ChrisC Posted October 4, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) .. Is it possible to use the full, uncompressed file for black and white? My digital SLRs leave me with no other choice than to work with jpegs, since the capture of color comprises such a large portion of a digital file..! First - Welcome. I'm sure I am not alone in being puzzled by the above. You have chosen [unwittingly I suspect] to use B&W J-pegs from the in-camera conversion. Most workers would seek optimal results and would not use that option, but instead would transfer RAW files and convert to B&W in the computer using appropriate software and technique. I hope this is clear. ................ Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Hi ChrisC, Take a look here M9 - Is It Time To Migrate To Digital.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ModernMan Posted October 4, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 4, 2009 After a week with the M9 I decided to sell my scanner. Will probably keep my film M's just because I like them, but I think their future duties will be to accompany my screw mount cameras in a display case. The M9's IQ ranges from acceptable to stellar by all reasonable metrics I can think of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 4, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 4, 2009 One quick question, though for those who photograph in black and white with a digital camera, Leica or otherwise: Is it possible to use the full, uncompressed file for black and white? My digital SLRs leave me with no other choice than to work with jpegs, since the capture of color comprises such a large portion of a digital file. Again, I would buy an M9 in a heartbeat, if I could produce black and white images that have the quality of silver gelatin prints. Someone, please help me make this transition! The M9 can make DNG files, and those always come out in color. It can also make JPG in either color og black & white. And if you set the camera to DNG+JPG and choose black & white in which case you will get a b&w JPG (and preview on the screen) and a color DNG of each shot. The Leica DMR can be set to produce a TIF file which can be black and white. The M9 can't. So getting towards a black and white that looks like "something knowns as" would require using Lightroom or some other workflow to get there, eventually with Nik software plugins. It's rather easy to get the DNGs from the M9 to look like the black & white JPGs out of the M9 (with slightly better tones I think). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted October 4, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 4, 2009 Yes, most definitely! The only valid reasons for staying with film are, IMHO: 1) That you positively enjoy darkroom work, and regularly produce high quality monochrome prints. 2) That you prefer projecting 35mm transparencies over digital image projection. If, like me, your photography is geared to publication, digital capture and manipulation wins hands down (in terms of convenience, running costs, and the quality of the final image) over film capture and scanning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 4, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 4, 2009 I love the M9, I believe it's what a lot of folks were waiting for and can see myself using it for those special cases when I do a shoot that needs to be sent for publication the same night. Other than that, I will not migrate to a digital workflow for neither personal or professional work. For my style, my business and the type of clients that commission me film is the only way to go. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSL Posted October 4, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 4, 2009 Hi - I acquired an MP a year after the M8 for backup. I then found myself always reaching for the MP, especially after rediscovering Velvia 50 for landscape. No matter how I tried to simulate Velvia 50 (even with dedicated plugins) I could never get it right without a lot of fuss and a reference film image. When I used both on location, I struggled at home with large groups of M8 images that had dust spots. Always makes me pause a bit before doing a lens change. Also, I find the M8 notably bulkier the film Ms -- something that doesn't seem to bother most reviewers. The M8/M9 is close, but not the same. Don't get me wrong, the files from the M8 are great ... and I have even some studio portraits that beat my Hasselblad 6x6 drum scans in 13x19 prints. So I believe you will enjoy the digital M for what it is. Of course, the joy of shooting full frame is no longer a factor in the decision. Like you, I'm thinking about the M9. But I don't believe I will part with my MP. Regards, HSL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 4, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, most definitely! The only valid reasons for staying with film are, IMHO: 1) That you positively enjoy darkroom work, and regularly produce high quality monochrome prints. 2) That you prefer projecting 35mm transparencies over digital image projection. If, like me, your photography is geared to publication, digital capture and manipulation wins hands down (in terms of convenience, running costs, and the quality of the final image) over film capture and scanning. Am I allowed to use my MPs if I have a different reason? "Valid"; what a croc. What about being happy with what I've got? Is that valid enough? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Lynn Miller Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted October 4, 2009 A hearty 'Thank You' to everyone that has responded to my query... I will not try to quote everyone in this reply and so if I miss mentioning your advice, please understand it was an over-sight and not deliberate... So a few more things to consider... If I was going to continue to shooting B&W film as my primary medium, I would not even consider the M9. Shooting, developing, and printing B&W film is simple, easy, quick and straight-forward, not mention very, very economical. The price of the M9 would cover the cost a good number of years shooting. It is the recent transition to color that causes me to consider the M9... Also, financially there is only one way for me to afford an M9, and that is to sell my entire inventory of photographic equipment in large format, medium format, SLR's, rangefinders and etc. to fund the cost of the M9. This is not a bad thing, as I only use 2 cameras of my collection of 20 or so, my Leica M5 and Speed Graphic. The rest of the equipment is covered in dust from sitting idle on the shelf for months. So clearing the clutter of unused stuff would be a good thing in fact. I also need to clarify that I have been shooting digital for any commercial assignments that I have since 2002. Working in the realm of commercial work, it makes little sense to shoot film because of the required speed of delivery and final output to digital files for publication. I normally rent the latest Nikon DSLR for any commercial projects that I do. The purchase of the M9 would signal the migration to digital in my personal work. And no, I do not generate enough income from photography to allow the M9 to be a business expense. Also I am fairly fluent in Photoshop, having started when Photoshop 7 was the latest and greatest. I am comfortable with digital work-flow and have been able to put together 'actions' that allow my to batch convert my raw files from both my Canon and Nikon digital camera to emulate Kodachrome 64. I am sure that I can do the same for the M9. But... I understand the feeling when several of you have replied that you have become disenchanted with digital and have gone back to shooting film again. This is my greatest fear... and the M9 is an serious investment for me to consider and if I could get the price of using color transparency film under $20 per roll, I would probably be less inclined to consider the M9 except the there is no easy way to print color like there is for B&W. Ultimately, I am the only person who will be to know if the M9 is the right camera for me or not. While everyone's advice is valued and appreciated... I still have the decision to make. Thanks to everyone for the comments on my portfolio and your advice and comments to my questions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted October 4, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 4, 2009 Am I allowed to use my MPs if I have a different reason? "Valid"; what a croc. What about being happy with what I've got? Is that valid enough? Yes - sure, that is a valid reason. After all, some people are happy with a $200 'point and shoot'... I was shading my response to deal with the point made by the OP about the high cost of using colour transparency film these days. If you only shoot small numbers of images this may not be a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted October 4, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 4, 2009 ... if I could get the price of using color transparency film under $20 per roll, I would probably be less inclined to consider the M9 ... Look here for film. Good eBayer. eBay My World - cheap_shots_au And here for E6 processing in Adelaide. AtkinsTechnicolour E6 (slide film) processing Should get you close to or below $20 per roll, developed but not mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 4, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 4, 2009 But... I understand the feeling when several of you have replied that you have become disenchanted with digital and have gone back to shooting film again. This is my greatest fear... and the M9 is an serious investment for me to consider and if I could get the price of using color transparency film under $20 per roll, I would probably be less inclined to consider the M9 except the there is no easy way to print color like there is for B&W. . So, why not keep most of your equipment and buy a clean used M8 or M8.2 to see if, over time, you can at least generate the color results you want? If so, then you can go for the M9. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Lynn Miller Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted October 4, 2009 Look here for film. Good eBayer.eBay My World - cheap_shots_au And here for E6 processing in Adelaide. AtkinsTechnicolour E6 (slide film) processing Should get you close to or below $20 per roll, developed but not mounted. Rick, Thanks for those links... while I prefer to support my local camera shop, paying $20 plus per roll of film is taking its toll on the budget So, why not keep most of your equipment and buy a clean used M8 or M8.2 to see if, over time, you can at least generate the color results you want? If so, then you can go for the M9. Jeff I am considering such a scenario, acquiring an M8 to use for color work, and keep my M5 loaded with Tri-X... Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.