M-E in-camera BW.

[Ko.Fe.]

I went to this place which has horses not so long time ago...

M-E with Summarit-M 35 2.5 and yellow filter, set to in-camera BW.
I added Delta 100 profile in PP.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Another exercise with in M-E's BW. This time with the pinhole.

Technical info and more pictures here.

 

[Landberg]

All photos looks soft in an odd way. Could be my iPad? It’s hard to see whats the M-E and whats the PP. The B&W is good, but what is what?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you for checking.
Minimum PP in first post. Second has much more.
It looks odd on my iPad as well.
But first post pictures are normal and sharp on regular PC screen with good graphics card. Second post picture is pinhole and it is soft.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Not familiar with the in-camera B&W with the Leica M-E. Can you give more details?

Thanks,
-Tim

 

[helen.HH]

Like photos 3 and 4
Actually love them all
All in good Fun

 

[helen.HH]

when I had the M-E ...miss it, such a great camera really
I loved the f2.5 50 summarit



Eyeing a leica...a fake one, prototype of M4-p by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

75 summarit /M-E




Ball taken... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[helen.HH]

35 summaron on ME

school is out...YAY to EXPLORE! by Helen Hill, on

40 Summicron on M-E

light gets in my eyes... by Helen Hill, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, Helen. It is spare two tires. He was going to put them on today. This is the bicycle - https://www.virtuecycles.com/products/virtue-ortho.
My wife and I were impressed how yours Canon 50 1.8 LTM is rendering family portraits on M-E. In color. This week I took this lens apart and re-lubricated. Every time I look through its glass with flashlight I'm delighted for how clean it is.

For BW in M-E I prefer Summarit-M 35 2.5 (first post pictures).

Not familiar with the in-camera B&W with the Leica M-E. Can you give more details?

Thanks,
-Tim

Here is not so much difference between how to set in-camera BW JPEG1 among most of the simple digital cameras. The difference is in how sensor records it in DNG, RAW and how camera process it in JPEG1 and then how you process it to your likings.
But post processing depends on camera recording/rendering, still. For example, I like to dial exposure compensation down and bring it up in PP. It gives results kind of similar to bw film pushing. It is close to exposing for highlights and developing for shadows.

M-E manual download is here.
https://en.leica-camera.com/Corposi...egory=93710&subcategory=&type=&language=93871
Just have to hunt down to M-E instructions, German, English. I downloaded bunch of other crap before getting to it.
p.125, 129.
I have JPEG1 only profiles in M-E for BW and Color.
p. 149.

Yet, I still struggle to set M-E back to DNG from JPEG1 profile mode. I'm just pressing buttons until it show message - "are you sure to leave snapshot mode. Yes or No.", or something like this.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I took it as JPEG1 color, but BW seems to be more adequate.

More I'm taking pictures with M-E, more I realise it could be about subjects you like, photocamera you like and rest doesn't matter.

 

[Richard G]

The M9 in camera black and white jpegs are very nice. I’ve achieved things with those that I can’t recreate in Lightroom from Raw file of the same image. I’ve been shooting JPEGs mostly in my M9 lately. Sacrilege.

 

[alan davus]

The M9 in camera black and white jpegs are very nice. I’ve achieved things with those that I can’t recreate in Lightroom from Raw file of the same image. I’ve been shooting JPEGs mostly in my M9 lately. Sacrilege.

I wasn't game to say this Richard but couldn't agree with you more.

 

[robert blu]

...

... I realise it could be about subjects you like, photocamera you like and rest doesn't matter.

love this!
robert

 

[Steve M.]

Doesn't have the same tonal range as film. I do like the pinhole shot. The only digi camera I ever saw that did decent B&W (at least on the web images I looked at) is the Epson rangefinders. When you look at these images you see quite a difference.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=158464

 

[Out to Lunch]

OK...let me take an expensive digital rangefinder camera and lens and then digitally soup the results. Why?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OK...let me take an expensive digital rangefinder camera and lens and then digitally soup the results. Why?

The only soup related to photography terminology I know with my ESL, is film developing. Where is SOOC in analog cameras, Polaroid. And digitally SOOC is done as well. My avatar is SOOS. But it doesn't work always and then it has to be developed, processed, cooked with ingredients.
In my recent example I took it in JPEG1 color, but realized it is better in BW.

 

[Huss]

OK...let me take an expensive digital rangefinder camera and lens and then digitally soup the results. Why?

When u shoot any digital camera, everything is digitally souped whether you like it or not.

I like the results of the ME and M240 in BW jpegs, but I found I liked the results more in RAW and converted with Nik SilvrFx. Plus I still had the RAW file.

 

[Out to Lunch]

To be more precise: why take an expensive digital rangefinder camera and lens and then digitally soup the results so that the resulting pictures mimic an undefined analogue result. Why?

 

[Oren Grad]

To be more precise: why take an expensive digital rangefinder camera and lens and then digitally soup the results so that the resulting pictures mimic an undefined analogue result. Why?

One scenario is that someone prefers the look of film but, for one reason or another, finds the logistics of working with film difficult.

I've always found the digital simulations completely unconvincing, but I can empathize with those who can no longer work with film for whatever reason and are feeling the loss.