Etruscello Posted July 8, 2014 Share #1 Posted July 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been processing B&W from the M240 in Photoshop CS6 and find that processing is easier, less time consuming and with better results if I ignore the B&W jpeg and work directly with the DNG file. I use "HSL/ Greyscale" section of CS6 RAW to convert the color DNG to B&W and then manipulate PS's color slide bars to change tonality. The range of manipulation is astounding -- I am able to change each tone to a significant degree and produce a "Zone System" type image with very little of the work of yesteryear. This seems to me to be both more efficient and effective than using color filters on a dedicated B&W digital camera such as the MM. I have been doing so muck B&W work lately that I have been considering buying an MM. I ask those of you who have an MM as well as an M240 to kindly tell me if an MM DNG is as workable as an M240 DNG. I assume color manipulation in RAW is not available and that, therefore, one must use color filters to get the precise tonalities one wants. Is the MM worth that trouble? I am very please with the B&W results from the M240. Why is the MM so popular? Is it only because of the higher resolution? I don't print larger than 12x18" so, perhaps, an MM is not necessary for me. I'd rather not buy an MM to find out for myself because it is so expensive (the most expensive M). I'd appreciate any advice you can give me. Am I thinking correctly about this decision? Thank you. Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Hi Etruscello, Take a look here B&W Processing: M240 vs MM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 8, 2014 Share #2 Posted July 8, 2014 Just as it happens I have been doing some B&W on the 240 lately. Comparing with MM results I cannot even get close, despite the 240 being no slouch. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Helm Posted July 8, 2014 Share #3 Posted July 8, 2014 ... I have been doing so muck B&W work lately that I have been considering buying an MM. I ask those of you who have an MM as well as an M240 to kindly tell me if an MM DNG is as workable as an M240 DNG. ... Thank you. Tom Perhaps a bit off topic, but comparing end results also involves a high quality paper. What can be recommended to get high contrast shadows and crisp highlights? Can you get close to results from the darkroom age of say a baryt paper like Record Rapid? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 8, 2014 Share #4 Posted July 8, 2014 Perhaps a bit off topic, but comparing end results also involves a high quality paper.What can be recommended to get high contrast shadows and crisp highlights? Can you get close to results from the darkroom age of say a baryt paper like Record Rapid? I am using Canson infinity Baryta, I like very much this paper Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2014 Share #5 Posted July 8, 2014 +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 8, 2014 Share #6 Posted July 8, 2014 I have to say, you guys awe me with your post processing expertise, and just the fact you are willing to put the effort into it. I contented myself with b&w jpgs from the M8 and M9, and am doing likewise with the M240. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted July 8, 2014 Share #7 Posted July 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have to say, you guys awe me with your post processing expertise, and just the fact you are willing to put the effort into it. I contented myself with b&w jpgs from the M8 and M9, and am doing likewise with the M240. Oh gee - you're missing so much fun. And really, LR + Silver Efex is not difficult to get your head round. Try it 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2014 Share #8 Posted July 8, 2014 I have to say, you guys awe me with your post processing expertise, and just the fact you are willing to put the effort into it. I contented myself with b&w jpgs from the M8 and M9, and am doing likewise with the M240. Why buy cameras that are able to produce awesome results -at considerable cost- and then hobble yourself by not realising those results through lack of post processing? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 9, 2014 Share #9 Posted July 9, 2014 I know, I know, and you're absolutely right. It's a combination of laziness and lack of interest on my part. I never liked that side (darkroom) of photography even back in the film days. Thankfully I had a very good local lab that gave me what I wanted. Sadly they're long gone. I suppose I should just force myself to learn post processing otherwise as you correctly point out, I'm not getting all I paid for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2014 Share #10 Posted July 9, 2014 ... I'm not getting all I paid for. By about 90%. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2014 Share #11 Posted July 9, 2014 Just as it happens I have been doing some B&W on the 240 lately. Comparing with MM results I cannot even get close, despite the 240 being no slouch. I noticed that Steve (250swb) thanked this post, but I recall his post here, excerpted as follows…. "The MM does move much further ahead in the competition if you regularly use higher ISO's at which it excels, but if you don't then an hour learning some post processing techniques will have anybody's M240 file looking very similar to film or indeed a well processed MM file." I have a friend who recently rented the MM and compared it to his M9 and M240, and he reached exactly this same conclusion. He does, however, still feel differently about film results, but that's another discussion. Different strokes…apparently. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 9, 2014 Share #12 Posted July 9, 2014 I agree that the M240 B&W images don't get close the those from the Monochrom but I tend to spend a bit more time in PS getting the best out of the Monochrom files. I've never been that thrilled with SFX I've been using Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk paper for colour and B&W for some time and was very happy with the results More recently, Ilford has released Galerie Prestige Gold Mono paper. Spectacular results, especially with Monochrom files. I would not go back to the Gold Fibre Silk again for B&W. Has anyone else used the Mono paper? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted July 9, 2014 Share #13 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi Mark, I haven't but I'll give the Mono Silk a try. I pretty much stopped using the Gold Fiber Silk when I discovered Innova Warm Cotton Gloss. A wonderful paper with a retro vibe. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 9, 2014 Share #14 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi Mark, I haven't but I'll give the Mono Silk a try. I pretty much stopped using the Gold Fiber Silk when I discovered Innova Warm Cotton Gloss. A wonderful paper with a retro vibe. I haven't tried the Innova but I've not seen it in Australia. Let me know what you think of the Ilford Mono. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted July 9, 2014 Share #15 Posted July 9, 2014 Just as it happens I have been doing some B&W on the 240 lately. Comparing with MM results I cannot even get close, despite the 240 being no slouch. I'm curious, and certainly not contradicting your view, but what is the difference that you see in the output between MM and M240? For example, does the MM have more greys and mid-tones across a wider scale? I've just pulled the trigger and (finally!) bought a new M240. With DNGs and then silver efex (Delta 100 preset) and then printed by a pro lab on their Lambda, I am utterly delighted by the "look" I got. I did a large crop from a 50x33 inch image, and it looked fantastic next to my dark-room printed images from a Mamiya 7. Not just in terms of detail, but in terms of the remarkably similar "look". Moreover, I adore the smoothness of the M240 files, given they make it easier to create a more film-like image, in my view, compared to other digital cameras I've used. I'm also finding it key not to over sharpen Leica files - with no aliasing filter, they're remarkably sharp straight out of camera, and I've learnt that much more than a gentle bit of sharpening can otherwise put the image into the "obviously digital" look very quickly (a beauty of film is that it never had aggressively and overly sharp accutance even in Rodinal). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #16 Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Why buy cameras that are able to produce awesome results -at considerable cost- and then hobble yourself by not realising those results through lack of post processing? +1000 I am sorry but I see no interest at all in the MM and I dont find the B&W MM better than the one with the M240 Edited July 9, 2014 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #17 Posted July 9, 2014 I'm curious, and certainly not contradicting your view, but what is the difference that you see in the output between MM and M240? For example, does the MM have more greys and mid-tones across a wider scale? I've just pulled the trigger and (finally!) bought a new M240. With DNGs and then silver efex (Delta 100 preset) and then printed by a pro lab on their Lambda, I am utterly delighted by the "look" I got. I did a large crop from a 50x33 inch image, and it looked fantastic next to my dark-room printed images from a Mamiya 7. Not just in terms of detail, but in terms of the remarkably similar "look". Moreover, I adore the smoothness of the M240 files, given they make it easier to create a more film-like image, in my view, compared to other digital cameras I've used. I'm also finding it key not to over sharpen Leica files - with no aliasing filter, they're remarkably sharp straight out of camera, and I've learnt that much more than a gentle bit of sharpening can otherwise put the image into the "obviously digital" look very quickly (a beauty of film is that it never had aggressively and overly sharp accutance even in Rodinal). That is what the M240 does, indeed, and the MM does it more. My conclusion is drawn from the images I took over the last year. You are right about the sharpening, the M240 needs only a small amount, but the MM needs none, indeed it will destroy the look. Only the technical sharpening for print makes sense ( which in your case the lab will do for you). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #18 Posted July 9, 2014 +1000 I am sorry but I see no interest at all in the MM and I dont find the B&W MM better than the one with the M240 Do you use them side by side? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 9, 2014 Share #19 Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I noticed that Steve (250swb) thanked this post, but I recall his post here, excerpted as follows…. "The MM does move much further ahead in the competition if you regularly use higher ISO's at which it excels, but if you don't then an hour learning some post processing techniques will have anybody's M240 file looking very similar to film or indeed a well processed MM file." I have a friend who recently rented the MM and compared it to his M9 and M240, and he reached exactly this same conclusion. He does, however, still feel differently about film results, but that's another discussion. Different strokes…apparently. Jeff In thanking Jaap I was agreeing with the bottom line, the MM is superior, so 'similar' shouldn't be confused with the same as. Anybody can make an M240 file look similar to an MM file (or film) with a little post processing, but that can be said for many similar film or digital images from varied camera's when hung on a wall together. The OP here doesn't need to go beyond 12x18 so it is well within the M240's capability to look similar. But for retaining smooth tonality at very large sizes, or to allow cropping, or to allow close inspection of very small detail in the print, or to work at higher ISO's the resolution and recording power of the MM is well ahead. There is also a vast amount of malleability in MM files not possible from the M240, but if you don't use it it's irrelevant. Very small detail and impressive tonality of the MM isn't always needed, and standing back and looking at a print on the wall doesn't reveal it anyway, so 'similar' should be seen as good enough for most of the time. As many people also want to use colour it's not fair talking down the M240 for falling a tiny bit short, or talking up the MM for B&W if the extra finesse of its output isn't going to be used or even needed. Its like arguing over the merits of two 50mm lenses, only within a certain band of usage will one 'beat' the other, but the rest of the time they are 'similar'. Steve Edited July 9, 2014 by 250swb 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #20 Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Do you use them side by side?I've got a few DNG from a friend, I see nothing really better in MM files and post-processing is more complicated (or with filters when shooting ... no thanks !)99% of my images are B&W but I keep my M 240 Let's see a MM 240 at Photokina , but I shall never buy a M9-like MM Edited July 9, 2014 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.