Mono - not the illness

I wonder if Adobe or someone would take a more aggressive approach to RAW image conversions to address the tone issue from color to B&W.

I keep looking at MF/LF B&W images and feel like I want to get back into films of that size. Problem is no body has any R&D cash right now.

I wonder what the effort would be for Fuji to come out with a monochrome version after the initial engineering is done on the color version? Even if they came out with it on a version behind I wonder what the market would be.

I do agree, my iPhone is plenty for family stuff (though I wish I could get the tripple camera on a mini-sized body).

B2 (;->
 
...But digital CMOS sensors also don't have a lot of character, compared to the variety you can get from B&W film stocks, development processes, etc. It seems restrictive, not so much in the "creative restrictions" way as just restrictive of the type of output you can get. ....


I beg to differ but also see it from a different point of view😉.
For me reality doesn't have grain. A sensor should capture as much of reality as possibly, that captured image is your starting point.
With the digital file you have all the freedom to process to personal preference. When you load Tri-X and expose at 1600 you can't get an Arcos or PAN-f like result printed. If the film character is part of your artistic expression and fits your style, then go for it.


I have no experience with a CMOS bw digital camera, the orig. MM (M9M) with the CCD sensor is producing stunning results if you know how to milk the IQ that this camera is capable of.


Enjoy the tool you have.😀
 
I wonder if Adobe or someone would take a more aggressive approach to RAW image conversions to address the tone issue from color to B&W.

I keep looking at MF/LF B&W images and feel like I want to get back into films of that size. Problem is no body has any R&D cash right now....
B2 (;->


Hi Bill,

I guess before image conversion of a color file into a bw image, you need to do proper processing of the color image first and only afterwards convert to bw. If the raw file is being directly converted, you basically throw away the theoretical advantage of capturing 3 different channels that need to be merged first into a harmonic image. Once in bw you can not repair anything that should have happend on the color stage. I never liked bw conversion from my M9 but I love the image output of the MM.

Not sure this has any merit, just my $0.02😉
 
Starting in 1971 and for the next 15 years, I used only B&W film (and one camera, one lens) because that's all I could afford. I loaded from bulk rolls and did my own developing and printing. Using color film during that time would've been an extravagance. Anyway, from that I learned soon enough about light and form.

When I did start using color, my photos were uninteresting.

These days, my photography is about 90% color; when I switch to B&W film now, I need to consciously approach subjects with a view towards light and form.

Even if I had $5k, $8k for a monochrome digital camera, I'd save that money for a trip and use B&W film.
 
As I already said in the Q2 mono thread (post 51) I'm tempted by the Q2 mono.

I like to shoot B&W and I'm satisfied by the images I get with the M10 and postprocess with a combination of SEP and LRCC, PS somtimes.

I have to say that like with film before going out I decided if B&W or colour I make the same decision when I go out with the M10. Of course I shoot DNG which allows me in any case to have images in color, just in case.

But I find very different and in my opinion much better to go out and shoot with the idea to convert in B&W than going out and simply shoot and later convert in B&W. You see things in a different way and this will be reflected later in your photos.

My taste goes for somehow "rough" images, so the extra definition of a 40 MP sensor and the better grey scale which for sure it will give are not my main interest. Moreover I do not print very large to justify to cost of a 40MP camera.

The reason for which I'm curious to try a mono camera (10 or Q) is really because of the approach, the way to work.

In case of the Q2mono I could have the additional benefit of the macro (or close focusing) which I sometimes miss in the m10 (I could also buy the M macro adapter!)

Conclusion: I m curious, maybe one day (after covid) I'll try one even if the cost is too high for just satisfy my curiosity!
 
I think it makes perfect sense for Leica. Leica has many B&W only fans. It certainly is a beautiful and perfectly useful camera. Some people just want exactly what they want in this world. I can understand why it could be popular with certain people.
 
I beg to differ but also see it from a different point of view😉.
For me reality doesn't have grain. A sensor should capture as much of reality as possibly, that captured image is your starting point.
With the digital file you have all the freedom to process to personal preference. When you load Tri-X and expose at 1600 you can't get an Arcos or PAN-f like result printed. If the film character is part of your artistic expression and fits your style, then go for it.


I have no experience with a CMOS bw digital camera, the orig. MM (M9M) with the CCD sensor is producing stunning results if you know how to milk the IQ that this camera is capable of.


Enjoy the tool you have.😀

Unless the different point of view you see from is also monochrome, then reality isn't black and white either, in addition to not having grain! 😀

I don't dislike the photos I've seen from monochrome only sensors, but most of them have had a contrast curve applied, which could be done exactly the same way to a color RAW file, while retaining the ability to edit color channels for specific B&W effects. I'll agree the CCD monochrom does have a pretty nice look to it. So did my CCD Nikon DSLR back in the day. CCD is awesome.
 
Mt_Vernon_Ultron_Red_filter_Monochrom by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

chimney_monochrom by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

chimney_m9_converted by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Mt_Vernon_35Ultron_NoSharp_Simulated_RED by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I did a comparison between the M9 and M Monochrom early on. I just don't like image artifacts introduced because of the Bayer Pattern Mosaic Filter.

Kodak published the data sheet for the color KAF-18500 (used in the M9) and KAF-10500 used in the M8, but never published the data sheet for the monochrome version of the sensor. The KAF-18500 has a much lower saturation count than the older M8 sensor, 40K vs 60K. This was most likely due to sensor thinning for the full-frame sensor. I suspect the saturation count for the monochrome sensor is closer to the KAF-10500, not as much need to thin the sensor on a monochrome detector.
 
I could not leave this problem alone- and wanted to see if monochrome conversions could be improved by using a yellow filter with the M9 and implementing a custom demosaic algorithm. The algorithm combined the blue and green channels, then interpolated with red.

M9_Y48_custom_demosaic by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

M9_Y48_custom_demosaic_crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

These are with the M9, DNG files converted to Linear-Raw DNG. This is what I got.

It looks like what I got printing color negatives using Polycontrast when I was 16. Which was a very long time ago.

Just to add: converting color cameras to monochrome requires that the microlens array be removed. An original monochrome sensor used in the Leica cameras has an offset microlens array that is optimized for lenses with short back-focus. The converted cameras lose about 50% of their collection efficiency, and more at the edges when used with an RF lens.

The full-frame Nikon monochrome Microscope camera uses F-Mount, and has a cooled CMOS sensor- same as used in the Df. It would make a nice studio camera.

https://d33b8x22mym97j.cloudfront.n...ce-mpak-1.pdf?mtime=20200628235517&focal=none
 
Although I honestly don't believe sensors over 24mp should be offered without some form of image stabilization (otherwise restricting you to higher shutter speeds and/or higher ISO settings) I probably would have been tempted into an M10 Monochrom as 80-90% of my images get converted to B&W. I bought my M10-P just a month or two before the M10-M was announced.

18632282-orig.jpg

Leica M10-P
50mm Asph Summilux-M
B&W conversion via Nik (Panatomic-X)
 
I have always seen potential photos in mono or color at all times, freely and, now in digital, subconsciously. In the 35 years in which there was only film (my timeline), I often had mono film in the camera but saw a color shot, or had color film and wished I could switch to mono. It was possible to switch films in mid-roll, but it was a major hassle.
Color digital fixed that.
 
I have always seen potential photos in mono or color at all times, freely and, now in digital, subconsciously. In the 35 years in which there was only film (my timeline), I often had mono film in the camera but saw a color shot, or had color film and wished I could switch to mono. It was possible to switch films in mid-roll, but it was a major hassle.
Color digital fixed that.
I doubt many film photographers would dream of doing this but it’s possible to shoot in colour full time and convert to B&W in post. Best of both worlds, maybe?! Is there an equivalence to using colour digital and converting to B&W.
PS I use film and digital (colour digital M240), film primarily for B&W as God intended!
 
Kodak Panalure was made to print color negatives as B&W, and a number of photographers did this "back in the Day". Panalure is no longer made.
 
This is what I do, print the Monochrom images as negatives on an inkjet and then contact print on silver chloride or hand-coated paper. Standard size is 9x13.5 on 11x15 paper, but I can go up to 16x24. They look amazing.

Marty

This is interesting, so you have a digital camera file which you invert into a B&W negative file. Then do you print with a inkjet printer on paper or film? Do you dodge and burn or do you adjust the camera file?
 
This is interesting, so you have a digital camera file which you invert into a B&W negative file. Then do you print with a inkjet printer on paper or film? Do you dodge and burn or do you adjust the camera file?

I take the file, adjust, inkjet print onto film, then contact print. It’s laborious and expensive so it’s only for images you really want a top notch print of. There are lots of systems and instructions for it these days.

I try to adjust the files so they don’t need any dodging or burning. It is feasible to dodge and burn when you contactprint onto silver, but it’s not really viable for processes like argentotype, kallitype or platinum that use long UV exposures. I’ve standardised on 12x18 inch prints for this process.

Marty
 
Hey, thanks, I like this. My friend tried something similar but he was using reversed curves and all these crazy adjustments and he could never get it right (he even bought a book on digital negatives). I know there will be a learning curve, but you don't seem to have to make unnatural changes to the inverted file after pre-printing initial adjustments.
 
Hi Bill,

I guess before image conversion of a color file into a bw image, you need to do proper processing of the color image first and only afterwards convert to bw. If the raw file is being directly converted, you basically throw away the theoretical advantage of capturing 3 different channels that need to be merged first into a harmonic image. Once in bw you can not repair anything that should have happend on the color stage. I never liked bw conversion from my M9 but I love the image output of the MM.

Not sure this has any merit, just my $0.02😉

When I convert Fuji X-sensor RAW images, I take full advantage of the color sliders (sorting like using filters after the fact) in post. With a monochrome sensor, you need to use actual filters.

That being said, I currently prefer B&W film for monochrome.
 
I agree with Mark. Starting with Raw files or with color JPEG files, the color channels do a really nice job for adjusting gray tones.
 
...But digital CMOS sensors also don't have a lot of character, compared to the variety you can get from B&W film stocks, development processes, etc.
...

I have no idea what this means.

Sensor's alone don't have character. The sensor assembly cover-glass IR filter, the light transmission properties of the color-filter array films, the micro-lens array optics and the demosaicking algorithm determine the information content of a flat raw file rendering. (1)

Of course a flat raw file can be rendered in countless different ways to produce a monochrome image. As the data SNR increases the so do the rendering possibilities.

Both CMOS and CCD photo-sites convert electromagnetic radiation into electrical charge for each sensor photosite. This is an example of energy transfer. Electrical charge does not have character. When the electrical charge becomes an analog DC voltage, the voltage does not acquire character. The array of raw file digital number estimates from the analog-to-digital converter do have character. They are just integers.

Where does the CCD/CMOS character difference come from?

None of the above invalidates a preference for images rendered form a camera with a CCD sensor. However the root cause for perceived differences has nothing to do with differences between CCD or CMOS technology.


1. Cameras with monochrome sensors do not depend on demosaicking to render an image. This eliminates any imperfections in how well the demosaicking algorithm models the redenered image.
 
Back
Top Bottom