Leica Monochrom

Have you seen the three-part review of the Monochrom by Gregory Simpson? Nicely done. He loves film, so did a pretty good job of comparing the two: http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2012/12/a-fetishists-guide-to-the-monochrom-part1/

C-Sonnar 50/1.5, at F4, with Orange filter at Manassas Battlefield.<p>

 

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/members/brian/albums/csonnar-50-1-5/632-csonnar-cannon-f4.jpg"> <p>

 

 

Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5, at F4 <p>

 

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/members/brian/albums/1950-kmz-jupiter-3/622-50j3-gun-f4.jpg"><p>

<blockquote>

<p>They are two mediums that I have used for a very long time, and I will continue to compare differences as I continue to use both. That way, I get better results with each.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brian, I meant no offense - my maybe not so well put statement was referring to the seemingly endless discussion of one being somehow "better" than the other. I mostly shoot digital but though I came back to film after it had already started its decline, using it has undoubtedly taught me a lot. For me they are more like different media. I don't think many painters will endlessly ague if oil is better than water color or vice versa.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great article, Tony! It is more on the balance than anything else I have read about the Monochrom. I am posting these excerpts specifically to address how the Monochrom compares to film, according to Mr. Simpson of course.</p>

<p>Gregory Simpson says something in <a href="http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2012/12/a-fetishists-guide-to-the-monochrom-part2/">Part 2</a> that echoes a lot of what people have said here about the Monochrom:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"In spite of its film-like tonality, the cleanliness and detail contained in these files still make them appear uniquely digital. Is this good or bad? That depends totally on you, your fetishes, and how flexible you are." - Gregory Simpson</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>His opinions are well constructed and states them with wonderful clarity. I can get away with mistakes on film that I could never pull off with digital. His personal case for film (text in bold for emphasis):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"There are two reasons why I sometimes grab a film camera on the way out the door. The first is film’s tonality, and its response to light. The Monochrom definitely closes the gap here, but it doesn’t quite eliminate it. There are still differences with toe and shoulder response that, in some 'real-world' situations, make me choose film. Note that I define 'real world' as meaning 'oops, I really screwed up the exposure on that shot!' And in these conditions, film’s unique toe and shoulder response curves completely save my butt. If I were more in control of my exposure, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim that the Monochrom could effectively eliminate the tonal advantages I get from film. <strong>But on the streets, where photo opportunities occur so quickly that I have to 'make do' with dubious exposure and even more dubious focus, film remains somewhat more forgiving, and thus a viable medium.</strong>"- Gregory Simpson</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This, however, is great praise for the Monochrom:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"If I owned a Monochrom, I would still continue to shoot film, but I’m quite certain that the quantity of Tri-X flowing through my cameras would drop precipitously."- Gregory Simpson</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would LOVE to have one of these to shoot with. I really like the results of the Monochrom. Sure, I would still shoot film but the Monochrom <em>would</em> make a dent in my 35mm b&w usage.</p>

<p>Based on his review I would say that both sides of this argument are more or less correct in their opinions.</p>

 

<p><em>Are blacks in a good quality inkjet print as deep?</em></p>

<p>Well first off, do you understand that there are labs that will print digital files to real silver-halide paper, either FB (expensive) or RC ($2-$3 for an 8x10)? Because if you like silver halide prints, digital doesn't take away that option. Of course, <em>if you want to print from digital to silver halide paper at home</em>, your options are not great: IIRC a super-expensive Durst digital enlarger that basically had an LCD where the negative carrier would go, or printing negative transparencies with an inkjet and making contact prints with them.</p>

<p>As for inkjets: some setups (printer, ink, and paper) can deliver very high Dmax with good separation / tonality in the darker tones. I'm not an expert, but I've seen some stuff that was very nice.</p>

 

<p>Maybe OT, but is the issue with getting deep blacks in prints an issue with the digital capture or is it one of printers/papers? Just wondering out loud. When i was printing with my Epson 2200 using the all black method, I felt that I was getting decent blacks with the Matt black ink, probably now obsolete and I haven't printed in a long time,just getting color prints from a service. So I'm curious where that all is. Ray, you were printing with a 3800. Were you getting good B/W?</p>

Getting good b/w, yes. Just was saying that in a direct comparison, blacks are blacker on the prints

made from film that was scanned, as opposed to prints made from M8 files. Same papers, same printer.

Adjusting the contrast of the files from the M8 will fix that. In a wet darkroom, you adjust exposure time and contrast to get the look you want from differing negatives. With digital printing, you adjust the files.

Here's a quick shot I just did to compare maximum darkness between film and digital. I put down a wet-darkroom print made from a film negative right next to a print made from a file from a digital camera (Canon 5Dmk2) and photographed them at the same time. The shot is a bit overexposed (the prints look darker) and the lighting/reflections aren't perfectly even, but it shows the relative darkness of each type. The one on the left-hand side of the picture is film; the right side is digital.<div></div>

<p>Tony, I don't think grain is bad at all. Just imagine Ralph Gibson's photographs without it.</p>

<p>I am confident that a good inkjet print has equivalent Dmax to a silver bromide print. As Dave says, you can get a bromide print made from a digital file if you really want the same look as "classic film" print. Any differences that can be seen between digital and film in the contrast and black and white areas can be adjusted by processing in RAW. I think what Ray is talking about re "the antiseptic look of film" may have something to do with the lack of grain and the high degree of sharpening often shown in a digital image. Although you can add "digital grain", I am not sure why you would most of the time (unless looking for a faux film look), it is also easy to control the degree of sharpening to match more closely the look of a sharp film image - don't oversharpen. I am still rather bemused that these arguments/discussion still go on. Like most of you, I used film for most of my "photographic life" and I certainly enjoy good digital black and white as much as classic film darkroom prints. Much of the differences seem to me to be much overblown.</p>

The use of the term "bad" was inappropriate on my part; I didn't really mean to imply that the very structure that MAKES the image on film is bad; I think I meant more along the lines that for a detail-capturing device, grain can eventually get in the way. But, practically, it is only if you want to enlarge a great deal which I do not much.

 

One thing about the Monochrom that I am enjoying is my ability to crop pieces and parts of an image with greater ease and with less noise. Mr. Simpson makes reference to this ability in his article.

With reference to printing digital picture onto traditional fiber-based paper, I am considering trying <a href="http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/printing">Digital Silver Imaging</a>. Anyone have any experience with them?

<p><em>I am considering trying Digital Silver Imaging. Anyone have any experience with them?</em></p>

<p>No, and I don't mean to highjack the thread, but given some of the technical discussions that underlie the issues, after looking at their home page, it might be worth observing that they make this substantial error / misstatement: "The fusion of modern digital technology and true silver gelatin fiber printing. We use a Durst Theta 51 photographic laser printer that exposes Ilford silver gelatin papers at 400ppi. The RGB tri-color laser produces continuous tones ...." Wrong. The silver in the paper emulsion only simulates continuous tones. It is manifestly <em><strong>not</strong></em> a continuous-tone process--and never was, either with traditional B&W film or traditional B&W prints. The local prevalence / density of grains makes the area of the print look darker or lighter to the naked eye, much the way halftone dots do in a printed image. But at any given point you have grain or not, and not really continuous tones. At the lower end, Mpix makes the same error: "True Black & White Photo Paper: Our matte finish True B&W Photo Paper offers rich black, continuous-tone prints ...."</p>

<p>So do these labs produce good prints? Might very well (and I've had good experience with Mpix). You don't necessarily have to be a technical ace to produce great work. But one might be slightly more suspicious of the abilities of people who make technical claims ("continuous tones" / "continuous-tone") that are just wrong.</p>

 

<i>"Adjusting the contrast of the files from the M8 will fix that."</i><p>

 

RAW>TIFF files were adjusted. Scanned film yielded deeper blacks in an inkjet print than the M8.

<p>I used it for about 4 weeks now. Still believe ideally processed film + print from web dark room is better, just in my own opinion. However, if we don't compare with "ideally processed film + print", but just consider in average, taking into account all factors, including low night quality (and especially if we don't insist on film look but just an "image" as is), MM is very good and very lovely.<br>

<a title="MM by Eddie . ., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8560/8889496946_024f6a0dc5_z.jpg" alt="MM" width="426" height="640" /></a></p>

<p><a title="MM by Eddie . ., on Flickr" href=" src="http://l2.yimg.com/sk/3703/8987069872_f3cb35511c_z.jpg" alt="MM" width="426" height="640" /></a><br>

.<br>

<a title="MM by Eddie . ., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9044311615_d511fd412f_z.jpg" alt="MM" width="640" height="445" /></a></p>

<p><em>RAW>TIFF files were adjusted. Scanned film yielded deeper blacks in an inkjet print than the M8.</em></p>

<p>Then the adjustment of the raw->TIFF files was not done to a great enough extent / properly / in an appropriate way. Whether you're working from original digital capture like an M8 or scanned film, either way, if you print them the same (inkjet, Lightjet, etc.), they <em>can</em> have the same Dmax / blackness of blacks. In this regard, the curves tool is your friend. Note also that <em>color</em> digital capture (or scanned color film) will let you more-or-less apply B&W-type color filters after the fact in the digital darkroom, before conversion to B&W.</p>

 

Not convinced. I use curves on digital same as scanned film.

<p>If you like "grain" from M Mono naturally, one possible way to do this is to underexposure significantly, and then increase the exposure, fill-light... etc. in Lightroom. See whether you like the resulting "grain". I am ok. The one below was originally seriously under for the couple because of the sunset behind (I tried to use a larger image this time to show the resulting "grain"):<br>

<a title="MM by Eddie . ., on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/8877777817_eabe3a6d14_b.jpg" alt="MM" width="1024" height="681" /></a></p>

"Not convinced."

 

That's a problem with your reasoning, not with the printer. The printer doesn't know or care whether the file is from a digital camera or from a film scanner. It will happily print the same maximum black for both.

<blockquote>

<p>It is manifestly <em><strong>not</strong></em> a continuous-tone process--and never was</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, as you explained that is true for film, too, but I would wonder especially about the laser printed fiber paper, which is <strong>not</strong> a true conversion from digital back to analogue, it seems, though I think if you are not a grain/pixel peeper, both methods appear to be continuous to the eye</p>

 

No reasoning involved Mike, just reporting my observation. I use curves exactly the same way to adjust

contrast, whether it's a file from digital camera or digital file from scanned film.

If you're using curves "exactly the same way" on two different files (with different min and max values) and expecting the output to be the same, perhaps you should try a bit of reason.

Not the "same way" as you're interpreting that phrase. I'll take a look at the prints again tomorrow. Could

it be that what's happening is that to get similar detail and similar overall contrast to a film scan, in the digitally captured photograph,

the blacks end up suffering a bit? This would make sense since the digital camera photos I've seen

where the photographer prints with deep tones and detail in whites tend to have a quite noticeable loss of

deep shadow detail. I seriously doubt it's a matter of any ability to manipulate curves; I'm quite adept at it- I've done it enough years.