Jump to content

Moving from MF B&W to Monochrom


M'Ate

Recommended Posts

Many thanks for your input and some links to excellent images.

Hope more of your experiences are posted here. Cheers.

 

Glad to help.

I update my tumblr everyday with a lot of different images, mostly due to the use of different bodies...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Just what is the difference? Doesn't the M9 format permit bigger/sharper prints than the M8?

 

Not about print size for me, as I don't make huge prints. I just find the files suit my PP workflow better, a bit crisper out-of-camera and easier to adjust to my taste. This might have something to do with use of external UV/IR filters compared to the M9's internal...and weaker compared to external…filter. I only know what I experienced. The difference isn't huge, but noticeable on many pics.

 

Having said that, I now prefer the new M as an overall color and b/w tool. A lot comes down to workflow habits and personal tastes. Frankly, though, the camera generally isn't the limiting factor for making good pics and prints…any of these cameras are plenty good enough…and the audience doesn't know or care what camera was used.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

. …and the audience doesn't know or care what camera was used. Jeff

 

Jeff, I see this quite often and I think it applies to very few people and it's wrong for most of us here.

 

I've made a small fortune shooting my M9s and the clients who commissioned me had no interest in what I shot with. If you're talking about clients, your right.

 

However, a lot of what I've shot has been for myself and I've always been more than interested with what I created the image with and how it's been processed. It's part of my ongoing learning process in mastering this craft and art.

 

As for my wider audience, they too seem to be very interested in what I've used. My main outlet for showing my personal work is Flickr and I'm generally receiving 1,500 to 4,000 views a day, with the highest being 12,000. As I never subscribe to the Groups with Awards, my audience is people who've visited my account before, or they are drawn in by the Groups and Tags I've used and with which they have a connection. Maybe it was the camera, lens, film stock, or developer that attracted them, but something did because I think few stumble across it.

 

If I look at your work, of course I'd be interested about how you achieved some technical, or artistic characteristic. I'm a photographer and those things are interesting although maybe not as much as the image content. I doubt I'll be alone in this, especially here where the members are largely not fee earning.

 

As for the M8, I have zero affection for it. Bought one new with a discount at the time the M9 was launched and sold it three months later after much frustration. Wouldn't give one shelf room today, but that's my opinion and I know others enjoy it. Each to their own.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My main outlet for showing my personal work is Flickr...

 

I make prints…for me, for gifts, for sale (not professionally) and/or for show. Regarding the latter, I can assure you that people, including photographers, have no idea what camera was used (except a lucky guess now and then), even if they are curious. There are just too many variables in the entire print workflow from camera to matted, framed….and lighted…print. Not a theory in my case….real life experience.

 

Yes, to each his/her own.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. Not a theory in my case….real life experience.

Yes, to each his/her own. Jeff

 

Jeff, are your images on-line anywhere ? I'd like to put your comments into context.

 

Hundreds of mine are available via the link below, and there's a few hundred on this Forum that you can find behind my name. hopefully demonstrates that I know the theory AND can put it into practice. It's all virtual, of course, not real life.

 

Plus, I make about 400 prints a month for clients which is not virtual.

 

Gary

Edited by Rolo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read above. I'll invite you to my next show.

 

BTW, my comments were not intended to reflect on your process or your work, just mine. This isn't a contest. I was merely relating MY experience that people haven't been able to discern camera choice when looking at my prints.. That's all.

 

I have, however, been collecting vintage prints for several decades, so I have some experience with their various characteristics beyond my own choices.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here comes the inevitable 11PPOOWS (1:1 Pixel-Peeper Out-Of-Window Shot) contribution:

 

http://imageshack.com/a/img208/7577/rqdq.jpg

 

Left:

Leica Monochrom + ZM Planar 50/2, 400 ASA

 

Right:

Mamiya 7ii + 80/4, T-Max 400, 400 ASA, scanned with Minolta DImage Multi Pro at 3200dpi

 

As you can see, the Monochrom has an edge in overall technical image quality in this detail crop. Leaves, bricks, gravel, fine branches etc. The gap naturally widens when we turn to things like Tri-X vs. Monochrom at 1000 ASA, the performance of the Monochrom at 5000 and 10000 ASA vs. the absence of any visible image on the negative and so on.

 

However, holding both in my hand...... I could never see myself selling my MF gear! I also still use a 6x6 TLR which I already used as a child, and there is a personal history, an attitude, an approach to handling, and a way of seeing associated with each ancient item which just doesn't happen (yet) with the Monochrom, which has had far less mileage in my hands than the other stuff.

 

If I had to make a professional decision, I could not justify keeping the film gear and the Monochrom. But since I do photography for my personal enjoyment, I'm going to hang on to the best of both worlds.

 

That said, a 39MP Phase One P45+ attached to Mamiya 645 gear blows the Monochrom away (at base ISO...). No contest by a huge margin. You didn't mention what kind of MF outfit you have, but that might be something to keep in mind if you have gear which could mate to a digital back. Used MF backs are becoming increasingly affordable as MF digital seems to be going a bit out of fashion.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can tell you from my own experience, because I have made that switch...I shot extensively with a Hasselblad system for years, then scanned the film and outputted large prints (120x120cm) digitally. When the 5d mk II came out I tested it against a scanned 6x6 image (200 ISO Fuji, scanned with the Nikon Coolscan 8000, fluid mounted), and the digital image was sharper and smoother than the scan. And now of course, the M and the MM are both much sharper than the Mk II was. I am saving the 'Blad gear to put a digital back on, but I really don't miss film at all. But to be honest, dealing with imperfect software all day is no fun either...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ansel_Adams

I have yet to see a print from the Monocrhom that approaches an analogue print from my Hasselblad. I don't see one replacing the other any time soon. Looking at stuff on computer monitors is no guide in my opinion. You need to look at final prints.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a print from the Monocrhom that approaches an analogue print from my Hasselblad.....

 

I suggest you look a little harder, preferably at the right output.

 

Not wishing to take the thread too far away from the OP's original topic, I have thought long and hard about the Monochrom and have come very close to putting the money down on a couple of occasions. It is the first digital M that has got me this close, for various reasons I have no interest in the rest. The Monochrom stands apart in the digital M range and not just because of the sensor. I could certainly use it, but that would mean other useful stuff would have to go. At the moment that's still a step too far.

 

It's partly due to another thread on this forum a couple of years ago that I resurrected my seven year old barely used Hasselblad 503CW and began using it again for my personal work. I have enjoyed the experience so much I even added a new 50mm Cfi Distagon and a second A12 back to replace those I had already sold. When I have the time, the Hasselblad also gets some limited use at weddings.

 

Still nothing can match it for versatility and completeness as a 'system', but a second iteration of the Monochrom with live view, 24/36mp and 50iso could easily tip the balance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a print from the Monocrhom that approaches an analogue print from my Hasselblad. I don't see one replacing the other any time soon. Looking at stuff on computer monitors is no guide in my opinion. You need to look at final prints.

 

Sceptic's always require things to be proved to them, non-sceptic's such as the real Ansel Adams don't, and he even saw the potential in early digital imaging and would probably be using it now if age hadn't caught up with him. He didn't need to see the finished article to know where his enquiring mind would go next because prior proof is the antithesis of enquiry. None of his great photographic insights would have happened if he'd just waited for somebody else to do it first.

 

Now I'm not setting myself up to be in Ansel's league, but I didn't see a print by any photographer who was using a Monochrom that even vaguely resembled the type of picture I like to make. In fact it was Jacob Sobol's images that convinced me because he made them look like 35mm film. But underlying that other Monochrom images also had a resolution and tonality as yet unseen in a small camera digital image. I figured that both cases made a whole, if one photographer can make them look like film, and another can show high resolution images, then both principles can be brought together. Because lets face, I could have been waiting an age before I happened along a print that I could relate to. So good luck with your wait.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the real advantage of medium format is not how sharp it is, but how soft it is. A 16x20 print from a 35mm negative can be very sharp, but it is different from the "round" or "soft" look of a medium format print. The Monochrom can almost be too sharp. You are either in focus or you are not, and the fall-off is very sharp with 35mm lenses compared to MF lenses. It is hard to quantify bokeh, but this is what it ultimately comes down to. The MM is definitely capable of matching the quality of MF film, it is just different. Here's one from the MM and one from the Contax with film.

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!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this camera... best experience since medium format Acros 120 or 4X5.

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a print from the Monocrhom that approaches an analogue print from my Hasselblad. I don't see one replacing the other any time soon. Looking at stuff on computer monitors is no guide in my opinion. You need to look at final prints.

 

Then you really should get out there and test one and make a print from both. Your Blad may be your preference in terms camera type and of the look you like but in terms of overall image quality, the Mono has it beat.

It takes some PP effort to get the very best out of the MM but it is much better at b&w than my Hasselblads ever were. I put tens of thousands of b&w rolls through my Blads and processed every roll. I don't miss processing film.

I'm not saying the Mono doesn't have it's issues. It does. But if you expose like you would with transparency film you will have no problem.

 

Just my 2 little cents

 

G

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...but if I want a square image I tend to use a square camera, if I want a 6x12 I use a panoramic MF camera. I find it hard to compose in one format for another format, I don't really want to either, I like the discipline each imposes. The only time I can bring myself to crop is in post processing and only if the image screams out for it.

 

Before I had my Monochrom I used an M9 for converting to B&W and the difference is considerable, far better resolution (apparent with the best lenses), and far richer tonality, although I didn't think the M9 was bad at all.

 

Steve

 

Steve makes excellent points here. Before We ALL (that, of course is the Royal "We") switched to digital, I sold my extensive Hassy outfit and converted completely to software-based imaging. I, too, convert my M9 files, and for my purposes they're quite adequate.

 

However, there is something about the process of digital that just isn't there for me. Being able to buy an MM or reacquiring more recent Hassy gear, I'm now in the process of re-assembling my Hasselblad outfit. I tend to "see" in square format. There's something intangible but very real that I just like better about 6x6 negatives. I've thought long and hard about that. The razor-sharpness of digital is wasted on me. Having to tweak the tonality to make it look like a film-based image annoys me on some level. I have thought about it extensively, and I can't quite put my finger on why... but the Hasselblad equipment medium format image "look and feel" is undeniable and why I'm returning to it.

 

Make no mistake, I'll continue to use my M9P as necessary, and I'll probably scan the 6x6 negatives and continue to post process in LR and PS6 as necessary, but I'm getting my darkroom back together as well and I'm going to get my hands wet again.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course... but Steve really struck a chord when he said "if I want a square image I tend to use a square camera" and that led me to post.

 

Good luck figuring out where you're going!

 

Roger

 

On edit... So this is a style of image I enjoy. It was shot with the M9P and converted to B&W in PS6. The qualities the the MM has and really shines at are almost irrelevant in images like these; yet I find this kind of image endlessly entertaining.

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!

Edited by hepcat
add image
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A most interesting thread. I do think it is a straw dog issue, at best. Each of these tools have very particular strengths. I LOVE the square full frame of my Blads & the lenses are spectacular. My Distagon 50 remains the singular voice for head shots and the enormous amount of data I can extract with TriX 400, is by far the best work I have done.

 

The MM is an amazing camera, but it is unreal, as an aesthetic. WAY too clean! Yes, I love all the M bodies, including the few times I shot with the MM. My buddy Virgil has developed an amazing portfolio with this camera, but the real strengths come from within himself, not from the camera.

 

I praise Leica for investing in the MM. I hope they sell enough to earn a profit.

 

What I love best about my Blads, is that it allows me to have a more contemplative orientation to how I make images. I slows me down to watch, wait & feel what I want to express.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...