B&W Processing: M240 vs MM

[erudolph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't tried the Innova but I've not seen it in Australia.

Let me know what you think of the Ilford Mono.

 

 

I just gave it a try. It is glossier than what I'm used to but the gloss differential is pretty good. The tones are great.

[Advertisement]

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

[Etruscello]

As a way of thanking all for the very useful responses to my initiating post, I'd like to follow-up with recent developments. Special thanks go to Jeff S and Mark P who encouraged me to actually try an MM, and to Jaap who indicated that his direct comparisons between the MM and M240 clearly favor the MM. Well, I got hold of an MM (the new silver edition), shot a session with it and then made direct comparisons with my M240, at low and high ISOs.

The short story is that I've been turned around. The MM is the digital tool for B&W. The MM (which I kept covered with a Yellow # 8 filter) requires less pp than the M240; is far less noisy and grainy -- when grain occurs, it is Tri-X like; has an inherently fuller and smoother tonality (as long as one does not clip highlights), and there is a greater luminosity about the MM file -- I can't think of a better word right now. The M240 comes close at low ISOs; the MM is far ahead on all these criteria at high ISO's. I am very satisfied at ISO 10,000 (!) with the MM -- with 75% luminance noise reduction in PS CS6 RAW. (Of course, all processing must be based on the DNG file.) If anyone is interested, I do have more to report as I find time to write. (As a minor side note, the new silver MM model comes engraved with WETZLAR on the back -- I haven't seen that in a new Leica product since I bought an M6 in 1985.)

If the list can tolerate another question, I'd like to ask about printers and paper now. I'm convinced a dedicated B&W camera is the right tool; now is a dedicated B&W printer necessary? What models do you use? Are special papers necessary? What papers do you use?

Forgive all the questions. It's been exciting for me to get back into B&W after a 15 years lay-off from film and darkroom. So far, digital B&W has been less frustrating than film and chemical processing in coming close to the ideals of pre-visualization and the zone system. Tom

[jaapv]

I use Canson Baryta in a Canon 9500 Pro. It drinks ink like a soccer fan beer, but the results are excellent.

[Jeff S]

Special thanks go to Jeff S and Mark P who encouraged me to actually try an MM…

 

...If the list can tolerate another question, I'd like to ask about printers and paper now.

 

Good to see you made your camera decision based on real use (although the only way to truly test is to make prints with each using your workflow). Unfortunately, there's no easy way to test a printer (unless you have a friend with one). But once that's determined, testing papers is easy but still subject to workflow variations as well as personal taste….just like the darkroom days.

 

There are a ton of posts in the Digital PP section of the forum on printers and papers (via search). I use the Epson 3800 (the 3880 is the current model). It's a terrific 17" printer. Epson is the gorilla right now, and unfortunately the reduced competition has slowed their pace of innovation. But there is a range of models depending on your needs and preferences…paper size limit, ink cartridge capacity, roll feed or not, number of inks, etc. Also consider that there are lots of sales and rebates on printers…the machine is relatively inexpensive; they get you on the inks (much like bargain razors, with gouging on the blades).

 

If you want to go crazy, you can even replace the Epson inks with third party b/w inks, e.g., the Piezography system by Jon Cone that offers 7 shades of black with gloss optimizer. I don't recommend this as a start, but there are many wonderful options these days. I get terrific results even with standard Epson inks.

 

For b/w, my current favorite papers include Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique and Canson Platine (for a warmer base). [On occasion I'll use Epson Exhibition Fiber for a cooler base, or for warmer alternatives, either Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta or Innova Warm Cotton Gloss.]

 

Another decision is whether or not to use a RIP, rather than the printer (Epson) driver, and how to profile your papers. Many people like ImagePrint, but it's expensive. I use the color valet pro profiling service from Chromix, which provides unlimited custom profiles for under $200.

 

Again, you may want to search and peruse the many posts on these subjects, and then ask follow-up questions in the Digital PP section.

 

Printing is not plug and play if you want to fully optimize results…again just like in the darkroom days. There's a lot to digest, even as it relates to software and printer settings, but it's worth the journey IMO. After that, you can ask questions about display….matting, framing, lighting, etc….another vast subject.

 

Jeff

[Etruscello]

I appreciate jappv's and Jeff S' insights on B&W printers. I've been looking at Canon and Epson models, as recommended. For color, I use the Epson Stylus Photo R2000. I hesitate to switch brands, since I know the Epson software well; however, Canon is appealing because, as I understand it, it offers 5 inks dedicated to B&W, whereas Epson offers only three. Am I making to much of this? Does Epson do as well as Canon, or does Canon's use of 5 inks for B&W make a discernible difference? Thank you again for any advice. Tom

[jaapv]

But you can fill the Epson with a completely B&W ink set.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For color, I use the Epson Stylus Photo R2000. I hesitate to switch brands, since I know the Epson software well; however, Canon is appealing because, as I understand it, it offers 5 inks dedicated to B&W, whereas Epson offers only three. Am I making to much of this? Does Epson do as well as Canon, or does Canon's use of 5 inks for B&W make a discernible difference?

 

As I've said, the only way to know is to try, but unfortunately that's hard to do without access to a printer. And even then, as discussed, there are many more variables to account for in the print workflow than just the number of inks.

 

One thing you could do is get a second printer to devote to b/w with a dedicated ink set, as Piezography allows (7 black inks... plus gloss optimizer for glossy papers) with Epson. Just having these inks, without knowing how to optimize their use, and without optimizing other links in the chain, will not ensure better prints….no more than having a more expensive camera with more pixels or whatever.

 

Great b/w work is possible with any of these approaches. And so is not-so-great work.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

And even then, as discussed, there are many more variables to account for in the print workflow than just the number of inks.

 

Very true.

 

Recently I jumped ship from an Epson R3000, widely regarded as a superb B&W printer (and because of it's colour inks could do toned images as well). It kept clogging or getting air into the Photo Black line, and despite lots of technical support, technicians in attendance, and three replacement machines (which all ended up having the same fault), I decided Epson had to go.

 

So what to get? Well Canon of course, the obvious choice was the Pixmia Pro 1, but what drew my eye was the enormous deal available on the Pro 10, with only ONE grey ink! ImpossibleI thought, but I read enough reviews to form a dispassionate view and got it. And lo and behold, printing out the same images on the Canon produces results that are impossible to separate from previous R3000 prints. So it's not what the printer has got, it is the way that it uses it that counts.

 

Steve

[drdannn]

that YOU only know of course

 

Do you know basic post-processing with Lighroom or capture one ? ... the new basic way to work with a modern camera

 

Hi, I only have an M240 and I do not have any MM files to work with, so I cannot advise anyone which is better in B&W once finished.

 

I can tell you with great certainty, and personal experience, that Jaapv knows about Post Processing. Count on that IMHO.

[drdannn]

I appreciate jappv's and Jeff S' insights on B&W printers. I've been looking at Canon and Epson models, as recommended. For color, I use the Epson Stylus Photo R2000. I hesitate to switch brands, since I know the Epson software well; however, Canon is appealing because, as I understand it, it offers 5 inks dedicated to B&W, whereas Epson offers only three. Am I making to much of this? Does Epson do as well as Canon, or does Canon's use of 5 inks for B&W make a discernible difference? Thank you again for any advice. Tom

 

Hi Tom, I can only attest to the Canon as I print all my photos up to 13"x19" and I print lots in B&W.

 

It is a fantastic printer even tho' it is hungry for ink. But, what the heck. The results are great. Dan

[Etruscello]

Well, after reading many reviews and carefully considering your insights, I decided on the Canon Pixma Pro-1 to print B&W images from my M Monochrome. Before installation, I had made my best prints from 2 MM files on my Epson Stylus Photo R2000. Now I printed the same images on the Pro-1, using the Canon Pro Luster paper that came with the printer. The results were far superior in depth of black and tonal range for the Canon Pro-1. I printed the 2 images again on the Pro-1 using Canson Infinity Baryta 310g paper. The results were even better, to my taste, with warmer tone and still more subtle tonal range. Thank you for the rewarding advice.

For the Canon paper, I found its ICC profile in the Pro-1 printer menu. There was no profile there for the Canson paper, so I chose "wide gamut."

I would love to see the results using the precise ICC profile. I've downloaded the correct profile from Canson: CIFA_pixmap...baryta310.icc. I'm having trouble installing this file from my downloads folder to my PS CS6 program for availability in its print menu. (I'm using Photoshop to manage the Pro-1 printer.) The computer driving this printer is a MacbookPro with OSX v. 10.8.5. Can anyone please advise me? This forum has been a true life-line -- thank you in advance.

P.S. Installation of the Pro-1 was easy. The only other problem I had was moving it -- it's a 70 lbs beast!

[Jeff S]

You might consider buying Chromix Color Valet Pro custom profiling service; under $200 for unlimited profiles for an extended period (likely beyond the 18 months noted on the site).

 

I've been quite pleased with the results compared to using a friend's custom profiling gear. The Chromix folks are experts in color management, and very helpful by phone or email.

 

Glad you took the plunge on a printer. Of course the only way to compare results with your Epson is to use the same paper….and obviously make sure that all settings and processes are optimized for your intended results. There are myriad workflow variations using Epson or Canon. Toning and gradations, for instance, can be affected at many steps along the way.

 

Jeff

[Etruscello]

Thanks for the tip, Jeff. If I get into a great variety of papers and things become complicated, I will consider the service you recommend. Right now I use only two fine art papers that are not listed in the Canon Pro-1's set of available icc profiles. I have now downloaded those two profiles and transferred them to PS CS6 successfully. I'm glad I did so, as the Cansen Baryta paper prints significantly better with the actual profile than with the generic profile "wide gamut." The Cansen icc produces a print with subtle warmth (the generic was warm to the point of looking like full sepia tone) and greater clarity in shadows.

Below, I answer my own question, from my last post, and describe how I loaded the profiles into Adobe PS CS6. I do so in the event that a future reader of this thread has the same question. I'm new to Mac and I know it is not as easy as in Windows. (In Windows, I had only to right-click the downloaded icc file and select "install.")

ICC Profile installation procedure for Mac:

-- download icc profile from paper company's website

-- in Downloads, "copy" icc profile (hold in clipboard memory)

-- In the Finder menu set at the top of the desktop screen, select GO and trace a path to the profiles folder, as follows:

-- Go/ Computer/ HD/ Library/ ColorSync/ Profiles

-- right-click on a blank space in the Profiles folder and select "paste"

[Jeff S]

Right now I use only two fine art papers that are not listed in the Canon Pro-1's set of available icc profiles.

 

Profiles, and results, vary. You won't know if the ones you use are the best for your needs unless you compare, regardless of how many papers you use. I only use a half dozen or so, including b/w and color needs.

 

I use Mac, and with the Color Valet service, the completed profiles show up automatically in my LR print module.

 

Whatever suits.

 

Jeff

[Etruscello]

I think I understand what you are saying, Jeff S. It's not a question of merely attaching the manufacturer's profile for a given paper -- part of the creative post-process can involve experimenting with different profiles for the same paper, as that may better help you find the print which best represents your pre-visualization. I will consider this. I've been trying to apply digital zone system principles to the creation and PP of the image file. I believe that if I get that right, i.e., express my pre-visualization accurately within the file, then the manufacturer's icc profile should be the only one attached for accurate expression of the image file as I created it. Perhaps, the process I think you are describing allows for more creative post-processing. After all, one need not be committed to his pre-visualization.

Tom

[Jeff S]

Huh? Profiles are designed to ensure that what you see is what you get, assuming all the links in the chain are adequately calibrated and addressed. Can't accomplish "visualization"(*) easily without that. Custom profiles, i.e., ones made using your own printer and paper (not generic), using top notch profiling gear, are designed to do just that. Creativity is another matter.

 

The zone system, in a digital world, is a much larger discussion…bit depth…etc.

 

Jeff

 

* Pre-visualization, as Ansel noted, is redundant.

[Etruscello]

OK, now I understand -- custom profiles! Now that sounds exciting and quite relevant -- a direction to really grow, with a lot of work.

[Jeff S]

….with a lot of work.

 

Not if Chromix does the profile work for you…all you do is print a color patch page using your printer and paper and mail it to them. They send the profile electronically to your computer, ready to roll.

 

The rest, of course, is up to you.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Etruscello]

I'd like to report my recent serendipitous finding, as that may inform a line on this thread, especially relative to comments by Jeff S on B&W papers and ICC profiles.

I'm still exploring the best papers to be used with files from the Leica MM, on the Canon Pixma Pro-1, with calibration to the MacBook Pro monitor.

So far I'm most pleased with baryta type papers: Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique and Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta. Using them with their ICC profiles, the results are outstanding, like nothing I've seen before, in terms of dynamic range, subtle tonal gradations and gentle toning characteristics, but neither is perfect to my tastes for my images.

The Canson is warm tone (approaching a light sepia -- if I may use the terminology I picked up working in my darkroom years ago), moderate contrast, highlight separation that sings and clear dark tones separation. What's not to like? Well, in spite of my best efforts to calibrate to my monitor, I still get contrast that's a little too low, and the warm tone approaches a pale green rather than the yellow or brown I'd prefer. The Hahnemuhle is cool tone (approaching a light selenium), high contrast, deep blacks and brilliant highlights. What's not to like, for me, is that the darkest tones don't separate as well as they do for the Canson -- detail in the darkest tones are not as well defined. I see now why Jeff S. prefers custom ICC profiles, although I was not sure that ICC profiles would make a significant difference in the characteristics of a paper beyond the manufacturer specified ICC. I tried modifying files, playing mostly with contrast, but that made minimal difference.

Then came the serendipitous event. I printed an image on the Canson, paper, forgetting to change the ICC profile used for the Hahnemuhle. The result gave me the best of both worlds. The Canson print, with HM ICC, is now a very pleasing warm tone (no pale greenish cast), moderately high contrast, with more beautiful tonal gradations and separations, from pure black to paper white, than either paper with their "correct" ICC profiles!

Until I try custom ICC, this is the combination I'd probably use most often (Canson with HM ICC) -- although I can't imagine a better result for this paper for my tastes and images.

Thanks again for stimulating this exciting exploratory process. I'd appreciate any additional comments or reactions. Tom

[Jeff S]

There are many variables besides papers and profiles that can influence tonality and tonal separation, including editing software settings (including but not limited to actual toning…including split toning), printer and print driver settings, lighting and display conditions, ink sets, etc.

 

I use Canson IBP as well, but wouldn't describe its tonality as 'light sepia'; perhaps to the warm side of neutral white, but not much (Canson Platine Fibre Rag is even warmer). Epson Exhibition Fiber, by comparison, would lean toward cooler whites. Any given paper, however, can (given the above variables) produce prints of varying tonality and 'feel'.

 

I would also look to other settings and factors before jumping to absolute conclusions about your findings and results. The key to a calibrated workflow is to get the print to look as close as possible to what you see on your monitor….consistently….despite different PP actions.

 

Jeff