jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #41 Posted July 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Have a try at the newest version of C1 (only for raw development, export to CC2014 for processing) You might have a pleasant surprise on your 240 files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi jaapv, Take a look here B&W Processing: M240 vs MM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #42 Posted July 9, 2014 Have a try at the newest version of C1 (only for raw development, export to CC2014 for processing) You might have a pleasant surprise on your 240 files. I have both , last version Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #43 Posted July 9, 2014 Don't you find that C1 does much better, especially at Tungsten where it avoids the nasty yellow-orange cast LR/ACR produces? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #44 Posted July 9, 2014 Don't you find that C1 does much better, especially at Tungsten where it avoids the nasty yellow-orange cast LR/ACR produces?it could be a little better on some points , but I find anti moiré better on LR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2014 Share #45 Posted July 9, 2014 Anybody can make an M240 file look similar to an MM file (or film) with a little post processing... Jaap said he couldn't…post 2… "Just as it happens I have been doing some B&W on the 240 lately. Comparing with MM results I cannot even get close, despite the 240 being no slouch." That was the basis for my post. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #46 Posted July 9, 2014 Jaap said he couldn't Jaap should post a link for 2 DGN and let's try :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 9, 2014 Share #47 Posted July 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I never cease to be amazed by my Monochrom files no matter what lens I use. The detail and tonal range and low-light performance is extraordinary. I don't mind the extra work required in Photoshop to get the best out of these files. I think that the other characteristic of Monochrom files that is often overlooked is that the Monochrom's file noise is very filmic, totally unlike that of the M9 and M240. I print to A3+ and A2 on inkjet with my favourites on silver gelatine fibre-based chemical paper via the De Vere system. and it looks like Sony may soon join the monochrome party... Sony Rumored To Announce Full Frame Camera With Black and White Sensor | Daily Camera News Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etruscello Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share #48 Posted July 9, 2014 Thanks to everyone, thus far, for the insightful, detailed and experiential comments on my opening question. My reading of Jaap, Jon, 250, Erick and Horosu, seems to confirm for me the premises of my question, viz., that with RAW manipulation of the colors underlying the B&W M240 DNG file, one can get better dynamic range and zone system control than with MM files. The advantage of MM files seems to be than tonality is inherently better and requires less PP, but often requires the bother of color filtering at the scene. At this point, given my PP creative preferences and smaller printing style, my conclusion is to not buy an MM. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 9, 2014 Share #49 Posted July 9, 2014 Thanks to everyone, thus far, for the insightful, detailed and experiential comments on my opening question. My reading of Jaap, Jon, 250, Erick and Horosu, seems to confirm for me the premises of my question, viz., that with RAW manipulation of the colors underlying the B&W M240 DNG file, one can get better dynamic range and zone system control than with MM files. The advantage of MM files seems to be than tonality is inherently better and requires less PP, but often requires the bother of color filtering at the scene. At this point, given my PP creative preferences and smaller printing style, my conclusion is to not buy an MM. Tom And that is a perfectly reasonable decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2014 Share #50 Posted July 9, 2014 Thanks to everyone, thus far, for the insightful, detailed and experiential comments on my opening question. My reading of Jaap, Jon, 250, Erick and Horosu, seems to confirm for me the premises of my question, viz., that with RAW manipulation of the colors underlying the B&W M240 DNG file, one can get better dynamic range and zone system control than with MM files. The advantage of MM files seems to be than tonality is inherently better and requires less PP, but often requires the bother of color filtering at the scene. At this point, given my PP creative preferences and smaller printing style, my conclusion is to not buy an MM. Tom My view of the comments is that, quite predictably, assessments vary. The only way for you to know is to try the camera (rent, borrow or purchase) and adapt your own workflow, style and preferences to make prints. Decision based on isolated forum comments? Fools game. Far too many variables at play. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 9, 2014 Share #51 Posted July 9, 2014 My view of the comments is that, quite predictably, assessments vary. The only way for you to know is to try the camera (rent, borrow or purchase) and adapt your own workflow, style and preferences. Decision based on isolated forum comments? Fools game. Jeff And I was also going to say you should try to borrow one to test for yourself. You may yet find the Monochrom to be highly addictive. Jeff beat me to the comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #52 Posted July 9, 2014 Thanks to everyone, thus far, for the insightful, detailed and experiential comments on my opening question. My reading of Jaap, Jon, 250, Erick and Horosu, seems to confirm for me the premises of my question, viz., that with RAW manipulation of the colors underlying the B&W M240 DNG file, one can get better dynamic range and zone system control than with MM files. The advantage of MM files seems to be than tonality is inherently better and requires less PP, but often requires the bother of color filtering at the scene. At this point, given my PP creative preferences and smaller printing style, my conclusion is to not buy an MM. Tom Why don't you wait 2 months ? and see if a MM240 comes at Photokina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #53 Posted July 9, 2014 That would not change anything for the PP and colour filter parts of the argument. . The dynamic range of the MM is 13.1, of the 240 13.3, both quite similar to film. The myth of poor dynamic range of the MM stems from user error. As there are no colour channels to extrapolate the clipped channel from (the usual form of highlight recovery), a blown highlight is irrevocably lost. So when that happens it is simply exposure error. If exposed properly the shadow detail that can be pulled from the file is amazing. So expose like slide film (which has half the dynamic range of these cameras btw) and you are perfectly fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #54 Posted July 9, 2014 That would not change anything for the PP and colour filter parts of the argument.. The dynamic range of the MM is 13.1, of the 240 13.3, both quite similar to film. The myth of poor dynamic range of the MM stems from user error. As there are no colour channels to extrapolate the clipped channel from (the usual form of highlight recovery), a blown highlight is irrevocably lost. So when that happens it is simply exposure error. If exposed properly the shadow detail that can be pulled from the file is amazing. So expose like slide film (which has half the dynamic range of these cameras btw) and you are perfectly fine. that will change a lot to have a MM240 and the DR will be even better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #55 Posted July 9, 2014 I would not buy it - the advantage over the MM -if any- would be minimal. Yes, DR would be better, ISO would be higher, for the rest the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #56 Posted July 9, 2014 for the rest the same.the rest between a M9 and a M240 is a lotI shall maybe buy a MM240 but never even for 1000€ a MM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #57 Posted July 9, 2014 the rest between a M9 and a M240 is a lotI shall maybe buy a MM240 but never even for 1000€ a MM Ah - but then you do have your problems with using the rangefinder - so I am not surprised. I think it rather unlikely anyway. I would put the product cycle at at least five years, unless the procurement of some parts becomes difficult (which we will never know). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 9, 2014 Share #58 Posted July 9, 2014 By about 90%. Jeff For someone with post processing skills perhaps. For me, at this point the in-camera jpgs are as good or better than I can do from raws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2014 Share #59 Posted July 9, 2014 For someone with post processing skills perhaps. For me, at this point the in-camera jpgs are as good or better than I can do from raws. You'd be surprised. If, for instance, you use LR, you can watch the free videos from Julieanne Kost and/or get a book on the basics from Kelby, and quickly go from 90% to 25%. The rest comes with time and effort, with your eye and judgment being the hardest part, not the mechanics. If you get satisfaction from a fine print, it's well worth the effort. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 9, 2014 Share #60 Posted July 9, 2014 Wonderful ! I am happy for you The camera is a tool , the computer is a tool ... and ? Well sometimes the photographer is a tool If one person can extract something special from a camera and another can't is it a failure of the camera? The interface between what you see and the camera you use to record it can't be bought, like waiting for a few more pixels with an MM240, it is the brain. And a good photographer with a Holga will create something more special than a wanker with a $10,000 Leica day in and day out. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.