q2 monochrome

[nameBrandon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I could for sure tell the difference – Almost every image I've seen shot with the M Monochrom looks flat, IMO. Maybe most MM shooters are not using yellow/orange/red/green filters in the right situations (red for sky, green for portrait, etc.).

 

I think almost anyone could pick out a SooC monochrom file.. hard to miss that flatness..   The challenge would be in picking out a fully processed monochrom image vs a similarly processed color image. I think that's where most would have trouble.

THere was a YouTube video that compared Fuji Arcos, Sony converted B/W and Leica Monochrom images and let you write down which was which to see if you could identify them.. not entirely accurate since it's YouTube video and not full res images, but it was an interesting experiment.

 

Ahh.. here it is - 

 

[jaapv]

26 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I could for sure tell the difference – Almost every image I've seen shot with the M Monochrom looks flat, IMO. Maybe most MM shooters are not using yellow/orange/red/green filters in the right situations (red for sky, green for portrait, etc.).

 

No, they are not postprocessing properly. Any image with a high DR will look flat if not done properly.  it is like printing all your images on soft paper. It is not for nothing that Leica bundled the MM1 with Silver Efex Pro. It makes life easier. (disclosure: I rather dislike it  I also never use pre-prepared stuff in the kitchen)

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, nameBrandon said:

I think almost anyone could pick out a SooC monochrom file.. hard to miss that flatness..   The challenge would be in picking out a fully processed monochrom image vs a similarly processed color image. I think that's where most would have trouble.

THere was a YouTube video that compared Fuji Arcos, Sony converted B/W and Leica Monochrom images and let you write down which was which to see if you could identify them.. not entirely accurate since it's YouTube video and not full res images, but it was an interesting experiment.

 

Ahh.. here it is - 

 

I have no problem at all. I like the Monochrom look- which is anything but flat, provided it is done by somebody who knows what he is doing. OOC such nonsense to judge; you mean the preset applied by some PP software - I never liked grocery store prints from film either.  Have a look at images from expert photographers, You'll find a number in the Monochrom image threads.

[hdmesa]

28 minutes ago, nameBrandon said:

I think almost anyone could pick out a SooC monochrom file.. hard to miss that flatness..   The challenge would be in picking out a fully processed monochrom image vs a similarly processed color image. I think that's where most would have trouble.

THere was a YouTube video that compared Fuji Arcos, Sony converted B/W and Leica Monochrom images and let you write down which was which to see if you could identify them.. not entirely accurate since it's YouTube video and not full res images, but it was an interesting experiment.

 

Ahh.. here it is - 

 

 

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No, they are not postprocessing properly. Any image with a high DR will look flat if not done properly.  it is like printing all your images on soft paper. It is not for nothing that Leica bundled the MM1 with Silver Efex Pro. It makes life easier. (disclosure: I rather dislike it  I also never use pre-prepared stuff in the kitchen)

 

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I have no problem at all. I like the Monochrom look- which is anything but flat, provided it is done by somebody who knows what he is doing. OOC such nonsense to judge; you mean the preset applied by some PP software - I never liked grocery store prints from film either.  Have a look at images from expert photographers, You'll find a number in the Monochrom image threads.

 

On monochrome there is no physical lens filter or software filter for both darkening blue skies and simultaneously brightening the yellow/orange in the landscape below to create contrast where none existed before. On a monochrome sensor, you will always be limited to adjusting the tonal relationships as-shot, unlike color where you can create tonal relationships that did not exist in the original. Perhaps the increase in ISO performance and IQ on monochrome can outweigh this limitation for some. I would have to see the monochrome RAW files for myself to decide.

 

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

 

 

 

On monochrome there is no physical lens filter or software filter for both darkening blue skies and simultaneously brightening the yellow/orange in the landscape below to create contrast where none existed before. On a monochrome sensor, you will always be limited to adjusting the tonal relationships as-shot, unlike color where you can create tonal relationships that did not exist in the original. Perhaps the increase in ISO performance and IQ on monochrome can outweigh this limitation for some. I would have to see the monochrome RAW files for myself to decide.

 

If you know a bit of postprocessing, it is not THAT hard to adjust contrast and brightness locally - known as dodging and burning in analog photography...🙄  Even easier in digital, complete with controlling the tonal range on localized parts of the image.

[Guest BlackBarn]

27 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I could for sure tell the difference – Almost every image I've seen shot with the M Monochrom looks flat,

It’s the patterns of light values (tones) which determine the flatness of an image not wether it is made in colour or not. Colour filters only help in accentuation differences between certain tones.....in a pre post processing type of way.

The challenge of b/w photography is to see and compose tonally. That is not a natural way of seeing in a colored world and the skill set takes time to develop.  So It’s natural that some b/w on this site show that learning curve but many others are able to offer that pop in abundance.

With the artists I’ve taught who come from a long background with painting in colour,  their eye are calibrated to colour and not tonal sensitivity. I imagine it’s the same with photography. It’s not an easy skill set to learn and it takes time to grasp the basics. With academic art training the student first trains around 2000 hours working only in b/w. which begins to train their eyes and they will not progress to colour without acquiring that skill. ‘7/8 of  painting can be taught using b/w....color just adds the tints.’ 

What you see is what you see....that is your reality. From your comment it may be a question of sensitivity. I would suggest taking a colour photograph you see as popping and covert it to black and white and see if has the same impact.

Its not the camera nor the potential within the files - once captured - of a mono camera but initially the photographers ability and later the sensitivity of other eyes to ‘see’ tonally.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If you know a bit of postprocessing, it is not THAT hard to adjust contrast and brightness locally - known as dodging and burning in analog photography...🙄  Even easier in digital, complete with controlling the tonal range on localized parts of the image.

B&W images produced by color channel edits cannot be exactly replicated with local adjustments – unless you have the time to mask every blade of grass that's catching the sunlight in a few of the examples here. Not saying that monochrome can't make nice images – they just won't be the same images.

Like BlackBarn said above, using monochrome is about seeing differently, and those limitations of finding the right light for black and white is a challenge many enjoy.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by hdmesa

[jaapv]

Why not?I see no problem - there are  AI masking tools that can do exactly that - capture every strand of hair in a portrait;.

For instance:

https://topazlabs.com/mask-ai/

Click "nature"

Edit:

I agree that they are not the same images , fortunately.  I prefer the Monochrom ones in general  I hate simulating film digitally - I find it kitschy.

[Guest BlackBarn]

16 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Like BlackBarn said above, using monochrome is about seeing differently,

I hope I am forgiven for not showing a Leica photo but it’s my attempt to support the differences in seeing.

Ive used what is considered the 1st impressionist painting by Monet....who was very tonally aware.

In the first it’s the colour which offers the visual contrast. In the second those rules evaporate. It’s the ability to see the second when looking at the first which is the b/w photographers challenge.

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!

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

I hope I am forgiven for not showing a Leica photo but it’s my attempt to support the differences in seeing.

Ive used what is considered the 1st impressionist painting by Monet....who was very tonally aware.

In the first it’s the colour which offers the visual contrast. In the second those rules evaporate. It’s the ability to see the second when looking at the first which is the b/w photographers challenge.

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!

Nobody is disputing the difference in seeing. In fact, it is the raison d'ētre of the Monochroms.

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, BlackBarn said:

I hope I am forgiven for not showing a Leica photo but it’s my attempt to support the differences in seeing.

Ive used what is considered the 1st impressionist painting by Monet....who was very tonally aware.

In the first it’s the colour which offers the visual contrast. In the second those rules evaporate. It’s the ability to see the second when looking at the first which is the b/w photographers challenge.

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!

 

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Nobody is disputing the difference in seeing. In fact, it is the raison d'ētre of the Monochroms.

Agree completely. In my posts, I was making the point that being able to turn hue contrasts of similar values into black and white value contrasts is an advantage of the color sensor. Monochrome as its own advantages and forcing you to see differently is one of them.

[Sjz]

18 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

I hope I am forgiven for not showing a Leica photo but it’s my attempt to support the differences in seeing.

Ive used what is considered the 1st impressionist painting by Monet....who was very tonally aware.

In the first it’s the colour which offers the visual contrast. In the second those rules evaporate. It’s the ability to see the second when looking at the first which is the b/w photographers challenge.

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!

Thank you for sharing, your point is simply (and beautifully) made.  I do believe a plus of relearning monochrome is a corresponding improvement in colour photography.

[Guest BlackBarn]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Nobody is disputing the difference in seeing

My original response was to the post where the difference may be more to do with the sensitivity of the eyes to tonal variances than sensor differences. ‘ I haven’t seen a mono image which isn’t flat’ or whatever.  In my second post I was attempting to demonstrate that. Its all very good to quote as above but what does ‘seeing differently’ actually mean. I imagine some people don’t understand this or didn’t expected the sun and it’s reflection to almost disappear in the tonal context.  The emphasis has been on sensors and their  impact when that is insignificant compared to the ability to improve tonal sight.

The  colour filters are simply a pre processing tools which doesn’t offer the best tools/ solution when shooting b/w and it is not those aspects which will make the difference between a flat/ non flat photograph in its final presentation.

You don’t need to buy a mono camera to ‘force’ you to see  differently. You can simply wander around without a camera and begin to notice the various shapes of light and the patterns they make and how you would like to accentuate or compose with that. If you fall in love with that aspect of seeing and want to fully express that then any mono should delight. Suggesting any sensor differences as the door opener or the difference maker  is like me discussing the difference between the hair on a hog and sable paint brush in the context of acquiring the skills for painting.

[jaapv]

It certainly is. It teaches the added value of color for certain shots and  the use of abstraction in B&W. 

[Guest BlackBarn]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

It certainly is.

And a hog hair brush teaches you to add a different texture to a paint surface. . I’m  more than happy to extend the discussion into colour theory but you’re not talking about that but about marginal technology.....the part of photography where computer programs take over and convince the eye that is what they are seeing. I’m talking about the human bit - what happens before the camera is picked up. Both aspects have value in their context....we have no differences there. 

[Giguchan]

On 10/26/2020 at 9:45 AM, stewartweir said:

So here's a question - Given how good monochrome software conversion is (especially Nik Effex) is there going to be a big reason to buy a Q2M over a Q2? Yes tonal range will be increased BUT would anyone really be able to tell the difference between a converted Q2 mono image to an M10M for example? 

That's  a very good question. I don't have the  eye good enough to tell the difference.  I try to do most everything in camera anyhow.. Still  I'm excited !

[Giguchan]

On 10/27/2020 at 11:25 AM, stewartweir said:

So I asked my local official Leica dealer here in the UK how much to reserve a Q2M. The answer was £4995. They didn't know whether that was the UK price but it was the "most likely price" and they didn't know when but "November into December is a possibility". For now Im going to sit back and wait and see what the exact specs are.

That's the same price the Q2 is going for currently.

[Giguchan]

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I could for sure tell the difference – Almost every image I've seen shot with the M Monochrom looks flat, IMO. Maybe most MM shooters are not using yellow/orange/red/green filters in the right situations (red for sky, green for portrait, etc.).

 

Speaking of filters...  do we know what size  filter thread?  Maybe the same size  as the Q2? I love shooting with filters.

[jaapv]

My point being that the human controls the computer programs.
Creating a photograph is an unbroken chain, starting with subject and light, picking and using tools - lens-camera-(scanner)-computer-printer. All parts will contribute to the final result. Skimping on one part of the chain, or eschewing proper use, - often the computer bit- will seriously hamper the ability of the human to create the intended result, if not making it impossible to get there, leading to blaming parts of the chain.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[nameBrandon]

7 hours ago, Giguchan said:

Speaking of filters...  do we know what size  filter thread?  Maybe the same size  as the Q2? I love shooting with filters.

They won't change the lens.. 49mm filters. You do probably want to get the Lim's hood which allows you to change filters while the hood stays in place (hood uses other threads, filters the inner threads). I believe that technically the stock hood allows this, but ingress and room around the side of the filters is extremely tight making it a frustrating effort.