Photoskeptic Posted June 2, 2013 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Over on Sean Reid's blog http://www.reidreviews.com/flash.asp is a new test of the Monochrom versus the RX-1, Fuji and Sigma DP-2 in BW for those interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Hi Photoskeptic, Take a look here Monochrom test. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MOZ Posted June 3, 2013 Share #2 Posted June 3, 2013 And what does it say, on the larger view ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erlingmm Posted June 3, 2013 Share #3 Posted June 3, 2013 Clear advantage to the Monochrom, with Foveon as an interesting runner-up 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalpowershot Posted June 3, 2013 Share #4 Posted June 3, 2013 More interesting: how much better it is compared to the M/M9-BW-files... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2013 Share #5 Posted June 3, 2013 Sean makes an exceedingly important point: There are only very few monitors that are adequate for correct B&W rendering. Either a CRT with a really good graphics card, or a NEC Spectraview or Eizo GC. You simply cannot postprocess a B&W file or especially a subtle one like the Monochrom to the best result using a lesser screen. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted June 3, 2013 Share #6 Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Sometimes i have little trouble getting the right amount of luminosity when processing my MM files with my retina macbook pro. The screen has "too much" peps and when i make prints, i'm often a bit dark... But despite this problem (that you have to correct before printing), i have absolutely no soucy getting the subtility of my MM files to the prints... Sure a proper calibrated screen would be a better solution (and i shall look for it soon), but you can survive without it if you know a bit what you're doing... Edited June 3, 2013 by MOZ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 3, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) But you cannot judge the smaller variation in grey tones on screens that cannot show them. Don't get me wrong, I can get a (more than) decent result on my little Macbook Air when on the road, but I still miss out compared to my calibrated Eizo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted June 3, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) The retina has a very decent screen resolution (2 880 x 1 800) compared to the mackbook air... but lacks real calibration and shows too much "luminosity pop"... Edited June 3, 2013 by MOZ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Resolution is not the problem. It is about greytones and the number of contrast steps that can be rendered. Your remark about luminosity is just a symptom and may have other causes than your screen as such. Of course the retina is (a lot) better than an older type mini screen, but it is not the best screen for postprocessing. Edited June 3, 2013 by jaapv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted June 3, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 3, 2013 I have to change one of my screens anyway, i'll have a look to the ones you mentioned (NEC probably)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borge Posted June 3, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) The retina has a very decent screen resolution (2 880 x 1 800) compared to the mackbook air... but lacks real calibration and shows too much "luminosity pop"... To be honest the Macbook and Apple displays in general, in an uncalibrated state, is among the worst displays to post-process images on. Apple bumps up the contrast and saturation to insane amounts to get that "Pop" in your face once you see an Apple display. Apple displays with stock calibration makes shadow details magically disappear Once calibrated however they can be OK. But nowhere near professional and calibrated Dell, Eizo and NEC displays. Edited June 3, 2013 by borge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 5, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 5, 2013 I don't judge my B&W silver gelatin prints on the projected baseboard image and neither does anyone else. While a top notch monitor would be nice, there is absolutely no alternative to judging print quality from prints and making adjustments based on that (using experience when it comes to how adjustments will really look). B&W images are easier to make 'OK' than colour IMHO, but far harder to make exceptional. Is Reid suggesting that discerning differences in print quality between colour conversions and Monochrom files is difficult on a regular monitor, but obvious on screen? If so, that's a somewhat different point to suggesting you need a very expensive screen to be able to postprocess files to result in wonderful prints. With silver prints, one looks at the print and makes experience based numerical alterations to print exposure time, contrast grade or development. One can learn the very same relationships with digital image data based on what you are seeing translated into print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 5, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 5, 2013 I don't judge my B&W silver gelatin prints on the projected baseboard image and neither does anyone else. Of course not, and even a wet print has a dry-down effect that varies by paper, etc. The key is to develop a disciplined workflow to end up with predictable and repeatable results. The same is true for digital, and Sean's point is that being able to see results at each step in the chain is important. To take his point a step forward, predictability and repeatability is further aided by using a viewing booth next to the monitor that is calibrated to the same Kelvin or D-scale as the monitor, and then displaying the print under those same lighting conditions. None of that is required to produce a great print, but every bit helps to reduce variables and to take chance out of the equation, even for experienced and intuitive printers. A good monitor is just one link in the chain. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted June 5, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Sean makes an exceedingly important point: There are only very few monitors that are adequate for correct B&W rendering. Either a CRT with a really good graphics card, or a NEC Spectraview or Eizo GC. You simply cannot postprocess a B&W file or especially a subtle one like the Monochrom to the best result using a lesser screen. .... and for the OS, display program, graphics card and monitor to run in 10 bit instead of 8 bit mode to show subtle graduations in tone, especially in the shadows. Bob. Edited June 5, 2013 by gravastar 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 6, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) I'm not going to argue that these things help, because time and money are valuable (even though experience reduces losses on both counts). I just wanted to dispel the notion that such things are 'essential to getting the best print from the Monochrom' because that's patently untrue. The print will always be the final reference point and so the monitor's deviation, even if quite significant, will not prevent the best possible print, only delay it. A workflow without a special monitor can still be disciplined and repeatable. YOU just need to be a high quality link in the chain. Some might find the expensive monitor important, whereas others may prefer to keep the money for other things, happy in the knowledge that they know what to change in a file to get from A-B on print. We've been doing it for ages in the darkroom. ...The key is to develop a disciplined workflow to end up with predictable and repeatable results. The same is true for digital.... Jeff Edited June 6, 2013 by batmobile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 6, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 6, 2013 A workflow without a special monitor can still be disciplined and repeatable. YOU just need to be a high quality link in the chain. Some might find the expensive monitor important, whereas others may prefer to keep the money for other things, happy in the knowledge that they know what to change in a file to get from A-B on print. We've been doing it for ages in the darkroom. We'll just agree to differ. Even in the darkroom, I had a light over my sink that was precisely the same light I used to display my final print. (The dry-down effect was already known by actual testing.) And repeatability was further ensured by, among other things, a print developing timer that compensated for water temp rises over the course of a long print session. The point is that my processes, both digital and darkroom, incorporate(d) steps to ensure discipline and repeatability, which otherwise would have introduced unnecessary trial and error, especially if I waited months between printing the same image. Of course the user is always the key part of the chain (without a good eye, nothing else much matters, and technique is also key), but if one's ability to see is limited (consistent light, tonality and color, for instance), and one can't reliably and consistently control all the variables, even the best printer leaves a lot to trial and error, and that costs time and money. For me, the monitor is key (and folks at Chromix, who excel in color management, consider it THE most important link). YMMV. Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dierk Posted June 6, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) To be honest the Macbook and Apple displays in general, in an uncalibrated state, is among the worst displays to post-process images on. Apple bumps up the contrast and saturation to insane amounts to get that "Pop" in your face once you see an Apple display. Apple displays with stock calibration makes shadow details magically disappear Once calibrated however they can be OK. But nowhere near professional and calibrated Dell, Eizo and NEC displays. After 8 years with a EIZO 19" I just got the DELL U3014 30" monitor and I am impressed in every respect. Any experiences with this monitor? For prints with Epson 3800 on Hahnemule paper I print test stripes, if I want to be sure (like in the old darkroom ages ) First results from this monitor are here in the infrared thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/262765-infrared-mm.html#post2420929 dierk Edited June 6, 2013 by dierk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 6, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 6, 2013 I'm not going to argue that these things help, because time and money are valuable (even though experience reduces losses on both counts). I just wanted to dispel the notion that such things are 'essential to getting the best print from the Monochrom' because that's patently untrue. The print will always be the final reference point and so the monitor's deviation, even if quite significant, will not prevent the best possible print, only delay it. A workflow without a special monitor can still be disciplined and repeatable. YOU just need to be a high quality link in the chain. Some might find the expensive monitor important, whereas others may prefer to keep the money for other things, happy in the knowledge that they know what to change in a file to get from A-B on print. We've been doing it for ages in the darkroom. It is not about a deviation. That one can compensate for. The problem is that the greyscale reproduction is limited. You cannot differentiate between the grey tones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted June 6, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Well, today i've just reworked my pictures on a calibrated Eizo coloredge cg241w (at a studio)... and i think i'm gonna buy one as soon as possible. Definitively so much more accurate with that equipment ! You guys were right... Edited June 6, 2013 by MOZ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now