M vs MM and Silver Effex

[Baevans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a M8 and nice complement of Leica and Zeiss lenses. Currently on a (long) waiting list for M, having just queued up in May.

I shoot color but the pictures I print big (for me, 19x13) are most often B&W.

I'm trying to decide between M upgrade of M8 (mainly for FOV for my 25mm and 35mm lenses - other benefits such as live view, ? improved rangefinder, focus peaking, etc. of somewhat lesser importance - and keeping my M8 and going for an MM companion instead. Especially given that the resale value of my M8 (low shutter count, very clean, but only sapphire glass upgrade) will be minimal.

My specific question regards the use of Silver Effex 2, which I use extensively for my B&W conversions. For those who have used it for color files from M8, M9, and M as well as on native B&W files, do you miss the functionality that its use of the color channels gives when working on B&W only MM files? The flexibility of applying adjustable color "filters", and the background use of the color channels when selecting areas for local modifications, and so on. I'm less interested in the preset imitation of specific B&W film types. Do the MM files themselves really have objective quality improvement (other than high ISO) that more than balances that loss of flexibility in PP?

I have experimented with already converted files, but would like some feedback from those who have used Silver Effex 2 extensively under these circumstances. I assume some significant functionality simply from the fact that it is bundled with the MM, but what do users think? I'm not hung up on the Zen of forced B&W mindset as a factor in making my decision.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

It has been discussed here very often. Good as the B&W output of the M8, M9 and M is, the Monochrome is unmatched in tonality, acuity and "grain" performance.

However if you place great value on tweaking the tone curve of your image you may - as a compromise- prefer a colour image as a starting point. Or learn (or remember) how to use filters.

[doolittle]

If field of view is your main reason for changing your camera, is there a reason you have excluded the M-E/M-9 from your decision?

[bobaronoff]

I added a Monochrom to my M9 one month ago. My observation turns out to be the obvious - that a converted B&W is a different file than 'raw' B&W. One should not expect their post processing workflow (or result) to be the same. For conversion, I favored the tonal color sliders. On the MM, I am using (and learning) on-lens color filters and have had nice post processing enhancements with the standard basic sliders,selective dodge/burn, and the tonal curve sliders(LR5). Although the MM comes with Silver Efex 2, I have been quite satisfied with the images and prints coming from LR5 alone - although I am hardly the final word. I am curious if those with significant MM experience have found it worthwhile adding SEP2 to their LR5 processing. The LR5/SEP2 interface seems a bit kludgy and was hoping to avoid learning yet another program - but if the consensus is that the results are improved then it will be worth the time.

 

As to comparing M (converted B&W) to MM (native B&W), I venture to go out on a limb and estimate that both cameras make beautiful photos - beyond that, to each their own to decide for themselves.

 

regards,

Bob

[jaapv]

I started out using SE, but dropped it. I prefer straight Photoshop or LR.

[Jeff S]

Why not rent the MM and try for yourself?

 

I think wonderful b/w prints can be made using any of the cameras you list, including your M8. Just as in the darkroom days, the camera is only a start, and all the many other variables in the chain from camera to print to display matter as much or more IMO. Choosing a preferred workflow is of course a personal matter.

 

Personally I might be more interested in trying the Monochrom if and when Leica makes a variant of it using the M platform that would include weather sealing, improved RF, quiet shutter, longer battery life, faster processor, 2m frame lines, etc. Stefan Daniel said at Photokina that "we can imagine such a variant...as it is addictive."

 

Until then, I'll be testing the M when it's available and sorted a bit more. And until then I'm perfectly happy with the M8.2.

 

Jeff

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I know that I am shooting for B & W, I use my MM rather than the M. To me, the MM files just look better--I am not a technical person so I really haven't explored why I have that impression. All I know, is that I pick up the MM first, and if I am taking two cameras, I put the lens that I think will be most useful on the MM. I don't mind not having the color channels. I haven't felt disadvantaged. I have learned how to use filters.

 

I realize that isn't a technical explanation, but it is my reaction.

 

Hope you make the right decision.

 

Jack Siegel

[250swb]

Although the MM comes with Silver Efex 2, I have been quite satisfied with the images and prints coming from LR5 alone - although I am hardly the final word. I am curious if those with significant MM experience have found it worthwhile adding SEP2 to their LR5 processing. The LR5/SEP2 interface seems a bit kludgy and was hoping to avoid learning yet another program - but if the consensus is that the results are improved then it will be worth the time.

 

I can't imagine what you mean by kludgy unless you are using Silver Efex as a stand alone programme and not as a Lightroom plugin. You should be able to go seamlessly from one to the other.

 

I don't use Lightroom because it doesn't offer the full 'darkroom experience' of control, but do use Silver Efex as a Photoshop plugin. But talking of Silver Efex on it own I would say it offers a vast amount of adjustments and techniques that were only possible beforehand by in-depth knowledge of Photoshop, and it does it without needing any special knowledge at all. Silver Efex makes complicated things simple, and for full control over the B&W image, whether starting with an MM file or one from an M9 or M, Efex to use a clichéd phrase 'puts the photographer in control'.

 

A B&W image is far more than simply removing colour, the balance of tone becomes far more important because there are no colour clues to help an image. If you don't work with colour filters you may not see the white clouds that were in the blue sky. Equally you may have a person standing in the shade and they can be lost because there are no colour clues to make them a person, so you need to lighten some tones around them to give them contrast etc. These are age old darkroom tricks and a Bresson wouldn't be a Bresson or an Adams wouldn't be an Adams without them. And it is Silver Efex that can help you do this in a much simpler way than Lightroom or Photoshop on their own, although both can have a part to play.

 

Steve

[erl]

My main experience with B&W and SFX is working scanned B&W film, converting the file to RGB and then tweaking in SFX. Often, I will just PP in PS, but there are certainly times when SFX does it better/ quicker.

 

Learning SFX as a plug in is not necessary, but I prefer it. The 'lazy' route is to accept one of the many pre-formatted outputs in SFX, which are fine. I just prefer to measure the amount myself.

[jonoslack]

I'm not hung up on the Zen of forced B&W mindset as a factor in making my decision.

 

HI There

Whilst I agree with Jaap - the MM files definitely have something unique, I do feel that the black and white conversions from the M are excellent - they don't have the grain and structure of the MM files, but as you say they do have two real advantages:

1. you can use the channel mixer to convert

2. you can change your mind and use colour.

 

Add to that the obvious operational advantages of the M (quieter shutter, less lag, better battery life, weathersealed etc. etc. - and that's not even mentioning live view).

 

I'm lucky enough to have (and use) both an M and an MM, but if I was forced to have only one, then it would DEFINITELY be an M.

 

Especially if you aren't hung up on the Zen!

 

All the best

[250swb]

 

Especially if you aren't hung up on the Zen!

 

 

The quest for reflecting the artist's inner mind by realising the perfectly crafted image has gone out of photography, 'good enough' is todays mantra, for which you don't need either an M or an MM anyway.

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

... they don't have the grain and structure of the MM files...

 

Interesting, Jono. My observation on MM files, without having yet tried them myself, is that they approach medium format, i.e., grain-free. Is this the characteristic you're describing, or something else?

 

With the advantage of increasingly better software, e.g., LR, SFX, or otherwise, dealing with grain or 'structure' is now possible. Do you find that the M files cannot be manipulated, for 'reasonably' sized prints, to more or less achieve a similar feel?

 

I recognize these things are hard to convey in words; ultimately I'll rent an MM myself and compare. But I am curious about your thoughts.

 

Jeff

[skinnfell]

I am in the process of finishing a book project with B&W images where I have used M8, M9, Monochrom and film with M6. Overall I find that the M8 images are the closest to Monochrom, if you look away from the resolution and high ISO differences. For some reason I struggle with my M9 files, they are too contrasty for my liking and blacks/darks are very dense. (For the same reason the M9 shoots wonderful color).

 

I ahve not tried the M, but have played with DNG files available. They give me a feeling similar to what I get from my canons, which is a good thing for B&W conversions. Good, workable shadows. But I do not like the grain structure or detail of the M at all, which is the reason I bought a Monochrom instead.

 

That camera has its quirks, but these will be quite familiar if you are coming from M8. Pictures form the Monochrom are amazing. Enough said.

 

I have not even installed my copy of silver efex. I would rather try to get the most out of my files, rather than simulating a "look" of old.

[Jeff S]

For some reason I struggle with my M9 files, they are too contrasty for my liking and blacks/darks are very dense.

 

Like you, I preferred the M8.2 files for b/w when compared against the M9, but for opposite reasons. I attributed this in part to the weaker IR filtration provided by the M9's internal filter versus the M8.2 when used with a more effective external UV/IR cut filter. The M8.2 files required less PP to get the look I desired.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I have not even installed my copy of silver efex. I would rather try to get the most out of my files, rather than simulating a "look" of old.

Well, not all SE presets simulate old, there are quite a few contrast and structure settings. But I find that the results easily look overworked unless you are very careful. I have more control in Photoshop.

[Guest borge]

I used Silver Efex Pro in the beginning when I got my MM almost a year back.

But after about a month of playing around with SEP I started only using LR and some times Photoshop (selective dodging/burning and curves adjustments with a Wacom Intuos 5 pen tablet).

 

Most of the SEP presets looks cheap in my opinion. And you don't get anywhere near full functionality on the MM's raw files as they lack color data which is heavily used in SEP's presets.

 

If you want to use SEP though I would advise you to open the DNG in Photoshop (directly or via Lightroom) to avoid having to export a TIFF for editing. When the DNG is open in Photoshop you can open SEP as a plug-in and it will open the DNG directly, and if you apply a SEP profile or do editing within SEP you can save it as a layer rather than as a file. I found that I really preferred this method of working with SEP. Then just save the edits (including all layers) as PSD's - which is auto-added to LR.

[Printmaker]

One unique attribute of the M8 is its sensitivity to IR. Add a 92 or 93 filter and you have a nice infrared camera. And it is a backup body. For those reasons alone, you might want to consider keeping it in your collection. Of course the ideal situation would be a M8, MM and a M in your stable.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[250swb]

I really don't understand what the problem is that people find in Silver Efex presets.

 

The first thing is that they aren't intelligent, they don't know what you are putting in, so a high contrast image or a low contrast image is treated the same way, by the standards of a pre- programmed 'default' preset. So they can turn out great, or rubbish, or almost there. The point is that if they don't blow your socks off treat them as ideas, another way to see the image you made, another starting point. Nobody has to assign one and then be doomed to using it without modification, there are a million things to choose from, but if you simply want to try an idea, see where it goes, be adventurous, the a preset is as good a way to start as any.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tobey bilek]

monochrome will out perform a color camera.

 

That said, one can selectively apply color filters with masking to a color image easily.

 

All true, but if you wish to selectively lighten or darken a mono image, the selection options in photoshop are very good.

 

Nik plugin do not impress me much except as a lazy man way to do the very same thing in photoshop. This includes Silver effects. Glad mine came free.

 

Now it all comes down to if you are satisfied with the M8 mono files with regard to sharpness and noise at the size you work.

 

In photoshop, add a red filter and it can be confined to the sky with a mask. Put it on a monochrome camera and it goes everywhere. But you can select the sky and mask it off. So we are back to the paragraph above.

[250swb]

 

Nik plugin do not impress me much except as a lazy man way to do the very same thing in photoshop. This includes Silver effects. Glad mine came free.

 

 

I'm lazy Toby, I have enough knowledge of Photoshop to know that what previously would have taken many hours with Layers and multiple adjustments it can be condensed into half an hour with Silver Efex. It is not an entire replacement for Photoshop, but if I am lazy it would be great to see an image (any image at all, just to know they exist) from you that isn't lazy, and how it improves upon Silver Efex? I'm not holding my breath of course.....

 

Steve