Jump to content

Monochrom - do its files survive extreme enlargement better than M240?


Jon Warwick

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been lurking as a reader on this forum for some time. I adore Leica M rangefinders. M4P in the mid-90s, then sold it for an M7 that I will be keeping. Also long time user of Mamiya 7. Both colour and B&W films, but it's B&W that is my main interest.

 

For digital work, I've used a non-FF DSLR and a digital compact for years, but I can't stand their handling and feel myself wanting this digital world in a rangefinder form!

 

I will need the ability to occasionally print very big (to 60"x40" at times). At that size, I'd only print B&W images. I've tried both the Monochrom and desaturated M240 (RAW files), resized sample files to a whopping 60"x40", and printed test strips on a Lambda printer.

 

My question!! Do files off the Monochrom sensor really respond very differently compared to the M240 (when enlarged massively to create a 60"x40" image??) ...... It seemed to me that images off the Monochrom can be enlarged massively, whilst maintaining a natural / smooth look. I'm not talking about resolution here -- rather, I'm referring to how files out of the Monochrom seemed to me to respond to extreme enlargement a bit like the way film responds to a huge drum scan (i.e., it still has "photographic integrity" and looks natural, no matter how huge you enlarge the image). In contrast, the M240 image started to look more and more like a less natural digital image ("increasingly fake", for want of a better expression) the larger it got towards that 60"x40" size.

 

Have I not properly processed the M240 files, or is my observation correct that Monochrom images can look much more natural than the M240 at huge 60"x40" enlargements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do a lot of prints with my MM, mostly at 20"x30" cause i find it to be the best size for this body. I also did some 30"x50" and the results are just great. You can't watch as close as with the 20"x30" (nose on the paper) but it works flawlessly anyway. I did try the M240 but didn't print anything with it.

I believe the extra crispness given by the non-bayered MM may be the key for the very good enlargements you can do with it... It's the most precise body i have ever used. Even with my old summaron 28 f5.6 from the 50th the resolving power is just amazing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done A2 prints that are fantastic and look as if you could happily go on enlarging at will if you wished with the MM. Not got a 240M yet so can t help on that score, but I'd trust your own initial findings Jon.

 

Agree with MOZ re old lenses: summaron 35 3.5 from similar vintage is astonishing on MM, especially central areas to quite far in the periphery. Loads of character too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.

 

I have done some comparisons between the M240 and the MM.

 

1. I shoot from my window with both cameras, on tripod, and the Summarit 2.5/75. First one, then the other. Same framing, same light, same everything.

 

2. Then I did A2 prints from both files, obviously converting the M240 one to B/W.

 

3. After that I did enlargements form the same corner on A4, as if the long side would be 1.9 meters big.

 

Everything with Lightroom 5 (which was in charge of interpolating to that big size), and an Epson 3880.

 

Conclusions:

 

A. The differences between both A2 prints are nearly invisible.

 

B. The differences between both 2 m wide prints are very clear: both are nice, but looked at less than 50 cm it becomes evident which one is the best. The MM delivers a very crisp and detailed print, which can be looked at at a distance of only 25 cm, without penalization.

 

This is only natural, this is how things must be. Bottom line: The MM files can be easily printed to whatever size.

 

...

 

2 years ago I did a 1,40 m wide print from a M9 file, with a Lambda printing machine, which calculated everything. It was a fantastic print!

Edited by Manolo Laguillo
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've no experience of the M240, but I've been shooting an MM since August 2012, and have made a good number of 30" prints. Looking at them, they could easily go considerably bigger.

 

The detail and range of tones in the MM files are sublime. Here is a recent shot from a nice pub in Glasgow. It's quite a severe crop from the original file, around only 40-50% of the image recorded. Not only that, but it was shot at 3200 ISO (50mm M Summilux ASPH, wide open at 1.4). Needless to say, the TIFF version of this is of much higher IQ.

 

For me, the MM offers all the quality and flexibility I could ever need.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

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!

Edited by colint544
  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

lucky as I am I own both (MM & M) and specially when ISO is higher the MM leads by far (as has been discussed in several threads before). In my opinion the pictures are sharper and when you want to blow them up the results are crispier (appearance on my screen). I had a 40mp dig. back (that I sold for the M 240) and was surprised how close the 18mp MM comes in terms of sharpness. The lens I use is a 35 mm summilux, that certainly is a great lens. When you want to make bw photographs than I would recommend the MM ....

 

Yes I really love the MM and printed a lot 17" x 25" MM prints and one 47 x 32", but nothing of my recently purchased M ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jvansmit

While I agree that the MM produces lovely files, I recently had 5 x A1 exhibition prints made at Danny Chau Digital, and can't tell the difference between the prints from M9, MM or M240. My photos are quite gritty with high contrast and usually at ISO1250.

 

Interestingly, Danny had a lovely 2 metre colour print on his studio wall which I thought was from film but was from a 6 megapixel Epson RD-1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the MM produces lovely files, I recently had 5 x A1 exhibition prints made at Danny Chau Digital, and can't tell the difference between the prints from M9, MM or M240. My photos are quite gritty with high contrast and usually at ISO1250.

 

Interestingly, Danny had a lovely 2 metre colour print on his studio wall which I thought was from film but was from a 6 megapixel Epson RD-1.

 

I have used (Ted who is Danny's brother) ) Chau Digital for a number of years in Clerkenwell (London) - they once prepared a number of A1 exhibition prints for me from scanned M7 negs - they were amazing. I use their Da Vinci house paper (Archival White and Fibre Gloss Smooth) for printing in my studio and they are fantastic quality. Nice folks too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I've no experience of the M240, but I've been shooting an MM since August 2012, and have made a good number of 30" prints. Looking at them, they could easily go considerably bigger.

 

The detail and range of tones in the MM files are sublime. Here is a recent shot from a nice pub in Glasgow. It's quite a severe crop from the original file, around only 40-50% of the image recorded. Not only that, but it was shot at 3200 ISO (50mm M Summilux ASPH, wide open at 1.4). Needless to say, the TIFF version of this is of much higher IQ.

 

For me, the MM offers all the quality and flexibility I could ever need.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

Really nice shot

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have an MM, but FWIW i had this image printed on Ilford Baryta paper by Whitewall on Germany, which uses an Oce light-jet printer and traditional silver halide developing, fixing and washing process. I printed at approx 36"x47". The results were simply fantastic, especially considering that i over-sharpened my file and could have minimized the artifacts to a great extent by doing a better job on this. The owner of the frame shop, who was a long time AP photographer and master printer back in the day, was particularly impressed at the quality of the print, remarking at how silver gelatin analog it looked and felt.

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!

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have an MM, but FWIW i had this image printed on Ilford Baryta paper by Whitewall on Germany, which uses an Oce light-jet printer and traditional silver halide developing, fixing and washing process. I printed at approx 36"x47". The results were simply fantastic, especially considering that i over-sharpened my file and could have minimized the artifacts to a great extent by doing a better job on this. The owner of the frame shop, who was a long time AP photographer and master printer back in the day, was particularly impressed at the quality of the print, remarking at how silver gelatin analog it looked and felt.

 

There are nasty haloes around the buildings. A problem I find also if the MM files are 'over pushed' wrt to contrast and definition. There's only solo much even an MM file can take, and this is TOO much...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are nasty haloes around the buildings. A problem I find also if the MM files are 'over pushed' wrt to contrast and definition. There's only solo much even an MM file can take, and this is TOO much...

 

Yep, you're 100% on all points. I realized this, too.

That silver efex pro can be a mischieveous devil. It akes you sit back and say, "wow, look at that structure detail; I like it give me more." And then, after the mesmerization fades, you say, "oh Sh$t, look at those halos!", at which point you've already exported the file out of Silver efex and thus it can't be tweaked w/o starting all over again. Lesson: less is better, even with the Monochrom.

 

Having said this, the only real problematic halos in my mind are the ones around the top of the big building in the foreground. The horizon tends to be naturally graduated from dark to light with the layer of lightest sky tones just as the horizon hits the building tops.

 

Live and learn....

Edited by A miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the original culprit is often the clarity slider. Use with extreme care.

 

I hear you but didn't use this slider

 

The evil demons for me are the highlight structure and midtone struxture sliders in Silver Efex Pro.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you but didn't use this slider

 

The evil demons for me are the highlight structure and midtone struxture sliders in Silver Efex Pro.

 

They are pretty well the same thing as the Clarity slider in ACR, the difference is that Silver Efex separates the micro contrast adjustments into three tonal levels.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

... all the quality and flexibility I could ever need....

 

:) right!! If Leica would come out with a 24Mp CMOS I really do not see what the surplusvalue would be of that camera to the actual MM. I would rather fear for the risk of unnatural sharpness and detail which would go over the hill in the style of Mapplethorpe and Avedon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are pretty well the same thing as the Clarity slider in ACR, the difference is that Silver Efex separates the micro contrast adjustments into three tonal levels.

 

Steve

And sharpening (which is mostly superfluous anyway) can do the same thing, especially the radius slider. The end conclusion might be that Monochrom files do not take kindly to microcontrast enhancement, probably because the system renders very high microcontrast in the first place

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for the constructive comments regarding the halos that I have received on this thread and another in the Photo forum which I shared this image, I have taken upon myself the challenge of re-edited the image exclusively in LR (I don't know how to use PS). I used the brush tool to make local adjustments only. I checked in Silver Efex Pro using the zones that there are no halos of lighter tones around the large building in the front, which was my main concern.

 

The image isn't as dramatic as my first picture in my above post. But that first image was arguably an overly-dramatic rendition, particularly in the context of how my file started, which I've also shared below.

 

Apologies for taking this thread on a tangent, but I was very bothered about my stupid oversight the first go around.

Best,

Adam

 

BEFORE

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!

 

 

AFTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...