Keith (M) Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1 Posted August 14, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Food for thought... Will be interesting to read others' reactions to this direct comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here Interesting Comparison (M246 -v- M240). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Joakim Posted August 14, 2015 Share #2 Posted August 14, 2015 Hard to tell how much better the Monochrom is when the outdoor photo with the 240 is clearly overexposed and it is no surprise that the Monochrom handles high ISO better. Sorry but I didn't find this test very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 14, 2015 Share #3 Posted August 14, 2015 I agree. I use my M-P 240 for black and white an awful lot... almost to the point that a Monochrome (246) would be a reasonable camera to own... but I don't find these results very informative either. Sure, the same settings were used on each camera, but I agree with the previous poster, the 240 shot looks overexposed and I would always underexpose if anything... Not exactly a great test... I'm looking forward to Thorstens update that goes into B&W photography on both the new Monochrome and 240 conversions. I would expect that to be FAR more informative and interesting. As an example of B&W conversion on a 240 M-P... and be gentle, I'm only just learning! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248941-interesting-comparison-m246-v-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2871608'>More sharing options...
dante Posted August 14, 2015 Share #4 Posted August 14, 2015 There is a huge difference in contrast control. I'd also comment that most people who have written about the M typ 246 don't seem to know much about how color filters work - other than what is written on product boxes. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #5 Posted August 14, 2015 I found this article interesting http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 14, 2015 Share #6 Posted August 14, 2015 Thanks... I had seen the first part of that before... But the second part of the article was new to me. Both of these articles were very useful and interesting. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 14, 2015 Share #7 Posted August 14, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree. As an example of B&W conversion on a 240 M-P... and be gentle, I'm only just learning! Bill: it's good; no worries. I think the greatest post-processing pitfall is overdoing contrast, clarity, or structure. And you have NOT fallen into such a hole (as I and others do at times). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 15, 2015 Share #8 Posted August 15, 2015 I agree. I use my M-P 240 for black and white an awful lot... almost to the point that a Monochrome (246) would be a reasonable camera to own... but I don't find these results very informative either. Sure, the same settings were used on each camera, but I agree with the previous poster, the 240 shot looks overexposed and I would always underexpose if anything... Not exactly a great test... I'm looking forward to Thorstens update that goes into B&W photography on both the new Monochrome and 240 conversions. I would expect that to be FAR more informative and interesting. As an example of B&W conversion on a 240 M-P... and be gentle, I'm only just learning! It is a pretty good conversion and hard to fault. However I am sure that either Monochrom would have exhibited more tonal richness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 15, 2015 Share #9 Posted August 15, 2015 Thank you. i tend to increase all of those when I start working on the files, but find I keep backing off as I'm working and end up with very little change - which surprises me. Cropping accurately and some local exposure refinements seem to be all I do. I find that far from the way I used to print in the darkroom, with digital I tend to be quite subtle with PP without really intending it. I just prefer clean lines and clean exposure nowadays.. and I really dislike ALL of the film presets in Silver Efex... and as a tri x guy when I was an F2A user during the seventies, this REALLY surprises me... I used to love the grainy abstract prints I managed in those days. Maybe I'm just getting very dull in my old age! On this particular photo I ended up with some local lightening of shadow areas, a touch of sharpening, and that's it. I seem to spend a lot of time doing not very much, I expect to do quite dramatic things in post and actually find I end up doing very little... so clearly I'm still learning about PP. Maybe the biggest lesson is that you shouldn't do too much... and I'm almost on the right track without realising it. Ultimately, I think I ought to learn to be a little more messy, both with composition and exposure and think about it as an image rather than a record of a moment in time.... at the moment I'm just trying to get it more or less right. As I said, if I can manage a clean and error free print consistently, I can then have the confidence to break all the rules and do what I want. I've only had my Leica for less than a year and it's already showing me I have a long way to go before I'm as confident as I was when I was photographing and printing a lot on film. it will come... and I'm enjoying the learning curve. thanks again for your comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 15, 2015 Share #10 Posted August 15, 2015 Thank you Jaap! Its not really the style I used to shoot, but as I said, I'm trying to learn the basics and your comment is very encouraging! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 15, 2015 Share #11 Posted August 15, 2015 As an example of B&W conversion on a 240 M-P... and be gentle, I'm only just learning! Very good, except the woman on the far left is too dull and needs brightening, at the moment the other woman in the lighter dress could almost be talking to herself. Some detail is also needed in the table on the right to balance the composition. The overall foreground could do with some more contrast and brightness which would bring it forward, leaving the background to recede. Your eye would still be drawn into the picture, but at the moment the contrast range front to back looks a bit back to front if you see what I mean. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 15, 2015 Share #12 Posted August 15, 2015 Yes, that would certainly put a different accent in the image. However, as it is now the woman in white is the key subject and would lose emphasis, and because of the light on the top of the image the falloff from top to bottom appears quite natural. It would be interesting to compare the two versions. Have a look at this interesting link: http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted August 15, 2015 Share #13 Posted August 15, 2015 Thank you both for your comments. Both of you have made me think a little more about the decisions I make. My own thinking was along the lines of Jaaps, in that I HAD brightened the woman in the left a little at one point but felt the balance was wrong and kept your eye too much on the left side of the image. I brought it back and lightened the shadows below the tables to 'stretch' the focal point s but and I felt the man in the window to the right balanced the composition quite well. I took about five or six frames at the time and this one gave me the balance I liked. One had a waitress coming down the steps and moving to the right of the frame, but it looked too 'busy' and I eventually rejected it. I like the calm of the image as is, but I WILL go back and play around with Steves suggestions and lighten the woman on the left AND the foreground - before I had left the foreground more or less as is (with the exception, as I have already said, of lightening the table shadows a little). This is when the forum is at its best, constructive criticism and fresh eyes on an image shows that the decisions you take at each point are really what photography is all about and can change an image dramatically. The work done in post is critical to final image success and the links provided just go to show how a fairly ordinary image can be changed in darkroom/PP into something iconic. The example of James Dean in Times Square being a very well known example... It's all learning and all creative. Thank you both again. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 16, 2015 Share #14 Posted August 16, 2015 Keep at it Bill. Just keep editing & rejecting and then all of a sudden you will like what you see. I only began digital shooting in 2011 after nearly loosing eyesight in both eyes and wanted to leave something on this earth before darkness took over forever. I have since lost one eye with one still good enough to shoot with, but maybe not forever. I never printed from a digital image until late into 2012 or was it early 2013. It's all a blur by now. That meant I did not know PP enough to get a print to come out of the printer. Heck, I still know very little about digital PP today, but sure have fun with it. I stilll make plenty of mistakes and more practice is my only way of avoiding more of the same. Show your images around to serious photographers, but first put on the elephant hide. Some can be brutally honest and others not honest at all. In person print reviews I found most beneficial. Here's some of my experiences as summarized below. Louis Foubare: Fluidity and Unpredictability in Street Photography « The Leica Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 20, 2015 Share #15 Posted August 20, 2015 Nice job, Bill. I agree with what others have said. You seem to enjoy a classic black and white rendering compared to the gritty over processed look that is so popular these days. Photographers with your sensibilities are the ones that really appreciate the subtle tonalities of the Monochrom cameras should you ever decide to go that route. Any digital camera can do hard contrast, but subtlety is much more difficult. Strangely enough, I do like hard contrast when done right such as in the work of Anders Petersen, or Jacob Au Sobol, but I just can't get myself to shoot that way myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted August 26, 2015 Share #16 Posted August 26, 2015 Prior to getting the Leica S I was thinking of getting a new 246 but after seeing how the S files covert to B&W I am glad I didn't........................saying that my mate in KL has the new 246 and looking at his pictures he has some fantastic B&W shots, so hard to tell but having one camera for all is the way to go............for me anyway Leica S-006 70mm 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248941-interesting-comparison-m246-v-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2877233'>More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 26, 2015 Share #17 Posted August 26, 2015 but having one camera for all is the way to go............ Me, too....the M240....beautiful prints, color and b/w, and more PP flexibility for me than the M246. Whatever works... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share #18 Posted September 1, 2015 Being totally a CCD guy, I'm not qualified to comment but hell that never stopped me before. I shoot with a M9, a MM and a S2. While I find the M9 B&W conversions nice, the MM is clearly superior in terms of sharpness and tonality. Like Neil says (paraphrasing here) you really have to jump to an S series conversion to beat the file quality of a Monochrom. But then you have a camera that is twice as big, twice as heavy and intimidating. But before jumping to the S series, I'd wait to see what Leica has up their sleeve in terms of a Q style body with interchangeable AF lenses and the ability to use legacy M lenses. You know its coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlockwood Posted January 20, 2016 Share #19 Posted January 20, 2016 I agree. I use my M-P 240 for black and white an awful lot... almost to the point that a Monochrome (246) would be a reasonable camera to own... but I don't find these results very informative either. Sure, the same settings were used on each camera, but I agree with the previous poster, the 240 shot looks overexposed and I would always underexpose if anything... Not exactly a great test... I'm looking forward to Thorstens update that goes into B&W photography on both the new Monochrome and 240 conversions. I would expect that to be FAR more informative and interesting. As an example of B&W conversion on a 240 M-P... and be gentle, I'm only just learning! No need to be gentle; that's a gorgeous image. HFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.