Mono owners -tell me your feelings....

[rayyen]

Just love my mono

 

[onaujee]

@rayyen - beautiful set wow...

 

[Robert Campbell]

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

Tried a few "tests" yesterday, with deliberate over-exposure. In LR, no amount of fiddling with exposure or highlight recovery brought back any detail in the over-exposed areas—I had some normal and slightly underexposed pix of the same things to compare.

I'll be interested to see just what Aperture can do.

 

[fotografz]

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

Sorry for the "trenchant" response Jono, I didn't mean to be that pointed because I am open to knowing whether there is a better way. Unfortunately, I'm way down the road with LR, and all I've learned about it (I think there are ways to deal with almost blown highlights in LR also). So, ramping up another Software solution just for the few times I may have to deal with highlight areas, is not likely.

The Mono files are so malleable in the shadow areas that it seems best to just avoid the possibility of over-exposing the highlights. My tendency these days is to use LR for the most basic adjustments and swiftly move to Nik with its myriad heal-toe and contrast response options, tinting applications and refined B&W local tool adjustments, I rarely need extensive work in LR.

PP experiences that may be of interest to some,

if you have the complete set of Nik software that Google offered when it bought Nik, using a Mono file that you have processed in LR and/or Nik Silver Efex, then take it into Nik Color Efex and play around with some of the pre-sets … of particular interest is "Detail Extractor" which, when used with care and a subtile touch, will reveal just how much image data is in these files. I use it on white wedding dresses all the time to bring out super fine lace detail.

I have all the Nik software as plug-ins in Photoshop and use them there rather than LR because PS creates a layer to work with.

Here's another tip I learned with the MM files when working in PS, use the Gamma Correction slider rather than levels or curves when working with a selected area … it is very sensitive and recovers highlights amazingly well: Image > Adjustments> Exposure > Gamma Correction.

- Marc

 

[D&A]

Great Info Marc, thank you! It certainly would work with virtually any digital cameras B&W files with regards to blown highlights and detail recovery. I too use these Nik filters in PS for the very reason you mentioned...layers.

Now all this would of course work even better if I had a Monochrom...LOL! Hopefully someday.

Dave (D&A)

 

[asiafish]

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

Really?

Wow, I need to fire up Aperture and check this out.

 

[bradhusick]

Here's a quick example of pulling up the shadows on a MM file in LR. Amazing what's in there.

 

[erudolph]

Here's an extreme example of what the Monochrom can do. This was the MM + the 50mm AA taken soon after I got the lens. Totally mismetered. We see the original image file, the file pushed into usability in LR4, and then a 100% crop. Amazing, yes?

It's a great camera.

 

[erudolph]

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 just took an image with overexposed forehead highlights into LR 5, Aperture and Capture One. Clearly, Aperture and Capture One did a better job of dealing with those hot spots.

 

[alajuela]

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

Hello Jono

I have been thinking about what you found, It is possible that Aperture is treating the blown highlights 255 -255 -255 as out of out-of-gamut colors, as in a Perceptual rendering intent.
Possibly an algorithmic formula preserving some relationship say between 255 until 235. Moving the values (blending) while preserving the relationship in that range. That high in zone 9 -10 based on the surrounding areas (especially in B+W) which is all luminosity, it should blend in if the algorithm is written correct.
So at least your are not printing paper white.
There are some members, who write raw converters here, they would be interesting to hear from

Thanks

Phil

PS I love my monochrome also. - Just picked up an old Summar (1935) and a Summitar as old as I am

 

[Shashin]

Hello Jono

I have been thinking about what you found, It is possible that Aperture is treating the blown highlights 255 -255 -255 as out of out-of-gamut colors, as in a Perceptual rendering intent.
Possibly an algorithmic formula preserving some relationship say between 255 until 235. Moving the values (blending) while preserving the relationship in that range. That high in zone 9 -10 based on the surrounding areas (especially in B+W) which is all luminosity, it should blend in if the algorithm is written correct.
So at least your are not printing paper white.
There are some members, who write raw converters here, they would be interesting to hear from

Thanks

Phil

PS I love my monochrome also. - Just picked up an old Summar (1935) and a Summitar as old as I am

Phil, saturation is an absolute limit--there is no 256, 256, 256 coordinate in a gamut. And that point needs to be a white point or it makes little sense. You also what to print to paper white as that is the white point in a print.

But if you think in 8-bit, then it hard to imagine how much can be done. But in 14-bit, what a single level from 254 to 255 in 8-bit is 226 levels in 14-bit. When you know that to create a stepless gradient from black to white only requires about 200 levels of grey, there can be a lot of information in the highlights. The trick is how to tease out that information. Tones in an image are relational and, without things like masking, you cannot change that relationship in any way and still come out with something that looks pleasing or natural. However, it is certainly possible for different software to tease out highlights in different ways.

 

[alajuela]

Phil, saturation is an absolute limit--there is no 256, 256, 256 coordinate in a gamut. And that point needs to be a white point or it makes little sense. You also what to print to paper white as that is the white point in a print.

But if you think in 8-bit, then it hard to imagine how much can be done. But in 14-bit, what a single level from 254 to 255 in 8-bit is 226 levels in 14-bit. When you know that to create a stepless gradient from black to white only requires about 200 levels of grey, there can be a lot of information in the highlights. The trick is how to tease out that information. Tones in an image are relational and, without things like masking, you cannot change that relationship in any way and still come out with something that looks pleasing or natural. However, it is certainly possible for different software to tease out highlights in different ways.

Thanks Will - I was thinking possibly that Aperture was treating the blown highlights (255) as an out of gamut color in Perceptual* rendering (as opposed to colorimetric) . Pulling back the 255 to say 248 and fading in until 235 +/-

But what you say makes sense, and it appears that Aperture is reading the Leica DNG files better than ACR. Drawing out the information in the highlight range - hence more detail in the extreme highlights 235 - 248.

I think I was over thinking it

Thanks

Phil

 

[Robert Campbell]

A sort of related question to the blown highlights.

I understand that in a colour image, the colour value of a pixel is based on averaging its neighbours. In a purely monochrome image is this still necessary? And if so, why? Surely, in a monochrome image, a pixel is nothing more than a photon counter.

Or, not for the first time, have I misunderstood something?

 

[Shashin]

Robert, you are right--pixels are just photon counters in mono. Still, there is a great deal of potential information in the highlights. So regardless if we have three color channels or one luminance channel, the problem is the same to tease out the highlights. And maybe that is the clue. Perhaps one program is wanting the channel information to do the recovery and, without that, it is not as effective--color channels do not clip at the same point and it is possible to interpolate from unclipped channels (I imagine the blue channel to be key here). Just a guess. Without knowing what the designers are doing, it is hard to be sure.

 

[bradhusick]

The monochrom is so good at noise control that it's just best to underexpose and make sure you don't blow the highlights.

 

[Double Negative]

The monochrom is so good at noise control that it's just best to underexpose and make sure you don't blow the highlights.

Agreed. There's so much shadow detail that can be readily pulled out that there's just no need to get that close to the right side of the histogram.

Granted, you don't want to necessarily "expose to the left" either...

 

[asiafish]

I've never been so enthusiastic about any camera before, it just encourages me to explore the possibilities of line, texture, light, shadow, contrast, everything. It is simply inspiring.

 

[rayyen]

Rework my 35 & 50 LuxA to match with my new Chrom Mono...

 

[bradhusick]

Rayyen, you decided to go with titanium finished lenses rather than silver chrome?

 

[FrozenInTime]

The MM brings back all the fun of the darkroom ... including spotting ( must clean those dozen or so large oil marks off my sensor )