I didnt trade my MM in but I use the M240 much more often than the MM.i traded my MM for a M240 and did not look back
I really like the experience with the MM and the images shine but I am just not a b&w only guy.
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!
I didnt trade my MM in but I use the M240 much more often than the MM.i traded my MM for a M240 and did not look back
Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica."Avoid overexposing highlights- you can't recover truly blown highlights".- Brad.
This HAS to be emphasized, because this MM is a new learning experience when you first get it.
Here's a little exercise that taught me about exposure with this camera in difficult light.
Two RAW images of my sister-in-law reading by a window. One exposed for the highlights, the other a bit more for the shadows. Both look unusable, but the image exposed for the outside highlights was just fine. The other one is indeed unrecoverable.
I use LR because I was on Windoze when it first came out, though I've moved to Mac now. I did try Aperture, but just didn't get the hang of it, and didn't want to complicate my life even more.Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica.
go Figure
I'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.Whilst I spent a year testing the MM and using Lightroom I also came to the same conclusion - blown highlights are simply gone . . . . . until Apple supported the DNG files in Aperture . . . where the blown highlights are just as recoverable as they are with any other DNG files from Leica.
go Figure
This was my thought too.I'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.
Not sure how Aperture can produce more dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing, but I'm all ears if it can.:thumbup:
IMO, "Blown" means exposed so no data was recorded in the last two or so highlight zones.
Of course MarcI'd also be interested in how software can recover blown highlights, since if they can be recovered, they weren't blown in the first place.
Not sure how Aperture can produce more dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing, but I'm all ears if it can.:thumbup:
IMO, "Blown" means exposed so no data was recorded in the last two or so highlight zones.
Thanks,
-Marc
Well, of course, if the pixels are truly 255,255,255 as Brad says (and Marc so trenchantly pointed out) , there's nothing in the world which will recover anything. . . and no, the Monochrom doesn't have 3 colour channels - but I guess that a block of very nearly white is actually a mixture of 255 pixels and some which are something marginally less than that. Perhaps LR simply reduces the whole of the block to grey, whereas Aperture leaves the blown pixels as white for a while whilst darkening the 'almost white' pixels?Thanks, Jono; I understand what you are saying, but I'm still very puzzled.
I thought that "recovery" (or reduce exposure) worked in colour dngs (and other raw files) because usually only one colour channel was blown, and the "recovery" came from the other two.
But, surely, the Monochrom doesn't have three colour channels? And once the information is gone, it stays gone? How can Aperture "recover" something that wasn't there in the first place? Or is it just that Aperture's histogram differs from that in LR?
What am I not understanding here?
I did a fairly extensive review of Arte di Mano Cases and Straps a while back. They're the best half cases on the market currently, bar none. The fit and finish is exemplary. Only half case I've seen that actually "snaps" into position, the fit is that good.I thought some here would like to see the silver mono with an "Arte di Mano Aventino Half Case...
I use only Aperture and have since it first came out. I tried LR briefly when I bought my Monochrom and thankfully at the end of that week Apple updated Aperture to support the Monochrom!Well, of course, if the pixels are truly 255,255,255 as Brad says (and Marc so trenchantly pointed out) , there's nothing in the world which will recover anything. . . and no, the Monochrom doesn't have 3 colour channels - but I guess that a block of very nearly white is actually a mixture of 255 pixels and some which are something marginally less than that. Perhaps LR simply reduces the whole of the block to grey, whereas Aperture leaves the blown pixels as white for a while whilst darkening the 'almost white' pixels?
I don't have any Monochrom files with me here (or processing software either), so I can't show you a comparison - and I'm not likely to get to it for a few days, but it probably bears more investigation - the observation however remains, that in LR reducing the exposure on overexposed files reveals nothing - but in Aperture it does reveal something, and not just grey rather than white. it isn't as much as a colour file, but it is something.
All the best