How to control highlights (M240 or Monochrom)

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have now extensively tried out both the M240 and Monochrom, courtesy of the splendid service one can get at Leica Mayfair.

 

In SHADE, I really like the results that I get from both of these cameras .... images of subjects in shade (ie, no direct bright sun) look very natural and pleasing to me.

 

It is in BRIGHT SUN, however, that I'm having problems and not really liking what I get, especially when resizing images for large enlargements ...... I'm not sure what it is. Highlights aren't noticeably clipped (ie, no "red flashies") when i develop the Raw file. For Raw conversions, I use Photoshop Elements.

 

An example -- I took some images in a park .... the buildings in shadow looked perfectly natural and very much to my liking .... but the grass (which was lit brightly by the sun) looked, well, a bit "fake" and obviously "digital".

 

I find this to be the case with both the M240 and Monochrom, ie, I find shadowed areas look great and natural, but highlights look fake and digitised.

 

Any idea what's going on here? I'm from a a film background, so maybe I'm responding to the lack of shoulder you get with digital when it comes to highlights? ....... I daresay the sunlit grass had hundreds of extremely small areas of blown highlights that wouldn't show up as blown (in Flashing Red) in a Raw converter. Or maybe PS Elements isn't as good a converter of Raw files as other software? Or is there a way to soften down highlights and get me to something that I like?

 

Any suggestions on what to try would be appreciated.

[250swb]

The rear LCD is not accurate enough to judge precise exposure by how the image looks, so use the histogram or the shadow and highlight warning to check exposure. For anything spiking to the right of the histogram, or flashing red in the preview image, dial in some under exposure. This is particularly so with the MM where the rear LCD isn't very good at giving a representation of what you can expect in the final file after post processing. The histogram should always be used to judge exposure with the MM as with only one channel highlights cannot be recovered as they often can with a colour image.

 

There is no reason to blame Adobe Camera Raw used to process a RAW file for opening in Elements, this will not 'create' blown highlights even set to 'Auto', but it can only work with the information it is given so it sounds like you are only giving it files that have been blown in the camera by over exposing the scene.

 

Steve

[Luke_Miller]

I suspect you are correct that this may be one of the differences between shooting film and digital.

 

In the buildings in shadows/grass in sunlight scene you described another issue can be that the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the ability of the camera. Since the buildings in shadow came out properly the scene was probably overexposed for the areas in sunlight. If you set exposure to avoid overexposing the area in sunlight the buildings in shadows would have been significantly underexposed and shadow details lost plus noise would increase as the shadows were lightened in post processing.

 

One solution is to shoot from a tripod and take a shot exposed for the areas in sunlight, another exposed for the buildings in shadow, and merge in post processing. Or do what I do and pick which part of the scene I want properly exposed.

[kdriceman]

I get quite a few images on all my digital cameras that I feel have a harsh-ish feel to the highlights when taken in a high contrast or sunny scene. Dialing back the highlights slider just a little in LR or ACR generally pulls them back and makes it look more natural - provided the highlights aren't blown. I'm certain that Elements uses ACR as the raw convertor, but I can't recall what the interface looks like. But a highlights slider must be in there somewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

The old adage for slide film: “expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may” applies.

The latitude of the files from both the MM and the M allows you to open up the shadows without any significant penalty. However, attempting to pull down the highlights slider too far can result in an unnatural look.

Also try making your contrast corrections in Levels and Curves, this is more precise.

[sanyasi]

By coincidence, Ming Thein posted this today regarding highlights and black and white photography. A digital B&W epiphany – Ming Thein | Photographer

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Over the years I have come to like an easy way of working with automatic exposure cameras. For film I point the camera at the darkest part of the subject that I want detail in, lock exposure, frame and click! For most digitals I do the same, though some would say I am wrong. For the Monochrom I point at the brightest area of the subject and lock the exposure etc. So far, so good.

 

Chris

[dj_61]

Over the years I have come to like an easy way of working with automatic exposure cameras. For film I point the camera at the darkest part of the subject that I want detail in, lock exposure, frame and click! For most digitals I do the same, though some would say I am wrong. For the Monochrom I point at the brightest area of the subject and lock the exposure etc. So far, so good.

 

Chris

 

 

If you take this route with the monochrom you will not get blown highlights for sure, because you will end up with at least three stops underexposed images. The highlights will be read as 30% grey. In stead, take a spot meter, read the highlights and add four stops or three of you want to be on the very safe side.

[jaapv]

By coincidence, Ming Thein posted this today regarding highlights and black and white photography. A digital B&W epiphany – Ming Thein | Photographer

As usual with Ming Thein, a very readable article. It contains a basic error, however. Although a sensor cuts out abruptly in the whites, it does not do so in the blacks. The shadows gradually taper off into the noise floor. A pixel will never record zero, as there is always noise present.

On a side note, negative film will cut off abruptly in the shadows when the silver clusters merge and taper off in the highlights as detail gradually gets lost, slide film obviously the opposite.

That is why the traditional exposure techniques still hold true in the digital age.

[Jon Warwick]

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions. I'm starting to figure out what might me driving what I don't like about brightly sunlit images (whilst hugely liking images with the M240 or MM in shade) ..... and it's a lot to do with too much contrast I think. The worst look for me was in harsh sunlight with the latest 35mm 1.4 Lux, but dialing back the contrast A LOT got me a bit closer to a less harsh and more natural feel. As I say, I adore the image quality of these cameras in SHADE, just having probs with the look in harsh sunlight.

 

I think what I'm also wanting is for very bright highlights to be less "bright" white, and more "grey" white. Perhaps given that is more how I see film recording highlights in B&W. To achieve that, do I adjust the 255 level in Levels downwards, or is there a better way to soften those bright whites?

[250swb]

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions. I'm starting to figure out what might me driving what I don't like about brightly sunlit images (whilst hugely liking images with the M240 or MM in shade) ..... and it's a lot to do with too much contrast I think. The worst look for me was in harsh sunlight with the latest 35mm 1.4 Lux, but dialing back the contrast A LOT got me a bit closer to a less harsh and more natural feel. As I say, I adore the image quality of these cameras in SHADE, just having probs with the look in harsh sunlight.

 

I think what I'm also wanting is for very bright highlights to be less "bright" white, and more "grey" white. Perhaps given that is more how I see film recording highlights in B&W. To achieve that, do I adjust the 255 level in Levels downwards, or is there a better way to soften those bright whites?

 

I can't help but think that it is Silver Efex Pro that you need, it has all the complicated adjustments of Lightroom and Photoshop set out in easy to understand and control ways.

 

First the contrast. If you are only using the simple tools in Elements turning down the contrast may be an obvious solution, but lack of contrast can result in a dull image. So increasing the brightness of the shadows and the mid tones while still leaving the highlights where they are can often produce a more vibrant image. You could do this using Levels.

 

The bright white can indeed be adjusted downwards from 255, again do it in Levels. But it needs to be a genuine white tone to start with, if it is a blown white all you would get is an artificial looking grey.

 

Steve

[osscat]

The old adage for slide film: “expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may” applies.

The latitude of the files from both the MM and the M allows you to open up the shadows without any significant penalty. However, attempting to pull down the highlights slider too far can result in an unnatural look.

Also try making your contrast corrections in Levels and Curves, this is more precise.

 

I am still trying to remember to do what I did with film - my light meter was in my head and proved reasonably accurate - now, after several years of auto exposure, auto focus and aperture priority I keep forgetting to do the basics

 

I am getting there - my light meter is still functioning accurately even if the rest of the brain is not. However, I have found out, more by error, that the M files hold loads of information even in a file several stops under exposed - exposing for the highlights is good advice.

 

This file was about 3 and a half stops under exposed yet I was able to pull detail out of it albeit slightly noisy in deep shadow.

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!

[Jon Warwick]

Many thanks for all your help above.

 

I think a Plug-In such as DXO or NIK Collection might indeed be helpful, both for my colour and B&W post processing.

 

One of the things I can't stand about digital is the plastic & overly-smooth look of low-ISOs, and I'd like to add in some "crunch" (ie, as realistic looking grain as possible) back into my images.

 

For B&W, it seems that NIK Silver Efex effort is generally regarded as excellent.

 

But for COLOUR .... DXO or NIK??

 

A key thing that I'm after is to get some very realistic-looking grain back into my digital images ..... I'm wanting the "pretend grain" to look like grain (ie, random), and have the flexibility to decide how noticeable I want that grain to be (ie, to change the "look" of the print between something taken in 35mm vs. medium / large format films, depending on the image).

 

Please can you suggest which you prefer, DXO or NIK, and why?

[Jeff S]

I prefer Lightroom (many ways to adjust highlights, btw). Others don't. Same with any software, or gear for that matter. It's not the tool, but whether you're comfortable enough with the interface to learn how to use it effectively for your goals and tastes.

 

Everyone will have their favorite, and the answers here will only be limited by the number of people who happen to see and respond.

 

Most every program has a free trial period. Pick one and spend some time. It's the only way to know how YOU respond.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

Please can you suggest which you prefer, DXO or NIK, and why?

 

Because Nik brings together incredibly complex adjustments that would take an age to accomplish in Photoshop (never mind Lightroom where it can be impossible), and makes them easily tweaked and saved. The Nik Photo Suite is a massive bang for buck, it still needs a small learning time, but overall it encourages trying to get the images you want, rather than you standing back and thinking it is all too complicated.

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

Lightroom is not complicated for me, does most things I need, and a quick trip to Photoshop fixes most anything else. The current iteration is far more capable than earlier versions.

 

The final print is all that matters.

 

Different strokes.

 

Jeff

[MarkP]

...I'd like to add in some "crunch" (ie, as realistic looking grain as possible) back into my images.

 

I completely agree and have been putting a bit of texture with noise/grain back into almost all of my digital images for some time. However, the noise structure of Monochrom files is lovely and very filmic to start with.

 

Gausian noise in Photoshop works very well (only needs something in the range of 1.0-1.5), this is also a great trick to give some texture to those blown highlights that just leave empty holes in digital files and their prints, in the same way as there is usually still some grain structure in blown highlights from film.

 

Otherwise the film emulation in SFX. In fact it's is the only feature of SFX I now use as I don't like it's very limited local control (so it's either a quick tidy up in LightRoom or the works in Photoshop).

DXO FilmPack 4 isn't bad but I often forget I've got it on the computer.

[tobey bilek]

Set the camera to the same color space as you will use to print, or at least the raw converter.

 

I am unfamiliar with Elements, but you need a color space some place in the process that is no bigger than final use space. If you fill a large space, and final use is smaller you must repair it.

 

I set my camera and converter to RGB, because that is what my pro lab uses. Then when I soft proof, nothing is ever out of gamut.

 

If the camera is set to show over exposed areas, then the only choice is to expose less and boost the lower tones later or use HDR.