are darkening when converted to mono?
Click to expand...

No, they are lightening too much and losing detail. The highlights never look right straight out of the camera nomatter what camera I use because I have to expose down a lot in comparison to a normal exposure to stop any light areas from blowing out. On the M10M I’m typically exposing 1.7-2.7 stops under the meter, and on cameras with highlight weighted metering I typically expose a stop or so under.
 
Freakscene said:
No, they are lightening too much and losing detail. The highlights never look right straight out of the camera nomatter what camera I use because I have to expose down a lot in comparison to a normal exposure to stop any light areas from blowing out. On the M10M I’m typically exposing 1.7-2.7 stops under the meter, and on cameras with highlight weighted metering I typically expose a stop or so under.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like your highlights are always blown out -- both in color and b&w -- unless you underexpose as you've described. If that is correct, it sounds more like digital sensor limitations rather than the processing software.

I almost always underexpose with digital sensors. 'Treat them like slide film in the old days where we exposed for the highlights as opposed to negative film where we exposed for the shadows and developed for the highlights. But I always attributed it to the limited dynamic range of digital sensors, not the processing software.

If, on the other hand, they are just blowing out during the conversion to mono, I'd love to see some examples if you have any you can share, of the correctly exposed color and blown out mono.
 
brusby said:
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like your highlights are always blown out -- both in color and b&w -- unless you underexpose as you've described. If that is correct, it sounds more like digital sensor limitations rather than the processing software.

I almost always underexpose with digital sensors. 'Treat them like slide film in the old days where we exposed for the highlights as opposed to negative film where we exposed for the shadows and developed for the highlights. But I always attributed it to the limited dynamic range of digital sensors, not the processing software.

If, on the other hand, they are just blowing out during the conversion to mono, I'd love to see some examples if you have any you can share, of the correctly exposed color and blown out mono.
Click to expand...
I’ve trashed them all, so I don’t have any. I have found an approach to luminance only conversion now, so I doubt I’ll go any further forward with this.

The driver behind this is that my eyesight is getting worse as I forge forward in my 50s and I can tell that eventually I’m definitely going to need an autofocus camera. And for these uses, for me, that means going mirrorless.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
I’ve trashed them all, so I don’t have any. I have found an approach to luminance only conversion now, so I doubt I’ll go any further forward with this.

The driver behind this is that my eyesight is getting worse as I forge forward in my 50s and I can tell that eventually I’m definitely going to need an autofocus camera. And for these uses, for me, that means going mirrorless.

Marty
Click to expand...
Just a quick note on eyesight - I’m 60 this week and had a retinal tear and detachment in my right eye back before Covid. A year after the repair I needed a lens replacement due to (the almost inevitable) cataract. Since then my sight has been better than it was for years beforehand - in my right eye at least! Down side is now that my left eye needs a -9.0 contact lens and my right -0.75 for optimal vision. Or I can happily use no correction in my right eye and read easily or shoot easily.

Not suggesting lens replacement for a healthy eye!
 
Freakscene said:
I’ve trashed them all, so I don’t have any. I have found an approach to luminance only conversion now, so I doubt I’ll go any further forward with this.

The driver behind this is that my eyesight is getting worse as I forge forward in my 50s and I can tell that eventually I’m definitely going to need an autofocus camera. And for these uses, for me, that means going mirrorless.

Marty
Click to expand...
Perhaps Leica will come out with a Q3-90-M for us old farts....and you too.
 
BillBingham2 said:
Perhaps Leica will come out with a Q3-90-M for us old farts....and you too.
Click to expand...

A Q3 43M with enough MP would be fine. I use a 50mm lens almost all the time. But the AF would need to be better than the current one, and they need to make the camera less susceptible to dust ingress. Smoke machine residue on the Q3 sensor meant I needed to get its sensor cleaned every time I used it 🙄🫩 and this means a trip back to Leica 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Users experienced with cameras converted to monochrome and a Leica Monochrom variant
Replies
11
Views
3K
former member
F
S
Suggestions / advice for new camera
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
2K
Ray Kilby
Ray Kilby
M
A Digital Monochrome Dilemma
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
Dogman
Dogman
ped
Batch scanner in 2025 - PrimeFilm 3600pro
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
B
New year resolutions (photo-centered) for 2025
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
JohnGellings
J
Back
Top Bottom