M240 black and white conversions??

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was wondering if anyone can comment on how well the M240 does in terms of converting images made with it to black and white.

 

If anyone out there has both an M240 and an M Monochrom, how much difference is there between the black and white prints from these two cameras? If you would kindly comment on the differences, it would be great to have some insight on this issue.

 

I am leaning toward the M240 as it also profduces color imagery - but in many ways, my personal preference is for black and white images (not everyone I might be shooting for may be of like mind, though). Some subjects are better rendered in color but some are better in black and white.

 

With an M240 you can do either - but what are the trade-offs when using an M240 for black and white vs. using the M-M? Are there big differences in the final prints in terms of image quality or are the M240 B&W prints pretty close to the M-M in terms of print image quality?

 

Thanks in advance to all who offer their thoughts and experiences.

 

Also, please post some M240 B&W images, if you have some on hand.

 

Thanks!

[chris_tribble]

LOADS of lovely B&W renderings from the M-240 out there. I wouldn't want to say it's BETTER than the Monochrome, but it's more than sufficient for my purposes. Some examples here:

The English Lake District - Square experiments - a set on Flickr

 

I should also say that printed at home with an Epson 2880 on Harman Baryta coated paper A3+ sizes are VERY good and I've printed to A1 (23"x33") for exhibition purposes - I was astounded by how well images from the M-240 come out (black and white or colour).

Edited March 21, 2014 by chris_tribble

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[}{B]

As an alternative to converting RAW files to black and white I believe that the M 240 can produce black and white JPEGs and that these can have coloured filter effects such as red and yellow applied in camera.

 

While not owning a digital Leica I do have a Fuji X100 which has such a function and I'm very pleased with the results, at least for viewing on a computer screen. I have never had any of the photos printed so that may be another story.

 

Until I started using the X100 I thought, possibly as many forum users do, that JPEGs were the poor relations of RAW files and while RAW files do have more scope to be adjusted I certainly found that the black and white JPEGs produced by the X100 could be tweaked sufficiently in Lightroom to give the 'look' I wanted.

 

Can anyone comment on their experience of using this black and white JPEG function with the M240?

[Son of Helm]

LOADS of lovely B&W renderings from the M-240 out there. I wouldn't want to say it's BETTER than the Monochrome, but it's more than sufficient for my purposes. Some examples here:

The English Lake District - Square experiments - a set on Flickr

 

I should also say that printed at home with an Epson 2880 on Harman Baryta coated paper A3+ sizes are VERY good and I've printed to A1 (23"x33") for exhibition purposes - I was astounded by how well images from the M-240 come out (black and white or colour).

 

Nice results.

Could you reveal a bit on your workflow, please?

LR or other PP? Contrast settings etc

[chris_tribble]

Lightroom to ensure correct exposure / white balance in color + any crop > SilverEfex for final B&W conversion + any frame etc. Return to Lightroom to proof and print (or to prepare correctly profiled file to send to print shop).

[lenicolas]

Are there big differences in the final prints in terms of image quality or are the M240 B&W prints pretty close to the M-M in terms of print image quality?

 

The quality of a final print has imho much more to do with the competence of the digital operator and the quality of the process.

Though I hear that apps like Dxo Film pack or Silverefex make it quite easy for anyone to make a good b&w conversion.

 

If you want the possibility of shooting color, really there is no choice to make, go for the M240.

 

If you consider the MM, be advised though that (maybe even more than b&w film) it seems to take some work and previsualisation to achieve good images.

 

Here's a recent example of a color image converted to b&w :

http://oi61.tinypic.com/693y34.jpg

I know that I couldn't have made that image with the MM ; I wouldn't know which color film to use

Probably an Orange to get the flowers white, but then how do I prevent the green folliage from getting too dark? and the table is yelow/brown, and I didn't want it to get too light...

With camera raw's conversion tool, I know how to use the channel mixer to assign each color a specific value.

For a quick conversion, I'd just play with the white balance untill I got greys that I like!

 

With a monochrom I'd be lost and I'd have to take what the camera and the filter I have on at that time give me.

You might come up with a solution for this still life (maybe filtering my light source with a color gel?) but for candid photographs, you can't really work your way around this.

 

There was a thread last week of hip hop dancers performing on the streets of new york. Good photos, but on one of them, the dancer (doing some sort of backflip) was completely lost in the background. It litteraly took me 10 seconds to find him in the picture. My first thought was : if this was a color conversion, he could've played with the channels to separate the dancer's clothes from the color of the background" but with the MM (or film, really) you're stuck with whatever filter you had on at that time.

 

Again, I shoot film (tri-x) and somehow I make it work

But every now and then, I get a scene that looked good irl, but the resulting picture is flat and confusing. If all I had when I made that shot of the dead flowers above was my M6 with Tri-X, I would still have taken the photo, and probably loved it, but the image I really want and visualized is the one I made from color digital.

I can live with that, but with digital, having a choice, I choose a color sensor over and over. YMMV

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M is capable of superb B&W conversions. They are more than sufficient.

 

However, the MM goes further, and in my view the files, comparing like for like, are just better. They have that 'goosebump' factor. As everyone knows, the post processing is the key.

 

Of course, some of this is subjective, but I think there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

 

FYI, I own both. The M is much better at colour though.

[gjames9142]

I don't have a 240, only a couple of M9s and and MM. I never could get really good conversions from the M9. I also think the discipline of thinking in B/W is important. If you have to keep cropping or switching between colour and B/W, the chances are that the pictures aren't that great to start with. That said, I am sure that the 240 conversions are probably more than fine.

[wlaidlaw]

Capture One does excellent B&W conversions from M240 DNG’s, using either the various built in presets or your own custom ones. My Canon Pixma Pro-1 does very nice B&W prints on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, with its 5 blacks/greys. PS CS can do B&W conversions nicely as well but I find it works best from 16 bit TIFF’s converted in Capture One, rather than using ACR to convert the DNG’s. There are lots of ways it can be done in PS and there are loads of free videos on the internet on this subject.

 

Wilson

[250swb]

The M9 and the M240 can both make very good B&W images converting the RAW file to RGB monochrome or duotone etc. One from an M240 is here

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/324276-precarious-life.html

 

And of course you get the choice of deciding post exposure what filters to apply and other manipulation of the colour channels. But in terms of tone and resolution the M240 doesn't come close to the MM, although as is always the case you probably wouldn't notice the difference in most prints especially if the subject matter is more intriguing than fine detail.

 

To get the most out of an MM you need to go back in time and plan ahead like in the days of film. So you need to plan which filter you want to use (if any), you need to pay much more attention to exposure as highlights are far less recoverable from the single channel, and you need to do the old trick of imagining the image you want from post processing as you would when using a darkroom, because pressing the shutter is not the end of the process. Only rarely will the image on the LCD and through to ACR (other RAW processor are available) equate to something likable. The MM image needs work to give it a characteristic curve, but when you do it is very much closer to the delights of a film image than a file from a M240 or M9. Tones do not get stretched or break down into posterisation, the MM file has a ton of information to manipulate, even at high ISO's, where by the time you get to 5000 ISO the digital noise looks like film grain, not the mush from a colour original, and Tri-X film comes to mind. Here is a low ISO photograph from the MM

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technology-industry/320053-trainspotting.html

 

But perhaps only by working with files from an M9 or M240 and then the MM, is it possible to appreciate the MM as a B&W camera. It needs more planning and work, but only as much as a film camera, but darkroom time is less, and the lack of a colour option would put a lot of people off. So you need to decide if you are a B&W photographer to get the most from an MM, I don't think it is a casual camera even if you just fancy a bit of B&W for a change, expect work but reap the rewards.

 

Steve

Edited March 22, 2014 by 250swb

[01af]

Here's another one, taken with an old Summarit 50 mm 1:1.5 lens on a Leica M (Typ 240), converted and duo-toned in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

The title, "Die andere Seite", would translate to The Far Side.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/sonstiges/312756-die-andere-seite.html#post2578501

[Londonmember]

LOADS of lovely B&W renderings from the M-240 out there. I wouldn't want to say it's BETTER than the Monochrome, but it's more than sufficient for my purposes. Some examples here:

The English Lake District - Square experiments - a set on Flickr

 

I should also say that printed at home with an Epson 2880 on Harman Baryta coated paper A3+ sizes are VERY good and I've printed to A1 (23"x33") for exhibition purposes - I was astounded by how well images from the M-240 come out (black and white or colour).

 

Hi Chris,

Lovely images. MM would give you a bit more mid tone, believe me...

Regards

Brendan

[Photoskeptic]

Chris, those are terrific. Needs no excuses that they weren't shot with a Monochrom.

[chris_tribble]

An interesting thread - but also a problem... Doesn't all of this boil down to what we can get from the print? My problem with our discussion is that are evaluations are based on digital representations of the images that are then displayed on (variable) computer screens.

 

While I'm more than willing to accept that the MM will give greater tonal range and (maybe) better management of artifacts at high ISO, on my planet, I've not felt unhappy with the results of M240 BW conversions - and clients have been happy too - if not delighted.

 

In the attached portrait of a friend's dog (still playing with square format ) there are some blown highlights, but the tonalities cover a very wide range, and the M handled the complexity of light very well IMHO. Would the MM have done better - maybe, but I don't know. Did this image make a strong 20"x20" print? Yes it did.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[dant]

Camera Comparisons

 

MM and M240 compared. I think the biggest advantage to the MM is you can shoot lots of BW and no need to fool around converting. Also the grain on the MM is delightful.

[ronaldh]

Lightroom to ensure correct exposure / white balance in color + any crop > SilverEfex for final B&W conversion + any frame etc. Return to Lightroom to proof and print (or to prepare correctly profiled file to send to print shop).

 

I also have this printer. Does one need a special profile for the paper you mention, and if so, how do you instal it.

 

Until now I have only used Epson Premium semi- glossy (which, oddly, is cheaper for A3+ than for A3).

 

Thanks

 

Ronnie

[Herr Barnack]

The M is capable of superb B&W conversions. They are more than sufficient.

 

However, the MM goes further, and in my view the files, comparing like for like, are just better. They have that 'goosebump' factor. As everyone knows, the post processing is the key.

 

Of course, some of this is subjective, but I think there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

 

FYI, I own both. The M is much better at colour though.

 

My approach will be to go with the M240 (since I need color capability too) and see how I like the B&W conversions from it. I know they will have a different fingerprint from what I am used to with my M4-P and Tri-X, but "different" doesn't always mean "not as good." If I really don't care for them, I'll go back to shooting Tri-X in my M4-P.

 

With the purchase of the M240, I will have caught my limit of $7000+ cameras for this year. Maybe by next year when cash reserves are replenished, we will have "Monochrom, The Next Generation" available to us.

[250swb]

While I'm more than willing to accept that the MM will give greater tonal range and (maybe) better management of artifacts at high ISO, on my planet, I've not felt unhappy with the results of M240 BW conversions

 

It isn't just the tonal range and how this is represented, and the M is very good, an example here

 

untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

but the resolution of detail from the MM is far ahead. It is wrong to think 18mp will resolve less detail than 24mp, it is 18mp with RGB going into one channel, not three colours competing to be resolved on the sensor. On GetDPI forum people with both an MM and the 36mp Sony A7R say the MM still comes out better in both tonality and resolution after converting the A7R picture to B&W, but I admit it is hard to judge post processing skills over the internet.

 

Steve

Edited March 26, 2014 by 250swb

[Numbers]

An interesting thread - but also a problem... Doesn't all of this boil down to what we can get from the print? My problem with our discussion is that are evaluations are based on digital representations of the images that are then displayed on (variable) computer screens.

 

While I'm more than willing to accept that the MM will give greater tonal range and (maybe) better management of artifacts at high ISO, on my planet, I've not felt unhappy with the results of M240 BW conversions - and clients have been happy too - if not delighted.

.

 

 

I think that is exactly it, Chris! I have lots of admiration for the MM but the M240 is more than capable of doing fantastic quality in b&w pictures, according to ones pp skills. Printing will narrow the gap!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chris_tribble]

I also have this printer. Does one need a special profile for the paper you mention, and if so, how do you instal it.

 

Until now I have only used Epson Premium semi- glossy (which, oddly, is cheaper for A3+ than for A3).

 

Thanks

 

Ronnie

 

Download here:

Harman

 

Instructions can be found here:

Installing Profiles - Hahnemühle FineArts

 

Definitely worth doing.