jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, but deliberately shooting B&W only makes one look at the world differently and will produce different images. If you have the ambivalence of choosing between monochrome or colour in postprocessing you mindset will not be on producing "real" B&W.
And there is no way that a converted image will match the tonality of either Monochrom.
I prefer the MM1. It somehow has a more organic look. The 246 is superb as well, but to my taste a bit smooth and closer to a converted Bayer image.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Indeed you do, but there is a bit of acuity lost by shooting without IR filter.
DwF
Well-known
decisions
decisions
I agree with Jaap that the MM 1 is a more organic look. I can't say that I don't really like the lok of some images I've seen from the 246, but I love the files I get with M9 and now Monochrom.
I can only add to this as someone who didn't absolutely need a digital B&W camera, I took a chance trading away an M9 (fell into a nice deal) for my MM1. I feel somewhat liberated when I take the Monochrom out now just like the days of only bringing B&W in my M2. I can see the world in grayscale again....at least I am getting there. With a color camera, that decision really happens in front of the monitor and there is a difference.
I'd say just from this perspective try it! There is a learning curve but as icebear said, I also feel I am able to process with software things I could not easily make happen in a darkroom.
David
decisions
I agree with Jaap that the MM 1 is a more organic look. I can't say that I don't really like the lok of some images I've seen from the 246, but I love the files I get with M9 and now Monochrom.
I can only add to this as someone who didn't absolutely need a digital B&W camera, I took a chance trading away an M9 (fell into a nice deal) for my MM1. I feel somewhat liberated when I take the Monochrom out now just like the days of only bringing B&W in my M2. I can see the world in grayscale again....at least I am getting there. With a color camera, that decision really happens in front of the monitor and there is a difference.
I'd say just from this perspective try it! There is a learning curve but as icebear said, I also feel I am able to process with software things I could not easily make happen in a darkroom.
David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't understand the MM fuzz. V1 or not, BW is nowhere near film, IMO. But I have seen OK BW from M9 and Fuji X sensors... I'm not impressed with M colors from CMOS, either, they are just regular. While CCD colors is something nice.
I owned 5D MKII and bunch of L and get rid of it due to the size, compatibility issues and plastic in L lenses which is wearing out and even with OEM parts and Canon service it is not as good as new after repair.
If OP using this gear to make money, here is no reason to leave EOS system. If it is just for like me, people and fun, I'll let it go with keeping one of the DSLRs and couple of lenses.
I owned 5D MKII and bunch of L and get rid of it due to the size, compatibility issues and plastic in L lenses which is wearing out and even with OEM parts and Canon service it is not as good as new after repair.
If OP using this gear to make money, here is no reason to leave EOS system. If it is just for like me, people and fun, I'll let it go with keeping one of the DSLRs and couple of lenses.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Film and digital are different but the MM is truly amazing and the best 135 format digital B&W and in some ways better than film. Medium format IQ and the ability to get really clean results at ISOs like 3200 and 6400 make it a very good B&W digital choice. You want the look of film shoot film. For what I am shooting now I actually prefer the MM over film.
I shot and processed B&W film for decades both for my personal work and professionally. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity but I don't but to say that the MM in some way is technically inferior to film is not accurate, It has a different look and I like that different look.
Also I have completely switched from Canon to Leica M for my professional work and I have NO REGRETS....
Canon CPS is second to none. I would call Canon in Itasca when I had issues and they would have loner equipment waiting when I dropped off my gear to be repaired and I would have my cameras/lenses back in a couple of days.
If you shoot a lot of B&W and you don't process your own work in a wet darkroom and/or like the look of digital output from the MM (I do) then in my opinion you should pick up an MM.
I shot and processed B&W film for decades both for my personal work and professionally. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity but I don't but to say that the MM in some way is technically inferior to film is not accurate, It has a different look and I like that different look.
Also I have completely switched from Canon to Leica M for my professional work and I have NO REGRETS....
Canon CPS is second to none. I would call Canon in Itasca when I had issues and they would have loner equipment waiting when I dropped off my gear to be repaired and I would have my cameras/lenses back in a couple of days.
If you shoot a lot of B&W and you don't process your own work in a wet darkroom and/or like the look of digital output from the MM (I do) then in my opinion you should pick up an MM.
DwF
Well-known
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is nothing like a beautifully done gelatin silver print (on nice paper) but there are aspects like dynamic range to digital black and white that film doesn't provide -and certainly not 35mm film. I am getting results with digital that I could only dream of when I shot film. With 120 film, my results were better in that regard.
I find that the MM is a wonderful addition to digital photography.
David
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Why do You wanna use 6400 ISO clean files? Photography is about light and what We see in that precise moment, no light no photo, just use forms, shapes, shadows and available light to write in your negative, sensor or whatever without tricks.
You cannot replicate NEVER EVER depth and grain structure of film into a fiber base paper.
As a good friend says (one of the great expert here in Spain): "The very nature of a negative (picture) is completely different from the same taken with a digital sensor. First place: there is a support having 3 dimensions. Exactly 3 because a frame is not only long, width... but the photographic emulsion (gelatin in which are suspended silver particles, in turn, are three-dimensional) has a thickness which involves effects at the positive (also provided with such qualities three-dimensional) that are not yet achievable with 0 0 0 1 1 1..."
You cannot replicate NEVER EVER depth and grain structure of film into a fiber base paper.
As a good friend says (one of the great expert here in Spain): "The very nature of a negative (picture) is completely different from the same taken with a digital sensor. First place: there is a support having 3 dimensions. Exactly 3 because a frame is not only long, width... but the photographic emulsion (gelatin in which are suspended silver particles, in turn, are three-dimensional) has a thickness which involves effects at the positive (also provided with such qualities three-dimensional) that are not yet achievable with 0 0 0 1 1 1..."
airfrogusmc
Veteran
For my personal work at this point in time I shoot street and my work is about moments as well as light. Having the ability to shoot at 1/500 and 1/1000 at f/8 and f/11 allows me to get shots in the moment and in low light, not bad light there is a big difference, that I couldn't get with film. I love the look of a well executed silver gelatin or platinum print. That doesn't mean I can't also love a well executed digital image. They are different and should reflect the look you are trying to achieve in your finished work and for me now at this point in time for my vision and the way I want my final work to look like it is digital and the MM is what I prefer for my B&W work.
And again I don't want my digital work to look like film. I love film but I also love digital and for the way I am seeing and working now it is the right choice. If I were to shoot film I would go back to large format zone system and just might at some time in the future.
And again I don't want my digital work to look like film. I love film but I also love digital and for the way I am seeing and working now it is the right choice. If I were to shoot film I would go back to large format zone system and just might at some time in the future.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Why should it be like film? It is a different medium. It is like saying that you don't like oil painting because it is nowhere near a pencil drawing.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
The reason why I don't like MM is exactly in dynamic range.
MM bw is gobble of grey, with weird skin tones. IMO.
Exactly right, I do like oil paintings, but pencil drawings - no interest. Except daughters drawings.
It is not just about film and digital. It is about weird MM bw rendering. I prefer M8 and Q bw.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Gobbles of gray? Depends on how you processes and ones preference. The files SOOC have so much info especially in the shadows but that can be all controlled through processing. The info is there the individual photographer can choose how much he wants to loose or hw much he wants to keep. It all depends on how much contrast he needs for the final print. Not unlike controlling dev times for contrast. Add more time if you want more contrast and print on a higher grade paper to further increase contrast .
I would strongly disagree with wired rendering. My last exhibit one of my old professors from college (retired) and another friend that teaches now and both film junkies and not afraid to speak their minds were amazed at the print quality.
Until you see some large prints from an MM then you might not see what this talk is about. 80kb compressed jpgs on a web site are no way to judge a final print.
I do think the way a silver gelatin print reflects light especially in the shadows is different from the way ink does it but under glass on the wall it's hard to tell. I saw some amazing huge 4ft by 5ft inkjet prints of jazz musicians by Herman Leonard a few years back at the Andrew Smith gallery in Santa Fe. The were scanned from large format negs and the prints almost fooled me.
I for sure prefer the B&W prints from the MM to the B&W from any digital color body. Nice to have choices.
I would strongly disagree with wired rendering. My last exhibit one of my old professors from college (retired) and another friend that teaches now and both film junkies and not afraid to speak their minds were amazed at the print quality.
Until you see some large prints from an MM then you might not see what this talk is about. 80kb compressed jpgs on a web site are no way to judge a final print.
I do think the way a silver gelatin print reflects light especially in the shadows is different from the way ink does it but under glass on the wall it's hard to tell. I saw some amazing huge 4ft by 5ft inkjet prints of jazz musicians by Herman Leonard a few years back at the Andrew Smith gallery in Santa Fe. The were scanned from large format negs and the prints almost fooled me.
I for sure prefer the B&W prints from the MM to the B&W from any digital color body. Nice to have choices.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thanks for clarification! This makes sense to me. I do like how M8, Q bw looks on screen vs MM, but prints...
I'm not into bw negatives scans, but prints as final stage to look at the image. I like it on FB SG darkroom paper most, but I have some scans printed by professionals on quality paper and it is pleasing. If Leica did the same kind of concept with MM where images to be judged not on the screen, but on high quality prints, it might sounds weird for Instagram/FB/Flickr glorious crowd, but not to me.
I'm not into bw negatives scans, but prints as final stage to look at the image. I like it on FB SG darkroom paper most, but I have some scans printed by professionals on quality paper and it is pleasing. If Leica did the same kind of concept with MM where images to be judged not on the screen, but on high quality prints, it might sounds weird for Instagram/FB/Flickr glorious crowd, but not to me.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I like my M 262 and M-E for color but for B&W for me there is no question, MM all the way.
It should always be about the print in my opinion.
It should always be about the print in my opinion.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Skin tones out of the MM are very, very neutral and appear to be dull. The subtle tones are definitely there but you need to tweak them accordingly. Using a yellow green or green filter helps pull that out. In all reality, it's not very different from film; I've seen some awful skin tones in film. Also, using a higher ISO or adding a bit of grain to the image adds a bit of structure for those looking for a more "film" look (ISO 640 is my go to and 1600 when it gets dark).
I've printed MM up to 17x22 for family, friends, etc. and they have been astounded by the results. Museo Silver Rag or Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique papers are great. I don't measure results based on what other shooters think, as they are innately biased; I measure success on the general public. They above all know best.
I've printed MM up to 17x22 for family, friends, etc. and they have been astounded by the results. Museo Silver Rag or Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique papers are great. I don't measure results based on what other shooters think, as they are innately biased; I measure success on the general public. They above all know best.
DwF
Well-known
We have different experience. I also find the tonal range from M9-M exemplary for a "35mm sized" ILC. I won't say that I am always able to get out of files what I'd hope to (learning curve) but with the M9-M it is way easier, and I feel I'm doing okay. I have printed a couple and they look great.
General question to those here reading this thread: Isn't M9-M the correct designation for the CCD Monochrom as opposed to MM which I'd think would refer to the 246-M?
Thanks for clarification in advance
David
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I just call it the original MM.
DwF
Well-known
Can't go wrong with that.
I just took delivery of my new yellow filter (went with B&W 022). My daughter was not up to modeling but allowed me to point the camera her way briefly.
willie_901
Veteran
Skin tones are strongly influenced by IR sensitivity since blood flows near the surface.
Depending on how a face is lit (light source distributions) results will vary. For instance if the light is dominated by off-camera flash/strobes the IR contribution will be small.
Why would anyone care? The Bayer demosaicing model assumes no IR light is present.
Depending on how a face is lit (light source distributions) results will vary. For instance if the light is dominated by off-camera flash/strobes the IR contribution will be small.
Why would anyone care? The Bayer demosaicing model assumes no IR light is present.