Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Updated Leica Monochrom  (Read 1404 times)
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2013, 10:46:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I usually carried two M's - one with 100 and one with 400 b&w film, and occasionally a third one with colour film. The thing is, I visualized my images as b&w -- not as maybe colour, maybe b&w. Now, the 'maybe this maybe that' is both a boon and a liability. Oddly enough I find myself thinking almost exclusively in colour when working my my 5d2, with the m9 it is a bit of 'I'll decide later'.

'I'll decide later' has never worked for me. The problem isn't technical; it's mental. I can look for color images, or I can look for B&W ones, and it takes me a while to shift gears. I've hardly ever gotten a good B&W image that I visualized at exposure as color, and vice-versa. Obviously, some people have more labile brains, and more power to them.

Jim
Logged

JeanMichel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2013, 11:45:53 AM »
ReplyReply

'I'll decide later' has never worked for me. The problem isn't technical; it's mental. I can look for color images, or I can look for B&W ones, and it takes me a while to shift gears. I've hardly ever gotten a good B&W image that I visualized at exposure as color, and vice-versa. Obviously, some people have more labile brains, and more power to them.

Jim
('I'll decide later' has never worked for me) Yes! And that is why I too consider that 'feature' more of a liability than a boon. The problem, if that can be considered as a problem, is that the imported files are in colour, so the image visualized as b&w shows up in colour. So, like it or not, I have to make a second decision about the image at that stage. In the past, physically changing cameras or magazines helped with the mental process, which is why if I had an extra $8k an MM would be welcome.
Jean-Michel
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2013, 12:37:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I feel terriby smug that I can enjoy the option of later decisions re. b/w or c.

When I was working, the question was resolved by the client's requirements pre-shoot, so it never intruded as an added concern; now that I'm the client - unfortunately - it seems such a simple choice: shoot whatever turns you on and decide exactly why it did later - don't waste the opportunity in silly head-scratching and procrastination on location - you may never see the same things again.

Thinking about how this colour-or-not-to-colour thing troubles some, it flies me right back to our old buddy Donovan and his theory (which I share); the complications are self-made and far too intelllectual, but without resolving a hot darn thing - they just get in the way and lead to paralysis.

Rob C
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652



« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2013, 03:08:58 PM »
ReplyReply

For electronic photography I've solved the "color or monochrome" dilemma by using EVF cameras that allow me to see & use either one via a button press. I particularly like the Panasonic GX7's mono rendering with a simulated yellow filter. With film I use b&w with rangefinders & my Rolleiflex TLR, color with SLRs. Once my supply of color film runs out I'll go with b&w only. I'm mostly an Ilford guy...HP5+.

-Dave-
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3644



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2013, 04:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a D4. I don't like the color, but it converts superbly to black and white.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2013, 05:02:48 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be interesting to see a comparison between D800(e) and MM, both with "straight" B&W conversions from Nikon and tweaked "artistic" conversions from the same, against the Leica MM output. Resolution AND the "interpretation" compared.
Ming Thein did just that. Personally, I thought the Nikon produced a better dmax (in his tests). I rented an MM for a week and shot it against my M8.2. Frankly I didn't think there was much difference, but I printed the same image made with both cameras and my wife was able to pick out the Monochrom as better. I did not compare files with my own D800, however.
I'm on the fence right now as to whether to get the Monochrom or M. But I have seen some pretty awesome bw conversions from M files.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2013, 03:42:59 AM »
ReplyReply

For electronic photography I've solved the "color or monochrome" dilemma by using EVF cameras that allow me to see & use either one via a button press. I particularly like the Panasonic GX7's mono rendering with a simulated yellow filter. With film I use b&w with rangefinders & my Rolleiflex TLR, color with SLRs. Once my supply of color film runs out I'll go with b&w only. I'm mostly an Ilford guy...HP5+.

-Dave-




Dave, I don't know if it's still in production, but I found Kodak's TXP 120 a better choice for roll than the Ilfords, but conversely, the Ilfords suited my 35mm stuff much better, both for slow as well as fast films. I never understood why, but someone on LuLa once suggested it was a result of lens character - makes a sort of sensible basis for thought! FWIW, I felt that the Kodak had a sharper grain, where the Ilford sort of 'rolled' and looked softer and less harsh with people pix.

All films were developed in D76 1+1 with the times changed to suit the films, and none matched the Kodak recommendations at 68/70 degrees F. I found most stuff printed on grade 2 papers or, at a stetch, grade 3 when I wanted a bit more contrast.

Lots of geeks poo-pooed the idea of one develpweer, and for them it may not have been the way to go, but it worked for me, saved money because the stuff never lay long enough to go off, and it avoided mistakes which can easily happen with too many variables in a darkroom.

When Kodachrome stopped being processed I went to Ektachrome E100S and found skins great, as well as b/w conversions from scans (CanoScan FS4000US) that I made. I believe that that film, too, has joned the delightful dodo. I have scanned the odd Velvia, but find it too extreme much of the time; works well enough in flattish pix but contrast is OTT in good sunlight - at least, IMO.

Rob C
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652



« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2013, 03:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, ISO 320 Tri-X roll film is now out of production. I liked it too. The only 120 Tri-X available is ISO 400...same emulsion as the current 35mm version. The ISO 320 emulsion is still available in sheet form. I've always been a "one developer suits all" kinda guy too. Nowadays I'm using Ilford's ID-11 in powdered form...keeps longer as I tend to shoot film in fits & starts and so mix up just a small batch at a time.

For color I still have a brick or so of Fuji's Astia (also out of production), some recent Provia 100 and some of the current Kodak Portra 400. I don't intend to replenish any of this when it runs out. Oh...I still have five rolls or so left in the freezer of the 1990s Ektachrome 200. That's one I liked a lot for its versatility. I'm quite happy overall with how digicams handle color. Well, at least I've given up on the notion of accurately replicating the look of 1960s Kodachrome...ain't gonna happen unless/until image processing apps incorporate 3D concepts into filmstock emulation.

Way off-topic now!

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad