Bored with B&W . . . . A Cautionary Tale

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Others can determine the IQ of Henri and his spectral sensitivities, for myself I want to know the feeling having a camera that only shoots black and white. Even if you are a dedicated shooter of b&w film, you always have the option of dropping in a color role whenever it suits your fancy.

 

With all the talk about getting back to filters, etc., I decided to do a dry run of sorts and shoot my M9 with jpeg fine set to standard b&w and shoot with different filters, green and red and none. Makes a difference, how much vs Henri is not the point. I really like seeing the b&w image in the lcd. When I get home rather than take the dng color file (with capture one it is a non issue to turn the picture back to regular color), I stay with the jpeg and put it into silver efex 2 to do my thing. with the jpeg, as with henri's b&w dng, there is no color to push and pull that effect was all done with the filter and what you are left with is tonal changes and the different films the software allows you to emulate -- as other threads have noted in detail.

 

After a few days of doing this, the cautionary part of this tale, I began to miss the conversion of color to b&w and having all the color filter effects available to me in the software. Then I began to think, going back to the film analogy I started with, isn't that flexibility one of the true benefits of digital? ISO is a dynamic variable just like shutter speed and aperture. Color/BW switching means you aren't locked in at that moment to what's in the camera.

 

With my little experiment i didn't become bored with b&w so much as being not enjoying the constraint. it reminded me why I like shooting digital -- flexibility. IF I want the constraint/discipline of film, I have my M4 to shoot as many different versions of B&W film. I have no doubt Henri will produce extraordinary files, I have doubt whether its worth the outlay to have an extraordinary digital camera that reintroduces the constraint of film. At first I thought I would, and yes I can afford it, but my little experiment told me something else. Better, in my opinion, to wait for the digital camera with Henri's IQ that shoots color and b&w than b&w alone. For those professionals for whom b&w is how they earn their keep, I suspect there is a market. The market; I have decided, isn't me.

 

Just one man's opinion.

[earleygallery]

To be fair I think you're really missing the point of the Leica Henri (that's what I'm calling it too!).

 

For those who do 'get it' it offers something unique. Whether that is worth the outlay of a dedicated B&W body is down to the individual.

 

If B&W conversions work best for you then stick with it.

[kdriceman]

I tend to agree, however, what intrigues me is the high ISO capabilities of the MM. My concern would be that I drop $8000 on an MM only to see an M10 announced one month later at Photokina that has the equivalent ISO sensitivity of the MM.

[pico]

Others can determine the IQ of Henri and his spectral sensitivities, for myself I want to know the feeling having a camera that only shoots black and white. Even if you are a dedicated shooter of b&w film, you always have the option of dropping in a color role whenever it suits your fancy.

 

Thanks for putting this idea into a single post. It has been mentioned very often concerning the M9m commingled with other things.

 

Personally, I am was unconvinced concerning B&W digital largely because of the presentation of most on the 'net, which is fruitless due to the medium, and also because I prefer prints and I am spoiled by MF and LF, although under duress I have done more 16"x20" (floated) prints than I like from 35mm. M9 images turned to B&W don't make it for me. Not one bit. There is not enough to work with. The images are soft and sparse.

 

But when Juno posted a DNG (RAW), of his images done under relatively common daylight, I spent hours examining one in particular (and foolishy colorizing it in some kind of perverse reversal) I found the M9m image to have specific digital qualities that I have not achieved even with my impoverished, flat-bed MF scans.

 

It is difficult to describe just exactly what I found so attractive about the M9m image. It is something about the strength of the edges, the inherent contrast that others might find difficult, 'micro contrast', resolution. (And here I will insert that of all the renderings others posted of the fisherman disappoint me.) When I took Juno's image into PS the edges and contrast and detail were profound and still yielded to modest curves adjustments, something one can do in the darkroom only with masking. I have not tried having a large print made to truly test it out because it is not my picture, I have no right, but for the first time I am tempted to try the M9m on my own even if I have to buy an M9m.

 

So in response only to SBlitz (although I would include others, but SBlitz make the post above), my response is from an old (too old?) B&W maven, and it is "You don't know until you have suffered blood, sweat and tears in B&W darkroom work. You just don't know how impoverished B&W from M9 color images really are in comparison to the M9m image.."

 

Just my two-bits worth. I am retired, income-constrained, but somehow I hope to add the M9m to the arsenal this year or next. (I worked mostly under grants when employed, and it's a real up-hill battle now.)

 

Thanks for posting, SBlitz. I hope my post is taken in a positive spirit. I'm leaving now for some exercise. To the lake!

.

[SteveYork]

I tend to agree, however, what intrigues me is the high ISO capabilities of the MM. My concern would be that I drop $8000 on an MM only to see an M10 announced one month later at Photokina that has the equivalent ISO sensitivity of the MM.

 

Not likely. Any M10 is probably 2 years away. Only when M9 sales falter will they come out with a M10. In the meantime they tweak -- M9-P, MM, ?

[jonoslack]

I have not tried having a large print made to truly test it out because it is not my picture, I have no right, but for the first time I am tempted to try the M9m on my own even if I have to buy an M9m.

 

Hi there - you are most welcome to make a large print (as long as you don't sell it!). I've kind of abdicated my rights on these images (for your personal use). On one condition . . . . . you get my name right

 

all the best

Jono

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not likely. Any M10 is probably 2 years away. Only when M9 sales falter will they come out with a M10. In the meantime they tweak -- M9-P, MM, ?

M10? Most likely this fall....

[johnbuckley]

Thank you for this post, as it does raise an issue very much on my mind, though perhaps what I'm concerned with is a few degrees different from your thoughtful post. The thing is, I love color, love photos well saturated with color, loved Velvia when I shot film. I can't imagine ever not shooting color. I didn't really think I would yearn for the Monochrom... Until this morning when I saw Jono's file so well individualized by others.

 

I now would very much like to have the Monochrom, because of the dynamic range, because of the incredible resolution. But I do know that, we're I to have one, I would be only partly enthusiastic about it; it would be a specialty instrument, like powder skis, that I would use and enjoy, though not everyday. And that makes it feel rather... indulgent in its limitation.

 

Though after seeing those renditions of Jono's fisherman, I guess I don't really care. And in combination with an M9, or what surely is coming in September, it does rather seem like it is a better solution, if one can afford it -- and I am planning on selling equipment in order to be able to do so -- than simply converting (less spectacular) color files.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm with you, John. I have an order in place, but I'm not completely convinced. Will I spend money my wife would kill me for, and have a camera I won't actually use that much?

 

Conversely, I suspect this will reward effort. I feel no need to improve on the M9, but to have such performance available in B&W is very appealing ...

[brianv]

Some people used to keep B&W in one camera, color in the second- in one bag. I kept Black and White in the Black body and Color in the Chrome body.

 

My M9 is black.

 

Will the M9M be available in chrome?

[pico]

[...]I now would very much like to have the Monochrom, because of the dynamic range[...]

 

Dynamic range? You are entirely deluded. It has no more dynamic range than over-developed TMax, which is the worst film in that concern, ever.

.

[tgray]

As a predominately B&W film shooter, I have no problem with using color filters on my lens if it suits my needs. And most of the time, there's no colored filter on the lens, so that works too. The M-M immediately interested me for a couple reasons. I'd say if you aren't sure if it's for you, then it's most probably not for you. There seems to be a mentality in Leica land (and probably in most online photo forums) that you must buy the latest bit of gear that your company comes out with, regardless of need/want. I think if you like channel mixing color files in the B&W, then the M-M is going to frustrate you.

 

As far as T-Max, I've had no problems getting a fair amount of dynamic range out of it I won't know about the M-M in that regards until we see some real tests, or until I get my hands on one to shoot side by side with some film, but I'm not totally discouraged yet. Highlights are certainly fragile, but probably no more than shadows are with B&W film. I'm more interested in seeing how many total stops of usable range are in the M-M files and less about how they are distributed. The deep shadows on the M-M files that I've played with look clean enough for my purposes so far, but more investigation is needed.

[giordano]

I only shoot colour and never make b&w prints. And having seen the results from the MM - especially the variations on Jono's shots - I'm jolly thankful for that. If I worked in b&w my heart would be lusting after this camera. As it is, I'd buy one anyway if my "mad money" budget was twenty times bigger.

[250swb]

I think people have lost the ability to think logically with the annoucement of the MM.

 

Whenever the M10 is released it is highly unlikely that Leica are with prior knowledge planning to release a camera that will not exceed all other M based cameras in all aspects of operation, from dynamic range to high ISO abilities. They will look very silly indeed if the MM is better than the M10 in any way. Which is why the fuss and drama was made over the MM's release, Leica needed to make the most of a cute design exercise while they could, sell as many as possible, and cause as much ultimately pointless discussion as they have.

 

The second illogical thing is that some film users see it as the reason they can dump film and move to digital. As such whatever they are seeing in an MM file has me baffled. I have tried working on Jono's fisherman, and it takes some powerful software or a long time in Photoshop to make it look anything like the tonality of film. I'm not saying that the type of image the MM make's is bad (I would love to try an MM for landscape work using it's native rendering), but putting all that work into each and every picture just to make it look like 'normal', and when the M10 is around the corner, doesn't make sense to me.

 

Steve

[rosuna]

I am not sure about the M10 being around the corner.

 

I would bet for a M based electronic camera this fall... but a classical rangefinder successor of the M9 might need more time...

[philipus]

I went to a wedding of a friend last weekend and shot two rolls, one Tri-X 400 and one Portra 400. As I scanned the negs I was struck by how satisfying the results were in their own way. Tri-X is lovely and even on a screen the grain structure really adds a beautiful depth to the images. There's grain in Portra as well but perhaps slightly less pleasant due to the scanner I use (an old Coolscan V). Nevertheless Portra never ceases to amaze me in terms of latitude, something which has saved several of my under-exposed photos in the past, and its colours are simply fantastic to my eyes.

 

I started the M9M "failure" thread because I just couldn't understand the use of this camera; why would someone willingly want to limit oneself when digital as a medium offers such amazing possibilities to tweak the image in whichever way the photographer may choose? In the past I have quite often converted both digital (in my case 5D2) files and scanned colour images to black and white. The results have been good enough for me as an amateur and I have also enjoyed the process itself of arriving at a result that appeals to me.

 

The MM photos which are now beginning to come forth do, however, impress me. The lack of colour makes its photos devoid of the fake - for lack of a better word; "plastic" doesn't work for me - impression that all digital photos, including the M9's, give me. Sure, it doesn't look like film but it is as close as I've ever seen a digital camera get. The MM appears to be the only digital camera that circumvents this unreal or unnatural photographic expression. Pico mentioned the strength of the edges and contrast and I believe that's part of the reason I also find its photos appealing. I also think it is the richness of the darker areas of the photo.

 

So yes, I am beginning to see the reason for the MM's existence.

 

In the film era photographers often brought one body loaded with black and white and another with colour. The MM, clearly, is aimed at those photographers who want to feel as "restricted" - though this really is the wrong term - in their creative expression as simple little rolls of black and white (used to) limit film photographers. These photographers may either be a pure black and white shooters or they may use colour, too, and bring two cameras just like before. The difference today is that such a two-camera setup costs 10,000 Euros sans lenses. An incredible amount of money.

 

Unless the M10 provides significantly more appealing results (to my eyes) than what (any) other digital cameras do and have done so far, I won't consider moving to colour digital again; my foray into digital with the 5D2 was interesting but as unsatisfying as the bottle of "Coca Cola" I had in East Berlin in 1986; just not the real thing.

 

I would, however, funds permitting, consider an MM. But no, that would not make me leave film.

[mgreernz]

Some people used to keep B&W in one camera, color in the second- in one bag. I kept Black and White in the Black body and Color in the Chrome body.

 

My M9 is black.

 

Will the M9M be available in chrome?

 

My position exactly. I keep a pristine condition M3 for my B&W and my M9 for everything else. I use the NIK full suite of post-camera editing software within Lightroom and Photoshop, which serves me well. So it leaves me puzzled as to why, if the M9M is so spectacularly excellent, why is it arriving accompanied by NIK's Silver Efex Pro?

[skinnfell]

Being a professional, I sometimes get jobs or do projects that demand color. Either because of a request from the customer, or because I decide that It would be silly to do it in B&W.

 

So for me; if my camera could only shoot B&W, I would lose more jobs than I would gain because of the added IQ.

 

The M9 is already pretty freaking good in B&W, I have made 90x60cm prints that nobody complained on, and since I cant afford to own two digital M cameras (depreciation, etc) I will not be buying the Henri any time soon - no matter how much I want one.

Of course I have my canons to shoot color, but the color files from my M9 totally trumps the ones from my 5D2 in all but the very highest ISO settings.

 

My guess is that if there is a M10, we could probably expect the "Nikon D800" approach to resolution, so possibly we can expect henri-like B&W quality beause of the larger/better sensor, while still being able to shoot a color file now and then. And since I doubt the M10 will cost more than it would cost to own BOTh a M9 and a MM, I guess I am sitting on the fence for now.

 

I get the feeling that Henri is the camera that should have came alongside or not long after the M9 back in 2009.

 

That said, I really applaud Leica for making this possible. It is only economy that is stopping me from getting one. Now, If I was not commercially reliant on my cameras, I would get the Henri in a heartbeat.

[sblitz]

the effort is indeed laudable, but carrying around an m9 and henri seems a bit much in a digital age -- understandable with film. i do believe, within time, there will be a digital camera where the color/bw swap leads to a truly great bw iq, perhaps it is the d800e, has anyone tried? carrying around more than $20,000 worth of digital cameras and lenses so i can shoot bw and color? wow!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear