jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #21 Posted July 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The bit about the post processing is simply incorrect. M240 files in B&w are definitely more complicated. 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 #22 Posted July 9, 2014 The bit about the post processing is simply incorrect. M240 files in B&w are definitely more complicated. green trees on a brown cliff are almost on the same range of gray , you cannot get brighter green... post-processing is just impossible in many cases with the MM, the gray scale is very nice but very limited, the M240 is far ahead Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 9, 2014 Share #23 Posted July 9, 2014 green trees on a brown cliff have exactly the same gray , you cannot get brighter green... If you have never come across the technique you won't know, but for 150 years photographers have used a green (or yellow) filter to 'brighten' green in B&W photography. The MM is slightly green biased anyway, but using a green filter will indeed brighten green in the traditional way. Understanding that a filter is needed is called 'visualisation' (often called pre-visualisation) and is a method of pre-planning the basic tonal balance of the image. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #24 Posted July 9, 2014 If you have never come across the technique you won't know, but for 150 years photographers have used a green filter to 'brighten' green in B&W photography. The MM is slightly green biased anyway, but using a green filter will indeed brighten green in the traditional way. A green filter ? no thanks ! I am not a 150 years old photographer and there is already a green-filter-like in the M240 ... no needs to add one Understanding that a filter is needed is called 'visualisation' (often called pre-visualisation) and is a method of pre-planning the basic tonal balance of the image. And of course YOU understand As I said I shall maybe buy a MM240 , but never that one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #25 Posted July 9, 2014 basic photographic technique.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #26 Posted July 9, 2014 And basic photographic technique....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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted July 9, 2014 Share #27 Posted July 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) If anyone around Oslo has a Monochrom and wants to spend two hours talking about photography and taking meaningless brickwall shots, I would love to shoot some test images side by side with my M240 and come to my own conclusion on the matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted July 9, 2014 Share #28 Posted July 9, 2014 About the discussion on filters, I have to (reluctantly) side with Erick. With landscapes it's fairly easy to carry a set and use the appropriate filter, but for almost everything else, this don't work. Would you shoot a wedding and change filters constantly to match the colors of the dresses or neck ties your subjects are wearing? Would you shoot street photography and change filters according to the colors of the buildings in the background? The truth is with the MM in those situations you simply stack a light orange or yellow filter and go on, hopping for the best. In other words, you give up some of your creative control. And then you go on internet forums and talk about "basic photographic technique". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #29 Posted July 9, 2014 About the discussion on filters, I have to (reluctantly) side with Erick.With landscapes it's fairly easy to carry a set and use the appropriate filter, but for almost everything else, this don't work. Would you shoot a wedding and change filters constantly to match the colors of the dresses or neck ties your subjects are wearing? Would you shoot street photography and change filters according to the colors of the buildings in the background? The truth is with the MM in those situations you simply stack a light orange or yellow filter and go on, hopping for the best. In other words, you give up some of your creative control. And then you go on internet forums and talk about "basic photographic technique". When post-processing a M240 file you don't use only a green or orange filter , you can use all the colors In other words, you give up some of your creative control.+10000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #30 Posted July 9, 2014 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 It is well known on this forum that I am an absolute kludge with postprocessing... Actually I dislike LR for the lack of control PSCC offers and use C1 Pro as raw developer because it handles 240 colours better, but that is totally beside the point. When post-processing a M240 file you don't use only a green or orange filter , you can use all the colors You don't need to, because the the image is made by the photographer visualizing and taking it. The computer is a tool, not a replacement of the creative process. I am starting to wonder which part of the double statement<snip> I am not a 150-year old photographer <snip> deserves the emphasis since you put so much value on the gear replacing ability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #31 Posted July 9, 2014 It is well known on this forum that I am an absolute kludge with postprocessing... Actually I dislike LR for the lack of control PSCC offers and use C1 r as raw developer because it handles 240 colours better, but that is totally beside the point. Actually LR 5.5 or Capture One are working fine , it's only a medium format legend that capture one is bette ... and I have both Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #32 Posted July 9, 2014 You don't need to, because the the image is made by the photographer visualizing and taking it. The computer is a tool, not a replacement of the creative process.Wonderful ! I am happy for you The camera is a tool , the computer is a tool ... and ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #33 Posted July 9, 2014 Puzzled - how do you do layers in LR? Try developing an 240 file in ACR and C1 (and export the PSD 16 to Photoshop CC). It saves lots of work and time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #34 Posted July 9, 2014 Wonderful ! I am happy for you The camera is a tool , the computer is a tool ... and ? The ability of the photographer determines the outcome - if he knows his stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #35 Posted July 9, 2014 Puzzled - how do you do layers in LR? Try developing an 240 file in ACR and C1 (and export the PSD 16 to Photoshop CC). It saves lots of work and time. I don't use ACR in photoshop but I use Lightroom or C1 and export in Photoshop if needed both are working very well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted July 9, 2014 Share #36 Posted July 9, 2014 I had the MM, M240 and my old MP for 6 months. Used them extensively side by side (the MP less). I finally sold the MM. I decided that the M240 was perfect for colour, while the MP would take care of B&W. The sole interest of the MM was the high ISO range, as pointed out by others, but the superior dynamic range of the M240 resulted in more pleasing images, for me. For what it's worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #37 Posted July 9, 2014 Errr,,, ACR is the raw conversion engine of LR.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #38 Posted July 9, 2014 Errr,,, ACR is the raw conversion engine of LR....yes as everyone knows but you can use ACR without Lightroom , directly from Photoshop (I dont like it) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2014 Share #39 Posted July 9, 2014 The first thing we agree on! Still, looking at it objectively, basically LR is ACR on steroids... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted July 9, 2014 Share #40 Posted July 9, 2014 Still, looking at it objectively, basically LR is ACR on steroids...I have used a lot C1 with a DB PhaseOne and it was really better than LR3 , but not now (not for me) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.