Your opinion about the Leica M10 Monochrom

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Regarding the opinion about M10M:

I always wanted a Monochrom, but waited for one that is based on M10. Higher resolution is an unexpected benefit. Higher usable ISO is a great benefit.

I wonder how many first-time Monochrom owners are here on the forum. 

Well, I am (potentially) one.   Hopefully by next month...

[Likaleica]

4 hours ago, paulmac said:

Look at it like this:-  Would Larry Burrows Vietnam pictures or Sebastiao Salgado's "Workers" have the same effect if they looked like they had been shot in perfectly grain free and studio like conditions. 

 

 

  

Totally hear what you're saying, Paul.  I know the magic you're talking about.  But since you asked, here is how Salgado handles it now:

http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/the-pov-interview-sebastiaeo-salgado

"POV: When did you switch to digital?

Salgado: Very recently, in 2008. After what happened in New York in 2001, airport security started to change, and in a month it became hell. I remember once, after working in Guatemala, I lost 52 rolls of film because of the X-rays at the airport. So I changed to digital, but I don’t know how to edit on a computer. So what happened was that I had my assistants produce a contact sheet for me. I edit with a loupe like I always did, and when I edit they produce a work print like I always did, and when I make my final selection, we produce a negative from the digital archive in a quality that is better than when I photographed directly with a negative camera. From this archive, we introduce the grain from the Tri-X film that I worked with my whole life, and they produce for me a 4×5-inch negative, then we go to the enlarger and we print again."

POV: And now you print it out, it will still be silver nitrate, if you want it to be silver nitrate…"

Salgado: Yeah. We print from an enlarger, with the grain of the film I’ve used all of my life, and I don’t lose any grain. Digital is flat, and when I put the Tri-X grain in, I have my life there, the texture that I have always worked with."

 

[Advertisement]

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

[digitalfx]

7 hours ago, paulmac said:

 

Look at it like this:-  Would Larry Burrows Vietnam pictures or Sebastiao Salgado's "Workers" have the same effect if they looked like they had been shot in perfectly grain free and studio like conditions. 

To me - absolutely not but others may not feel that same way or care. At the end of the day though - all power to Leica for making this camera, we are all different.

Regards Paul Mac

 

  

Not sure I understand this rationalization...if you extended your thought process to just about any other advance in technology, would you want NASA to continue using Gemini Space Craft, because they look cooler than modern spacecraft...should current motion picture producers stop using digital cameras because they look too good? Should we all go back to standard definition TV sets, because the fuzzy grainy image looks cool?

Technology advances and so does art. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot film for exactly the reasons you mentioned...but Im not going to ignore modern, and frankly superior technology because I like the look of film. They both have a place, and to ignore one as too perfect seems silly to me. Honestly I wish we could have ultra high res images of historical events...if you look at the recently discovered 65mm film footage of the Apollo missions as an example,  you cant help but wonder why we don't have more...the difference between it and the footage we grew up watching is dramatic and awe inspiring. 

 

and to answer your question...it would absolutely have a greater impact.

[Ko.Fe.]

I watched two videos, one from three letters Leica something. Overexposure, no contrast. Then someone in Manhattan with all three Monochromes, odd hat and something huge in sweating pants. His exposures are overblown. This the main problem with Monochrome series. Only very few are capable to get correct exposures with it and process without over doing. 

[marcg]

1 hour ago, digitalfx said:

Not sure I understand this rationalization...if you extended your thought process to just about any other advance in technology, would you want NASA to continue using Gemini Space Craft, because they look cooler than modern spacecraft...should current motion picture producers stop using digital cameras because they look too good? Should we all go back to standard definition TV sets, because the fuzzy grainy image looks cool?

Technology advances and so does art. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot film for exactly the reasons you mentioned...but Im not going to ignore modern, and frankly superior technology because I like the look of film. They both have a place, and to ignore one as too perfect seems silly to me. Honestly I wish we could have ultra high res images of historical events...if you look at the recently discovered 65mm film footage of the Apollo missions as an example,  you cant help but wonder why we don't have more...the difference between it and the footage we grew up watching is dramatic and awe inspiring. 

 

and to answer your question...it would absolutely have a greater impact.

Is it possible that many of us like the "film look" because that is what we were brought up with and it gives us a certain comfort feel because we see in it a certain quality that much younger people wouldn't notice or wouldn't understand – or might even dismiss as having no value nowadays. In other words, might it be that the certain quality we see in film is really just a matter of idiosyncratic perception.



 

[SrMi]

After I took a dozen images with M10M inside the house, I am confident that with a 50mm lens, I can take sharp photos with 1/60 sec if I am not in a hurry -- beautiful output from the camera.

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I watched two videos, one from three letters Leica something. Overexposure, no contrast. Then someone in Manhattan with all three Monochromes, odd hat and something huge in sweating pants. His exposures are overblown. This the main problem with Monochrome series. Only very few are capable to get correct exposures with it and process without over doing. 

Any chance of posting the links to these videos please?

[Likaleica]

11 minutes ago, marcg said:

Is it possible that many of us like the "film look" because that is what we were brought up with and it gives us a certain comfort feel because we see in it a certain quality that much younger people wouldn't notice or wouldn't understand – or might even dismiss as having no value nowadays. In other words, might it be that the certain quality we see in film is really just a matter of idiosyncratic perception.



 

Bingo.  I've tried a thought experiment several times on this subject.  Imagine that somehow digital came first, and then someone discovered how to put silver grains on film (ignoring the actual history of photography).  Which would we prefer and would anyone be nostalgic for the look of digital?

I think this is the point that Salgado was making, he can now make his digital images look like his film images.  It's the look he's after, not the process.  Now he has the best of both worlds, for him.

[marcg]

And by extrapolation, presumably somebody who was brought up with a digital look and then discovered film as a new technology would be anxious to try and reproduce the digital look in their film.

[marcg]

No I don't take it that you are trying to start or restart the film/digital debate.  I think this discussion has moved into agreeing that they probably have equal value but to understand why people's perception influences their particular preference.

However I have to say that your statement that young people who take their photography seriously are turning to film is extremely generalised. I expect there are a huge number of young people who take their photography very seriously and are not turning to film. Also so I can imagine that many of the young people or old people or anyone who is turning to film maybe doing it not necessarily because of the look but because of the process. For some people it may be appealing to be limited in the number of shots they can fire off and the consequent care and thought they have to give before deciding to expose each frame.  Sometimes I take a film camera out simply because I find the process is more contemplative and more careful.  I find the film enforces a certain discipline.

For some people I expect it is appealing to also get involved in the mechanics and mystery of physically developing the film and going through the business of post in a much more manual or hands-on way then with digital.

What I'm getting at is that there may be a whole raft of reasons why some people might turn to film and it may have nothing to do with their feeling about the final result but simply the journey that they make to get there.

 

[IkarusJohn]

Off topic, but I find it interesting that jazz and "pop" music have embraced the return to vinyl, but classical hasn't.  Classical has firmly embraced digital recordings (even classic recordings like Beecham's La Boheme with Victoria de los Angeles reworked in digital), and seems reluctant to go back to vinyl.

I agree, though, that film has rich blacks and something organic about it.  I sometimes feel that Salgado has overdone the Tri-X look in some of his digital work.  I've been experimenting with slower black & white film, and I am very pleased with the results.  I would use my M-A and SWC (with Velvia 50) more, but frankly I'm too ;lazy.  The last lot of film I had developed (basically couldn't be bothered doing it myself) was years worth, and a number of the rolls hadn't even been exposed (I'd mixed up the cannisters).

The Monochrom really does work better for me, the romanticism of film aside.

[snooper]

Well.. Being sort of "Tri X" generation (born 1960) I had my times in the darkroom (the bathroom turned into a darkroom) all night long, until early morning. I have the smell of the acid still on my hands. But we did it because it was cheaper than color, we did it because we could have our pics like 3 hours after taking the shot.. And we learned that black and white was colorful. I used my lab til the 90's, it's sitting somewhere in the garage in boxes now. 

But I can say one thing for sure: if only we had a M10 Monochrom back in the days, trust me we would have boxed the lab to the garage. I can understand film nostalgia, like some people enjoy vapor trains, but I can't understand digital bashing on the ground of quality or creative potential. There is so much to explore, and it is so easy to get into the digital lab... I really loved my M4P (bought in 1981) but I won't get back to that photography, if I have the choice.

[Likaleica]

4 minutes ago, snooper said:

Well.. Being sort of "Tri X" generation (born 1960) I had my times in the darkroom (the bathroom turned into a darkroom) all night long, until early morning. I have the smell of the acid still on my hands. But we did it because it was cheaper than color, we did it because we could have our pics like 3 hours after taking the shot.. And we learned that black and white was colorful. I used my lab til the 90's, it's sitting somewhere in the garage in boxes now. 

But I can say one thing for sure: if only we had a M10 Monochrom back in the days, trust me we would have boxed the lab to the garage. I can understand film nostalgia, like some people enjoy vapor trains, but I can't understand digital bashing on the ground of quality or creative potential. There is so much to explore, and it is so easy to get into the digital lab... I really loved my M4P (bought in 1981) but I won't get back to that photography, if I have the choice.

Just checked out your Instagram page.  Fascinating job you have.

[UliWer]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

Off topic, but I find it interesting that jazz and "pop" music have embraced the return to vinyl, but classical hasn't. ...

When you look around you'll find out that many new recordings of "classical" music are presented at the same time in digital and vinyl versions. Sheku Kanneh-Mason and Simon Rattle with the Elgar Concerto (Decca) is just one recent example. https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/formats/vinyl

They charge huge prices for the vinyl editions and it seems to be a way to earn some money by the deceasing recording industry of the former "mayor" labels. Format reigning over content. 

[ChicagoMatthew]

3 hours ago, digitalfx said:

Not sure I understand this rationalization...if you extended your thought process to just about any other advance in technology, would you want NASA to continue using Gemini Space Craft, because they look cooler than modern spacecraft...should current motion picture producers stop using digital cameras because they look too good? Should we all go back to standard definition TV sets, because the fuzzy grainy image looks cool?

Technology advances and so does art. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot film for exactly the reasons you mentioned...but Im not going to ignore modern, and frankly superior technology because I like the look of film. They both have a place, and to ignore one as too perfect seems silly to me. Honestly I wish we could have ultra high res images of historical events...if you look at the recently discovered 65mm film footage of the Apollo missions as an example,  you cant help but wonder why we don't have more...the difference between it and the footage we grew up watching is dramatic and awe inspiring. 

 

and to answer your question...it would absolutely have a greater impact.

Idk. I think he also said each have their place... when he opened with “if I’m shooting bw, I’m shooting film.” So for him, the BW is a film medium and, I assume when he shoots color it’s digital. Which makes sense to me... BW looks better with some grain. I recently went to a retrospective and half of the artists work was digital bw and the other half was film... The differences were stark... the film just looked better.

Also, since it was referenced, Salgados pre-digital work is much much much better than his newer work. Content aside, it just doesn’t look as good. IMO, of course. 

[digitalfx]

10 minutes ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

Idk. I think he also said each have their place... when he opened with “if I’m shooting bw, I’m shooting film.” So for him, the BW is a film medium and, I assume when he shoots color it’s digital. Which makes sense to me... BW looks better with some grain. I recently went to a retrospective and half of the artists work was digital bw and the other half was film... The differences were stark... the film just looked better.

Also, since it was referenced, Salgados pre-digital work is much much much better than his newer work. Content aside, it just doesn’t look as good. IMO, of course. 

I think you  are taking my comment out of context (note the comment I quoted). I still shoot film, been shooting film for 50 years. I grew up in a darkroom, started printing my dads work as soon as I could reach the trays. I love film. My point is thats its all subjective, what you see as less desirable, the next guy prefers. Neither is right or wrong.

BTW- I was responding to the suggestion that if Vietnam photographers had a digital camera the impact of there images would be lessened. I say absolutely not, but this is just my .02. Frankly imo the horrors of war would have been magnified by better resolution and sharper images, not the opposite. We don't need grain to exaggerate this.

[ChicagoMatthew]

3 minutes ago, digitalfx said:

I think you  are taking my comment out of context (note the comment I quoted). I still shoot film, been shooting film for 50 years. I grew up in a darkroom, started printing my dads work as soon as I could reach the trays. I love film. My point is thats its all subjective, what you see as less desirable, the next guy prefers. Neither is right or wrong.

BTW- I was responding to the suggestion that if Vietnam photographers had a digital camera the impact of there images would be lessened. I say absolutely not, but this is just my .02. Frankly imo the horrors of war would have been magnified by better resolution and sharper images, not the opposite. We don't need grain to exaggerate this.

Maybe I did, sorry about that. I 100% agree that news/reportage images would be much better with modern technology. Probably why we find colorized bw images from ww2 so interesting. But, from an artistic standpoint, I prefer the look of bw film. 
 

The film/digital debate is a little pointless at this point and has been hashed and rehashed a hundred times... I don’t want to start that back up. But I will say, my gripe is the upgrade cycle of modern technology. Pre-digital had constants that controlled the upgrade cycle, such as what you viewed an image on, the film you used and the lens technology. So, the “upgrades” were a little more nuanced... I remember years ago my Canon got an upgrade and the big sell was 10 frames a second... well I really didn’t need that. Easy enough. But now the entire ecosystem is part of this constant cycle of obsolescence. 

[digitalfx]

maybe Leica should give us a free M7 with every Monochrome purchase

[shirubadanieru]

I finally decided to buy the M10 and just placed the order, should get it sometime mid February! Had to sell my MP & M9P to fund it, so I'll be reducing my gear to two cameras (M4 for color, Monochrom for B&W).  

Still wish the M10M came in silver or black paint instead and had the fake film lever of the M10D as it makes holding the camera so much easier....but oh well you can't have everything. Looking forward to trying it out! 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, shirubadanieru said:

Still wish the M10M came in silver or black paint instead and had the fake film lever of the M10D as it makes holding the camera so much easier....but oh well you can't have everything...

But you can have the accessory thumb rest designed for the M10.  Works well, provided you don’t need the hot shoe for other purposes.

Jeff

Edited January 24, 2020 by Jeff S