PP with the Monochrom ?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And here are a few more using the same SEFEX processing method described in the previous post.

 

 

 

M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 320 |f/11.0 | 1/90

Sam Roi Yod

 

 

 

 

M-Monochrom |Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640 |f/11.0 | 1/250

Wiang Pa Pao

 

 

 

 

M-Monochrom | DR-Summicron-50 | ISO 320 | f/4.8 | 1/250

Bangkok

[batmobile]

You get a bit more resolution, no artefacts and other nasties and a huge amount of extra depth if you dig deep into the shadows. If you work hard on your files, this difference will be encountered quite quickly. If you make only slight tweaks, probably not much.

 

Let's be blunt: if you're not fairly serious about mastering digital darkroom work, you have no need for a $6K specialist B&W camera.

 

Will you get much better B&W from an MM than a 240? Probably not. Get it only because you want a pure B&W camera and that idea turns you on creatively. As good as the MM is, the differences between what it produces and what can be achieved with a top-end DSLR or M240 is relatively small. Shoot it because you want a B&W Leica. Get it for its Leicaness in particular . And only if you have a commitment to learning a consistent post-production workflow.

 

Or because you have money to burn and it makes you happy

 

My 2c.

 

- N.

[gjames9142]

The real test is making prints. I have worked a lot with the Monochrom over the last two years, and find PP includes the whole process of making a print, and the paper used makes a big difference. I started using Ilford Gold Silk, but switched to Canson Baryta, because it is more readily available and better packaged. My only reservation about both papers is the problem of gloss differential, although I am soon going to have access to a printer that will add varnish in the process. What has really changed things for me is Epson Hot Press Bright, a beautiful smooth rag that gives prints that look like hand=pulled gravures with wonderful blacks. I never thought I would print on matt paper, but it is quite extraordarily beautiful. The matt paper also seems to bring the high-lights down a little, so skies are easier to print. Quite honestly I don't see the point of all these programs that try to emulate Tri-X and whatnot. For me, one of the dangers of digital is its tendency to look artificial and over-processed. I could post some pictures, but they never look that good given the limitations imposed by the site. There is some B/W here, as well as M9 colour files.

 

Photobook Reveals the Final Months and Last Acts of an Archaic and Storied Canadian Prison | Prison Photography

[Guest]

Geoffrey, I agree that emulating Tri-X or other films is senseless — and that isn't the reason or purpose for my using Silver Efex. It's just that applying the combination of presets that I mentioned in my earlier post takes me close to the gradation and tones that I want, and I then apply the final adjustments that are tested in the print, for which I have been using the ImagePrint RIP.

 

The paper that I like is Epson Exhibition Fiber, which produces deep, rich blacks. However, this surface paper is somewhat delicate and can be easily scratched, and it also is subject to gloss differential. Both of these issue can be largely mitigated by waxing the print with Renaissance Wax.

[skinnfell]

MY cheeky answer is: a lot and nothing at all.

 

Meaning: The files straight out of camera is pretty much guaranteed to NOT be to your taste. This is good. They are the perfect starting point for further adjustment. And they can take a lot of adjustment, far more than any color camera, before looking "too processed".

 

After a while, you will figure out how you prefer your files. Some like dark shadows and hard contrast. Some like bight, creamy midtones, or something inbetween.

Heck, maybe you want different horses for different courses.

 

This this end I have stored my three favorite settings as presets in lightroom. Hence, if I do sequence that I want a "Tri-x" look, I have a preset for this. One click and the whole catalog gets adjusted to this. Provided I exposed correctly then, no further adjustment is necessary! (unless you are the sort who likes to crop, burn and dodge).

I also have a ultra low contrast preset, etc.

THere is always Nik effects which also comes with the camera, but on my part I prefer the lightroom way.

 

After learning what your taste is, these files will blow you away. Every time.

[skinnfell]

And for your viewing pleasure: a picture from today, one straight from camera, one with my standard preset. The latter is pretty much good to go for my uses.

 

PS: Hold on to those two lenses. Do not get tempted in to exotic glass, the monochrom makes the most out of any lens.

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!

[gjames9142]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Geoffrey, I agree that emulating Tri-X or other films is senseless — and that isn't the reason or purpose for my using Silver Efex. It's just that applying the combination of presets that I mentioned in my earlier post takes me close to the gradation and tones that I want, and I then apply the final adjustments that are tested in the print, for which I have been using the ImagePrint RIP.

 

The paper that I like is Epson Exhibition Fiber, which produces deep, rich blacks. However, this surface paper is somewhat delicate and can be easily scratched, and it also is subject to gloss differential. Both of these issue can be largely mitigated by waxing the print with Renaissance Wax.

 

You are a better man than I if you can succeed with Renaissance wax -- I get impatient, put too much on and get lumps. The guy who does my big prints is dedicating his old Epson to B/W and putting varnish where the matt black was, so the varnishing will be done in the printing. If you can those presets to work for you, then more power to you. I find in general that Monochrom files are not at all hard to print, especially if they are decently exposed. And at 1250 ISO they have their own nice grain. Here is another hand held night shot, from a project I am doing in Ljubljana.

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!

[dant]

I'm a fairly new Leica user and coming from a Pentax DSLR system (which I still use) I found that with my M8 and 50 Cron / 28 Elmarit lenses, I need surprisingly very little PP.

It seems as if you just can't take a bad photo with either of those 2 lenses and the M8...

I am entertaining the thought of acquiring a Monochrom in the future as I shoot pretty much all black and white anyway.

How much PP is needed with the Monochrom? I've been reading that the files out of the camera are very flat and need work to make them look good.

 

100% right. In my opinion they are crap coming out of the cam. If you jpeg them out of cam they may be fair. Just depends if your after snapshots or museum quality work.

 

If your scared of PP, skip the MM or settle for snapshots.

 

PP makes or breaks the shot many a time.

 

nsfw

 

http://41.media.tumblr.com/3dc0e5e9fc29334e2bf21a3dbeaefa45/tumblr_niyi57g2GY1u9b7elo1_1280.jpg

 

Shot with a SWC