M-Monochrom worth it? — A review and appreciation-

[Bill58]

This discussion has been interesting and contains some fine images, but frankly a little over my head technically.

However, I wonder if someone would venture a bottom line opinion as to what they think is the currently offered digital camera that offers the most bang for your buck (image quality vs. price) for B+W images?

[KEH]

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the great shots and the trenchant views. This certainly reinforces what I have read about the Monochrom.

I still enjoy my Ricoh GXR M-module and am newly infatuated with the B&W JPGs from my Fuji EX-1. I am truly intrigued by the idea of a BW sensor camera - no demosaic step with all the guesses this requires. I would be thrilled if Ricoh or Fuji came out with a BW only body.

Regards from DC,
Kirk

[malland]

Originally Posted by Bill58

This discussion has been interesting and contains some fine images, but frankly a little over my head technically.

However, I wonder if someone would venture a bottom line opinion as to what they think is the currently offered digital camera that offers the most bang for your buck (image quality vs. price) for B+W images?

Bill, I would suggest that you start another thread on your question, in line with my request in the original post not to discuss the cost aspects here. On the other hand, I must say that I view your question as meaningless, although I have included B&W images from the Ricoh GRD and GXR M-Module, which can produce excelllent B&W as I've also shown in the original posting.

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

[malland]

Originally Posted by KEH

...I still enjoy my Ricoh GXR M-module and am newly infatuated with the B&W JPGs from my Fuji EX-1. I am truly intrigued by the idea of a BW sensor camera - no demosaic step with all the guesses this requires. I would be thrilled if Ricoh or Fuji came out with a BW only body...

Kirk, so would I.

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

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by Bill58

However, I wonder if someone would venture a bottom line opinion as to what they think is the currently offered digital camera that offers the most bang for your buck (image quality vs. price) for B+W images?

Bill, I can say if you are buying Leica you are not looking for the cheap way out and for me and the way I shoot the MM is a great tool and therefor worth the $$$ to me. The DR, sharpness, manual focus (no auto focus in the world is faster than pre focused) the great low light performance are all reasons it works for me.

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by malland

Both interesting thoughts that, to me, are somewhat reflected in the often hum-drum photography (although with some exceptions) that one currently sees in the long threads of M-Monochrom photos both on RFF and LUF. What I mean is that the quality of the images in these threads is nowhere near that of the first 3-4 pages of the Ricoh GRD thread here on RFF, so that the camera that is capable of producing astounding image quality is not being used to produce the astounding aesthetic quality that we can see from the (humble) GRD. It's as if people were intimidated by what the M-Monochrom can achieve in terms of image quality to the point that they (myself included) forget that the aesthetic quality of a photograph does not necessarily correlate to the maximum image quality that a camera can produce. While I value the astounding image quality available from the M-Monochrom, what I value even more — at this point more in theory than in practice — is the range of looks that can be achieved (of varying "image quality) with the M-Monochrom. The other possibiity is that the M-Monochrom has not fallen into as talented a group of photographers as has the GRD, which in my mind is a "photographer's camera", as the M-Monochrom should be. Any thoughts?

Image quality is one thing, image content another entirely. My own comments in this thread are limited to IQ, and as I said above the Monochrom can produce output that is different from film, an interesting alternative look that is exemplified in your examples by the chicken vendor and the one after it. The look is similar to hyperrealism in art and is the choice of the photographer since the files from the camera are clearly capable of different treatments.

Whether you like the look or the content or not is personal preference. Just one of my preferences for content is to see DOF used creatively in a picture because that's how my own eyes work (at least I think that's the way they work). The use of DOF is also a tool the photographer can use to direct the viewers attention, it indicates to the viewer that you saw something in the scene that is worth their time to look at and think about. I don't find that in shots of crowded street scenes with many on mobile phones and everything super-sharp and in-focus; my eyes dart all over the place looking for meaning but really there isn't any. I agree that the image content in the Ricoh GRD thread is good for many reasons in addition to DOF.

I think it's the novelty, the visual difference in these photographs that's the attraction. It does wear off pretty quickly though as they're so vivid they begin to look exaggerated after a while. For good image content I look at the weekly RFF Gallery Picks for the week ending... threads. I may be biased but I think there's real photographic talent in the membership here camera ownership notwithstanding. Most of the pictures in the Gallery Picks threads come from people blessed with a seriously good eye.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by peter_n

The use of DOF is also a tool the photographer can use to direct the viewers attention, it indicates to the viewer that you saw something in the scene that is worth their time to look at and think about. I don't find that in shots of crowded street scenes with many on mobile phones and everything super-sharp and in-focus; my eyes dart all over the place looking for meaning but really there isn't any.

I get what you are saying, but you don't have to use depth of field to show a viewer what you saw... you can do that simply by the way you frame. Additionally, there are times when the whole photo is the subject... because all elements fit together and if any one of them was removed, it wouldn't work. Though the random street shot without a real subject is prevelant these days, another problem is that many people cannot look at an image without a person in it and if a person is in the photo (even in the background only) people assume it is the subject of the photo (when it is clearly not).

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I get what you are saying, but you don't have to use depth of field to show a viewer what you saw...

I totally agree. I did state that "just one of my preferences for content is to see DOF used creatively" and I do realize there are others. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I considered it to be the only one (and that it has to be used in every shot), but I expanded on it simply because many of the shots above are taken at around f11 or so.

[airfrogusmc]

You can also use leading lines, repeating shapes and many other visual tools to help highlight what you want to communicate. A great photographer once told me either everything in the photograph is helping your visual statement and if its not helping it, then its hurting it. Nothing should just be there.

[malland]

Peter/jsrockit, basically my feeling that how the human eye sees and a camera lens draws is very different, but the reality of human perception is a complicated matter. A British figurative painter here in Bangkok had an exhibiiton of views of buildings and interiors that were painted by looking from a stationary central piont in the painting and measuring with a string the distance from that central point to all the "lines" and forms of the painting. The result was that the paintings showed barrel distortion at the outer edges. When I asked him why that was he said that this is how the human eye works, how the image is formed on the retina, which is then corrected by the brain to "see" the objects the way we perceive them, the same way that the upside-down image on the retina is corrected by the brain to be right-side-up.

There is also the psychology of visual perception and how we really see what is before us, because we make sense of what we see by somehow selecting what interests us — and in the act of perception and selection of visual reality I don't think our eyes work by depth of field control as Peter suggests: that in my view is a photographic convention that is overdone to the point of triteness by hack photography, particularly in portraiture. And "DOF control" is not used, for example, in Cartier-Bresson's portrait books, nor in the portraits of Arnold Newman, a great portrait photographer; nor is it used by Vermeer, who apparently used a camera obscura to draw the image for some of his paintings, nor by Lucien Freud, to chose two painters almost at random. So, I view the concept of "depth of field control" as an overdone technique (that, for me, reaches the point of absurdity in some Noctilux photography shot at f/1, in which lights in the background become huge blobs) nowhere near the way we perceive them in reality.

And, as Peter notes in his additional post, there are other ways of directing the viewer's eye other than depth of field control: one is to direct the viewer's eye by burning in what we want the viewer to turn his eye away from, which is what I have done in the GRD2 picture above in the left edge and the left side of the bottom edge (see the purse the woman is carrying):




Bangkok




Now, the immense accuity of the M-Monochrome facilitates creating images whose concept is "making sense of a complicated scene" through, as jsrockit suggests, the manner of framing, which is what I have done in the two photographs that Peter refers to, which I'll repeat here. The first one below doesn't suggest hyper-realism to me because that is how we sometimes perceive a complicated and busy scene, the nature of visual perception being not only complicated but also varied. The visual complexity of the second one — the "chicken seller" is actually selling ducks, by the way — is also an example of the complexity that the eyes takes in and the brain understands instantly in the act of perception of the real scene, but which effort is also photographically enhanced by the accuity of the M-Mopnochrom. Like Peter, I am not suggesting that any one way is inherently better than the other, but it's more interesting to use varied methods rather than only one and, as I've said, DOF control can quickly pall and become trite.




Bangkok






Chiang Mai



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

[johannielscom]

Malland,

Commendable insights on the use of DOF. Bokeh etc is nice at times but highly overrated.

According to Thorsten Overgaards extensive review on the Monochrom, it is totally acceptable to shoot it up until 3,200 ISO, and when the need arises even the 10,000 ISO setting can be sufficient when there is at least some discerning lighting available.

That would leave the purchase of fast lenses to be shot wide-open, a lot less urgent. And DOF a lot increased.

[malland]

Yes, but Overgaard exhorts M-Monochrom users to get 4x ND filters so that they can shoot their fast lenses at maximum aperture in bright light. In the photography on his blog, in my view, he overdoes the maximum aperture bit, but a good number of his photos of this type are good.

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

[J. Borger]

Originally Posted by malland

Yes, but Overgaard exhorts M-Monochrom users to get 4x ND filters so that they can shoot their fast lenses at maximum aperture in bright light. In the photography on his blog, in my view, he overdoes the maximum aperture bit, but a good number of his photos of this type are good.

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

Agree completely. Selective focus is very often overdone. Especialy in the Leica camp. It.s mainly just a show off of an expensive fast lens. To a certain extent camouflages a lousy composition. With the exception of portraiture i see very little reason to shoot wide open unless low light levels force me to.

[airfrogusmc]

DoF is just a tool to use to help you communicate visually. Some images need for a lot to be in focus and some don't. The knowledge of when its appropriate is what being a photographer is all about.

About trying ot get an image that matches human vision I think Winogrand says it pretty well.
"A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed." - Garry Winogrand

"A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space."- Garry Winogrand

[mmbma]

Speaking from my own experience. I had beenon the wait list for 5 months, long enough to change my mind when the camera finally arrived. I push my b&w images to the limist in contrast and saturation to produce an almost comic book look, so I could use any converted BW images. Details in the shadows are not very important to me. Then I thought for the same price I could get a hassey 503cw with all the bells and whistels plus a used 30MP digital back. It was hard to say no to that.

Then, when I was about to pull the trigger on the medium format, i reviewed my past work again. I realized I don't need another fancy new toy to play around with for another few months before I am able to produce anything from it. Rather I needed something that's simple and would make me think B&W from the get go. So I gave up on the hassey and reordered a monochrom.

To each and his own. Need to ask: Do I really need it? and Will I regret not getting it? Price is irrelevant. Anyone who is serious about buying one can afford one. It's the opportunity cost: what COULD you get for the same amount of money? If it's a case of GAS driving you, thinking along those lines could resolve it.

[malland]

Originally Posted by airfrogusmc

DoF is just a tool to use to help you communicate visually. Some images need for a lot to be in focus and some don't. The knowledge of when its appropriate is what being a photographer is all about.

About trying ot get an image that matches human vision I think Winogrand says it pretty well.
"A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed." - Garry Winogrand

"A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space."- Garry Winogrand

Most emphatically disagree with both statements. Your's: no, being a photographer is not about knowing when a photograph needs shallow or deep depth of field.

Winogrand's: the usual statement quoted is that he photographs to to find out what something will look like photographed which, to me, is inane. The one you quote above perhaps can be discussed somewhat more deeply but still is a one-liner of not much ineterest, at least to me; but there is no accounting for taste in one-liners.

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

[airfrogusmc]

So a photographer shouldn't know the visual tools he needs to make an image?

[malland]

Originally Posted by mmbma

Speaking from my own experience. I had beenon the wait list for 5 months, long enough to change my mind when the camera finally arrived. I push my b&w images to the limist in contrast and saturation to produce an almost comic book look, so I could use any converted BW images. Details in the shadows are not very important to me. Then I thought for the same price I could get a hassey 503cw with all the bells and whistels plus a used 30MP digital back. It was hard to say no to that.

Then, when I was about to pull the trigger on the medium format, i reviewed my past work again. I realized I don't need another fancy new toy to play around with for another few months before I am able to produce anything from it. Rather I needed something that's simple and would make me think B&W from the get go. So I gave up on the hassey and reordered a monochrom.

To each and his own. Need to ask: Do I really need it? and Will I regret not getting it? Price is irrelevant. Anyone who is serious about buying one can afford one. It's the opportunity cost: what COULD you get for the same amount of money? If it's a case of GAS driving you, thinking along those lines could resolve it.

Interesting point. People seriously interested in the M-Monochrom may want to read this three-part review: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 — particularly Part 2, which has an interesting comparison of the M-Monochrom's spectral response with that of Tri-X film. Also, this web page has an extensive list of M-Monochrom articles and reviews.

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

[malland]

Originally Posted by airfrogusmc

So a photographer shouldn't know the visual tools he needs to make an image?

That's too absurd a statement to discuss: read what you wrote, "Some images need for a lot to be in focus and some don't. The knowledge of when its appropriate is what being a photographer is all about". Words do have meanings, you know.

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

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by malland

That's too absurd a statement to discuss: read what you wrote, "Some images need for a lot to be in focus and some don't. The knowledge of when its appropriate is what being a photographer is all about". Words do have meanings, you know.

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

Knowledge of when and how to use tools to express yourself is what its all about and DoF is a tool. Sometimes you need everything from your toes to infinity to be sharp and sometimes you need only an eyelash to be sharp depending on what you as the photographer are trying to communicate.

[malland]

Amen. Thanks for the lesson mate, or shall I say, sermon?

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by malland

Amen. Thanks for the lesson mate, or shall I say, sermon?

You're welcome.

You're not the only sermon giver 'round mate.

[borge]

DOF selection isn't only a skill - it's also equally as much a personal photography style. Shooting constantly wide open or at f/11 is neither right or wrong.

[malland]

In the original post I wrote about Moriyama's "no finder shot" (what is often called shooting from the hip). Much of my street photography is taken while the subject and I are walking toward each other, which usually makes it impossible to sight through the viewfinder without the subject changing his or her expression. Until 2006 I used an M6 but then got a GRD that transformed my photography by making it more fluid and looser, a style that I value. While this is not the only type of photography that I want to do with the M-Monochrom, the no finder shot with this camera has two issues: one is focus, which even at f/11 on a 28mm lens, can be somewhat off when shooting close up (1.0-1.5m): when the subject is, say, at distance of 1.2m rather then at the 1.5m to which one has preset the lens; and the other is framing in the absence of Live View on an LCD, which means that sometime one will have to crop to get the scene what one wanted. I don't mind framing for this type of photography, particularly with the M-Monochrom with its huge resolution.

The picture below is a 2/3rds crop. The slight softness of focus on the young woman works for me perhaps because the woman in the right is in sharper focus. This no finder shot was taken by holding the camera in my right hand at chest level and then swiveling it to the right just before pressing the shutter. Altogether, there something I like about the image.



M-Monochrom | Summicron-28 | ISO 1250

Bangkok



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

[photomoof]

Originally Posted by malland

Winogrand's: the usual statement quoted is that he photographs to to find out what something will look like photographed which, to me, is inane.

Why do you feel that statement is inane -- seems like the purpose of your photos?

Certainly the purpose of all of mine.