Leica M Monochrom: best pics

Digital B&W still struggles up against film, for sure. I downloaded a bunch of high res MM files months back and was able to get much better results in LR by adjusting exposure and curves, but I was still not convinced by the way it rendered anything much above Zone 6. I am not a zonie but a documentary photographer and so I am using this as a reference not a way of life. As a M film user, I was hoping for something to pick up where my film bodies leave off, but I am not seeing it here. Aside from a bit more detail and slightly creamier tonality, I see no real benefit over a ME and will possibly buy a M240 simply because it is a much more flexible camera than the M9 and its offspring.

I suppose when I appear disappointed I am saying that my 5D III produces files that look like these MM files, but I recognise that the MM files would definitely go bigger. Thats just not enough for me to pay £6100 for one. I think I will just have to stick to film for when I absolutely have to have top quality B&W images. I'll use my 5D III and possibly a M240 when things need to be more convenient.

For those who think the highlights in many of these images are just fine, on their own they my be, but I just cannot get excited by them when I think of how much more beautiful well produced film images are. With most emulsions, burning in brings texture and substance that just isn't here in these MM files, even when the contrast range is incredible. The only films lacking in this regard are Neopan 400 and 1600, which don't do overexposure well.

The image above is one I wish I could print from a neg and then show you a flashed print, which would be an epic improvement all ove the body/sweater That said, with the file dropped a bit in exposure and possibly opened up a touch in the shadows (to get it to where it was before the exposure drop) and possibly a bit of tweaking of the black slider, it might look much better to my eyes. Hard to say. As always, its personal!
 
I can tell you it renders quite well with the zones higher than Caucasian skin tone (zone VI) and I can get separation in those zones probably up tp VIII. And I have shoot a lot with 5DIIIS and it has maybe two more full stops of DR. In fact I would say the files look more like my old Hasselblad medium format film than those of 35mm film. And how can anyone compare 100K images compressed to crap from hosts like photobucket with an degree of certainty. Take my word for it the prints are really amazing for digital B&W. I love film but most of the street work with film was done with pushed tri-x and we all know what pushing does. It completely destroys mid tones by underexposing and pulling the toe down below the threshold of exposure and bringing the highlights back through increased development. That increase the gamma of the film curve blocking up the mid tones. My files from the MM have far more range in them than pushed 35mm tri x film. Also I can shoot at 3200 and 6400 ISO making faster shutter speeds possible while keeping large DoFs which when pre focusing on hte street can be a valuable tool.

I am looking at a print I made from my epson 2880 and the detail is there so whether I didn't need to use a flash printing technique in the darkroom isn't really relevant because the info is there.
 
I don't know man... if I'm paying that much money for a body I want both colour and B&W - I appreciate what the tool does but, seeing as it's a digital body, I just don't "get it" per se. Different strokes for different folks.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Thanks Turtle for your post!

I am genuinely thankful for your reminder, to pay much more attention to zones and especially the brighter areas.

I love criticism and feel guilty myself, to have rushed many shots through post processing with the Mono.

Technically, in my opinion, the Mono files are more rigid in regards of contrast and tonal relation between shadows, mid tones and highlights - you have less freedom working these independently.

The Mono files give A LOT more latitude in regards of shadow recovery (the general expose for highlights and push shadows in post works to some extend very well).

The biggest difficulty is, to alter tonal and contrast relations between shadows, mid tones and highlights (simplifying here) in post processing, if you didn't handle filtering and difficult light to begin with.

M9 files are much, much easier to work with here for B&W conversions (not just because of different colour channels to work with, but because of a more suitable relationship of shadows, mids and highlights for the final image).

I write this, as I struggle, finding the right post processing technique for myself with the Mono, since I have it.

The files are absolutely amazing in some ways - better than anything else, I have seen, but they are really demanding for getting them processed for a specific look.

In my opinion, the late shots of Kristian show a very sweet balance of processing, working aesthetically very well for me.

For myself, I mind working with M9 files A LOT easier so far and find my own M9 conversions (which take a lot less effort and time) better conversions, than the Mono photographs, I have produced so far.

My fascination about the crazy acuity and the incredible low light performance still remains for the Mono and I am continuing to experiment with processing, the files until I get there.

I use only Lightroom for processing on a Mac.
My current experimental attempt is, to exclusively use the histogram panel and shape the histogram with input opposed to numerical value editing, I used up to now with all digital files in Lightroom.

The journey continues …

I think, we should tone the "value for money" and "Why buy a Mono, if you can buy a colour sensor body" and "film looks better than Mono files" stuff down and concentrate on the Monochrom and how images look, produced with it + sharing info on how to work it. No offence, really, but lets keep the thread focussed (just my opinion as this camera is very polarising and many threads have ended in just those discussions). Those are valid points too, but in my opinion should be served in a separate thread just for those points.
 
xdayv said:
Dirk, always a delight to see your images like these. Wondering from where did you capture them? Were you on foot or inside a car? The vantage points are spot on.
Click to expand...

Dave, I was rolling in a car, I drove behind the tricycle.
I work another job and can shoot little these days, so those drive by shots are the major photography, I can do these days (and I hate it :bang:)
 
menos said:
Dave, I was rolling in a car, I drove behind the tricycle.
I work another job and can shoot little these days, so those drive by shots are the major photography, I can do these days (and I hate it :bang:)
Click to expand...

Did you shoot it behind the windshield?

I can sense what you are feeling, sometimes duty calls and workload hinders our further quests for photography, c'est la vie!
 
I find the MM is no different from the M9 in blown highlights. You have to be careful with both. LFI did a nice story on the M9 can recover blown highlights better because of the 3 channels. I found that as a good lesson to be more careful and look at the histogram after a shot (I have review shut off on both m9 and MM.). But either way turtle, this is a good reminder for me to make extra care on the highlights and not assume we can pull them back in PP. Thank you for your input.

Jim
 
menos said:
...Technically, in my opinion, the Mono files are more rigid in regards of contrast and tonal relation between shadows, mid tones and highlights - you have less freedom working these independently.

The Mono files give A LOT more latitude in regards of shadow recovery (the general expose for highlights and push shadows in post works to some extend very well).

The biggest difficulty is, to alter tonal and contrast relations between shadows, mid tones and highlights (simplifying here) in post processing, if you didn't handle filtering and difficult light to begin with.

M9 files are much, much easier to work with here for B&W conversions (not just because of different colour channels to work with, but because of a more suitable relationship of shadows, mids and highlights for the final image)...
In my opinion, Dave's shots here in the thread and the late shots of Kristian show a very sweet balance of processing, working aesthetically very well for me.

For myself, I mind working with M9 files A LOT easier so far and find my own M9 conversions (which take a lot less effort and time) better conversions, than the Mono photographs, I have produced so far...
Click to expand...
There are a lot of judgments and assertions here, and I must say that I don't see processing with the M-Monochrom the same way. Generally, I find it easier than working with color conversions. I often shoot at noon in tropical light, which is characterized by extremely high brightness and high contrast. I've always found films like Tri-X problematic in such light because the results in such bright light are often unpredcitable or simply not very good, meaning it's often better to wait for better light. I am continually amazed how well the M-Monochrem performs in very bright tropical light.

The following picture is exposed for the highlights and, in LR4, the Exposore is lifted by +2.4 and Highlights reduced -24. But how a picture is processed is a matter of interpretation: in the OOC file, the bright stone in the background above the young woman's head has full details and tonal range that can me kept by varying degress of burning in. However, that stone is far enough back in the background to be in softer focus.



M-Monochrom |-28 | ISO 320 | f/11 | 1/180 sec

Kandy





In the next picture the main subject is in direct sunlight, which means, of course, that "exposing for the highlights" requires much less subsequent adjustment: in this image Exposure in increased only +0.30 and Highights are drawn back 43, the latter being enough to show the tonal variation and texture of the main subjects white T-shirt. The shadow areas here don't require more lifting because they reflect what one sees in such a high-contrast scene while standing in very bright sunlight.


M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320 | f/11 | 1/350 sec

Kandy





In the final picture here, exposing for the highlights in the background turns the two woman in the midground into silhouettes in the OOC image in LR4, and lifting the Exposure by +1.65 is required while pulling back Highlights by -82.


M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 2500 | f/11 | 1/350 sec

Bangkok



I've posted the above three pictures to show that the M-Monochrom handles bright, high-contrast tropical light well and easily, in terms of processing, while leaving scope and flexibility for how one wants to deal with highlights and highlight texture — and not difficult to deal with at all.

menos, you praise Davy highly for his processing, which you state that you like. While not taking away anything from Davy as a photographer, I find his processing formulaic, producing the same look (dark) for different type of lighting conditions, which I find too limiting. Ray Metzker, an outsanding photographer, in one of his books criticizes Sebastião Salgado's work in a similar way, stating that most of Salgado's prints are tuned to one sensibility — so I suppose that Davy is in good company in this.

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)
 
jcrutcher said:
I find the MM is no different from the M9 in blown highlights. You have to be careful with both. LFI did a nice story on the M9 can recover blown highlights better because of the 3 channels. I found that as a good lesson to be more careful and look at the histogram after a shot (I have review shut off on both m9 and MM.). But either way turtle, this is a good reminder for me to make extra care on the highlights and not assume we can pull them back in PP. Thank you for your input.

Jim
Click to expand...

Yes Jim, you have a lot in the toe but not much in the shoulder so if the info is important be careful not to over expose what is important.
 
xdayv said:
Did you shoot it behind the windshield?

I can sense what you are feeling, sometimes duty calls and workload hinders our further quests for photography, c'est la vie!
Click to expand...

Yes, 99% of my shots, tagged "drive by shots" have been shot from the inside of a car, either riding in the back, or more recently driving mostly myself.
I found, that certain lenses don't really work well that way. The APO-Telyt 135 for example looks like sh… this way, completely different from it's naked character. Most 50mm and some 75-90mm lenses work well, but a certain "softness" is always added.

@ Mitch:

My comment on the Mono files is entirely based on comparing M9 files with Mono files in Lightroom.
I shoot the M9 with Lightroom now for a few years exclusively developing B&W shots from it and have a good feeling, to dial in for a certain look, I have developed.

There is a feeling fro the balance between:

black point,
shadows,
mid tones,
bright areas + highlights,
blown highlights

I am rather familiar with (I shoot mostly in Shanghai with 65% dull, grey overcasted light and 35% ugly, harsh contrasty direct sun light).

The balance between above mentioned points between M9 and MM files are VERY different.

Of course can one take a sledgehammer approach (no offense), shoot 2 stops under exposed and hammer the exposure back in by pushing and pulling with:

exposure + highlight recovery.

This though gives one not a consistent look through a set of photographs.
It also tends to expose ugly byproducts in form of shadow noise, artefacts between contrast edges and recovered bright areas and worst of them all:

very, very mushy mid tones.

I have a very close look at my histogram curve and orient myself closely on a curve, I know from B&W films, I liked.

Yes, the MM files are robust - yes, one can hammer them around. ;)

No, I am not happy yet with my B&W conversions from the Mono.
It took me two years of M8.2 and M9 file experiments to reach a certain processing, I liked. I think, the Mono takes me about another year, to feel good with it.

And of course, this all is highly subjective (and we are dealing ugly little web JPGs here and not 13x19 prints), so best would be to meet up to some good food, drinks and share some prints :D
 
menos said:
Yes, 99% of my shots, tagged "drive by shots" have been shot from the inside of a car, either riding in the back, or more recently driving mostly myself.
I found, that certain lenses don't really work well that way. The APO-Telyt 135 for example looks like sh… this way, completely different from it's naked character. Most 50mm and some 75-90mm lenses work well, but a certain "softness" is always added.

@ Mitch:

My comment on the Mono files is entirely based on comparing M9 files with Mono files in Lightroom.
I shoot the M9 with Lightroom now for a few years exclusively developing B&W shots from it and have a good feeling, to dial in for a certain look, I have developed.

There is a feeling fro the balance between:

black point,
shadows,
mid tones,
bright areas + highlights,
blown highlights

I am rather familiar with (I shoot mostly in Shanghai with 65% dull, grey overcasted light and 35% ugly, harsh contrasty direct sun light).

The balance between above mentioned points between M9 and MM files are VERY different.

Of course can one take a sledgehammer approach (no offense), shoot 2 stops under exposed and hammer the exposure back in by pushing and pulling with:

exposure + highlight recovery.

This though gives one not a consistent look through a set of photographs.
It also tends to expose ugly byproducts in form of shadow noise, artefacts between contrast edges and recovered bright areas and worst of them all:

very, very mushy mid tones.

I have a very close look at my histogram curve and orient myself closely on a curve, I know from B&W films, I liked.

Yes, the MM files are robust - yes, one can hammer them around. ;)

No, I am not happy yet with my B&W conversions from the Mono.
It took me two years of M8.2 and M9 file experiments to reach a certain processing, I liked. I think, the Mono takes me about another year, to feel good with it.

And of course, this all is highly subjective (and we are dealing ugly little web JPGs here and not 13x19 prints), so best would be to meet up to some good food, drinks and share some prints :D
Click to expand...

I'm working on it to but so I prefer work in photoshop (right now CS4) after converting to RGB 16 bit tiffs in adobe raw.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I'm working on it to but so I prefer work in photoshop (right now CS4) after converting to RGB 16 bit tiffs in adobe raw.
Click to expand...
totally agree with you about getting it into photoshop asap. i really am despising LR and pray that C1 finally comes through with a conversion.

but i agree with Dirk, give me another year to find my voice with this camera. it is amazing!
 
cam said:
totally agree with you about getting it into photoshop asap. i really am despising LR and pray that C1 finally comes through with a conversion.

but i agree with Dirk, give me another year to find my voice with this camera. it is amazing!
Click to expand...

LoL yeah its a work in progress for me to plus I haven't shot with a rangefinder/Leica M in a couple decades. Then throw in getting used to how to interpret the meter and the way to expose and its a bit of a learning curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom