Jump to content

Prints 60 x 40 cm: Which Leica does the best job?


BjarniM

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm working on a book project, where some of the prints (all portraits) also should be delivered in approximately 60 x 40 centimeter prints (all black and whites). My plan was to use film for the project, but i can see, that this maybe will be too expensive.

 

I've been searching this forum and on google as well, but didn't find a definitive answer to my question - hence this question, since there a lot of Leica users in this forum.

 

I could imagine all of the never models could do the job, but i want the best possible result i can obtain, and everything counts to obtain the best prints regarding sharpness, contrast, grain, b/w tonal range and overall image quality. Every small micro detail counts.

 

Which digital Leica will deliver the best results for my project, printed in black and white?

Edited by BjarniM
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that Leica has developed and introduced just the model to meet your needs. The Monochrom. If black and white is very much your genre, you probably will not find a better solution. If, on the other hand, you also want top quality in colour as well as monochrome, consider the M-240.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be old tech and not clever, but the Monochrom would appear to be the best solution, but at this size, there will not be a huge amount in it between the MM, M9 and M240, especially if the print area is a little smaller than 60x40. If you push the files around a lot, the MM will pull ahead further, but any of the FF cameras will do a cracking job...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monochrom is the really obvious option, as has already been said. I would strongly recommend (unless you have other constraints) that you try to get it printed on a Canon imagePROGRAF iPF6450 (the big brother of the Pro-1) with the 12 ink colours, including several greys - the results I've achieved with the smaller version are second to none.

 

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

why is film too expensive? Are you borrowing or renting the Leica digital camera that will cost a fortune?

 

Film offers a much wider array of natural-looking renditions, IMO. And digitizing the negatives can be very cost effective with the purchase of a good scanner. The digitized negatives can be edited just like a RAW file and then printed on any paper (including Ilford B&W paper) using light-jet or ink jet printers. This entire set up will be much cheaper than purchasing a Leica digital camera (except for perhaps an M8 or a very used M9.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The best camera and method is probably what you already have and are familiar with. Any M will provide files that can be printed at that size. I assume that the 60 by 40 cm is for a double spread in your book. Using unfamiliar equipment for a project is not the best route, stick with what you have.

Jean-Michel

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Total workflow is key. Great prints have historically been made with minimal gear; as much or more depends upon what happens after the pic is taken. (Same, btw, with book production.)

 

I suggest you wander over to the PP section of the forum and do some searches on printing. Lots to consider….software, printers, papers, profiles, inks, display lighting and conditions, and more….and most importantly the skill, technique and eye of the printer.

 

Choosing which Leica (and lens) is a relatively small part of the equation.

 

Jeff

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a single best Leica for ALL shots. If you objective is for absolute quality, I suspect that the best camera is the S2. The second choice would be for the Monochrome which would deliver the best micro-contrast - and would be consistent with your initial intention to shoot with film. Third choice would be the M240 which has the flexibility of B&W conversion with independent tonal conversion of the various colours

 

That being said, if you want the highest image quality, the vast majority of "image quality" comes from your post-processing skills and your personal ability to see and manipulate the image into magical quality.

 

If I were to make a wild guess, it is your post-processing skills that will deliver at least 90% of the final image magic and the remaining 10% will come from the camera/lens. All leicas are pretty dan'ed fine for quality ... the differences are (IMHO) subtle.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jeff and Tony. If you insist on using digital (personally I wouldn't), processing the file will matter most. Then, consider having the prints made by a lab that can print a digital file onto silver gelatin paper. Ilford Lab Direct (UK) does it very well, and so does Digital SIlver Imaging (check internet). There are others, but I have no experience with them. The key will be to get a good print.

 

As far as cameras go, any Leica (medium speed film correctly processed, or digital) will make an outstanding 40x60 print. The camera doesn't much matter. Focus on the print.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

why is film too expensive? Are you borrowing or renting the Leica digital camera that will cost a fortune?

 

Film offers a much wider array of natural-looking renditions, IMO.

 

The reason that film is so expensive is because i live in an isolated country far away from bigger countries, which brings the total cost to around 120 USD just for a single roll of Tri-X when it's developed and scanned, so you can imagine the total cost for a book project, where around 100 pictures will be published.

 

Are you borrowing or renting the Leica digital camera that will cost a fortune?

 

If a digital M will be used i will buy it, since it's not possible to rent them in the country where i live.

 

Film offers a much wider array of natural-looking renditions, IMO.

 

I do agree. I've been shooting T-Max and Tri-X for 15 years now and i love the character of pictures taken with film, but - as i said - maybe this will cost me too much.

 

 

That being said, if you want the highest image quality, the vast majority of "image quality" comes from your post-processing skills and your personal ability to see and manipulate the image into magical quality.

 

Could you please explain a bit more, and in details, what you mean when saying it's depending on my post processing skills? Which things are the most important for me to learn in Photoshop?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree. I've been shooting T-Max and Tri-X for 15 years now and i love the character of pictures taken with film, but - as i said - maybe this will cost me too much.

 

What if you bought a Monochrom? About 7.000 euro to start with if you keep using your own lenses?

I'd say you would need a spare battery and depending on the importance of your project / time schedule, you might need a backup Monochrom?

Assuming you already have one or two film bodies, you could buy an awful lot of film and chemicals for that. I'd say, stick to film. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any Leica lenses?

 

john

 

I will use the Summicron-M 35 mm f/2 ASPH, which is a lens i absolutely love for its character. It's not close up portraits in the book, but portraits of people in different environments, so the 35 mm will do the job for me.

 

 

What if you bought a Monochrom? About 7.000 euro to start with if you keep using your own lenses?

I'd say you would need a spare battery and depending on the importance of your project / time schedule, you might need a backup Monochrom?

Assuming you already have one or two film bodies, you could buy an awful lot of film and chemicals for that. I'd say, stick to film. ;)

 

7.000 Euros is a lot of money, which also is the price for the M240, which will be replaced by another new model in let's say two years from now. I will take deep breath and consider for some weeks if it's time for me to make the switch from analog to digital Leica.

 

I will be shooting the portraits for the next two years or so.

 

I have a M6 from 1998 in perfect condition (9/10) which i will use as a back up body if i decide to go digital with Leica.

Edited by BjarniM
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with monochrom is that since there is no mosaic filter in front of the sensor, there will be no artifacts which you will see on other models, particularly moire. The latter bugged the hell out of me when making large prints from my M9. (On smaller prints it is not so visible)

The monochrom has nothing of this and will - in my opinon - enlarge as large as you want.

 

People are not going to press their noses to a ten metre print if you know what I mean.

However, your biggest limiting factor will be good technique: at this kind of magnification, even the slightest camera shake and misfocusing will be visible.

I doubt the S2 will make noticeable better prints, but this is of course a whole different league in both pricing and handling.

 

PM me for some tips on upscaling and printing if you want.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How can your M6 be a 'back up' to a digital M if you've already said film is out of the question?

 

On that issue, you already like film, use film and know film. Consider the cost of learning a new medium as well as the capital expense of a digital body and maybe software/hardware you might also require.

 

Processing B&W film is easy, you should do that yourself. Scan the film yourself too. Printing, you have the option of traditional wet prints or digital from the scans (and before anyone says it, no, scanning film isn't the same as just taking a digital shot in the first place!).

 

Digital will certainly be more convenient for you, but you won't get the same kind of results. Maybe you should buy a digital camera and try it out, see if you like the results and workflow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How can your M6 be a 'back up' to a digital M if you've already said film is out of the question?

 

If i will choose to buy a digital Leica i also expect it to work flawless, since i most likely will buy it factory new.

 

The reason i said that the M6 would be the back up camera body, is in case the digital (if i choose to buy one) should be sent for repair or adjustment, then i would have to use the M6 for the short period the digital was in for service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a second hand Fuji GW690 (a 6x9 medium format camera), a Plustek 120 scanner, some filters, some home processing equipment (maybe $150), a gigantic amount of film, and you would still be at half the price of a Monochrom (which by the way is still the best way to high digital resolution).

 

Steve

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If i will choose to buy a digital Leica i also expect it to work flawless, since i most likely will buy it factory new.

 

The reason i said that the M6 would be the back up camera body, is in case the digital (if i choose to buy one) should be sent for repair or adjustment, then i would have to use the M6 for the short period the digital was in for service.

 

You might expect anything you like! Stuff goes wrong, and you need to plan for that. You really need two bodies,not one.

 

Switching mid-project from digital to film and back again will result in a set of images with rather different looks - maybe thats fine for your purposes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If i will choose to buy a digital Leica i also expect it to work flawless, since i most likely will buy it factory new.

 

The reason i said that the M6 would be the back up camera body, is in case the digital (if i choose to buy one) should be sent for repair or adjustment, then i would have to use the M6 for the short period the digital was in for service.

 

Expect 3/4 months turn around. Leica has the worst turn around of any brand in 50 years of doing this.

 

expect perfection out of the box, not.

 

I would strongly suggest film and scanner. Plustek 8100 or 8200 for color. $311 and $400 respectively at B&H.

 

Monochrome puts tri x to shame. Unless you like grain. You will probably like Delta 100 or TMax 100 from 35 mm to 40x60.

 

Buy any kind of DSLR and convert to monochrome. Add grain in photoshop using options of large or small, soft or sharp, and use blend if to keep the grain in the midtowns. Split the sliders to make softer transitions. Use curves to make it look like film. Nikon D810 is a fantastic 36 MP camera. D750 for higher iso @ 25 MP.

 

If you are in a humid area, keep away from monochrome, M9 and ME due to sensor corrosion issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a second hand Fuji GW690 (a 6x9 medium format camera), a Plustek 120 scanner, some filters, some home processing equipment (maybe $150), a gigantic amount of film, and you would still be at half the price of a Monochrom (which by the way is still the best way to high digital resolution).

 

Steve

 

I like the whole Leica shooting experience and the optics so well, that this isn't an option for me.

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...