Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    I promised to do this, but I'm not totally happy. Dusk was gathering, and the stiff winds of today hadn't really died down enough.

    Added to which the M9 file is slightly underexposed.

    To get the files:
    Click on the Downloads link on the top right

    These are a quick and dirty conversion of each -





    you might like to decide which is which before you look at the exif.

    If everyone is interested . . . but unsatisfied with these files, then I'll try and have another go tomorrow (if the wind drops!)

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Thanks again. We'll probably be unsatisfied, but only because we want more files to play with
    flickr
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Jono, once again very much looking forward to working with these files when I get back to a regular computer. No worries whatsoever regarding prevailing winds (so to speak)....it's simply at this point to get an idea of the differences between the two cameras in regards to obtaining B&W output as a final product to work with. You deserve a lot of graditude from all of us. Thanks!

    Dave (D&A)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Absolutely, share Dave's gratitude for all of these files to work with Jono... this has been a blast

    Very interesting comparison, I thought the M9 files would be at a significant advantage for separating elements of the image using colour filters... but the tonality in the MM files is so finely graduated, along with the obvious sharper detail I think it stands out as better quality - especially at full scale.

    Posting both images here, processed similarly.





    Thanks again Jono, you're a star.

    Brian

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Hi all... I joined this forum specifically to post on this thread. I'm an amateur photographer who's worked as a colorist in a high-level video post production facility for about 30 years and I've been using an M9 for about 1.5 years. I like it for its size and mechanics. Before getting it, I shot with an M4, a Hexar RF and a Rollei TLR.

    After developing both DNGs with ACR 5.7 using the default sharpening, I converted the M9 image to B&W in PS CS4 using a B&W adjustment layer, then superimposed it on the MM image and aligned the two. After using adjustment layers to try to match the appearance of the images more closely, I printed small prints (9"x6") and 100% crops of each using an Epson 3880, Imageprint and Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk paper.

    Here are some observations:

    1. On screen, the MM image seems clearly sharper than the M9 and that difference is most apparent when viewing at 200 or 300 percent.

    2. After printing I studied the prints both with and without a loupe and then showed them to my wife, who was the art director at a record company for many years. She has been looking at great photos, both as prints and on screen, for all those years. She's not particularly technical and is definitely not a pixel peeper. She was not able to tell which was which. In the printed 100% crops, the sharpness difference was visible to me but not startling. When looking at portions of the image, she sometimes believed that the M9 print appeared sharper because those areas of the M9 print had stronger local contrast.

    What I got from this exercise: Point 1 above indicates to me that MM files might easily be printed larger than M9 files. For example, I sized the files from 240 to 480 dpi using Alien Skin Blow Up 2, which would be about a 30x20 print at 360 dpi. This may sound silly but it seems to my eye that the MM file up-rezed in this way appears about as sharp as the M9 file at its native resolution. So, MM may mean very much larger prints. But I don't print that large. I guess what has me excited is the possibility of increased sharpness along with the huge ISO advantage of an MM in low light.

    FWIW
    Ed

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    +1 thanks Jono! The M-M is definitely showing superiority. I think for people that want larger prints, especially in low light conditions, it's amazing.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Ed, thanks for doing this -- terrifically helpful!

    Besides sharpness, could your wife see any differences in the prints?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Quote Originally Posted by skimmel View Post
    Ed, thanks for doing this -- terrifically helpful!

    Besides sharpness, could your wife see any differences in the prints?
    well, playing with these files is a blast. to answer your question, she noted differences in contrast, which was my doing. my grayscale conversion of the M9 image was reasonable but not more. in particular, my M9 leaves were somewhat darker than the MM leaves.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Thanks Ed. I guess what I'm wondering is if there was anything about the MM files that distinguished them from the M9 in the "overall gestalt"-reaction?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    I'd have to say no, not for her. For me, yes.

    I want to correct something I said in the previous post: the leaves were brighter in the M9 conversion to gray scale than in the MM file. This was, of course, my doing.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Thanks Ed. What was the main difference in your eyes?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    To me, the main differences had to do with contrast, which is to say my problem of matching a color file to a monochrome file. That one file is sharper than the other can go unnoticed because of these contrast differences.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    Absolutely, share Dave's gratitude for all of these files to work with Jono... this has been a blast

    Very interesting comparison, I thought the M9 files would be at a significant advantage for separating elements of the image using colour filters... but the tonality in the MM files is so finely graduated, along with the obvious sharper detail I think it stands out as better quality - especially at full scale.


    Brian
    I just got back to a regular computer moments ago and downloaded each DNG, but haven't yet worked with them yet. Based on what I see in Brian's comparison visually, is one striking difference. Look on the left side of the MM image for the octagon shaped fence and it's almost disappeared from the M9 image. Same thing where there are holes in the bushes behind the bike. With the MM, there is significantly more details (small branches and little leaves) in these areas whereas it's almost black holes with the M9. Obviously the gray scale gradations are more spread out and gradual with the MM vs. the M9 which of course implies greater dynamic range. No surprises there. If this is representitive of most MM imagery, then for B&W work, I find this as important as it's increased level of sharpness, maybe more so.

    At this point I might want to rescind my thanks to Jono for posting the DNG's....since at some point in the future, my bank acc't may be depleted of an additional $8000.00! Gee thanks Jono, I think....LOL!

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 23rd May 2012 at 11:14.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MM DNG compared to M9 DNG

    Once again Jono, thank you so much for doing this!

    I took both files and tried to maximize them to my liking -- separate from each other. I did one and then the next, without referring back to the first.

    A few points: I found it easier to edit the M9 because, well, I'm used to editing M9 files as I own one (I also just finished a project where I converted about 80 color images to B&W). The MM files -- I had to think about differently. Used the selective tone adjustments in LR4 mostly with some selective tonal changes. Both images I then sharpened as I would most B&W files for printing. Of note, I found the MM file to be too bright on the bottom so I used a grad filter to even things out.

    I have no idea how this will look once uploaded, but to my eye on my monitor (haven't printed yet), I like the look of the MM better. Clearly it's got better resolution, but it's the midtones and transitions across tone within the mid-range that I think makes the biggest difference.

    First is M9 and 2nd is MM. I didn't know how to post these larger, but if you click on each you should get larger image.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •