Who's gone back to converting color files after using a monochrom?

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone here owned and used a Leica monochrom camera for a while, then gone back to converting color files?

Did you end up missing the mono camera? Or, at the end of the day, were you just as satisfied after returning to doing conversions?

I'm thinking not just of the images themselves, but of the workflow and mindset—the whole Leica monochrom gestalt.

(I have a broken camera that needs to go into the shop, which may necessitate some camera shuffling, which is why I'm asking—but the details of my particular gear saga aren't relevant to the question.)

[pippy]

Not sure whether this will be of any help but I have both a Monochrom and a 'Colour' body and am just as happy with converted colour files as I am with those from the Monochrom.

Almost all images I shoot will end up as B'n'W so, conversion apart (which is done right at the start of post-prod), the workflow in each case is identical.

Philip.

[ph0toni]

@JoshuaR If you only have a Mono you could try the opposite.
Put the camera on the tripod and take three shots with the three primary color filters, then add the channels with photoshop into an RGB image
.
This is what I do to get a view of bees
UV+B+G
(they don't see red)

[adan]

6 hours ago, JoshuaR said:

Has anyone here owned and used a Leica monochrom camera for a while, then gone back to converting color files?

Did you end up missing the mono camera? Or, at the end of the day, were you just as satisfied after returning to doing conversions?

I own a Monochrom - but I have never stopped converting color files also.

The Monochrom's key features are not that it is B&W per se, but that removing the color-sensitivity (on-sensor color filters) improves:

- low light/high ISO performance (just like Tri-X/Delta3200 vs. Portra/Velvia)
- resolution/detail slightly (maybe 20%?), because the images are not "blurred" when processed by sharing data < > between pixels (de-mosaicing or de-Bayerizing).

If I don't need those particular advantages in a given situation/shoot, I prefer to shoot a full-color camera, and have the option of color or decent B&W, with a bit more control (make red things a brighter or darker gray, for example).

[t00l1024]

I recently had "a color crisis" that I went though. Deteriorating eyesight was driving me towards a system designed for EVF. Sold/traded a M11M for a SL3, which was awesome but too close to the Canon R5 I wasn't getting rid of. Sold/traded for a Hasselblad X2D. Again, awesome system but wasn't thrilled with some of the nuances. Ended up going back to a M11M.

Occasionally, I'll do a color conversion from the Canon, but the Monochrom sensors are tough to beat and I love the workflow.

My lesson: Appreciate what you have in front of you.

[Jeff S]

I’m equally satisfied with files and prints (if I do my job well) resulting from use of my Monochroms and color-based cameras.  IQ generally hasn’t been a barrier, across brands, for some time now.

But I enjoy the B&W mindset (no distractions from considering potential color pics) provided by a Monochrom, similar to my B&W film days.  

On the flip side, color conversions provide a bit more PP flexibility via (subtle) use of color channels. That said, I rarely choose to convert color files to B&W that weren’t visualized in monochrome when shooting. 

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently sold of my monochrom, and am still not used to the workflow for culling and processing.

The results from the converted color ones are fine, but to me, the workflow not yet.

With a monochrom file, one can only play with tones, which make the process much simpler than a color file where I also need to care about the tonalities of each RGB level.

[costa43]

I sold my mono and converted colour files from an m10r. The output was fine but I did regret it initially as the whole mindset thing was a ‘thing’ for me. I’ve since started shooting black and white film which has somewhat suppressed my urge to repurchase a mono camera. At the end of it, my conclusion was that as a colour and black and white photographer, the mono was a luxury addition to my kit that I enjoyed but could live without relatively easily. 

[ramarren]

When I make a run of exposures with the M10-R and convert them to monochrome, and then go out and use the M10 Monochrom on similar subjects, I usually trash the M10-R photos because they just don't have the qualities that the M10-M photos have.

The M10-R photos in color are delightful. 

I've done a lot of monochrome conversions over the years with a large range of cameras. The only conversions that 'hit the numbers' like the M10 Monochrom are the ones from my Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c. It has something to do with the levels of tonality and micro-contrast that the M10-M captures have.

G

[DadDadDaddyo]

I've declared here before that if I was forced to reduce my stable to a single camera body, it would be the M11M.

There are a LOT of ways to produce a color image capture; it's literally hard to be without any means to make a color picture these days. Even my phone can produce a decent, albeit jpg, file under quite a wide range of situations. 

I've been shooting black and white photos with Leicas since about 1968. The muscle memory is so built-in that other systems, despite offering autofocus and auto-exposure, simply feel like more effort. 

So yeah, if it came down to it, I'd rather keep my Monochrom and pull out my phone if I had to. No question. 

[Crem]

I had a m10m and sold it. At lower ISO values (100 - 1600) I honestly didn’t see a ton of benefit. Starting around 6400 and definitely at 12.8k it was very noticeable how much better the mono sensor is. I do miss the m10m, but these days I’m normally shooting Tri-X in 35mm to get that mono sensor experience. I will still convert color digital files to mono on occasion and I have no problem admitting I enjoy the convenience. I very much enjoy black and white photography, but I don’t like being limited to it. Over time I’ve found I enjoy color just as much black and white and so film + color digital conversions is working out well for me. 

Edited January 1 by Crem

[Bart D]

It's never been about "going back" for me neither.

Next to the monochrom I use three other digital cameras. Nothing has stopped me from converting any output from the other three I found suitable for b&w.
I fail to see any reason to stop doing that. It's not as if I'm going to take the same image with the monochrom as with one of the others and then go comparing these.

The images from the monochrom do get post-processed as well, by the way.

 

[Stevejack]

Yes I did - I had the M10M and was welded to it but when I got the M11 I started using it for black and whites every single time. Part of the reason is because live view with the visoflex is so much better on the M11, but also I found that in most use-cases the colour conversions were absolutely fine. I barely used the M10-M after I picked up the M11, and finally sold both once the M11-M arrived. 

One thing I will say - the b+w files from the M11 are crunchier out of camera, there is a perceived increase in contrast and clarity in comparison with the monochrom cameras. 
The files straight out of camera on the M11M are much flatter and lack the initial 'punch' of the colour conversions. However - the extent to which you can push and pull the monochrom files, and the information contained within those files, is truly incredible. The colour files will break apart quite quickly in comparison and become a bit of a mess. With the monochrom files, you can really work them before seeing any negative artifacts. 

I prefer my black and whites to be quite limited in their dynamic range, throwing most of the information in the files away. I would say I like my b+w to appear closer to film, tending towards crushed blacks and crushed whites in most cases. So for my use a colour conversion is fine... but I prefer working with the files from the Monochrom every single time. If I could only choose one, and had no other colour camera, I would pick the M11 over the M11M and wouldn't sweat it. I would ABSOLUTELY miss the monochrom though.

[widi5006]

I owned a Leica Q2M for 7 months and loved it.....but then sold it.

99% of my photos end up as B&W images so it should have been the perfect camera for me. But I really missed having the flexibility of manipulating color channels in post-processing so I went to a GFX100s (which gives me amazing files to start with). 

The high ISO images on the Q2M are unmatched by any camera I have ever owned though, that was definitely its strength for me....but the monochrome files themselves (while beautiful) were just to inflexible to work with. 

The flexibility of conversions from color files just cannot be matched (from a pure editing standpoint) by the monochrome files...at least for my photographic style.

[ph0toni]

I have never had a Mono, but on my full spectrum when I use the IR filters 720 - 850 - 950 nm the RAW files are monochrome, very beautiful, but they are too soft and not very flexible.
.

On 1/7/2025 at 1:23 AM, widi5006 said:

The flexibility of conversions from color files just cannot be matched (from a pure editing standpoint) by the monochrome files...at least for my photographic style.

.
widi5006 you are right, starting from three channels (RGB) you have more possibilities of "interpretation" in converting to black and white (in PH or with silver efex) even after shooting.
To have real differences between photos with a monochrome camera you must use the filters on the lens before shooting.
The BW RAWs will be sharper and more flexible, but you cannot... lighten or darken certain channels such as "R" the red of flowers or "G" the green of foliage or "B" the blue of the sky.
.
In any case I want to modify a Mono to explore the deepest UV and IR.

[pgh]

I never left converting, as I need to do that with files from my X2d or 907x, or sometimes I would need to shoot color for a client but might use mono for my own work. But I prefer the process of working with files from the M10M by a good bit. It’s true you can do a good bit more with conversion in color channels, but that really only makes a different for certain sorts of limited types of work. Rarely does it actually make a photograph stronger - only different. I’ll concede there are a few circumstances where I’ve found it genuinely helpful with a color capture but I’ve never regretted its absence on a file from a mono camera.

Shooting with a monochrome is just - from start to finish - an experience that puts the focus on the very fundamentals of photography - content, light, form - and if it’s not good when you photograph it you can’t do a lot in post with that either. I find that a relief, personally, computer work is not fun. Fuxking around with pictures you know aren’t so good but can maybe save with toning is waste of time ultimately - those never make the cut in the end anyways. I’d rather be out trying to make my pictures better at moment of capture as opposed to in the processing. Shooting monochrome (for me) is not totally necessary but notably more conducive to a workflow that aligns with my priorities. More than any other digital camera it feels like I get to work with the tool collaboratively, as opposed to trying to mold something into what I need it to be. That is a good experience worth a good bit of money for me. 

The x2d does some things better, and it is also an amazing tool, and I quite appreciate Hasselblad’s stripped down take in processing in Phocus, but I still prefer a monochrome in most circumstances. 

[Zeitblom]

On several courses at the Leica Academy I was allowed to take photos with an M10-M and M11-M.
There it made a lot of sense, as the themes of the courses were strictly black and white photography.
But when I come across random subjects on my hikes, there are always photos that only work in color despite my atemps to change them into black-and-white photos.
For these few photos, I accept that the conversion of color DNGs into black and white photos does not work as quickly and perfectly as with zhe M-Monochromes.
If I know that only black and white subjects await me, especially when taking landscape photos in winter, I can also insert a black and white film into my M6 or Barnack IIIa syn.

[Stevejack]

6 hours ago, pgh said:

if it’s not good when you photograph it you can’t do a lot in post with that either. I find that a relief, personally, computer work is not fun. Fuxking around with pictures you know aren’t so good but can maybe save with toning is waste of time ultimately - those never make the cut in the end anyways. I’d rather be out trying to make my pictures better at moment of capture as opposed to in the processing.

100% agree. I fell hard into the trap of hoping to make fundamentally weak photographs stronger with editing alone. It took me waaaaay longer than it should have to realise that all time learning how to use lightroom / photoshop would have been much better spent learning how to craft a strong photograph in the first place.

[ramarren]

Hmm. I'm sorry, but at any given time there are an infinite number of excellent B&W photographs possible, just as at any given time there are an infinite number of excellent color photographs possible. There is no such thing as a "B&W" subject or a "Color" subject, unless you (the photographer) have decided to limit what you're seeing to things that appeal to you personally only in color or only in B&W. 

The best photographs are always imagined from the moment of conceiving them, rarely 'rescued' from weak original captures. 

A dear friend and excellent photographer had never done B&W film or any other form of monchromatic photography. He bought a Leica Q2M, and asked me for advice on how to learn to see B&W as he wasn't getting the photos he had imagined.

"Put your color camera away. Only take out the Q2M. Experiment. Look critically at every photo, after every session, and write down what worked and what didn't, and why. In six or seven months, you will not believe what you're going to see with your Monochrom."

I hadn't spoken with him for most of a year after that. He sent me a note with his holiday card: "I did exactly what you suggested, only took the color camera out for some limited family pictures to satisfy my wife and children. And what I have seen is that you were absolutely right: what I'm getting now is so FAR beyond anything I could get a year ago, it's astonishing. Please look at my Flickr album and let me know what you think."

I did. His work over the course of a year made an enormous transformation and is vastly improved when it comes to B&W conceptualizations. A side effect is that his color work of family and friends has similarly improved enormously as well ... which points out that developing exceptional visual chops works no matter what kind of photographic end product you are trying to achieve. 

Go out with your B&W cameras, only, and make photographs with them until what you make rings the bell. Presume that for some time, you'll get a lot of "take and toss" junk, but work through it, study what failed, and work through those concepts again ... over and over. In the end I think you'll agree that there are only "B&W subjects" and "Color subjects" in your mind, and that it is a decision process, not an inherent reality. 

G
—
The harder I practice, the easier my work seems. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

8 hours ago, ramarren said:

...There is no such thing as a "B&W" subject or a "Color" subject...

I disagree.

Even although almost everything I shoot is rendered, ultimately, in monochrome (as mentioned in post #2) sometimes I accept that 'Colour' has its place;

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!

Image shot on M9-P, 28mm Elmarit ASPH v1, Circ. Pola.

FWIW 'Spotting' apart the (RGB) image is, essentially, SOOC.

Philip.

Edited January 9 by pippy