What are the JPEGs like out of the Monochrom?
I think the JPEGs out of the MM are very good - pretty much exactly what one would expect. But unlike the M9 - where, as you describe, Richard, oftentimes the M9 JPEG engine will produce an image very different from the DNG, and sometimes hard to replicate
from that DNG; i.e. the M9 JPEG becomes an image that is worthwhile having on its own merits - I am finding the look of the MM JPEGs to be very easy to replicate from the DNG file. And always with more detail and strength. After three weeks of shooting JPEG "fine" images alongside DNG, and then examining them side-by-side in Lightroom, I've not used one. DNG all the way.
Unless shot in harsh or unusual light, most of my MM DNG images are flat out of the camera. Reminds me of when I first began processing well-exposed Tri-X in XTOL, when that developer came out, and I thought my negatives were thin. Just like I learned then, that thin can be good, it didn't take me thirty seconds in Lightroom to see that those "flat" MM images hold lots and lots of information.
For me PP on most MM shots is very simple: tweak the exposure slider, if needed; use the Clarity slider to give the image a bit of structure; bring up the blacks; and, sometimes, give it a little more contrast. Ten seconds and you're done. I'll pop into SEP if I want to explore an interesting image. And I'll drop into PS if I want to burn or dodge part of a scene. But, really, a few seconds in Lightroom is all you need to get a decent baseline.
I'll also note that the MM files are much more robust than can be seen on low-res internet JPEGs. I was struck by the hidden detail that emerged the first time I printed a 13x19" print. Even on a very good computer screen you don't see all that's there unless you zoom deep into the file.
