To P or not to P - That is the Question

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous forum feedback,

Or to keep films against a sea of digital

— ay, there’s the rub:

 

To keep my MP or risk more slings and arrows (of the domestic variety) by changing to the MM - that is indeed the question. I have admired the MM images posted on the forum, Flickr etc, which led me to pondering the matter. However, having just developed a film this week, taken during a recent visit to France, I wonder just how much more (if any) an MM would give me. A couple of examples from the roll of Acros 100 developed in Rodinal - Sancerre Street and Gallery View.

Decisions, decisions...

 

(With apologies to Will)

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Commented on your Sancerre posting.

[tele_player]

Your BW photos look great - I think the biggest advantage you'd get out of an MM would be convenience, and that's a BIG advantage.

 

-robert

[algrove]

Rent one and then you can make an educated decision for yourself. Or if that isnot possble then listen carefully to those of us who have made the decision to buy the MM. Just do not stop Ping, but add on an MM to your bag.

[jaapv]

MM images really look different from film - and from other digital cameras. You must judge for yourself if you like them (I do )

[Peter H]

MM images really look different from film - and from other digital cameras. You must judge for yourself if you like them (I do )

 

I agree that you have to judge for yourself.

 

But so far, whilst I've heard people say in words why the Monochrom is so wonderful, I don't recall a photo that has really spoken out on behalf of the camera. Though that may be simply because no one has been able to exploit its abilities yet other than in tests as opposed to proper photography, or if they have, I've missed it.

 

I accept its many attractions, which I have to admit are tempting me, but the reason why I'm only tempted rather than persuaded is that the photos I've seen are nothing special, or at least no more so than the glorious film and, yes, digital photos I'm seeing all the time from Leica users using non-Momochrom cameras.

 

So I'm yet to perceive anything in the MM that would suggest its necessary to adjust your film versus digital preferences.

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there is a post on the leica blog comparing mm to film. it really comes down to a matter of preference vs the convenience factor and, most important, are you shooting for money or yourself. i think if you are shooting paid assignments, mm is no-brainer. if it is just pleasure, then what is your pleasure in regard to film vs digital.

 

personally i use an m4 for b&w mostly and my m9 for color (mostly). of late, just prefering the look of portra 160 shot at iso 100 and realizing that at night and in dark places generally b&w is more effective, i am wondering whether to switch it up and sell the m9 to trade up for an mm and use the m4 for color. just thought i would share my own thought process here.

[jaapv]

Don't forget I am ploughing through about 3000 of them whenever I have a spare minute. The look is quite different. I will be sitting down with my printing lab in a few weeks to figure out which process ( he has many variants of baryt paper) will be the most suitable.

I agree that you have to judge for yourself.

 

But so far, whilst I've heard people say in words why the Monochrom is so wonderful, I don't recall a photo that has really spoken out on behalf of the camera. Though that may be simply because no one has been able to exploit its abilities yet other than in tests as opposed to proper photography, or if they have, I've missed it.

 

I accept its many attractions, which I have to admit are tempting me, but the reason why I'm only tempted rather than persuaded is that the photos I've seen are nothing special, or at least no more so than the glorious film and, yes, digital photos I'm seeing all the time from Leica users using non-Momochrom cameras.

 

So I'm yet to perceive anything in the MM that would suggest its necessary to adjust your film versus digital preferences.

[earleygallery]

Maybe looking at small images on the web isn't a very fair way to form an opinion, but I'm indifferent to the MM images I've seen so far.

 

I don't see the 'this will finally kill film' type WOW factor that Dr K spoke about when the MM was launched. I'm sure the files offer excellent detail etc., but I'm not sure the benefit is seen unless printing to a very large scale

(or pixel peeping).

 

I've seen some very nice photographs from the MM, but they would still be very nice photos taken with pretty much any camera - digital or film - because they are interesting well composed images.

 

IMHO the decision between an MP or an MM can only come down to whether you want to shoot digital or film, for the convenience factor, the process, or the look of the medium.

[tobey bilek]

Multi thousands for a monochrome only body or buy a few rolls of film and mix some chems. Then scan or print them. Seems to be an easy decision for film, but if you do a lot the decision can be different.

[ashwinrao1]

As an MM user, I am impressed by the incredible flexibility of the images produced by the camera.

 

The images generated by the native sensor tend to look grey and flat, but are capable of being tweaked extensively to achieve different looks. I tend to do most of my fiddling in LR4, but Nik does a good job with acheiving looks.

 

There's also the factor that the use of color filters can play a role as well.

 

Finally, there's the ISO capabilities of the camera, which lend themselves to the flexibility of the system.

 

I still have much learning to do in terms of processing files, and I suspect that it will be a long term learning experience that changes with time. For me, this, in and of itself, is a worthwhile reason to have the camera, that is to explore my own BW creative side, both in image capture and in image processing after the fact and during the fact (with filters).

 

I have enjoyed the experience. It's different than shooting film, so don't expect to recreate that experience with the MM. However, if you are up for new challenges in BW, then go for it...

 

A couple of tips

 

1. I have enjoyed the use of older, less critically sharp/contrasty glass on the MM.

2. Whilst Leica trumpets the use of highly resolving lenses on the MM, I find that older lenses like the Rigid Summicron V2 and the 90 summicron v2, do better to achieve a more film like look. The asph glass presents a different look to the BW images, that's compelling but unlike most BW shot historically

3. Underexpose by 1/3 stop to protect highlights

4. If you shoot ISO's above 3200, it's imperative to expose properly. There's occasionally banding at ISO 5000 and above that becomes very evident with push/pull processing.

5. LR's highlight/shadow/white/black sliders are awesome to acheive different looks

 

Best of luck...

[jaapv]

All of that, and the clarity slider has a strong effect.

[j. borger]

I am 100pct with Peter H on this.

90 pct of the posted MM pictures look horrible. Over digital and most often worse than converted pictures from othrr digital cameras. Using older lenses and heavy PP do help to get a better look from the MM files . I worked a lot of MM raw files, even printed some.

If the look of B & W film is your benchmark stick with it because the MM is no substitute at all. If you are sucker for detail and clean high iso files the MM might be your thing.

I am trying to like the MM sice it's introduction, because it was my dream camera on paper.

But i do not warm up for it. I stick with film!

[jaapv]

Let's not turn this into one of these nasty fundamentalist film vs digital debates. Whether you think that digital images look horrible or that I think I prefer them is of no interest at all to the rest of humanity. Noting that they look different is of interest to those who want to compare them in order to make up their own minds.

The Monochrome shots thread in the photo forum is quite useful in that respect.

[Olsen]

"A second camera; let me be a coerced,

Who bought the second, and who killed the first..?":eek:

[ErikP]

Pictures are so much more than narrowing it down to film or digital. There Will never be one medium that can be prefered since there are so much more subtile factory that are unikt for each image.

 

So I agree - let's not start vs. debate..... There is no point....

 

Let's not turn this into one of these nasty fundamentalist film vs digital debates. Whether you think that digital images look horrible or that I think I prefer them is of no interest at all to the rest of humanity. Noting that they look different is of interest to those who want to compare them in order to make up their own minds.

The Monochrome shots thread in the photo forum is quite useful in that respect.

[Keith (M)]

Let's not turn this into one of these nasty fundamentalist film vs digital debates.

 

Indeed! My original post was more a reflection of my on-going internal debate (i.e. should I, shouldn't I) and was not intended in any way to start a film -v- digital argument. The Monochrom seems to possess some very worthwhile attributes but there is just that something about b&w film, for me anyway... Oh, and I actually enjoy the developing process and the suspense/drama when pulling the wet negs off the spool.

 

Hmmm, I feel a decision coming on!

[250swb]

I don't think the comments about the MM have been anti digital, they reflect the fact that the files from the MM need to be post processed to gain any sort of character. Too many are presented straight out of the camera and they have no chance of competing with film (or even B&W from an M9) on that basis anyway, they are horrible. But the better photographers take the fundamentally bland file and can transform it into something beautiful, or challenging, or gritty, or whatever you like, just so long as something is done to it. There is so much potential in an MM file that is being left unrealised by a lot of the people using it, assuming as they do that this must be the best possible simply on the basis that Leica sold it to them.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

And to add to Steve's comment, my own opinion is that the the same effort and creativity that goes into the editing process should continue with the print process. I understand that Leica offers, and other vendors offer, outside services, but I would no more want that than I would want to contract out my editing.

 

With so many papers, printers, inks, profiles, etc available, not to mention the myriad tweaks that one can achieve marrying the editing process to the final print, I don't understand why one would invest so much in the front end of the process and then delegate the rest.

 

And, yes, I know that some of the great photographers outsourced their printing. But invariably they worked intimately with one personal printer who became their proxy, in mind and spirit, for the print process. That's not what the typical lab offers these days.

 

Just my own two cents.

 

Jeff

[j. borger]

Let's not turn this into one of these nasty fundamentalist film vs digital debates. Whether you think that digital images look horrible or that I think I prefer them is of no interest at all to the rest of humanity. Noting that they look different is of interest to those who want to compare them in order to make up their own minds.

The Monochrome shots thread in the photo forum is quite useful in that respect.

 

Not my intention at all to start another film vs digital war.

But i thought the original poster seeked a replacement for B& W film because he thinks about dumping his MP for it. Well my only point is MM files can only "mimick' B&W film with the PP options that are available to all digital files. And i guess you agreed from the beginning the MM files do not look like film. They look better in your opinion , worse in my opinion. Nothing fundamentalist about it as far as i am concerned. Just a different taste

 

 

The consensus here is the proof is in the print. Well i was blown away by the Sobol prints at Photokina ...........intitially ...... Untill i went in the other rooms to look at the silverprints from Araki and Elliot Erwitt .... than i walked back and forced a couple of times and could not stand the Sobol prints anymore ..... perhaps just another case of different taste!

Edited November 3, 2012 by j. borger