How is M246 better than film?

[Torontoamateur]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have heard that the M246 does not hold high tones well? Is this true? Does it compare to how film holds highlights?

 

 

[colint544]

I think film is probably superior when it comes to highlights (much harder to blow highlights on film). You can largely mitigate for this on a Monochrom by underexposing, because digital files can pull up a lot more detail in the shadows than film can usually handle. M246 will generally be a lot sharper than film too, especially at low ISOs.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Digital is more like using slides than negatives in regard to careful hightlight exposure. One must be careful not to overexpose, particularly since the Monochrom cameras preclude use of color channels in PP to recover lost highlights (with color sensors, one can sometimes regain tonality through one or more channels). That said, even when exposed well, one of the only things I miss after transitioning to digital from long time film use, is the way subtle highlight tones can render in silver prints (with proper workflow), in skies/clouds for instance, in a way that is often missing from digital prints. It’s harder to capture that magic in the highlights.

Jeff

[Torontoamateur]

This is what I have been finding, it is consistent that m246 users say the highlights are gone . My relatives with digital tell me how they underexpose and then take a LONG time in Lightroom bringing the shadow details up. This seems like more problem and fro the price the m246 is not appealing Why buy a work project? and for the price I can buy and have tons of film custom developed.

 

[Jeff S]

I didn’t say highlights are “gone”... that’s due to bad technique. More exposure care is needed.  But all digital cameras require highlight exposure care, just more so with a monochrome sensor. Same with color slides.

Jeff

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jeff S

[convexferret]

Long time? a couple of seconds are usually sufficient. it's no more a problem than having to burn in highlights in a film print and way faster. You may be trying to justify your preference for film but the Monochrom, once understood, is a perfectly usable and convenient tool.

[Peter_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film retains highlights better. But is that not only one part of the equation?

Sharpness, resolution, ability to work through a huge ISO range, and great shadow details are in favour of the M246/MM1. Yes, there is medium format film, but then we are really comparing apples with oranges. With film there is also always this weakest link, which in my opinion is scanning (when we talk digital files).

A scanner that translates film`s advantages into the digital world (if that is desired) is not cheap neither. I bought an MM1 for less than what my medium format camera and scanner (Nikon 8000ED, and I got that for EUR 1000 years back) cost me.

In the end, film looks different, and sometimes that adds characteristics to an image that are hard to replicate with any digital sensor. Then there are images where digital is the better tool. I stick to both, because both have their own strengths and weaknesses. But the Monochrom closed the gap between two these quite different media quite a bit.
 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Peter_S

[Jager]

Listen to Jeff. 

Digital behaves almost exactly like slide film.  It's not hard to "save" your highlights.  But it does require an understanding of how to meter light.  An understanding that, based upon the number of posts and threads complaining of such loss, it would seem that many don't.

Every photographic medium has its strengths and its weaknesses.  Film is lovely.  Many of us remain smitten by it.  But digital brings its own considerable rewards, as well.  And none more so than the Monochrom.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On 10/14/2019 at 9:53 AM, convexferret said:

Long time? a couple of seconds are usually sufficient. it's no more a problem than having to burn in highlights in a film print and way faster. You may be trying to justify your preference for film but the Monochrom, once understood, is a perfectly usable and convenient tool.

Totally agree with darkroom highlights burning. Much more work required comparing to digital PP.

 And How is M246 better than film?  Well, how good is OP with film @ ISO12800. 🤭

[otto.f]

On 10/14/2019 at 3:53 PM, convexferret said:

Long time? a couple of seconds are usually sufficient. it's no more a problem than having to burn in highlights in a film print and way faster. You may be trying to justify your preference for film but the Monochrom, once understood, is a perfectly usable and convenient tool.

I agree completely. If you ‘underexpose’ well the highlights can be shown, for instances in skies, much more and easier than with film. There are numerous examples here in LUF of people who start with a monochrome and go wild with skies, it was a hype in the beginning. 
Instead of ‘expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights’ (which involves a bunch of experience but preferably knowledge of the zonesystem) which is the rule of thumb for film, it is ‘expose for the highlights and postprocess for the shadows’ in digital. But the last is much easier to accomplish. To get those highlights right in film you mostly go through a process of finding the right developing time with all the variations of film/developer which are as endless as a game of chess plus the variations of condensor, cold light or LED heads. So, stating that film can handle highlights better is a gross reduction and as such not true, at least in practice.

Edited October 16, 2019 by otto.f

[Likaleica]

I agree with Colin.  Highlights when using (negative) film have the most silver, so unless the film is significantly over-exposed, they can be recovered, especially if the film is scanned.  Working in the darkroom is different than in lightroom but it is still possible to save highlights, albeit to a lesser extent.  Shadows, on the other hand, have the least silver and if not properly exposed, have no silver, which means they go black on the (darkroom) print.

[fotomas]

Made a comparison a while ago:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/209522-monochrome-beispielbilder/?do=findComment&comment=2998588

I would not say it is better then film in general. It is different. It also reacts different if you use filters for example. In some aspects it is better, in others film is better. Depends what you prefer.
With film you could choose from a lot of types with a great variety of individual characters, but you can't change the chip of the monochrom.

[colint544]

Another quick film/M Monochrom comparison (albeit the mk1), from five years ago, on the always thought-provoking Leicaphilia site. Back when the film versus digital debate raged a bit more fiercely.

Edited October 17, 2019 by colint544

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, colint544 said:

Another quick film/M Monochrom comparison (albeit the mk1), from five years ago, on the always thought-provoking Leicaphilia site. Back when the film versus digital debate raged a bit more fiercely.

Interesting presentation Colin! 
So how must we understand, that if digital is so sharp and keen on details, not only the Monochrome, there are more examples, that the ‘tree trunk has a plastic look’. The TriX version shows indeed a tree, very natural. The M246 might have done that better, because it is less acute in contrast than the MM1, but still.

[colint544]

I think it's a subject that's almost been done to death now, but it was fun at the time to take the same shot on both 35mm Tri-X, and the M Monochrom mk1. I really like the look of black and white film shot in good light. It lacks the 'bite' of digital, and that gives it a warmth and gentleness.

I mostly find the M Monochrom mk1 too clean and sharp at base ISO for my tastes. I've no experience of the M246. But the Monochrom mk1 is wonderful at around 1600 ISO, and a little bit higher. There is still plenty of detail, but some organic-looking grit and noise is just beginning to make its presence felt. I've sometimes used an ND filter on mine in daylight just to be able to shoot at a higher ISO. 

Much of the look of the finished image comes down to the processing anyway. So, yes - I love the look of black and white film shot in daylight. But in very poor light, the M Monochrom is fantastic, and I much prefer it to film in those situations.

[Ken Abrahams]

In some of my street work and outside portraits I actually add a small amount of grain (Silver Effex) to the sky area which helps isolating the subject more so. The subtle addition of localized grain is quite effective.  

[Ouroboros]

On 10/17/2019 at 1:01 PM, colint544 said:

Another quick film/M Monochrom comparison (albeit the mk1), from five years ago, on the always thought-provoking Leicaphilia site. Back when the film versus digital debate raged a bit more fiercely.

Thanks for the link, I'd forgotten about that  blog.

It's worth following, some interesting stuff there.

[Jon Warwick]

On 10/17/2019 at 5:38 PM, otto.f said:

Interesting presentation Colin! 
So how must we understand, that if digital is so sharp and keen on details, not only the Monochrome, there are more examples, that the ‘tree trunk has a plastic look’. The TriX version shows indeed a tree, very natural. The M246 might have done that better, because it is less acute in contrast than the MM1, but still.

I often think digital can render some subjects with a “plastic look“. Can anything be done to prevent or mask it?

[otto.f]

I would think that it is an effect of translating the information that’s projected on the sensor in 0’s and 1’s. So I would think that the more pixels on the sensor, the more naturalistic the look. But in images from for instance the Leica S I do not see that confirmed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AceVentura1986]

4 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

I often think digital can render some subjects with a “plastic look“. Can anything be done to prevent or mask it?

I use an M9M. In my experience, this is a result of three different but related issues. First, low ISO images have an exceedingly high signal to noise ratio and therefore exhibit low amount of digital noise. Second, over processing including over sharpening and (in Lightroom) over use of the clarity slider. Third, many photographers bring a color mindset to black and white images by lifting the shadows so nothing is hidden and everything is exposed, exactly the contrary of traditional a BW look. Each of these can tend to make an image look plasticy on its own. Taken together, they can make an image look hideous, IMHO. 

The techniques I use are to apply the clarity slider very sparingly, leave dark areas alone, and apply digital grain to most images. The combination of these three techniques yields images that knowledgeable people mistake for being captured on film. “It looks as if it was shot on film” is a comment I regularly get. Of course, as with everything in photography, YMMV. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by AceVentura1986