The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica M Monochromatic Processing Insights

D&A

Well-known member
I can take Jono's files and drag them into LR4 then edit them with SFXPro. I don't do anything else to them first.

Chris
Interesting! Here is why I asked. On a friends system (windows XP), that uses Bridge/CS5 and has installed the original Silver EFX v.1 . The MM DNG's after opening in Bridge and a few basic adjustments are made, are then opened in CS5. At this juncture, Silver EFX v1. will not open on any of those gray scale files unless they are converted to a color space such as sRGB/Adobe 98 etc.

I'm wondering if on his particular system, if it's simply due to using an older version of Silver Efx or something else? In other words, if he upgraded to v2, would he then be able to open a CS5 gray scale image directly in Silver efx with out conversion first to a color space? Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Read his review where he talks about seeing and shooting in black and white. Its totally different from shooting in color then converting. When I was shooting film I spent a lot of time learning and seeing in black and white.
I can't see as there is any difference. I've been shooting film and digital for B&W the same way forever ... I can't turn my eyes into B&W receptors. When I intend to make B&W, I shoot for that. When I intend to make color, I shoot for that. The only difference is that I can be opportunistic ... choose either rendering in post visualization ... but I don't have to let that affect my frame of mind when I'm shooting.
 

chrism

Well-known member
Interesting! Here is why I asked. On a friends system (windows XP), that uses Bridge/CS5 and has installed the original Silver EFX v.1 . The MM DNG's after opening in Bridge and a few basic adjustments are made, are then opened in CS5. At this juncture, Silver EFX v1. will not open on any of those gray scale files unless they are converted to a color space such as sRGB/Adobe 98 etc.

I'm wondering if on his particular system, if it's simply due to using an older version of Silver Efx or something else? In other words, if he upgraded to v2, would he then be able to open a CS5 gray scale image directly in Silver efx with out conversion first to a color space? Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
Well, I will confess to using SFXPro v1 on the first of Jono's examples, then rushing out to buy v2 even though I will get a free download in August. On my Mac, v1 opened the DNG's with no extra step in between. Perhaps it is a Mac/Windows thing? I think there is a time limited download of v2 available from Nik so he can see if it makes the difference. I just opened one of Jono's files that is in LR4 with CS5, and it shows the 'mode' as being RGB Color without me doing anything to it. So there may be some difference in the way a Windows system treats these files?

Chris
 

cam

Active member
as an aside

Once again, I find myself poking my nose in where it doesn't belong. In spite of what appears to be a very high degree of sharpness and maybe even an extended tonal range, I find the MM files to be lifeless.

That statement reflects my own fascination with and desire for the ability of a camera (or camera/film combination) to reproduce the subtle magical qualities of natural light. Maybe it is simply my own mistaken perception, but I find myself drawn to the extra measure of reality that some photographs allow by hinting at or exactly duplicating a sense of "real" light. When it all comes together, the subtlety of light and shadow can illicit a feeling of something familiar, almost like a memory.

I encounter that "magic" most often in images captured with film. Digital conversions to B&W (in general) and the MM sample images never quite seem to live up to the tonal realism that film allowed.

The alternatives Marc provided are indeed an improvement in terms of a "real black". But to my eye, that benefit comes at a cost. The resulting images have a look and feel that seems artificial, at times reminding me of the darkroom days when I was forced to print a thin negative on a paper grade higher in contrast than I would have liked.

In an era where photographers like John Paul Caponigro are posting pictures taken with an iPhone and run through Hipstamatic on their Facebook pages, maybe the processed effect of the MM files and other B&W conversions are perfectly acceptable. But I can't help thinking that if what you really want is stunning B&W, film is still the king.
there's no doubt i love b/w film -- the look, the tones, the smell, the touch, etc... i don't shoot it because i often find my best images are Hail Mary shots that i never would have taken on film and/or paused long enough to think about it and the moment would be gone.

so i got my hands, briefly, on an MM yesterday.

i did something i have been dying to do from the moment it was announced: i shot in the dark.

well, as close to the dark as i could find, that is... i put my pre-asph 50 Lux on the camera and begged an lovely lady i'd been working in the service bureau with to crawl under her desk... set at auto-ISO (and -1/3 EV), i focused on her beautiful big eyes with the camera wide open, as close as i could get.

whilst my Lux is not quite as good as the Nocti at finding light in the darkness, it isn't a slouch by any means. her eye was perfectly in focus and you could see each lash at 3200. her face had an other-wordly glow to it, with a fine mist of grain (noise) in the contours. and oh the tonalities!

the reasons i can't share with you is two-fold. one, i honoured the rep's request that i not shoot with my own card; and, two, i honoured her request that it be deleted immediately.

still, after working the M8 and the M9 for years, i've gotten pretty good at judging what i've got on the (pathetic) screen in b/w. 3200, to my eye, was more like well-exposed 800 on the M9... i can see myself regularly using 3200, 5000, maybe even 6400 to keep the shutter speeds up in dark bars.

is this film? no. but what i got was something special unto itself.
 

chrism

Well-known member
Re: as an aside

is this film? no. but what i got was something special unto itself.
Which is why I'm here, and probably one or two others. How tantalising for you to see the photo on the LCD but not to be able to keep it and play with it. You have come a little closer to the grail than the rest of us have on this quest.

Chris
 

white.elephant

New member
Once again, I find myself poking my nose in where it doesn't belong. --snip--

In an era where photographers like John Paul Caponigro are posting pictures taken with an iPhone and run through Hipstamatic on their Facebook pages, maybe the processed effect of the MM files and other B&W conversions are perfectly acceptable. But I can't help thinking that if what you really want is stunning B&W, film is still the king.
Film might still be king, and I shoot film 95% of the time, and I agree with your thoughts about film and light, but the images I've seen out of the Monochrom camera look pretty darn good to my eye. :salute:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I no longer care about the whole "film vs digital" horsepucky. I think it's pure distraction and a waste of time. Film looks the way it does because of its nature, digital looks the way it does based on how you render it. Get skilled with either and you create beautiful photos. End of story.

What you're buying with an MM is two stops of speed and a stop of dynamic range, in exchange for color capability, when all is said and done. If that suits your needs and desires, it's worth the price.
 

skimmel

Member
What you're buying with an MM is two stops of speed and a stop of dynamic range, in exchange for color capability, when all is said and done. If that suits your needs and desires, it's worth the price.
I've seen good examples of the extra speed, and I've seen good examples of extra resolution (Sean Reid's review being the best in my opinion). But, I keep hearing about increased dynamic range -- why is this and are there examples to demonstrate the increased dr?

Thanks.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I no longer care about the whole "film vs digital" horsepucky. I think it's pure distraction and a waste of time. Film looks the way it does because of its nature, digital looks the way it does based on how you render it. Get skilled with either and you create beautiful photos. End of story.

What you're buying with an MM is two stops of speed and a stop of dynamic range, in exchange for color capability, when all is said and done. If that suits your needs and desires, it's worth the price.
I surprised myself by bringing it up. Maybe it was because the OP started the thread by demonstrating processing alternatives that allowed for a true black. With no offense meant to any of the contributors, I couldn't help but notice that in most of the examples shown, film would have done a better job.

I can see the attraction for more speed and I completely embrace the digital workflow. However, I've yet to see a photo from an MM that justifies the cost.

Since you seem comfortable providing your opinion on any matter as the "end of story", I'll be bold and simply state that given the examples shown to date, the Leica MM is tantamount to the "Emperor's New Camera". The more people talk about it, the more they convince themselves of its magnificence.

Tim
 

cam

Active member
Since you seem comfortable providing your opinion on any matter as the "end of story", I'll be bold and simply state that given the examples shown to date, the Leica MM is tantamount to the "Emperor's New Camera". The more people talk about it, the more they convince themselves of its magnificence.
Tim, i totally get where you're coming from and agree on a lot of your points, but...

is the camera magnificent? lol! i promise i will take it into absurdly low light situations and prove that it is merely mortal. however, i will get a lot more than what i have now, whilst not having to buy new lenses.

i know i am in a distinct minority, but i need this camera because 2500, f1, -EV is still not fast enough for the situations i want to use it in (not to mention the extreme and ugly noise, blocked up shadows, etc. i get with it).

by the time this comes out, i'm sure the M10 will be announced and many will jump ship.

for me, though, as a b/w shooter, i don't think i can expect better (nor am i quite so fickle)... still, i'm really going to need to shoot this in darkness and process my own images before i make the final call.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Well, I will confess to using SFXPro v1 on the first of Jono's examples, then rushing out to buy v2 even though I will get a free download in August. On my Mac, v1 opened the DNG's with no extra step in between. Perhaps it is a Mac/Windows thing? I think there is a time limited download of v2 available from Nik so he can see if it makes the difference. I just opened one of Jono's files that is in LR4 with CS5, and it shows the 'mode' as being RGB Color without me doing anything to it. So there may be some difference in the way a Windows system treats these files?

Chris
Chris, thanks for posting your observations regarding this. One thing that still confuses me is whethernon a Mac or PC, how could the MM DNG files open in a color space when they I believe are In the working space "gray scale", from what I understand....and that's the way they open in Bridge/CS5 on a XP PC. Hard to imagine that a Mac automatically coverts them to a color space upon opening unless their post processing software is instructed to do that upon opening these images.

Let's assume the MM DNG's are originally in gray scale out of the camera (I think Jono mentioned this somewheres)...then that brings me back to my original question if the Silver Efx program that will come with the MM, is simply an off the shelf version or not, since all Silver Efx programs so far need the image in a color space to work. Thanks again.

Dave (D&A)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I've seen good examples of the extra speed, and I've seen good examples of extra resolution (Sean Reid's review being the best in my opinion). But, I keep hearing about increased dynamic range -- why is this and are there examples to demonstrate the increased dr?
Dynamic range decreases as ISO increases. You can measure this by doing a set of test exposures at each ISO setting.

Since I don't own an MM, I made an exposure on similar subject matter to Jono's ISO 10,000 bookshelf shot and in similar light levels with the M9 set to ISO 2500. I also made a reference exposure of the same subject at ISO 160.

Looking at the images with Lightroom and Photoshop after trivial rendering to B&W, what I see in the two high ISO exposures is virtually identical detailing and dynamic range. Examining my ISO 160 image of the same subject, I see two stops more dynamic range. Looking at another of Jono's images at ISO 320, the MM's native sensitivity, I estimate about three stops more DR.

So as a first order approximation, 2 stops of speed and a stop more DR seems about the right ballpark to me. It's an interesting tradeoff to have that rather than full color capability.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I surprised myself by bringing it up. Maybe it was because the OP started the thread by demonstrating processing alternatives that allowed for a true black. With no offense meant to any of the contributors, I couldn't help but notice that in most of the examples shown, film would have done a better job.

I can see the attraction for more speed and I completely embrace the digital workflow. However, I've yet to see a photo from an MM that justifies the cost.

Since you seem comfortable providing your opinion on any matter as the "end of story", I'll be bold and simply state that given the examples shown to date, the Leica MM is tantamount to the "Emperor's New Camera". The more people talk about it, the more they convince themselves of its magnificence.
You can give your opinion as an "end of story" too. It simply is not a fact, it's an opinion. Just like the opinion that "film would have done a better job" is also just an opinion and not a fact. If it's a fact, you better find a way to prove it.

The MM is a niche camera that provides an interesting set of advantages in trade for other capabilities. The sneer that it is "the Emperor's New Camera" is another of your opinions.

I'm not ordering an MM, nor do I think it's some odd kind of magical camera device that I must have. I've used monochrome digital cameras before and found them interesting, fun to work with. The MM piques my curiosity. An XP2 Monochrom would pique my curiosity more as it would be a much less expensive niche camera.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
for me, though, as a b/w shooter, i don't think i can expect better (nor am i quite so fickle)... still, i'm really going to need to shoot this in darkness and process my own images before i make the final call.
Cam: In your hands, the MM will have its best possible chance to be magnificent. I look forward to seeing your images!

Best,
Tim
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I surprised myself by bringing it up. Maybe it was because the OP started the thread by demonstrating processing alternatives that allowed for a true black. With no offense meant to any of the contributors, I couldn't help but notice that in most of the examples shown, film would have done a better job.

I can see the attraction for more speed and I completely embrace the digital workflow. However, I've yet to see a photo from an MM that justifies the cost.

Since you seem comfortable providing your opinion on any matter as the "end of story", I'll be bold and simply state that given the examples shown to date, the Leica MM is tantamount to the "Emperor's New Camera". The more people talk about it, the more they convince themselves of its magnificence.

Tim
Tim, you touch on many good points, that in turn can touch a nerve or two ;)

For the most part, I agree with you. B&W film hasn't been equalled or beat to date, and I seriously doubt this camera will be the one to do it either ... no matter who's hands it is in. However, this is a brand new camera with a very different digital discipline which no one has had all that much time with yet. I'm sure with more use, more will be forthcoming as it comes into its own, not as a comparison to film ... into its own.

The aesthetic qualities of B&W film/analog printing set the standard, and either we accept a different but equal standard, or accept that B&W aesthetic can never be beaten, and move on. Personally, the latter is what I did ... but I went out on a high note shooting a 203FE and B&W film before selling the whole kit.

To be perfectly honest, I feel digital and all the technological rubbish is part of the dumbing down of photography to its lowest common denominator ... being too lazy I've gone along with it, and I don't feel all that bad about it either. It is what it is, so make the best of it rather than longing for the good old days ... which usually involves a lot of selective memory :ROTFL:

I'm not completely convinced about this MM camera yet. I have one on order for the same reasons as others ... mainly shooting in places where using a M rangefinder (film or digital) was a no go. Whether that it is worth it or not is the $8,000 question.

-Marc
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Tim, i totally get where you're coming from and agree on a lot of your points, but...

is the camera magnificent? lol! i promise i will take it into absurdly low light situations and prove that it is merely mortal. however, i will get a lot more than what i have now, whilst not having to buy new lenses.

i know i am in a distinct minority, but i need this camera because 2500, f1, -EV is still not fast enough for the situations i want to use it in (not to mention the extreme and ugly noise, blocked up shadows, etc. i get with it).

by the time this comes out, i'm sure the M10 will be announced and many will jump ship.

for me, though, as a b/w shooter, i don't think i can expect better (nor am i quite so fickle)... still, i'm really going to need to shoot this in darkness and process my own images before i make the final call.
Cam, you are very much echoing my thoughts on this camera. One of my biggest frustrations with my M8 and then my M9 was an inability to spend more time in the shadows. When the sun sets and light gets to a certain point, I walked away from endless black and white shots that I wanted to take with a digital M. The night has a life of its own as the interaction between people and light and dark become more exaggerated. I've always wanted to explore that place with a digital M and M lenses. Hello ISO 10,000 ... I'm excited about the possibilities that are calling.
 

WPalank

New member
Hey guys,

Late to the discussion. I was called early in the morning last Friday by our Leica Rep for Northern California that I have also taught a few Leica Akademies with, Tom Brichta. He stated excitedly that Leica had overnighted him a Prototype M that he would be bringing to a camera shop in Palo Alto along with X2 and a S2 he always has with him.
He asked if I could stop by and answer peoples questions on the M9 and at the same time I could use the camera for a while.
Unfortunately, I got there a little later than planned and by that I mean a lot of people had had their hands on the camera. So I think some things had been set in the menus that I forgot to reset. I did however figure out I was shooting in JPEG after a while and got to DNG. Also, someone had increased EV by almost a stop. Anyway, by the time I was figuring these things out I had a bunch of people over my shoulder as I was trying to shoot my wife outside. My reason for this long tirade is that I couldn't just relax with the camera and do a complete reset. So the shots that I got off were not my best work.

I was confused by some of the posts earlier on and have not had time to download Jonos shots. What I did find was that SEP2 worked fine for me including the presets and control points. Remember SEP2 is an external editor and will create a DNG not a TIFF and that may be some of the confusion I'm seeing.

Now I have to go back several weeks ago. I was lucky enough to have Nik software (who makes SEP2 along with a bunch of great plug-ins) flew me down for the day to San Diego from San Francisco. I was picked up at the airport and in the office by 9:30AM and trained for the entire day by their chief educational presenter Janice Wendt. You can see her on many of the videos they have on the website. It was an amazing experience.

This was the day after M launch. so she could tell me that the engineers had the M files for quite some time. The software, SEP, will be shipped with the cameras. But what is odd is that the whole educational development team told me that the control points would not work with the M files. However, having just got my hands on creating my own files this last weekend, I can verify that the U-Point technology DOES work on the files. However, we have all been shooting with the Prototype. I think the Nik team said that Leica had decided to change the DNG files at the last moment. Unfortunately, Janice went out for surgical leave the week after I was down there and will be out for another two weeks. No one seems to know anything about this at Leica NJ, especially with Christian having left his position.

So anyway, I would love clarification on this matter. And to cut to the chase, I would share DNGs but they are crap.
 

WPalank

New member
Sorry, wanted to add one other thing. Janice suggests that if you are going to use one of the Nik filters, be it SEP2 or anything that has a "Structure" slider. She suggests you use no "Clarity" in ACR or LR, as their team feels the algorithm is much smarter in the Nik filter, when looking at the specific camera file and achieving a similar result.
 

m_driscoll

New member
WPalank: Thanks for the information. The 'u-point' technology does seem to work fine in SEP2 with the MM file ('selective colorization', excepted).

"Remember SEP2 is an external editor and will create a DNG not a TIFF and that may be some of the confusion I'm seeing."
In LR4, when I edit a DNG in SEP2, the options are to change it to a TIFF, PSD, or JPEG for editing in SEP2?

Anymore information re: this statement: "However, we have all been shooting with the Prototype. I think the Nik team said that Leica had decided to change the DNG files at the last moment." How would changing the DNG files affect processing in SEP2? Isn't a 'DNG' file a fixed standard?

M-Monochrom; 50mm f/1.4; 1/1000s; ISO 400


Cheers, Matt

Zenfolio | Matt Driscoll
 

VICTOR BT

Member
@ marc, most pics available from MM are dull, flat, and sterile. but a better processing like in your samples makes them look much better.

i also would like to have sample DNG files to see how they go in LR, please (Jono) :)

as black and white enthusiast, i use b/w film for all my art projects, knowing the qualities and the impact of the hand crafted b/w print. it is beyond the technical aspects of camera and film. a digital camera that records monochrome makes sense from several technical reasons as mentioned above, but the highest merit of such a camera is Print. does it have the impact of traditional fine print - in richness, organic feel, luminosity, tactility etc? the camera is a link in the chain with processing and printing (media, tech). if the new camera files do add to the impact of the print, whether equivalent to the traditional print, or some new qualities that are equally thrilling, then this is a really interesting craftsman's new tool.
 
Top