M10 B&W shooters

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still have this Zone VI viewing filter, which has the added benefit of the same 4x5 proportion as the camera I used at the time.

https://www.jbhphoto.com/blog/2010/11/09/the-bw-viewing-filter/

Jeff

 

 

[schattenundlicht]

I am just on the verge of entering that territory... Call me a romantic, a retro-nerd or whatever . From digital M to b&w digital, to b&w film M, to medium format, to large format, I currently seem to relive photography‘s history backwards...

[ I do apologize for the OT image below ]

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[TG14]

On 12/15/2018 at 7:11 AM, JDFlood said:

Kodachrome was my favorite film, but I could never get greens correct.... or even close. I have processed myself but not usually. For decades I wanted to photograph the Rainforests and capture the lush nuanced deep infinite variety of greens, but film never captured them. Now finally the last ten years I have been able to. So i’m with Wolfloid on this. Kodachrome was the best we had but it wasn't great.

 

"... been able to", using film or digital?

[JDFlood]

I have been able to capture the correct greens of rain forest using digital.

[JDFlood]

I have always wanted to use a view camera! I actually looked at film costs a couple of days ago.

[a.noctilux]

On 12/15/2018 at 12:11 AM, JDFlood said:

Kodachrome was my favorite film, but I could never get greens correct.... or even close. I have processed myself but not usually. For decades I wanted to photograph the Rainforests and capture the lush nuanced deep infinite variety of greens, but film never captured them. Now finally the last ten years I have been able to. So i’m with Wolfloid on this. Kodachrome was the best we had but it wasn't great.

 

Hello JDFlood,

Please don't get me wrong, nothing "agressive" here, just curious (as long time user of Kodachrome 🧐 )

Only on bolded text : Kodachrome.

- Are you sure using Kodachrome ?

- Are you sure that you had processed Kodachrome yourself ?

- Please tell us more about not be able to capture variety of greens : what was the "flaws" ?

 (this is my main concern here, "flaws of green nuances" on Kodachrome ! )

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/25/2018 at 1:09 PM, a.noctilux said:

Hello JDFlood,

Please don't get me wrong, nothing "agressive" here, just curious (as long time user of Kodachrome 🧐 )

Only on bolded text : Kodachrome.

- Are you sure using Kodachrome ?

- Are you sure that you had processed Kodachrome yourself ?

- Please tell us more about not be able to capture variety of greens : what was the "flaws" ?

 (this is my main concern here, "flaws of green nuances" on Kodachrome ! )

In part I see what you are getting at, Kodachrome can't be home processed. But coming from a generation that had National Geographic land on the doormat once a month even as a kid I grew up thinking the things I'd been told at school about the verdant tropics were a sham. 

[adan]

Back in the day, Kodachrome was considered the film for reds and greens, and Ektachrome was the film for blues and yellows. At least by Kodak.

However, just a bit of variance in the processing, or how long the film "aged" between factory and shop, or shop and shooting, or shooting and processing*, could introduce a purplish cast (color complement of green), which would definitely suppress the greens.

The Navy picture here shows "purplish" Kchrome - note sky, and shadows in the aluminum (but also "cross-over" - greenish highlights below the "50"): http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=65492

OTOH, here is Kchrome in its "green/cyan" mood - compare the sky with previous: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cripple_Creek,_Colorado,_1957,_Kodachrome_by_Chalmers_Butterfield.jpg

From the picture dates, those would both be Kodachrome 1 (pre-1961).

Additionally, before about 1980. the "color" that hit the press had gone through extremely old-school, analog "color separating." No scanners, just enlargers and color filters and exposures onto 3 separate sheets of panchromatic B&W film. And a good stop-watch (since the Wratten filters were not equal densities).

Magazines were lucky to get the color "right" even in studio pictures shot next door, with reference materials in hand, let alone from a jungle 7000 km away.

Not to mention change in camera/lens choices - David Alan Harvey told us "My Nikkor 105 was magenta as hell!"

Fuji always made greens a high priority and a focus of their competition with Kodak (until the Velvia/Provia era, which went a bit purple again).

______________________________

*in long-before-Fedex days, Nat. Geo shooters would try to send film back from the field every couple of weeks over a 6-month assignment. But that could still mean days in a canoe in tropical heat and humidity.

Edited December 28, 2018 by adan

[JDFlood]

Sorry too long ago... let’s see late 1970’s? I was more serious about taking photos than processing. I used to process Ektachrome.that much I remember. But Kodachrome was my favorite film. If it could get green correct then wherever I had it processed sure didn’t do it. JD

[mdemeyer]

On 12/21/2018 at 12:01 AM, schattenundlicht said:

Ansel Adams strongly advocated b&w viewing filters in his teaching classes and in his books. That was decades before the advent of LCD preview monitors and in-camera b/w conversion, of course.

These filters will work only for the first few seconds one looks through them, markedly desaturating any scenery - then the massive parallel postprocessing machinery (aka brain) kicks in and readjusts color view. They can be fun to carry around even at times when one is w/o camera. However, these filters are rather hard to come by nowadays. Once I eventually sourced a viewing filter, however, I found that I very rarely used it on location, because my aesthetic vision had turned mostly to b&w by then, without any accessory. 

 

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!

I used to use one in the B&W 4x5” days and found it useful as an aid, but not an absolute.  The monochrome LCD is a useful modern substitute to confirm your mind’s B&W eye.   Don’t be afraid to use it until your mind’s eye is perfect. 😉

[JDFlood]

Thanks for all your comments. I decided not to be so lazy and start shooting Raw and B&W and processing both. I am starting to see the situations where B&W is a better choice. Yesterday it was stormy and I want out on the Columbia Gorge and shot some photos... the B&W turned out great. Think i’ll Get the hang of it without another camera... we’ll for now. 😉

[Linford]

If it were up to me I would shoot almost exclusively black and white. However, my wife is always pressing me for color. I will say that I have owned both of the Monochrom M’s. I found that the M10 images convert so well to black and white that it was redundant for me to have both. Also, shooting in color for B&W conversion offers me a great deal of flexibility with dynamic range throughout the color spectrum. I recently moved from the M10 to the M10D and love it. Cheers—lt

[pico]

58 minutes ago, Linford said:

If it were up to me I would shoot almost exclusively black and white. However, my wife is always pressing me for color.

Yah, same here. I got her a digital camera to make her own pictures. Turns out she is the better photographer.