Leica M Monochrom: best pics

[Jager]

"The Numbers of the Dead"

[Jager]

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

The title says " Leica M Monochrom: best pics"... What's wrong for suggesting a couple of things to make the pictures look better, to exhibit the Monochromes capabilities better?

Perhaps thats the issue...it's not showing off the monochrome's base charectoristics, it is showing off people's work from the camera. People's take on using the camera in their style. Just like all or photography, you'll like some of it and not like the rest.

[understatement]

Originally Posted by Richard G

The Monochrom lives on. One of my frustrations with this thread is that I don't have the entry criterion to post a picture! But Kristian and Jeff and Peter and others have set the bar so high so it's just as well.

MORE PICTURES PLEASE.

Your wish is my command.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Kristian,

It's obvious you have a good eye and I appreciate your efforts to contribute to this forum. However I believe if you pay a little more attention to your processing then your contribution to us to appreciate the merits of the Monochrome would be better. (Hopefully you would not feel offended.)

He is "paying attention to his processing." He's processing it so that it conforms to how he sees the scene.

This sort of "critique" certainly isnt going to help him become a better photographer. IMO, he's already better than 99.9% of most of the people here. I'm certain he knows it too. He has a vision and style particular him himself. I suspect as well that he is intimately knowledgable re: tones, tonal relationships etc. You're not telling him something he doesnt already know.

Nothing as well against the poster who posted the picture of the woman's back to suggest how he might do something, but the contrast between what Kristian is posting and what others are is so obvious as to need no mention.

There are two steps to the maturation of any visual artist: 1. Learning the aesthetic "rules." 2. Learning how to surmount the "rules" in service to ones' aesthetic vision. With all due respect, most folks remain stuck on 1, while Kristian is way past that.

[jamato8]

Interesting thread and oh, interesting images. :^)

I do find the images by various artists here enjoyable to view. I have always been more a fan of contrast, having used 3 paper a lot, in years past and agitating during film processing, a little more. All in the balance though but that balance is within each one of us to decide. What is fun, is to see how each one of us views that balance and I am so glad we all view it a little differently. I took an Ansel Adams shop years ago but for the most part, I find his images rather static. I could have purchased some of his images for around 20 dollars. I wish I had gotten a few but they just didn't click with me.

So goes each of our preferences and yet our ability enjoy, or not, our different view of this life.

[rover]

Sorry that actions some times are necessary, and glad to see the thread moving forward. I deleted some ridiculous posts.

[D&A]

As a long time B&W shooter with film, (but strictly digital these days), I'm of the opinion that the look and appeal of many B&W images (especially those from using film and going through the complete wet process from start to print), is extremely subjective. Even if 10 B&W shooters are given the same negative shot on a given film stock and then told to print it up....you'd end up with 10 very different looking prints. Sometimes the differences would be extreme. Throw in this mix, the same image shot on 10 diffferent kinds of film stock and have each of those 10 photographers print up each of the images, you's have 100 different looking interpretations...some similar, some different and some as extremely different as one can imagine.

Same thing with taking a color digital file and handing it out for conversion to B&W and then printed (or shown on the web). With color, generally there is more of a narrow range for interpretation. Yes, there are some differences, but a red car will always be interpreted as some hue of red. Same as the blue sky. Hues, contrast as such may be adjusted differently but all the images generally will have more in common than "said" B&W images I cited as an example and outlined above. It may be B&W, but I've seen the same image printed so differently, that some tones of a given piece of the image ran the gamut from deep deep gray, to very light grey and everything in-between. Color filters on the lens enhanced these differences even greater.

I think what is a bit lost with looking at files from the MM vs. say the M9 or other color digital cameras, is the advanatges of the MM files as related to a wide variety of B&W looks when compared to these other color digital cameras. Kristian outlined in words, some of the differences he has found. Since the MM, like any color digital camera files converted to B&W, it generally has to have its output worked on in post processing to achieve some sort of reasonable "look", so looking at files directly out of the MM, really doesn't indicate much with regards to a final product. Additionally, I beleive a more true comparison of MM files vs. M9, would have to be where very similar images of a subject, is taken with both cameras at the same time and then this pair of files given to a number of photographers, instructed to adjust, so the output of the pair of files from a given photographer is as simlar as possible but at the same time adjusted to their own particular interpretation.

This is where the photographer comes in...no different than the choice film based photographers have to make, not only with paper stocks and chemicals for the print, but their choice in film. All I can think of is "subjectivity" comes to mind and if an image is successful to most peoples "eyes", aside from the actual subject matter, people will let it be known and graviate towards it. Again this is not dogma, just my own personal belief.

Dave (D&A)

[CK Dexter Haven]

I don't know if this is funny or sad. This, below, and Fogiel's comment and 'example' photo....

Is the purpose of this thread to glorify a piece of hardware, or to demonstrate actual photography that might be done with it? The pictures are "overly contrasty?" Forgive Kristian for bringing something to the conversation. It's called Character. And thank the gods we don't all share ONE of them.

As for the comment that we should be employing the full dynamic range of this sensor — well, then, just photograph grayscale test charts. I've never seen a photograph that i liked where i commented to myself about how marvelously all 12 steps are reproduced. If that's the voice in your head, you should be writing for dpreview (no disrespect to dpreview — that's what it's for), but not calling yourself a photographer.

Have you people heard, for example, of LITH PRINTING? Is that not a valid result? Do the subject's skins remind you of spent chewing gum? A fellow named Anton Corbijn, to name one, has made a greater career than any of us with just that style. Look at Ed Van der Elsken and tell me he 'maximized' the quantitative potential of Tri-X. Irving Penn. Steven Meisel. Josef Koudelka.... We can name names for ages.

The point is this: Kristian's photographs are about his vision of a scene. I'm delighted it doesn't match Bob or Marek's. Although i like some of Marek's photographs. That's a simple matter of my taste versus his. And, i respect that he has a Particular Viewpoint and way of seeing things. When you lose that, your images aren't really worth viewing.

Wow. Just re-read this: "with a more careful processing you would do more "justice" to your Monochrome."

I would hope it's not the intention of any photographer to "do 'justice'" to a piece of gear. It should always be quite the other way 'round. Who owns who in that scenario?

And, now a smiley face so i don't get censored/deleted.

[whitecat]

If 6 of us took a negative and printed it, we would get different results. This is this photographer's interpretation.

[photomoof]

DO NOT TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO "HELP" ANYONE BY CROPPING, MAKING A COLLAGE, OR TINKERING WITH IMAGES WHICH BELONG TO OTHER MEMBERS IN PHOTOSHOP -- IT IS VERY DISRESPECTFUL.

The other mods have been very polite. I have just removed unsolicited modification of the OP's work. Please be reminded you may only post your own work or work you have the rights to on the RFF. You may not modify or directly post another member's work, unless the member requests you do so. The only exception is if the work appears in a quote, and is not modified.

[leicashot]

OMG, I am shocked by the responses, but not in a bad way and appreciate the comments, pro and against me, the monochrom or whatever. Either way, like it or not, people are entitled to voicing their opinion, regardless of the type. This is a forum and I should know better than to worry about comments not in favour of my style of processing.

Cheers to all, now lets please get back to the pictures, whether you love the Monochrom or not.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I think the "offense" was in the assertion that there was something "wrong" with the original versions, and that the 'revisions' were made by someone with a better qualification. The former is untrue, and i've not seen evidence of the latter.

"Post processing only?" As if that's not a critical component of a photograph. I don't think you can separate the two aspects. It's no different from standing behind him as he took the picture, and whining "no, no, mate — that's rubbish. Point it here, and wait until... NOW."

"to exhibit the Monochrome's capabilities better" — again... that sorta means shooting flat, lifeless pictures, for demonstration purposes. I'd much rather see real world work, done by people who are using the cameras, and not having the cameras use them, or shilling for Leica.

and the point is, an adult ought to understand there is no such thing as a universal "optimum" where subjective matters are concerned.

[photomoof]

Originally Posted by MIkhail

These are quite to my taste!

Mine too, but more importantly I like looking at what others do with equipment, this is after all primarily a rangefinder web site, and the monochrome M is an interesting development.

I enjoy seeing how our members are using it.

[Richard G]

For many of us Kristian's two threads in RFF have been the first convincing showing anywhere of what the Monochrom can do, and that is more than just him being a very fine photogrpaher, but that fact has been necessary too. I'm glad he's sticking with the thread. Peter and Jeff's stuff is great too. I love that shot of the pages of the dead. I admired one of Jeff's shots with the M9 on another forum, wondering about the processing, only to learn it was a JPEG in black and white straight put of the camera. I tried this at a poorly lit function the other night with my M9 and one JPEG was so good I could not replicate it from the RAW file with any manipulation I tried in LR4.1.

What are the JPEGs like out of the Monochrom?

[jamato8]

Originally Posted by Richard G

For many of us Kristian's two threads in RFF have been the first convincing showing anywhere of what the Monochrom can do, and that is more than just him being a very fine photogrpaher, but that fact has been necessary too. I'm glad he's sticking with the thread. Peter and Jeff's stuff is great too. I love that shot of the pages of the dead. I admired one of Jeff's shots with the M9 on another forum, wondering about the processing, only to learn it was a JPEG in black and white straight put of the camera. I tried this at a poorly lit function the other night with my M9 and one JPEG was so good I could not replicate it from the RAW file with any manipulation I tried in LR4.1.

What are the JPEGs like out of the Monochrom?

That is very interesting.

[helenhill]

Well Mr Smarty Pants
Shooting Squeaky Clean
(as my Jaw Drops)
It's TOO Good !!!
Woohoo ...Lovely K

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by helenhill

Well Mr Smarty Pants
Shooting Squeaky Clean
(as my Jaw Drops)
It's TOO Good !!!
Woohoo ...Lovely K

haha, cheeerzzz HH

[malland]

Originally Posted by leicashot

For those interested. Here is a squeaky clean picture taken at base ISO and with no structure or Silver Efex Filtering. This is how it looks out of camera...

Kristian, it may be squeky clean but the it has glorious high contrast. Congratulations on mastering the processing from this camera so well. The idea that you need to shoot in way to "live up the camera" is simply inane. Also, anyone interested can download M-Monochrom and try the processing — what is interesting is what talented people like yoursed can do with the files.

I got mine on Wednesday and have had time to shoot only about a hundred frames and, while the files are great in terms of what you can do with them, I haven't yet gotten to where I want to go, which — I am searching — seems to be to get away from the medium format look. One thing is that an 864x576 pixel JPG file simply doebn't show the detail of these files; and on one shot I find that the higher contrast/more clarity version looks better in the JPG while in LR4 the lower contrast/less clarity version looks better. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make any prints yet.

Another thing I still working with is how to make sure not to blow highlights, i.e., in shots that I don't want to blow them — and still experimenting how much I can lift the shadows in higher ISO shots.

—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[jamesj]

I haven't paid too much attention to this thread in the way of reading everyones responses, just staring at the photos and I have to say this camera produces wonderful results! Even straight out of camera. Beautiful shots all around! Keep up the awesome work all and post more!

- james

[Koolzakukumba]

I hadn't intended getting involved again in this thread but since it's still "raging" can I suggest a solution? There are obviously some people who feel strongly about the PP done to some of these images. Why doesn't someone start a separate thread inviting criticism of the photographs in this thread? That way those who wish to make their points about the structure filter or whatever can do so unhindered or uncensored and those who just wish to look at the images without judging them (unless it's only praise, a form of criticism that strangely seems to be completely acceptable on this thread) can continue to just look and enjoy.

[malland]

You've completely missed the point...but I suppose you can discuss that in your alternate universe ("bizarro universe" a la Seinfeld).

—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Richard G

What are the JPEGs like out of the Monochrom?

I think the JPEGs out of the MM are very good - pretty much exactly what one would expect. But unlike the M9 - where, as you describe, Richard, oftentimes the M9 JPEG engine will produce an image very different from the DNG, and sometimes hard to replicate from that DNG; i.e. the M9 JPEG becomes an image that is worthwhile having on its own merits - I am finding the look of the MM JPEGs to be very easy to replicate from the DNG file. And always with more detail and strength. After three weeks of shooting JPEG "fine" images alongside DNG, and then examining them side-by-side in Lightroom, I've not used one. DNG all the way.

Unless shot in harsh or unusual light, most of my MM DNG images are flat out of the camera. Reminds me of when I first began processing well-exposed Tri-X in XTOL, when that developer came out, and I thought my negatives were thin. Just like I learned then, that thin can be good, it didn't take me thirty seconds in Lightroom to see that those "flat" MM images hold lots and lots of information.

For me PP on most MM shots is very simple: tweak the exposure slider, if needed; use the Clarity slider to give the image a bit of structure; bring up the blacks; and, sometimes, give it a little more contrast. Ten seconds and you're done. I'll pop into SEP if I want to explore an interesting image. And I'll drop into PS if I want to burn or dodge part of a scene. But, really, a few seconds in Lightroom is all you need to get a decent baseline.

I'll also note that the MM files are much more robust than can be seen on low-res internet JPEGs. I was struck by the hidden detail that emerged the first time I printed a 13x19" print. Even on a very good computer screen you don't see all that's there unless you zoom deep into the file.

[emraphoto]

now this is outstanding!

Taken by leicashot and found on his flickr stream... http://www.flickr.com/photos/45609113@N04/7766218428/

[Richard G]

Thanks Jeff for those insights on your MM and my M9. I will indeed now stick with DNG and JPEG fine.