Leica M Monochrom real-life review - part two

seanbonner said:
Borge - Thanks so much, I keep rereading your review! I just received my MM yesterday and it's not only my first digital Leica, but my first digital camera of any kind. I'm wondering, are there tricks or learning curve details you wished you'd figured out sooner? I too will be doing a lot of low light shooting so I very much appreciate your thoughts on that aspect.
Click to expand...

The most important thing is to under expose and never ever trust what the LCD shows you. And then just play with the files. You can push the MM files incredibly far without getting much noise or visible artifacts. I don't think any camera with a color filter array can offer this type of latitude without introducing lots of noise and visible artifacts.

Just perfect files for any type of processing.
 
You know, the first M-Monochrom images on Internet (I guess Steve Huff) with the bicycles, couples hugging etc. were large enough. When captured, they could be tweaked in full resolution. As they were posted, too "lame" to my taste, but a good start to magnificent images- for copyright reason not possible to re-publish the tweaked ones anywhere.
 
Rangefinderfreak said:
You know, the first M-Monochrom images on Internet (I guess Steve Huff) with the bicycles, couples hugging etc. were large enough. When captured, they could be tweaked in full resolution. As they were posted, too "lame" to my taste, but a good start to magnificent images- for copyright reason not possible to re-publish the tweaked ones anywhere.
Click to expand...

If you want to tweak/PP MM images you either have to buy one yourself or download the few DNG files that are available, I guess.

There are too many "black-market printers" out there, I have seen and experienced it myself - several times, so nobody wants to publish full-size and downloadable files of anything, anywhere, understandably.
 
borge said:
I have added the images from my part 1 and part 2 reviews to my flickr account now. You should be able to view them at a much larger size now.

Hope this helps.

Part 1 set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/borgei/sets/72157631902139510/
Part 2 set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/borgei/sets/72157631902199350/
Click to expand...

yes ! 2048X1363 ...Now it sarts to tell something about the image.
I very much like the second image, guy going down the hill with his "roller" timing is perfect ( like leicashooters usually have !) also the tones are OK, A little "Drama" with burnt in side edges would have been a plus. Congrats!
 
furcafe said:
I think that's because photographers who are predominantly B&W shooters tend to lean towards contrasty, perhaps because of the inherently graphic nature of B&W & the long (post 1920s) history of contrasty B&W photography. From what I've seen, the raw files from the camera are actually low-contrast (as they should).
Click to expand...

I guess it's all a matter of personal taste -- I consider myself a b+w devotee, and like seeing a 'full tonal range' image (If you look at some of the images in my gallery, you'll get my idea). In this particular review, the first few photos are contrasty to the point in which the highlights are blown out (no detail), and the shadow areas are blocked (no detail) -- like Tri-X that's been left in the developer too long. Maybe I'm just old school in the Ansel Adams tonal sense, rather than old school in the Bill Brandt sense. Here again, guess it's all personal preference.

I was concerned because I'm on a list to buy a Monochrom, and was wondering if the files from the camera were this contrasty. Now that I know that they're flatter, I'm relieved. Would much rather have a flatter file (like negs) than more contrasty ones.

It does sound like there's a bit of a learning curve with this camera, at least in terms of exposure?
 
Vince Lupo said:
I guess it's all a matter of personal taste -- I consider myself a b+w devotee, and like seeing a 'full tonal range' image (If you look at some of the images in my gallery, you'll get my idea). In this particular review, the first few photos are contrasty to the point in which the highlights are blown out (no detail), and the shadow areas are blocked (no detail) -- like Tri-X that's been left in the developer too long. Maybe I'm just old school in the Ansel Adams tonal sense, rather than old school in the Bill Brandt sense. Here again, guess it's all personal preference.

I was concerned because I'm on a list to buy a Monochrom, and was wondering if the files from the camera were this contrasty. Now that I know that they're flatter, I'm relieved. Would much rather have a flatter file (like negs) than more contrasty ones.

It does sound like there's a bit of a learning curve with this camera, at least in terms of exposure?
Click to expand...

As I said - I intended to show contrasty images in my sets simply because there are many other reviews that show more flat files.

Also, the images the camera generates differs a lot depending on the lens. I'd say a Summicron v5 (latest non-apo) renders a much softer image than the Summilux ASPH for example. Even more visible on the MM than on the M9.

Personally I also prefer the look of pushed tri-x 400 and the lovely Fuji neopan 1600. Both of which produce high contrast results.

There are several ways to expose with the mm as well. You can go iso-less and push the exposure in post or just use an ev comp of -1 or up to -2 all depending on the scene and if you want to keep the highlights intact. It is quite different, but still one of the simplest cameras and files I have worked with.
 
Well, I don't know about anyone else but I'm waiting for someone to finally complete a fake-life review of one of these things...
 
I'm an old man still shooting Tri-X, and I know less than zero about digital imaging, so I didn't read your report except for the last part. I did look at the pictures, though, and found them utterly beautiful. You have every right to be proud of your work with this new instrument. I think your pictures look like the future of black and white imaging. Congratulations on your choice and your work!
 
borge said:
As I said - I intended to show contrasty images in my sets simply because there are many other reviews that show more flat files.
Click to expand...

You should be congratulated on showing what the camera is capable of. All to often the photographs used to show how the MM performs are straight out of the camera and unprocessed, and those are flat and souless. In an age when people want instant gratification and images to pop out of the camera fully formed I get the impression that the MM definitely requires the digital darkroom to release its full potential. The more I see photographs like yours the more I think I might actually want an MM.
 
V-12 said:
You should be congratulated on showing what the camera is capable of. All to often the photographs used to show how the MM performs are straight out of the camera and unprocessed, and those are flat and souless. In an age when people want instant gratification and images to pop out of the camera fully formed I get the impression that the MM definitely requires the digital darkroom to release its full potential. The more I see photographs like yours the more I think I might actually want an MM.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's been a while since I processed those images.
I have learned a lot more on how I prefer to process the files from the MM in that time. The files are so rich - you can take them in any direction you want without having to compromise because of artifacts, unlike color files. It's like working with files that has no creative limit. I love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom