Impact of "M Monochrom(e)" on B&W Film Photography

[dzeanah]

<p>Nozar,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am surprised to hear that you think you have more control on "exposure" in digital color and in Photoshop, than B&W film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I said "after the exposure." Colored filters with black and white film influence how the different colors in a scene will translate into tones, and by use of filters you can control how the tones in a scene (imagine a red apple on green grass) map in relation to each other. Want a black apple, then use a blue filter. Want a white apple, then use a red filter, and so on.</p>

<p>This works provided you know exactly what you want when you take the exposure, and you've got the appropriate filters with you (and time to mount them). If you start with a color image then you can make these decisions after the fact, and I prefer the control that comes with this process.</p>

<p>This is what I was trying to say.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If digital does not register details in the dark or in highlights at the first place, then all you can do in Photoshop is pumping/draining light into the image. B&W film has the latitude of close to 7 to 8 zones, and with pre-exposure, the range goes to 11, which is from pure black to pure white. MM, with possibility of multi-exposure on the same file (I gather this from Leica Forum review) can provide such information. In color digital, you only, and only, can do it (High Dynamic) with multiple shots, which dictate possibility only for stationary objects like apples; not people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't really want to argue film versus digital, but I don't feel limited the way you seem to think I should. When shooting color I get a lot more latitude with digital than I did when shooting color slide film on vacation. Yes, negative film has more latitude than digital (flat response curve vs logarithmic and all that), but in practice it doesn't really matter to me all that much. Nor did it to lots of others: National Geographic got stunning work out of slide films for half a century, even in full sun, and I'd argue that any competent modern digital camera can get better dynamic range than Kodachrome. And certainly more than Velvia, which Galen Rowell seems to have used to create some stunning work.</p>

<p>I prefer shooting digitally, processing on a computer, and printing the result than the comparable darkroom work. I never intend to move back to medium format B&W, then processing and printing it myself. It's possible the results would justify it to some people, but I could argue that the charm and depth one can find in a daguerreotype beats the hell out of the output I got from 6x6 Tri-X + Gallerie graded fiber paper. </p>

<p>That doesn't mean I'm going to try and convince you to deal with mercury fumes for your personal work, however. Every medium we might choose to work with is going to have its trade-offs. Choose the trade-offs that work best for you and have fun.</p>

<p>I don't see a whole lot of value in arguing about it though.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Nozar,</p>

<p>If it required millions of dollars, then Leica would have had to put a full time engineer on the project for at least 8 years (at 50$ per hour base pay or $120,000 per year), or up to 8 highly paid engineers during a full year, and that takes care only of one million, not millions, of dollars. That doesn't make any sense to me. Even if they had to burn 50,000 to 200,000 dollars in R&ED materials, or purchased services, it still doesn't make sense. My impression is that the leap from Bayer to no Bayer was not so difficult and the software (firmware) not so complicated. They would have to sell many more M9M's than the wildest market demand if your figure was to be right. </p>

<p>Many of us B&W shooters already have a considerable supply of coloured filters for our work and adding one to the M9M's lens is no big deal. Those who haven't shot B&W film in the recent decades understandably have no such filters, but it is unlikely that they would buy a monchrome only camera anyway.</p>

<p>The absolute bottom line for me will be the resolution and dynamic range of the M9M. If it is less than double, or even onkly double, there will be little desire to use one of these cameras. Hopefully we wil see meaningful testwork, soon.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Arthur<br />According to Leica, this project, whose code name was "Henri", started 2006. High tech engineers’ salary is at least $150K annually. High tech managers are more. For such project you need at least five people, year round (some half time involved, but always available), plus material, machinery, new hardware, test models, etc.<br>

As you said, to some the extra resolution is what is important; to others the noise-less ISO up to 3200 is all that matters.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>It would be useful to know just how different an M9 is from MM, and how costly a conversion. It might seem silly now to think of 'crippling' an M9 by conversion to monochrome, but when an M10 comes along with a larger sensor and more bangs & whistles, it might be what one does with ones M9 rather than feed it into a depressed second hand market.</p>

[ray .]

In his review on the Leica Monochrom, Sean Reid has some good test comparison images between the camera and the M9.

[nozar_kishi]

<p>James<br />True; when M10 comes out with, say, 32 megapixel resolution and 6400 ISO, the entire advantage of MM over M9 will fade out. Thus, the difference between the two, or ratrher between a Monochrome and Color, should not be searched in the battle between their specifications, but the quality that matters to B&W and to Color. An M10 with 100 megapixel, still uses four neighboring cells' "group" information, in order to identify "each" of those cells' color and light. An MM reads information off a single cell, and assigns the information to that very single cell. This is why, no mateer what pixel power, a digital color picture can never carry feel of film. MM is closer to make that feel.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Nozar, let's say that Leica will make $500 profit (10% ROI on a 5000$ sale to the distributor) on each M9M they transfer to the retailers. To recover enough to just pay for 2 million $ of R&D they would need to sell at least 4000 M9M's. In fact they would have to sell many many more than that to show any reasonable profit. If that is the case and your assumption of millions of dollars of R&D is correct, then they are taking a huge risk on the camera. Some more general Leica models have sold only in the low tens of thousands of units in the past, in the heydays of film. </p>

<p>Whatever the real situation, if the M10 has a vastly improved sensor compared to the M9 then the M9M will just be a roadside accident. It's a catch 22 situation, and even more so when the compact mirrorless system cameras threaten to offer more than Leica at a much smaller price, albeit for a reduced area sensor (unless that changes fairly soon as it might). </p>

<p>For low light work, I would likely agree to forgo my pristine and expensive Leica mechanical rangefinder mechanism for live view and an LCD that can be oriented to fit my shooting needs.</p>

<p> </p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Arthur<br />If it took only a million or two (I believe it took, in fact, multi million) then any of the millionars who are lined up to buy an $8000 camera, could have developed it himself/herself.<br />I am sure MM is not to replace M10, but instead it is as the starter of a totally new line, and I think it will remain as a (very successful) model for a long time to come. We dont need to wait for long; September (when is scheduled to come out for sale) is just round the corner.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Derek</p>

<p>Thank you for detailed response.<br>

It definitely is a matter of oversight from my, or your sight. Likely from my. I still think, and believe, and am sure can bring document, to show that B&W film's latitude is more than digital. More than five stops, and you will have burnt areas in digital, whereas in film, seven is the least. HP5 goes further.<br>

That said, I should admit that I am not familiar with digital post-process and you may have point, there. Only it is hard for me to believe that, if a piece of information has not been taken (due to short latitude), then how can you improve it. If a flower is not taken in the dark or highlight clip, then how can you make it appear. Please share.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Nozar et al,</p>

<p>As usual, Erwin has some interesting opinions about the M9M, including his belief that the next sensor design for the M series will likely be CMOS with live view. He describes some of the advantages of the M9M compare to the M9.</p>

<p>http://www.imx.nl/photo/page152/files/archive-13-may-2012.html</p>

<p> </p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Thanks Arthur for sharing.<br>

My personal guess (but I am not a specialist in digital technology) is that instead of Live View (and then Video), Leica will continue in Auto Focus capabiity, and will keep the Rangefinder, and the historic structure.</p>

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

<p>Probably you have seen this presentation before, if you haven`t this will explain you about the importance of a monochrome digital sensor for black & white photography.<br>

<br>

Sorry I didn`t find a better way to link it. It is long but very interesting for sure.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>The virtues of high-tuned monochrome aside, two outstanding virtues of the MM are holding my interest at this writing. One is the top ISO of 10,000. The other is the amazing resolution the camera is capable of even at ISO 8000. The impact it will have on the market and black and white film is a crap shoot. </p>

[bryn_evans]

<p> Leica has done what it is good at, created a small technical advance that the majority of photographers will find imperceptible from the conventional method. I'm sure most M9 owners are perfectly happy with their B+W conversions in photoshop but now they have discovered that they've actually been doing it wrong and that the correct way to produce a B+W image is to buy another ludicrously overpriced camera. This situation will cause some anxiety amongst some Leica owners and that alone will be reason enough to buy one. I'm a bit disappointed that they have not come up with a new F0.95 Noctilux lens which has been specifically optimised for use with this sensor:-)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bryn, with all due respect, that sounds like a volley from a large 'canon'. Whether the M9M proves to be a significant advancement or not, at least the company is thinking of the needs of a forgotten group of photogs, those who work primarily in B&W. The jury is out on the monochrome camera, until we see some hard test comparisons. </p>

[bob_yildiran]

<p ><a name="00aQ4j"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=618825">Nozar Kishi</a>, May 22, 2012; 08:33 p.m.</p>

 

<p><em>Arthur According to Leica, this project, whose code name was "Henri", started 2006. High tech engineers’ salary is at least $150K annually. High tech managers are more. For such project you need at least five people, year round (some half time involved, but always available), plus material, machinery, new hardware, test models, etc."</em><br>

The decision and research to order the KAF-18500 sensor WITHOUT the Color Filter Array at the Kodak (today Platinum Equity) plant would take 6 years, involvement of 5 hi-tech engineers of salary at least $150K?!?! Do you know what a CFA is? Do you know that all the algorithms-A/D conversion software outsourced to Jenoptik? Do you know that similar sensors with or without CFA filter, color or monochromatic, are being delivered to JAI, Lumenera and Avigilon for industrial cameras too, directly from the manufacturer? BTW, to prepare the required programs for monochromatic output compared to the same for color is a left-hand job.<br>

Do we really need myths in this millenium too?<br>

</p>

 

 

[donbright]

<p>I'm looking forward to seeing pictures, " Prints, " with this new camera. Unless I'm missing a source producing these images at date. Henri- Cartier Bresson has sold more Leica's than any single techno-jargon known to Photography. If the Mono is an Homage to him, than so be it. It's not my money. If it flops, the damage won't be so bad. Leica is not going to over shoot production on this, 'Project'.</p>