M10 B&W shooters

[JDFlood]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was reading one of Thorten Overgaard’s excellent articles and came on his estimate that he thought about 70% of M photographs were shot in B&W. I was really thrown by the number. I think I would have been quite surprised if the real number is 10%. If you asked me to estimate (I have absolutely no knowledge... other than what I see posted around the web) I would guess 5% or less. Ocationally I try and shoot B&W, but always end up processing the color. I have thought about buying a Monochrome to force myself to do it. So what do all you folks do? Mostly color or B&W?

Edited December 9, 2018 by JDFlood

[scott kirkpatrick]

Color.  Just once recently I had a shot that cried out to be reduced and strengthened a bit into B/W.  But I had visualized it in B/W while shooting and it indeed turned out that way.  Overgaard (and also Peter Turnley) shoot with M-Ms, and tend to print fairly contrasty.  I like shadow detail, do tend to see things in color, and usually decrease the contrast when rendering an image.

[Advertisement]

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

[magixaxeman]

Mostly B&W, I went for the M10 due to its low light capabilities combined with the slimmer design and lower weight, its literally right at the top of what I can manage weight wise and didn't want to push it any further

[mdemeyer]

This has been interesting for me... before the M10 I was shooting with a Kolari-modified A7 and, since I had the EVF set to B&W, I found I was landing in B&W with the results with a high percentage.  When I shoot with the M10 through the OVF I find myself composing more in color and most of my results are better in color unless I make a really conscious effort to shoot for B&W.   

So, the nature of the finder matters for me. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by mdemeyer

[jdlaing]

Color. It has always been my first choice. I do some black and white on occasion.

[david strachan]

I like both, but usually work with colour nowadays.

 

But if the graphics are there, or it's monochrome anyway...might convert to B&W.  So i always shoot DNG now.

Stunning colour and B&W conversions with my M8's and M-P (typ 240)  😜...well i like them. Still always run some FP4 in my IIIc or M6.

I suspect Overgaard's estimate is incorrect.

...

Edited December 10, 2018 by david strachan

[Jeffry Abt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, david strachan said:

 

I suspect Overgaard's estimate is incorrect.

...

Why?

[david strachan]

Ummm..because of what I see on the Forums.  The opening post estimates 10%...reckon that's about right.

Of course that's what i think, not Overgaard or perhaps what you estimate.  There isn't any rigorous evidence either way.

...

[250swb]

I've sold my MM and M246 cameras and bought an M10, and still 99% of the time I make photographs that are monochrome. Very, very occasionally will I decide to keep the image as colour. I haven't read the Overgaard piece but I wonder if he was using 'M' to mean both film and digital cameras throughout the history of Leica, in which case he could be correct, I'd have thought it more like 80% B&W.

During the history of Leica the professionals who used it would be rattling through ten or more rolls of B&W film a day, and for most amateurs they would load Kodachrome and have the annual family holiday at the start of the roll, and the next holiday at the end of a roll and with Christmas in the middle. It would have been like that for 60 years. Amateur photographers simply did not blast through film with the same disregard of expense that a digital photographer now does. They also rarely experimented or tried for better angles, so even though the camera was a Leica it was just for recording family events.

Edited December 10, 2018 by 250swb

[Tragg]

I shoot 90% B&W. What was Overgaard’s article about? If it included M film cameras he may well be correct

[budjames]

I often shoot RAW+JPG and set to monochrome with my M10. This provides a monochrome preview on the camera’s display.

B&W JPGs SOOC respond well to post processing in Capture One Pro. However, I often use the excellent C1P film styles to select Fujifilm ACROS or Kodak Tri-X for great results.

Regards,

Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[TomB_tx]

I still shoot  lot of film in B&W, having been trained for B&W images 50 years ago. That may change some depending on how Ektachrome turns out...

I've done some B&W on my M9, but not on M10 yet.

[robert blu]

Most of times I shoot DNG  to convert to B&W I would say 70/80 % of times.

I didn't buy a Mono because there are times when color is the key...maybe not many but important. I also shoot B&W with the M7...

robert

 

[pgh]

I find this estimate absurd - and what is the context he is referring to? First, 0% of M photographs are BW because it captures color - unless we're referring to the Monochroms. Second, whatever % of posted or printed M images that is b/w is likely much less than 70%, but there is no way to know. I personally do not know any digital Leica shooters who convert. The b/w photographers I know still shoot film. Actually, I think if you're a b/w photographer you have a much better argument to stick with film these days (due to the easier processing than color film and the archival nature of the medium) days and many of them see it the same way. 

[topoxforddoc]

90% B&W on my M10 (and my M9 before that), S006, and DMRs

RAW - LR6 - SFX Pro

[JDFlood]

14 hours ago, Tragg said:

I shoot 90% B&W. What was Overgaard’s article about? If it included M film cameras he may well be correct

I’ll have to poke around and see if I can find the article. I ran into it twice in two weeks, which is what peaked my curiosity. Then, of course when I go looking for the reference I can’t find it. Hopefully it is still open on one of my iPads and I’ll spot it. 

[Jeff S]

54 minutes ago, JDFlood said:

I’ll have to poke around and see if I can find the article. I ran into it twice in two weeks, which is what peaked my curiosity. Then, of course when I go looking for the reference I can’t find it. Hopefully it is still open on one of my iPads and I’ll spot it. 

Google found it in seconds....

http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-41-Color-Photography-and-the-Colors-of-the-Leica-M240.html

Quote in paragraph just above photo of St George’s Garden.

Jeff

[Tragg]

14 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Google found it in seconds....

http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-41-Color-Photography-and-the-Colors-of-the-Leica-M240.html

Quote in paragraph just above photo of St George’s Garden.

Jeff

 

He says " I would estimate that about 70% of all Leica photos out there are black and white. Not because the camera only does that but because the person behind the camera decides that it looks better." How he arrives at this 'estimate' I have no idea.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Tragg said:

He says " I would estimate that about 70% of all Leica photos out there are black and white. Not because the camera only does that but because the person behind the camera decides that it looks better." How he arrives at this 'estimate' I have no idea.

Probably the same way that he realized that real Leica men need elephant skin luggage.  He just knows.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Let me say first that I switched to Leica because of the color rendering of the lenses (especially the 1980s Mandler lenses). That was in the film era - 2001. They provided an escape from the increasingly "pink" look of Nikkors and Zeisses, and got me back to the cooler rendering (which, counterintuitively, brings up the warm colors when they contrast), and reminded me of the best color I got in the 1970-80s - Canon FD/BL manual lenses on Kodachrome.

Which brings up the point of historical contingency. "All the Leica M pictures out there" - in the context - sounds to me like all M pictures film and digital since 1954. Which quite probably do include a high percentage of B&W, one way or another: availability of films, journalist deadlines, availability and expense of color media printing - as well as artistic preference, or "consistency" in a body of work. Once 35mm became a "fine art" format (Les Krims, Winogrand, etc.), color was not considered appropriate (the materials were not archival, except for expensive and complex "dye transfer" prints). It caused - comment - in the 1970s when a handful of art photographers (Meyerowitz, Eggleston) began creating color prints - who wants to invest in something that will fade in 20 years?

Anyway, the nice thing about a simple optical viewfinder is that it doesn't care whether I shoot color or B&W - it looks the same for either.

I probably produce ~50/50 B&W and color with my M10. It depends on the subject matter and whether it lends itself to either. It also depends on whether a given picture will be part of a body of work, where I want the consistency of one or the other. I tend to convert to B&W more in low-light, high-ISO settings, simply because 1) the light is more often mixed and ugly in color (or completely uncorrectable, e.g. sodium-vapor yellow - WB just makes it green, not white), and/or 2) I just grew up with the film aethetic that "Kodachrome is fine-grained and smooth; Tri-X is gritty and grainy", and thus once the noise levels go up above ISO 6400, B&W looks more familiar and acceptable.