M10 Monochrom vs M10 — and, generally, color camera vs B&W

[newtoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to shoot with am M9 and an MM about 6 years ago, but kind of drifted off into shooting B&W with a Sony A7R and Olympus OM film gear. 

Have been mainly shooting B&W film past 4 years. I have my own darkroom. However digital is useful sometimes and I do have a Q2 and an M10P alongside my M7. Well, I saw a nice MM on eBay today and decided to get it. Its got a new sensor and I think it will be good to revisit. Don't think I could justify an M10M and I did like the CCD rendering, it seemed to add something more than just a B&W conversion. Quite like Film. The NYC subway is my MM, the snow is Tri-X darkroom printed. 

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!

[Chips]

On 2/10/2020 at 10:11 PM, Nowhereman said:

@burningheart - Thanks for taking the time to lay this out so fully. Really quite useful. For the book project, I'll be proceeding with the converting M10, and also some Ricoh GR III, images to B&W. A book with color as well as B&W images is difficult for conceptual reasons, meaning that there has to basic and profound reasons for doing that, beyond just having some color images that one likes. Though I'll be keeping an eye on what emerges on the M10M — as well as your experience with it. (BTW, @ShiroKuro has learned that the base ISO is 400 and not 160.)

Some images, that is to say, ones on which one's motivation was overwhelmingly color, work poorly in B&W, like the first one in post #15 above. However, experimenting with conversion of that type of image into B&W, I found that it's likely to work better when the conversion is a high contrast one. This is what I found in the first one below, which I've posted in color elsewhere. I liked the "clean" and "clear" colors in it and thought it would never work in B&W. Yet, finally, when I tried "expressionist B&W", I found that I like it. 

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 800 | f/2.8 | 1/125 sec

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!

Tokyo – Empire of Signs

Then I tried it on a image, shot of the same building in Tokyo as the image in post #15, which I thought would never work in color. After adding a strong vignette, which makes look like a "day-for-night" shot, I got the result below. (Neither of these shots may end up in the book, but the one below supports the Empire of Signs title.)
Note: The image below can be viewed in Lightbox, by clicking on it.

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 800 | f/2.8 | 1/180 sec

Your impactful photo of Tokyo -- Empire of Signs (the two people reading at separate tables) looks wonderful and gritty -- very Magnum-like. However you describe making the photo with an ISO of 800 yet there is significant grain -- could you have been at a much higher ISO? How do you account for the grain (Tri X Effect)

 CHIPS

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Chips - Thanks. I worked on this image several times before I got the impact that I wanted. It was indeed shot at ISO 800 and the original DNG does not show grain at 100% in Lightroom. The version I used was processed with the starting point of the SilverEfex Neopan 1600 preset, which I modified to get the gradation that I wanted; but I turned off the SEFEX grain simulation.

Looking at the how the SEFEX image looked when I brought it into Lightroom, it had what looks like some fine grain, which isn't visible in the original DNG. But the image, overall, looked "too smooth" for what I wanted. I did not add "Grain" in Lightroom, as the LR grain simulation is not as good as that of SEFEX. I added Texture and brought Dehaze up as well, and also a added a mild Tone Curve, but pulled back the Contrast slide and increased Exposure slightly. Testing all these sliders just now, I see it's the Dehaze that created most of the grain effect.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[S Maclean]

 

Coming from a family rooted in the film and advertising industry I have to admit that to me composition, light, and subject have always been the drivers when shooting. I have never thought about it much but those are the main drivers of B&W shooting.  Color never entered my mind when shooting, or seldom did.  Not because I disliked it but because if the light, composition, and subject are shot well, then the color is there.  IF a specific shot was driven by the exceptional color that, to me, becomes part of the subject matter, not the driver of the image. (unless we are talking abstract photography.)  Shooting with color or B&W in mind for me is distracting.  And shots taken to highlight color or B&W primarily often feel distracting to me as well. (General comment here, not making an absolute statement)

I do often end up with both color and B&W versions of a shot. I do tend to end with B&W final versions more often than not but I am very happy with the color shots I have.  I will probably get an M11M when it comes out.  Or an M10M.

So, I have to admit, NOTHING changes on my approach when shooting color or B&W.  Back in the 80s, I knew, of course, if I had a color of Monochrome roll in the camera, but even then I wasn't concerned much while on the field.  You just couldn't do much about it so you took the shots and dealt with it later in post-production.

So, the benefits of a monochrome camera to me are on the specific qualities of the camera (much like shooting with a specific film type back in the day)  You know and align with the qualities and they become part of your eye.  (Same for any camera really)

There is also a clear distinction as I read this thread.  Some of the discussion is basically apples and oranges.  You are not discussing or debating the same thing.  One group is discussing the merits of Shooting with a monochrome camera as a process....the OP and some others are discussing the output result and possible processing of the images.  These are different things. 

In Driving metaphors one debates the experience of driving in a specific car, the other what you do once you arrive at your destination.  Arguably you can have a good time at your destination regardless of the driving, but you can never go back and repeat the same drive.  Arguably, as well, you may be more rested or stressed or happy or sad at arrival if the drive was more enjoyable.... So yes, one affects the other and some enjoy the journey better, some enjoy the destination better.  No better or worse, just tastes and likes.  

Definitely not a debate IMO.

 

Images bellow.  Are they conversions or original B&W?  Does it matter?  Would I have shot a different image either way?

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!

[S Maclean]

I should add: For me, taking a good Color image is much harder than B&W or Monochrome.  That is just me, my eye and my skill set.  B&W is much more forgiving and emotional as well as subject-enhancing.  

 

A lot of unremarkable images come to life in B&W. Very few unremarkable images become remarkable in color.