Monochrom filter discussion

[kidigital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, that's what is being explored here.

 

IMO, since I cannot modify the color response in any way on the MM except by filtering, I would need to filter to get "great results," at least for the kind of people-based photography I would want to do.

 

It would be nice if the MM gave modern BW film-like results with skin without the need for filters, but it doesn't appear to do that based on the images everyone is posting.

 

With an M3, all I have to do is change films (I don't need filters for skin with modern BW films). With an M9, I can manipulate the colour (of a BW) in post.

 

With an MM, I would need to filter at capture just to get the tonal results I would expect.

 

Hi Jamie,

 

Who's everyone?

 

I'd emphasize that we need to give people a little more time to build an understanding of the learning curve in using the MM with and without filters. It's too early to jump to either/or conclusions. I have images taken with and without filters in which I'm very happy with the skin tones. But, as I shoot primarily in black and white (converting S2 files) I've spent quite a bit of time finding conversions that work best for me.

 

With an MM, I don't need to change films. I have the ultimate negative. I can shoot the image in a neutral way and process it with a look that mimics any number of different film choices to suit my mood that day ... with the added bonus of being able to go back on another day with the goal of choosing a radically different outcome.

 

Kurt

[Guest borge]

Actually, that's what is being explored here.

 

IMO, since I cannot modify the color response in any way on the MM except by filtering, I would need to filter to get "great results," at least for the kind of people-based photography I would want to do.

 

It would be nice if the MM gave modern BW film-like results with skin without the need for filters, but it doesn't appear to do that based on the images everyone is posting.

 

With an M3, all I have to do is change films (I don't need filters for skin with modern BW films). With an M9, I can manipulate the colour (of a BW) in post.

 

With an MM, I would need to filter at capture just to get the tonal results I would expect.

 

Honestly - with a few layers and selective editing in photoshop you can easily re-create the effects of a color filter on e MM files. The files are so rich and tweakable and you can do a whole lot of PP without introducing artifacts at all. The color filters are nice and practical but they are in no way a must to get any type of result from the MM's raw files.

 

Just get a Wacom intuos tablet and start dodging and burning and using several layers of selective curves and boom, you easily have a red filter look without ever having to mount it on the lens.

[Jamie Roberts]

Honestly - with a few layers and selective editing in photoshop you can easily re-create the effects of a color filter on e MM files. The files are so rich and tweakable and you can do a whole lot of PP without introducing artifacts at all. The color filters are nice and practical but they are in no way a must to get any type of result from the MM's raw files.

 

Just get a Wacom intuos tablet and start dodging and burning and using several layers of selective curves and boom, you easily have a red filter look without ever having to mount it on the lens.

 

Honestly--I already have a Wacom tablet and understand all about luminance effects for monochrome. They're not the same or as efficient or as subtle as colour effects for monochrome--especially with people!

 

You shouldn't have to dodge and burn the upper quarter-tone colour response for people's faces that I get "automatically" from most modern BW films Honestly, you need both IMO.

 

Though I do understand what you're getting at. I just wouldn't do it that way.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hi Jamie,

 

Who's everyone?

 

I'd emphasize that we need to give people a little more time to build an understanding of the learning curve in using the MM with and without filters. It's too early to jump to either/or conclusions. I have images taken with and without filters in which I'm very happy with the skin tones. But, as I shoot primarily in black and white (converting S2 files) I've spent quite a bit of time finding conversions that work best for me.

 

With an MM, I don't need to change films. I have the ultimate negative. I can shoot the image in a neutral way and process it with a look that mimics any number of different film choices to suit my mood that day ... with the added bonus of being able to go back on another day with the goal of choosing a radically different outcome.

 

Kurt

 

Hey Kurt,

 

"Everyone" is "everyone I've seen posting MM images so far", and at this point, I've probably seen hundreds of portraits.

 

And you have the MM camera and I don't (and I probably won't ) so I do appreciate what you're saying. And I've used the S2 to produce BW and it's spectacular. So no argument there.

 

And to be honest, I've seen a few people who have produced acceptable, even good looking skin from the MM. But it's apparently in light so glorious that I could replicate even better results with an S, M9 or equivalent. So you have an ultimately malleable monochrome negative, perhaps, in terms of luminance, but honestly that variability is not always a good thing IMO.

 

So I don't think it's too early at all, given all the examples, that something seems off with the skin response of the unfiltered camera. Of course, many people will simply not care, as this is only one element of a great shot. It's very important to me, though.

[pico]

Honestly - with a few layers and selective editing in photoshop you can easily re-create the effects of a color filter on e MM files.

 

Utter hogwash!

[jaapv]

Not really, Pico, just a bit of work.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand your point, Jamie and I see where you are coming from. Maybe, for the sake of the discussion you would give a few examples.

However, I agree with Kurt that the MM files are so robust that judicious use of curves will get you far in creating the tone you want.

Hey Kurt,

 

"Everyone" is "everyone I've seen posting MM images so far", and at this point, I've probably seen hundreds of portraits.

 

And you have the MM camera and I don't (and I probably won't ) so I do appreciate what you're saying. And I've used the S2 to produce BW and it's spectacular. So no argument there.

 

And to be honest, I've seen a few people who have produced acceptable, even good looking skin from the MM. But it's apparently in light so glorious that I could replicate even better results with an S, M9 or equivalent. So you have an ultimately malleable monochrome negative, perhaps, in terms of luminance, but honestly that variability is not always a good thing IMO.

 

So I don't think it's too early at all, given all the examples, that something seems off with the skin response of the unfiltered camera. Of course, many people will simply not care, as this is only one element of a great shot. It's very important to me, though.

[RF’sDelight]

What a great thread. I really enjoy reading this MM filter issue discussed by so many experienced members (with no Trolls around).

 

Although I have books on BW photography (with filter sections) from the earliy 90ies, saying that BW is getting more attention again , this thread is somehow BW 2.0.

 

And personally it makes me even more confident, that the money for the MM was well spent. Thank you all!

[jbl]

I'm enjoying it too. I don't have a MM yet, but my plan had been to start with yellow filters and see how things go. Basically mimic my black and white film process as a starting point.

 

Did anyone bother to do zone tests on the sensor or is this not something you need to calibrate your workflow for?

 

-jbl

[menos I M6]

I'm enjoying it too. I don't have a MM yet, but my plan had been to start with yellow filters and see how things go. Basically mimic my black and white film process as a starting point.

 

Did anyone bother to do zone tests on the sensor or is this not something you need to calibrate your workflow for?

 

-jbl

 

I did not, but here is a very nice link, explaining the procedures and some background info nicely for the people, who are interested:

 

Ken Lee Gallery - Testing Black and White Film

[MarkP]

Utter hogwash!

 

Utter hogwash back

 

Although I've not yet tried for skin tones so I can't comment there, I'm also getting excellent results working unfiltered Monochrom files in Photoshop.

 

As Jaap commented it does take some work, more than just global changes with levels & curves and a few layers, and especially requires judicious local dodging & burning to get the luminance right. But in the end it's all just adjusting luminance. However, I don't spend much more time on my Monochrom files than I would on my more important photographs for B&W taken with my M9.

[jaapv]

I did not, but here is a very nice link, explaining the procedures and some background info nicely for the people, who are interested:

 

Ken Lee Gallery - Testing Black and White Film

However, the histogram of the MM represents the zone system, so most of your work has been done already.

[kcnarf]

On the M Monochrom Shots thread, forum member Otto F stated that the camera, unfiltered, "systematically" renders skin tone about 1 stop too dark and a yellow filter does not sufficiently compensate. He also states that he is going to experiment with a skylight KR 1.5 filter, and on the above-cied thread I posted a reply encouraging him to keep us (me) informed on his efforts. OTHER OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS RE THIS PUTATIVE PROBLEM?

[jaapv]

I think that is not enough. An orange filter should be more effective, We will see.

[Guest borge]

I think that is not enough. An orange filter should be more effective, We will see.

 

A orange filter will also result in very contrasty files when modern lenses are used (ASPH/FLE lenses - which are quite contrasty out-of-the-box).

 

In B&W photography: Isn't skin-tone a subjective thing anyway? Skintone for color images is one thing but with B&W you are already altering "reality" by removing all color information which in itself messes with the skintones.

 

I don't quite get the "skintone" obsession in relation to B&W photography (I do get it in relation to color photography however).

[jaapv]

reason why I went to vintage lenses

[algrove]

Mandler lives in my "box"!

[Jamie Roberts]

A orange filter will also result in very contrasty files when modern lenses are used (ASPH/FLE lenses - which are quite contrasty out-of-the-box).

 

In B&W photography: Isn't skin-tone a subjective thing anyway? Skintone for color images is one thing but with B&W you are already altering "reality" by removing all color information which in itself messes with the skintones.

 

I don't quite get the "skintone" obsession in relation to B&W photography (I do get it in relation to color photography however).

 

Skin tones in BW are related to overall gray levels (colour response), tonal gradation (detail in colour variance) and a typical BW film contrast curve.

 

So when someone says the skin tones are typically a stop too dark, they're saying the colour sensitivity of the camera renders skin a darker gray, overall, than most BW films, or indeed, than colour corrected conversions from digital (not just a simple desaturation).

 

To my eye, good skin tones are also related to the way a typical BW film (or conversion from colour) lowers contrast in the upper quartertone of values while still being more compressed than a "flat" and more linear raw file.

 

Can you get a "flat effect" with with film, filters and development tricks? Yes, of course you can. You can expose skin to be darker, too. But in good light, with proper exposure (even given the MM's latitude, which I expect is terrific), I still wouldn't want flat, dark skin tones to be my basic development mode.

 

That's why, perhaps, an orange filter is looking like a probable place to start with the MM.

[jaapv]

Depends on the subject, Jamie. For sunlit landscapes Orange seems just too strong in general. You get a wider grayscale using middle. Red will create something akin to IR in that case with bright greens and black skies.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

Depends on the subject, Jamie. For sunlit landscapes Orange seems just too strong in general. You get a wider grayscale using middle. Red will create something akin to IR in that case with bright greens and black skies.

 

Sure--but I was talking about skin

 

Though I'm not much of a landscape photographer, the architectural / landscape / static subject shots I've seen from the MM are more convincing than people, even with extra cyan sensitivity (or thereabouts). Still, you'd have to think, in theory anyway, there's someone somewhere not getting the blues or greens they're used to either.