Jump to content

Prints 60 x 40 cm: Which Leica does the best job?


BjarniM

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think the point is there are very few things that need learning in Photoshop (most of it can be ignored even for an experienced user) but brightness, contrast, and dodging and burning are the four most basic things that replicate a darkroom setup and are easily grasped.

 

Steve

 

 

Yes, those features have been in PS since day-one, but they have been pushed down in the menus with the intention to diminish their utility - for better or worse. Adobe Elements might be a better choice for simplicity.

 

Whatever works, works. Enjoy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernd

The lens you use influences that more than the sensor ;-)

Paper and ink also are not to be underestimated.

Andy

 

Oh I understand. I use the same lenses on the MM that I used on the M8. The IR sensitivity of the M8 was nice for black and white, but with the same lens, the tonality of the MM is incredible, especially with Mandler lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the decades I've used Photoshop, I've never used the burn and dodge tools. Masks, yes, curves and channels, yes.

 

The burn and dodge tools are rather fatal ... either you do it perfectly the first time or possibly ruin the image and have to recover by some method.

 

There are at least 4/5 (and probably more) different ways to burn and dodge the image without using the burn/dodge tools - many of which are non-destructive to the image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dodge and burn tools are rather old algorithms and have only been updated once in the life of Photoshop afaik . I rarely use them as the results are not optimal. One of my preferred methods is the shadows/ highlights tool on a selection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop has always 50 different ways of achieving the same result! The dodge and burn tool is not abad and can be useful,especially if using a Wacom tablet, but since it is destructive only use it on a specific layer. The layer itself can even more adjusted!

Thanks be to your favourite deity that Lightroom eliminates so much of tedious PS work!

Jean-Michel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The burn and dodge tools are rather fatal ... either you do it perfectly the first time or possibly ruin the image and have to recover by some method.

 

In Photoshop there is no reason to create a state that cannot be undone. We can use layers, and also the history states, and snapshots. Alone or together they are very powerful.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop has always 50 different ways of achieving the same result! The dodge and burn tool is not abad and can be useful,especially if using a Wacom tablet, but since it is destructive only use it on a specific layer. The layer itself can even more adjusted!

Thanks be to your favourite deity that Lightroom eliminates so much of tedious PS work!

Jean-Michel

 

Personally I find LR takes all control out of my hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into a bunch of semi-pros discussing their preferred methods of advanced Photoshop use.

 

Dear OP, please do not be intimidated by the minutiae. You can achieve great results from the Leica Monochrom with very little previous knowledge of digital post-production. You could even shoot Raw plus JPEG and after adjusting some parameters and a few test-portraits, you will be thrilled with what you can achieve straight out of camera.

 

And as you become fiddly like the rest of us, you can dig up your raw files and obsess over layers and curves for long winter nights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into a bunch of semi-pros discussing their preferred methods of advanced Photoshop use.

 

Dear OP, please do not be intimidated by the minutiae. You can achieve great results from the Leica Monochrom with very little previous knowledge of digital post-production. You could even shoot Raw plus JPEG and after adjusting some parameters and a few test-portraits, you will be thrilled with what you can achieve straight out of camera.

 

And as you become fiddly like the rest of us, you can dig up your raw files and obsess over layers and curves for long winter nights.

 

The modus operandi here is, when in doubt, talk Photoshop .... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaayz - talk about "thread drift!"

 

Bjarni - I don't even own an MM, but for your stated goal of "best, even if only by a tiny amount, for B&W" - I would say the MM is the digital choice.

 

If you'd really prefer to work with film, there are ways to minimize the cost. Buy in bulk (not necessarily 100-ft "bulk" rolls - but 500 rolls, or 20 gallons of chemicals, with one shipping charge), and invest time rather than money (do your own film processing and scanning - or even darkroom printing if you see an advantage).

 

If you final goal is a published book - it is unrealistic to be overly concerned with how the images start out (film or digital, MM vs. M240). Your pictures WILL have to go through additional generations, digital and/or analog, outside your control, to get to the point where ink hits paper.

 

The "best" original will help (by whatever definition of "best" suits you) - but what's in the book will be different, in various ways, from what you see on your camera LCD, or your computer screen, or in a finished silver print.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into a bunch of semi-pros discussing their preferred methods of advanced Photoshop use.

Really? Bit of an assumption there. Post processing is an essential part of digital. I would have thought it highly relevant given the OP. Although FWIW I wouldn't dream of shooting a book on film these days. OTOH its highly relevant to question the wisdom and experience of someone asking the original question. Personally, I wouldn't shoot a book on new (to me) gear either - quite possible but hard work to shoot, learn about the camera's characteristics and retain 'quality' and consistency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to teach at a college level and I am telling you that when a novice asks a question (in this case the OP about switching to digital for his project), it can be very intimidating when you talk about techniques with other "experts" as if they were an absolute necessity. Because they are absolutely not. I know plenty of fine art photographers who create amazing work with digital cameras and know nothing about Photoshop. Again, you can make a wonderful book with pretty limited knowledge of Lightroom. My advice for the OP is to try and rent a Monochrom for a weekend and see what he can do with it.

 

And as far as photographs with consistency and high quality is concerned: take well-exposed photographs and don't rely on too many Photoshop layers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into a bunch of semi-pros discussing their preferred methods of advanced Photoshop use.

 

For one, I am not going to push my ideas upon any person pursuing the digital domain, and I ask you to please not lump us into a category. So, moving on.

 

Dear OP, please do not be intimidated by the minutiae. You can achieve great results from the Leica Monochrom with very little previous knowledge of digital post-production. You could even shoot Raw plus JPEG and after adjusting some parameters and a few test-portraits, you will be thrilled with what you can achieve straight out of camera.

 

And as you become fiddly like the rest of us, you can dig up your raw files and obsess over layers and curves for long winter nights.

 

Good stuff. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Margulis: " A professional photographer who is not proficient in Photoshop will not remain a professional photographer for long" Discuss :D

 

Bullshit. As contemporary photography shows us, technologically uninformed amateurs using strictly analog photography continue to produce stunning work, and not by accident: they are immersed in the visuals 'old tech' produces. I love 'em.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Margulis: " A professional photographer who is not proficient in Photoshop will not remain a professional photographer for long" Discuss :D
Bullshit. As contemporary photography shows us, technologically uninformed amateurs using strictly analog photography continue to produce stunning work, and not by accident: they are immersed in the visuals 'old tech' produces. I love 'em.

.

Producing a "stunning work" is purely a matter of the photographer's eye and the ability to capture the moment. Elevating this image to something "truly fine" is a matter of how well you can use your available technical knowledge (be that darkroom or Photoshop) and your artistic vision to interpret the image in a way that the camera did not "see".

 

As is the wet darkroom days, the vast majority of images need nothing more than contrast control and burning/dodging. In today's digital world we have the ability to use even more options that will allow wider artistic interpretations.

 

Dan Margulis's quote is certainly true for the real professional photographer and is also true (if you wish, possibly to a lesser or different degree) for the amateur photographer who strives for truly fine images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Photoshop there is no reason to create a state that cannot be undone. We can use layers, and also the history states, and snapshots. Alone or together they are very powerful.

.

 

Exactly.

 

I use a separate layer for such work, and can also go back anywhere on that layer using the history panel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...