Does the M Monochrom produce the best B&W printed image?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, Monochrom users/B&W shooters -

 

There is some overlap between B&W digital and film based shooting and printing in this post; I am not sure which sub-forum would be the best location for this, so I will place it here since it does address the Monochrom and printed image quality.

 

I am planning to do more black and white work than I have been doing for the past year or so and am trying to determine which of the following methods will result in the best full frame (no cropping in post processing) printed image quality for large size prints.  I did a forum search prior to starting this thread, but did not find any information that specifically addresses my questions.

 

There are several routes to achieve this end; some are more difficult, time and labor intensive and/or costly than others.  I want to stay with the M system as the foundation of making these prints.  My intent is to produce gallery quality fine prints while using my M cameras and lenses.                           

 

In thinking about this, my prime concern is this - I am concerned only with creating the ultimate in print quality that can be made at sizes of 14x20 inches or 16x24 inches.

 

These parameters bring me to the following alternatives - 

A:  M Monochrom 246 with inkjet printing

B:  M-P 240 black and white conversion in Lightroom with inkjet printing

C:  M-P 240 black white conversion in _____________ (pick a software program) with inkjet printing

D:  Film M camera negatives with traditional darkroom silver printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

E:  Film M camera negatives scanned with inkjet printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

 

The above possibilities give rise to two questions -

1:  Which of the above methods will best achieve my desired end result?

2:  Is there a method that will achieve my end result better than the five above mentioned alternatives?

 

Any insights on this issue and on these questions will be greatly appreciated.

 

(Moderators, feel free to move this thread if there is a more appropriate place for it to be located).

[Advertisement]

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

[colint544]

I'm going to predict you will get a whole range of responses to your post. Here's mine, for what it's worth. I shoot both an M Monochrom Mk1, and film Ms. The M Monochrom files are sensationally crisp and grain-free, especially at low ISO's. Over 1600 ISO, a very pleasing grain pattern begins to creep in. Personally, I prefer the look of higher ISO shots on the M Monochrom, to the hyper- clean low ISO files. You can enlarge the MM files as large as you like. Their clarity and detail are breathtaking.

 

That said, you can enlarge a 35mm negative to any size too. It just won't have the same fine level of detail. Personally, I'm coming round more to the look of 35mm black and white, when shot in good light. The veiling grain and subtle tones are very pleasing. Sometimes a shot can be almost too sharp. And I still think the overall look of film is more pleasing to the eye (well, my eye anyway), and just pips the M Monochrom.

 

So, for me, the M Monochrom is a superb machine - flexible, detailed, and above all, convenient. It shines when it comes to very low light situations. Film is less convenient, but it has a subtle and pleasing look, especially when shot in good light. And, whether you're scanning it or wet printing it, it needs almost no work to make the images look beautiful.

 

Hope this is of some help.

 

best wishes,

 

Colin

[sarav]

I'm going to predict you will get a whole range of responses to your post. Here's mine, for what it's worth. I shoot both an M Monochrom Mk1, and film Ms. The M Monochrom files are sensationally crisp and grain-free, especially at low ISO's. Over 1600 ISO, a very pleasing grain pattern begins to creep in. Personally, I prefer the look of higher ISO shots on the M Monochrom, to the hyper- clean low ISO files. You can enlarge the MM files as large as you like. Their clarity and detail are breathtaking.

 

That said, you can enlarge a 35mm negative to any size too. It just won't have the same fine level of detail. Personally, I'm coming round more to the look of 35mm black and white, when shot in good light. The veiling grain and subtle tones are very pleasing. Sometimes a shot can be almost too sharp. And I still think the overall look of film is more pleasing to the eye (well, my eye anyway), and just pips the M Monochrom.

 

So, for me, the M Monochrom is a superb machine - flexible, detailed, and above all, convenient. It shines when it comes to very low light situations. Film is less convenient, but it has a subtle and pleasing look, especially when shot in good light. And, whether you're scanning it or wet printing it, it needs almost no work to make the images look beautiful.

 

Hope this is of some help.

 

best wishes,

 

Colin

 

 

Very good answer! Film print (wet or ink-jet) are more pleasing to my eye, too....and Yes, you can enlarge as big as an MM file, look is different.

[Giulio Zanni]

I think the question is somehow misleading. Do you want to shoot film or digital? I personally want to shoot digital as I appreciate all the advantages it offers so my obvious choice was the Monochrom typ 246. In regard to back and white conversion from the M-P I went straight to the Monochrom because I find colours distracting. Again, I think it's a matter of personal preferences. 

 

Giulio

[Berlinman]

I think the question is somehow misleading. Do you want to shoot film or digital? I personally want to shoot digital as I appreciate all the advantages it offers so my obvious choice was the Monochrom typ 246. In regard to back and white conversion from the M-P I went straight to the Monochrom because I find colours distracting. Again, I think it's a matter of personal preferences.

 

Giulio

I think, the question is relevant if you don't have a personal preference and if you are interestet in the "best" IQ, look or what ever. Not everyone can test all options. I use M240 for BW with LR und SF2. Sometimes M6 and film. Thinking about MM1 or 2... If you have found your way - perfect.

 

 

Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Herr Barnack]

I think the question is somehow misleading. Do you want to shoot film or digital? I personally want to shoot digital as I appreciate all the advantages it offers so my obvious choice was the Monochrom typ 246. In regard to back and white conversion from the M-P I went straight to the Monochrom because I find colours distracting. Again, I think it's a matter of personal preferences. 

 

Giulio

Misleading?

...my prime concern is this - I am concerned only with creating the ultimate in print quality that can be made at sizes of 14x20 inches or 16x24 inches...

How is that misleading??

 

I don't "want" to shoot either one (film or digital); the process is irrelevant.  Only one thing matters:  The highest printed image quality at the stated print sizes.

[alex7075]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Carlos, regarding your C: question (even for MM files), I suggest Capture One Pro. 

It can really help for the quality of the prints.

I uninstalled Lightroom as soon as I tried it.

[wattsy]

These parameters bring me to the following alternatives - 

A:  M Monochrom 246 with inkjet printing

B:  M-P 240 black and white conversion in Lightroom with inkjet printing

C:  M-P 240 black white conversion in _____________ (pick a software program) with inkjet printing

D:  Film M camera negatives with traditional darkroom silver printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

E:  Film M camera negatives scanned with inkjet printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

 

 

Unless you are wedded to the inkjet process, there is also F: Film M camera, negatives scanned, and digital C-type prints (Lambda or Lightjet).

 

This is my preferred option – the tonality/"look" of film, the intermediate control/repeatability of a digital file, and the tonal/archival benefits of a print on traditional photographic paper. 

[Herr Barnack]

I am not wed to inkjet printing; it's the method my current print-maker uses. 

 

I will have to do some research to see which commercial print-makers utilize the  Lambda and/or Lightjet printing processes in the U.S.  My preference is for my local printer vs. mail order or internet order prints, which is why I am inclined to go with my current print-maker; he is nearby and I have more of a chance to consult/advise/meddle. 

[hlockwood]

I'm not going to select a camera because I don't have experience with all the possibilities.  What I will suggest is that you look seriously into printing B&W using Jon Cone's Piezography method.  See inkjetmall.com for details.

You will not get a better print by any alternative method.

 

HFL

[250swb]

You can also have digital images printed onto real silver gelatin photographic paper. Ilford labs offer the service and I'm sure there must be others.

 

 

Steve

[Akaki]

Good professional printer can tell you a lot about your question. I have a great experience with MM 246 printing on Barita Rag Paper. If you have a good file (which always important) you can get a fantastic print I print 150cm X 100cm fantastic tonality. But before I get this result we work a lot, now we know how to print File from MM 246.

[Manolo Laguillo]

In thinking about this, my prime concern is this - I am concerned only with creating the ultimate in print quality that can be made at sizes of 14x20 inches or 16x24 inches.

 

These parameters bring me to the following alternatives - 

A:  M Monochrom 246 with inkjet printing

B:  M-P 240 black and white conversion in Lightroom with inkjet printing

C:  M-P 240 black white conversion in _____________ (pick a software program) with inkjet printing

D:  Film M camera negatives with traditional darkroom silver printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

E:  Film M camera negatives scanned with inkjet printing (pick a film emulsion and developer)

 

The above possibilities give rise to two questions -

1:  Which of the above methods will best achieve my desired end result?

2:  Is there a method that will achieve my end result better than the five above mentioned alternatives?

 

I did have a B/W lab for many years, and printed routinely from 4x5 and 8x10 negs. 15 years ago I got rid of the lab, and jumped to digital.

 

I do have a MM246, and had a M240 and a MM (1st generation). I also have a Leica S.

 

What am going to say is therefore the result of many years of working with and inspecting prints, from contacts to mural sizes:

 

From the 5 alternatives above, the obvious best one for me is A.

 

Even better results can be achieved using a Leica S, but at 16x24 inches the differences between the Leica MM and the Leica S files are very subtle, albeit there.

 

At that 16x24 inches printing size, the MM (1st. gen) quality is like the one I achieve from very good quality digitalizations from 4x5 inches negatives. There is no difference in regard to the detail, tones transitions and subtleties, etc.

 

With the M246 the quality is in some way even better. But the main differences between the MM and the MM246 are in the RAW files: the ones from the MM246 are easier to work with.

 

Actually, the only differences between traditional wet prints and inkjet prints on baryta paper are visible when you look at those surfaces from a certain angle. Framed prints are really nearly indistinguishable.

[BerndReini]

I believe that the only difference between the MM and film is grain, and everything this entails. Grain smoothes out the highlight transitions (yes, whites still get blown with film), it masks micro-detail (like blotchy skin), and it accentuates hard lines (like the clarity or unsharp mask function attempts to do).

 

I certain situations you can get "better" results with the MM, but you have to work more carefully (light, expose, focus etc.) because the resulting image will be more "precise."

[otto.f]

Nothing can compete with D, if the paper is AGFA Record Rapid or even Ilford Multigrade Baryta WarmTone, both in their own juice. The depth, warmth and some mystical aspect of eternity in it, it is not possible with a digital print. The film is less important here, you can massage every film developer combination into a good baryta print. 

[jaapv]

I believe that the only difference between the MM and film is grain, and everything this entails. Grain smoothes out the highlight transitions (yes, whites still get blown with film), it masks micro-detail (like blotchy skin), and it accentuates hard lines (like the clarity or unsharp mask function attempts to do).

 

I certain situations you can get "better" results with the MM, but you have to work more carefully (light, expose, focus etc.) because the resulting image will be more "precise."

 

Yes, but film will block up shadows easily, just the other way around from (negative) film. As long as you know, not a problem.

[Jon Warwick]

I believe that the only difference between the MM and film is grain, and everything this entails. Grain smoothes out the highlight transitions (yes, whites still get blown with film), it masks micro-detail (like blotchy skin), and it accentuates hard lines (like the clarity or unsharp mask function attempts to do).

 

I really agree with this.

In terms of grain, I think it muddies images, especially in the shadows, and the micro detail can get a bit lost especially in smaller 35mm film as a result. To me, that can make film images look sometimes flatter compared to digital.

As you go up film in sizes into 4x5 and 10x8, however, that feeling of depth comes back in spades due to better tonality and micro contrast.

It's odd, when I look at fine art in galleries at brilliant work from people like Avedon who used a lot of 10x8, my feeling is "that's very squeaky clean looking, it really reminds me of digital!"

[Schrödinger's cat]

Although I had a wet b & w darkroom for decades, I have never touched a B & W only camera so have nothing to offer in that regard.  However, if I might be allowed a somewhat contrarian viewpoint I do have one speculation:

 

I strongly suspect that final resolution for the issue of "I am concerned only with creating the ultimate in print quality" will always boil down to the skill level employed in post processing.  This may possibly mean that whatever equipment you already have, the results might be more favorably affected by intense study/experimentation/practice than different gear.

 

Apologies if this comes across as a stuffy or pompus reply, it was certainly not intended as such.  I realize this is essentially a non answer, but as you are very clear on objectives I think it bears on the actual intent of your question.

 

Which is of course not to say that having the best equipment might not be desirable, it's just that I think it is not the most important factor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BerndReini]

 

 

work from people like Avedon who used a lot of 10x8, my feeling is "that's very squeaky clean looking, it really reminds me of digital!"

I agree, but the lens rendering of 8x10 can't be beat! Avedon's "Portraits of Power," something like a 360mm or 480mm or whatever he used for a full body portrait has a whole different degree of depth than the same shot taken with a 50mm or 35mm on full-frame.

[pico]

[...] Grain [...] accentuates hard lines (like the clarity or unsharp mask function attempts to do). [...]

 

I'm a wet-process person, and i am confused when I read things like the above. Are you (or anyone else) speaking of the results of digitizing a negative or a scan of a wet-print? I ask because I have never, ever found what we call 'edge effect' in my processing - nothing barely resembling digital unsharp masking. Yeah, I've done the many attempts from stand developing to normal using a variety of developers. Rodinal with MF and up to 8x10" remains my favorite, but still no edge effect.