Monochrom filter user experiences requested

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OP- I routinely use yellow 022 or orange 040 or 041 B+W filters with my Monochrom and only occasionally Red 090. I like contrast so these filters fit right in with my style.

[Advertisement]

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

[lamefrog]

I basically use only the MM and one lens , the 50 lux, and orange or yellow B+W filters .

If there is enough light , I usually stack the yellow or orange filters with an ND 3-stop filter.

Experiment .

[sm23221]

I've had bad experiences with focus shift with orange and red filters. The only filter I use is a ND filter with my Noctilux. Why degrade your image quality with filters from your MM that you've come to love and appreciate? Also, most tonal enhancements can be accomplished in PS if necessary.

[jaapv]

On the Monochrom changing the relative tonal values is very hard work in postprocessing. How would you do so without colour channels?

[250swb]

You can't do it all in post processing, and like using B&W film you have to get as close as possible in the field, which means using a filter if you want to adjust any tones in a fundamental way. And without getting into the 'do filters degrade the image' argument, you could just as validly ask if pixel peeping is more important than the overall effect? I can't think of any great photograph that has relied on pixel peeping for it's impact, indeed some of the greatest are decidedly soft seen close up, but many photographs wouldn't be nearly as good without some differentiation between clouds and sky.

 

So I pretty well always have a coloured filter of some sort on my MM just as I would if using a film camera. And because the B+W brand seem unhelpful in making them easily available I recently got a couple of Hoya's as duplicate yellow filter's for my other 46mm thread lenses, so I can have one on each. I can't see any difference, there is no feature that I can see that screams I used a Hoya and not my B+W brand filters.

 

For anybody building a set of filters, yellow, red, green, ND, etc. I recommend a filter pouch to keep them all in. It takes up much less room in your camera bag and you don't need to search through the plastic boxes to find the right one. Buy one with a few extra slots so you can take off a filter and immediately drop it into a clear slot then take a new one out, it saves fumbling.

 

Steve

[sm23221]

I believe, but not to start a forum war, if you are not concerned that much about image degradation with the use of colored filters and require the attendant tonal changes that colored filters provide, why even use a Monochrom? Why not just use a M9 or M, convert and call it a day? Very high image quality of a great photo is always superior to lower image quality of a great photo. I prefer to "get it right" the first time without filtration. I look for those images that will be successful without the use of filters (except ND's). I've tried many filters and find they just don't add much to my images, they usually detract from them.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The degradation is , as with all filters, virtually nil. And there is no way the M9 comes close to the MM, even the M doesn't. And filtering digitally degrades image quality too, more than an optical filter does.

[250swb]

I prefer to "get it right" the first time without filtration.

 

Which supposes I guess that I've been getting it wrong for 40 years. Oh well, all that art college education was wasted, but I still enjoyed the drinking.

 

Your statement "Very high image quality of a great photo is always superior to lower image quality of a great photo" is curious because a lot of people who feature highly in the history of photography have gone out of their way to use filters, and done many other things that technically degrade an image in order to improve the effect. It begs the question how you would justify why a grainy Robert Frank 35mm photograph is less good than a perfectly crafted Irving Penn portrait? Is photography simply ranked on grain or other equally fatuous concepts? Of course not.

 

You could also ask why did two great exponents of 'quality', Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, use filters on their 8x10's when surely leaving the filter off would have rewarded them with even more 'quality'. Were they really wrong, and not 'getting it right'? The answer is the sophisticated argument, which say's where you loose a bit you gain much more. The overall image is more important than the camera. They made the camera work for them. Likewise everybody knows that f/4 is always a 'better' aperture than f/16, or any of the others in terms of image degradation. So do you go though life only making images at f/4? Not many people would, most would use the f/stop appropriate for the DOF they want, not what the design of the lens dictates as 'best'. Even using a Leica Monochrome is a compromise in quality, so why use it anyway? You can do better using an 8x10 camera and a sheet of FP4.

 

And if your photographs hang so precariously on needing the last bit of native resolution from the camera and lens, and you've done everything to maximise it by using a tripod, the best f/stop, etc., what then happens when a new camera is released with higher resolution? Apologise for your older work? Give people a refund if you've sold any because it is now lower quality work?

 

So to sum up, I've never heard such a silly and contradictory way to do photography.

 

Steve

[sm23221]

Which supposes I guess that I've been getting it wrong for 40 years. Oh well, all that art college education was wasted, but I still enjoyed the drinking.

 

Your statement "Very high image quality of a great photo is always superior to lower image quality of a great photo" is curious because a lot of people who feature highly in the history of photography have gone out of their way to use filters, and done many other things that technically degrade an image in order to improve the effect. It begs the question how you would justify why a grainy Robert Frank 35mm photograph is less good than a perfectly crafted Irving Penn portrait? Is photography simply ranked on grain or other equally fatuous concepts? Of course not.

 

You could also ask why did two great exponents of 'quality', Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, use filters on their 8x10's when surely leaving the filter off would have rewarded them with even more 'quality'. Were they really wrong, and not 'getting it right'? The answer is the sophisticated argument, which say's where you loose a bit you gain much more. The overall image is more important than the camera. They made the camera work for them. Likewise everybody knows that f/4 is always a 'better' aperture than f/16, or any of the others in terms of image degradation. So do you go though life only making images at f/4? Not many people would, most would use the f/stop appropriate for the DOF they want, not what the design of the lens dictates as 'best'. Even using a Leica Monochrome is a compromise in quality, so why use it anyway? You can do better using an 8x10 camera and a sheet of FP4.

 

And if your photographs hang so precariously on needing the last bit of native resolution from the camera and lens, and you've done everything to maximise it by using a tripod, the best f/stop, etc., what then happens when a new camera is released with higher resolution? Apologise for your older work? Give people a refund if you've sold any because it is now lower quality work?

 

So to sum up, I've never heard such a silly and contradictory way to do photography.

 

Steve

 

Steve, I agree with everything you wrote. The problem is you've taken what I've written far out of context and is unrelated to the post. We are discussing the Monochrom and the use of filters here. I still maintain that "Very high image quality of a great photo is always superior to lower image quality of a great photo" within the context of this Monochrom post. Also, as I clearly stated, "get it right" is in reference to myself finding images that don't require the use of filters for tonal changes.

[250swb]

I'm also discussing the Monochrom and the use of filters, but showing that things can be taken too far. The philosophy of 'why would you degrade the image' is severely flawed if photography is going to continue as a creative mode of expression rather than an overly restrictive technical exercise.

 

Put into perspective 'why would you degrade the image' has only come about since the advent of digital photography, where resolution has been a chase, and getting the maximum value out of a camera before the next one comes along has been a subliminal goal. Many camera owners only demonstrate the camera nowadays, but photographers have always demonstrated themselves. Not so long ago photographers using large format didn't look down on a photographer using 35mm, and photographers using 35mm didn't feel inferior to those using large format. 'Quality' was seen in perspective, not as something to point at, like pixels, but as the combined view of image quality (how interesting the photograph is), and technical quality (how well it is interpreted in the context of the image quality). Technical quality never held sway over image quality. Now it is all too often reversed.

 

But as I pointed out, there are too many ironies related to filters degrading the image. Using f/8 instead of f/4 will 'degrade' the image far more than a filter would, yet with a filter you are adding to the possibility that the image could be 'better' overall, more controlled in the tones, allowing more of what you see in an image, and less acceptance of what the camera wants to give you. Who is boss is a more important question than 'why would you degrade the image', and everything I have said relates to the Monochrom.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Actually adding a monochromatic filter to a lens on the Monochrom increases resolution and acuity, sometimes quite visibly, depending on the lens. The chromatic aberrations of the lens are eliminated. In that case the degrading argument becomes nonsense; it only applies to filters that transmit the whole spectrum, and even then, minimally.

[earleygallery]

Why degrade your image quality with filters from your MM that you've come to love and appreciate? Also, most tonal enhancements can be accomplished in PS if necessary.

 

Please can you post an example of an image with and without filters to demonstrate the level of image degradation you're seeing?

 

I'm curious, because I use filters, and honestly don't see any image degradation.

 

Do you always use a tripod?

[tom0511]

I use yellow filters all the time. I have some multicoated B&W filters. And one or two oler Leica filters which also seem to work fine.

I keep the filter on the lenses 90% (except very low light maybe)

[MarkP]

I have tended not to use filtration on the Monochrom. I like the very flat neutral files that it delivers. I'm more than happy to make the necessary PP adjustments in Photoshop which although more work I think I have a more versatile file. The lack of the three colour channels has proven not to be a significant issue and there's not much I can't achieve in PP.

 

This has nothing to do with any issues about potential image degradation from filters. I almost always use Leica or B+W protective filters on my lenses regardless.

 

Having said that, I have bought a set of B+W orange filters for my lenses but am still not sure about them (except on some of my very low contrast lenses).

[Adrian Lord]

I have NDs for wide open use of the Lux. Useful and no degradation.

 

I also have a red but haven't used it and to be honest I doubt I will!

 

I detest fiddling with filters passionately. Anything that complicates photography at point of fire for that matter...

[Woody Campbell]

I use MM + 50mm Summicron Asph. + B+W 040 (medium orange) about 90% of the time. I stitch when I want wider. No issue with focus shift with the cron asph. The 040 lets me shoot wide open (f2.0) in daylight but just barely. That plus a spare battery is pretty much my entire kit these days.