Did you find the Leica Monochrom worth it?

[rgerraty]

<p>Ray there's a great thread on RFF of M9 black and white conversions which certainly made me wonder why I had added the Monochrom to my stable. While there are good reasons, the black and white from the M9 can also be stunning.<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139399</p>

[Brian1664876441]

I did some M9 and M8 monochrome conversions experiments using a Yellow filter with them, and wrote some Fortran

code to convert them to monochrome Linear DNG. <p>

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/threads/1145/page-2

 

<p>

 

The Yellow filter makes the Blue channel respond much closer to Green. So- if you plan on converting an image to

monochrome, it gives a better starting point. <p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16991248947" title="M1012676_small by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8824/16991248947_6487e3a71f_z.jpg" width="640" height="426"

alt="M1012676_small"></a> <p>

 

100% crop<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16576228684" title="M1012676_crop by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7592/16576228684_2fe9fe2d33_o.jpg" width="745" height="445"

alt="M1012676_crop"></a>

[Brian1664876441]

The M8 used with 14-bit Raw mode, converted using M8RAW2DNG- <p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/17292024733" title="M8 Converted to Linear DNG by

fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8871/17292024733_324128de89_c.jpg" width="800"

height="520" alt="M8 Converted to Linear DNG"></a>

 

<p>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/17292023973" title="M8 Converted to Linear DNG by

fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8756/17292023973_85e18f276b_o.jpg" width="317"

height="642" alt="M8 Converted to Linear DNG"></a> <p>

 

My demosaic routines works by merging Blue and Green (not adding) and then adding the interpolated red channel. It cuts

down on the amount of interpolation.<p>

 

It's different, works better in some cases, still has artifacts- but less moire.<p>

[rgerraty]

Beautiful Barry. That first one has real presence.

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks to Richard, Ray and Brian for some insight and links on their M9 application to monochrome. While I have been using filters on the M8 to generate IR results, the use of a yellow filter on intended M9 B&W images sounds like something worth trying in order to improve subsequent conversions.</p>

<p>But I wonder how different that would be (other than losing a diaphragm or two of ISO) from an alternative (?) of dialing in post exposure yellow filter simulation in Photoshop or other image editor? The high cost of the new Monochrom (240P) remains a very hypothetical (unlikely) purchase in my case and for my budget, despite its advantages in ISO performance, superior monitor screen and slightly better resolution.</p>

[ray .]

I'm curious as well how a yellow filter alone would affect things. The Fortran code is a foreign language

to me Brian, but at any rate your top image is especially nice.

 

Thanks Richard G for the RFF link.. I'm going through it and saw mention of a DNG+b&w jpg setting on

the M9, but though I see a DNG + jpg option on my camera, I would assume the jpg would be color, so

that's a question.

 

Arthur, the improvements and changes on the new Leicas are interesting, but considering the cost and

that technology is constantly changing, I think it's wise for most of us to pick and choose. I got my M9

used and it's satisfied a lot of what I'd like from a camera.

 

If anyone has the inclination to check his site, Sean Reid has some very nice technically nuanced black and white

outdoor shots from both the Monochrom and the new M246 monochrome camera. I'm not sure if he has

a free trial on his site, and I'm not affiliated with him in any way, but have found his reviews some of the

most helpful I've seen. He apparently also makes recommendations to Leica, some of which they follow

in their design and development.

[Brian1664876441]

This is how the M8 sensor sees things, full color- no filter. Imported as Photoshop RAW- so the Demosaic process has

been bypassed.<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16235450654" title="full_color_crop by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7597/16235450654_1bd4345e0b_o.jpg" width="982" height="652"

alt="full_color_crop"></a>

<p>

This is how the sensor sees things through the Yellow filter. Again: "Truly" Raw data. <p>

 

<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16670222748" title="yellowFilter_Crop by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7627/16670222748_bcc5438fda_o.jpg" width="980" height="655"

alt="yellowFilter_Crop"></a>

 

The Raw image is much closer to what you want as a monochrome conversion. The Blue channel becomes much closer to Green, and the Red channel benefits from the 1 F-Stop increase in exposure. Easier to start with this image.<p>

[ray .]

So- best to try a yellow filter on the M9? Or yellow-orange (deep yellow)? Or is it a matter of preference?

[Brian1664876441]

Yellow filter for the M9 is best, the equivalent of a Nikon Y48, medium yellow. This is a 1 Stop filter factor. The "Blue" channel on the M9 has a lot of sensitivity overlap with Green. Using the Y48 seems to bring the channels into closest balance for monochrome.<p>

 

Now- for the M8, Orange leaves the Blue channel sensitive to Infrared, Green gets Visible+IR, and Red is mostly Red. Closest to Infrared Ektachrome that I can get with a Digital camera. Yellow for Monochrome, Orange for Infrared<p>

 

<p>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/16925161250" title="I1016057 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7649/16925161250_8dbbcb42ae_o.jpg" width="1024" height="682" alt="I1016057"></a><p>

 

Orange filter on the M8, custom demosaic algorithm. I think this can also be done using Photoshop, I will check.

[rgerraty]

<p>The DNG+JPEG option on the M9 allows you then to choose the settings for the jpeg which do not affect the RAW. You need to set up Lightroom to display both the RAW and jpeg for a given photo. When photographing at some evening function where there is invariably horrible coloured lighting you can have the jpeg set to black and white, even if you don't want that later, just so you don't have something horrible to be reviewing on the LCD. You still have the colour raw image to work on if you want to or need to. The black and white jpegs out of the M9 are very good I reckon. </p>

[alexander_rosser]

<p>I don't have a Monochrom, though I am contemplating getting one.</p>

<p>Apart from the motives put forward by others on this thread there are two additional reasons (for me anyway)<br>

1) If ones camera ONLY takes B&W, then you HAVE to think in B&W. Every scene needs to be evaluated in terms of composition and light/shade. Too easy to click and shoot in colour.</p>

<p>2) I am also a bit of a stargazer. The extra definition and ISO makes a big difference. Also, a star is a single point of light, so a well focussed lens will have that light hit a single pixel - red, green, or blue. Makes for pretty pictures, but quite unreal. Some astro-photographers defocus slightly so that several pixels, not just one, are exposed.<br>

<br />On the negative side, if the new Monochrom uses the same IR filter as on the M, then the Hydrogen Alpha line is reduced by 90%.<br>

<br />I don't think the Monochrom supports electronic triggering (needed to eliminate tripod shake and take multiple pics over several hours) or an external power supply (needed as batteries at low temperatures need frequent recharging)</p>

[Brian1664876441]

Nikon makes a full-frame monochrome microscope camera that uses the same basic sensor as the D4 and Df. I am

guessing that you could use it as a telescope camera. I believe it is under $3K or so.

 

The CCD in the M Monochrom will be better for long exposures than the CMOS sensor in the M246.

 

I tried to convince Kodak to make a monochrome-IR version of the M9 in Jan 2010. I did convince them to make an

Infrared version of the DCS200. The engineer that I talked to in 2010 remembered me from 1993 and the DCS200ir.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Oops, I was wrong about NYC street photographer Mark Brown already having a Monochrom - he just got it yesterday. All his b&w photos I've seen were done with the M9. Looking forward to seeing what he does with the Monochrom, although I suspect he'd get the same results with any camera. But he's among the very few candid people photographers I can think of who's consistently good enough to justify the expense of a specialized camera like the Monochrom. He seems to prefer the 28, stopped down for zone focusing DOF, and has impeccable timing and a fearless yet empathetic approach.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>@ Alexander: If you can wire a cable release plug to your trigger, it should be able to handle the Monochrom. Or did you mean etriggering a virtual shutter? - I think the camera fires without an installed base plate, so it shouldn't be impossible to feed it the demanded voltage from an external source. But please don't rely on me; email Leica's customer support instead. - Better safe than sorry!</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>@Alexander: you may want to look at the new Pentax K3II body for your astronomy interest. The new pixel shift feature and a couple other enhancements have caught my interest, too. OTOH, having this new Leica Monochrome model in my radar is causing all sorts of budgetary arguments. Which part of a huge hobby do I feed this time?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"find them to be flat and lacking contrast"</p>

<p>With respect looking at the photos posted I would agree with the above. For want of a better word they lack the "bite" you usually associate with a Leica camera and lens. Perhaps its just my monitor, or my personal taste.</p>

<p>Im using a Mac Pro monitor.</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Been using the MM for quite some time now. I rarely ever ran color film through my M cameras, so the MM was the digital camera I was waiting for. I currently do not have a color M, I sold it upon getting the MM. </p>

<p>IMO, it eliminates the distraction of color and further disciplines you toward content. I literally believe you think differently when the medium is B&W.</p>

<p>RE: Monitor ... I make prints, and using a Mac monitor I've produced the prints I want on a 3880 using various double weight fiber papers ... including one of my favorites Museo Silver Rag. My current monitor is an iMac 5K Retina. </p>

<p>Processing: I import into Lightroom, make basic adjustments then open the file in Photoshop straight out of LR (PS is a plug-in) then in PS I open the file in Nik Silver Efex Pro plug-in (which came with the MM). Why not straight into Nik Silver Efex? Because in Photoshop it creates a layer for all Nik adjustments and you can adjust the Nik layer opacity if you wish to increase DR or apply less of the adjustment.</p>

<p>I do not use filters. I've found that Nik Silver Effects has so many processing options, heal-toe responses, and fine tuning that I've never seen the need. </p>

<p>While the initial RAW files can be subdued and lack POP! it is irrelevant to the end product which is up to the "eye of the beholder" ... the RAW files are very malleable as long as one doesn't blow the highlights. </p>

<p> - Marc</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[finnegan]

<blockquote>

<p>"<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> , May 31, 2015; 06:18 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"find them to be flat and lacking contrast"<br /> With respect looking at the photos posted I would agree with the above. For want of a better word they lack the 'bite' you usually associate with a Leica camera and lens. Perhaps its just my monitor, or my personal taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's at the heart of what I mean, it depends completely on "receivers" of information. ONLY. So, do my film photos scanned and put online. But if I or anyone else has seen one on multiple computer monitors, smart phone screens, the Apple Watch, TV screens, which are the various receivers of digital information, and I want a consistent Mother-Image to remind myself what the actual image actually IS, I can go back to the negative where IT sits and print IT. That's because in film the light from the scene in front of the lens is "stamped" chemically on the film, which, when converted back into a mirror visual image on the negative is almost a mirror of the scene that first stamped the film. When darkroom-light through he negative stamps an image of the scene onto photographic paper we're back to a very close almost-duplicate of the original light/scene in front of the lens.</p>

<p>It's "almost" because there are fluctuations dependent on the lens, film, chemical mix, and printing variations. But for practical purposes there is an IT there from scene to photo, an image.</p>

<p>Digital images cease all associations with the scene in front of the lens immediately when the light/scene enters the camera past the lens and hits the sensors. Then there is no more IT. Only digital, electronic information forever dependent on a receiver to create an illusion of the image at THAT point. The receiver is all those different screens the information creates the illusion on. No more IT.</p>

<p>The final image is produced by a computer in the receiver as the camera-computer created the information in the beginning. As opposed to film where there always is, from scene to photo, a "stamped"-image of the scene in very close approximation to it. That's the IT.</p>

<p>And that's why to me digital, even using a Leica Monochrome, looks produced. It is. The result:everything is too perfect, needlepoint sharpness all over the place, if color, subtle blends all are now seemingly vibrant primary colors. It's like being hit over the head by the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I feel assaulted, And because EVERYTHING strikes my eye and brain with screams for attention, I lose the whole, the actual scene I saw when shooting. If B&W the same, there is no foreground/background of anything, meaning shading from white to black, focus to non-focus, depth of field etc. In short, there is no Gestalt. And I see Gestalts out there. My eyes and brain see a scene. What I look at in digital is a fragmented multitude of bits and pieces. It's not human, meaning based in human experience of the world.<br /> All that said I like those images of yours, if they are yours, very much, as computer creations. I mean that as a positive, not as a snide remark. If I look at a digital photo that way, as a computer creation overseen by a person, then I take them as that and stop comparing them to a photo of something, or styleistiaclly based on something.</p>

<p> </p>

[ray .]

William, both chemical and digital are processes, not "mirrors" of reality.<p>

 

<i>"It's like being hit over the head by the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I feel assaulted..."</i><p>

 

The same has always been the case with the chemical process, depending on who's handling it.<p>

 

Marc, nice to see you here.

[ray .]

For what it's worth here are a couple of my photos from the M9 recently<div></div>

[ray .]

<div></div>

[finnegan]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=523880">Ray .</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 01, 2015; 12:00 p.m.<br /> William, both chemical and digital are processes, not "mirrors" of reality.<br /> <em>"It's like being hit over the head by the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I feel </em><br /> <em>assaulted..." he same has always been the case with the chemical process, </em><br /> <em>depending on who's handling it."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know the first and mentioned that. I did also mention though not a mirror, a close to a mirrored image exists in film. Or leave at image: there is an image in film. When you open a film camera and treat the the film you get the image that is chemically present, very close to what the eye saw before the shot was taken. You do not have anything in a digital camera period that the eye can see. The two are so far removed from each other that both being the result of processes becomes practically-speaking meaningless.</p>

<p><br /> The same is true of the last sentence: though both can produce garish photos, it's digital that does it routinely from the same far-different process. In digital no person making errors is responsible for that, it's the camera. In film, the paucity of "in your face" photos is BECAUSE someone or some mass-chemical processor is producing poor work.</p>

<p><br /> I've heard this "all the same" many times. But though elephants and humans are both similar in that we are mammals, I bet if you saw the cars around you driven by elephants and an elephant shopping for bread and milk at the store the difference would strike you as almost complete. And thus, that digital and film are both about the same is only linguistically true but points to no practical similarity.<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Ray,<br /> I like especially the soft fabric and shadows. That to me is a photo. Thanks for posting them.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have shot a bit with one. Incredible camera, the files are amazing. </p>

[Brian1664876441]

Maybe people should start writing more of their own software for digital.<p>

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/threads/1188/

 

<p>

 

<a href=" title="Converted 5058 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7768/18061666540_3b77cd93a2_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Converted 5058"></a>

 

<p>

 

People made their own chemicals to suit their taste, did their own processes in the darkroom. I filed down the negative carrier to match the extra portion of the image caught with a Nikkor 24/2.8 on the F2. <p>

[Brian1664876441]

To add: I've looked at Digital images as photographs of the Mag tape that they were stored on to determine why the computer was getting read errors -34 years ago- to looking at M Monochrom files in HEX this past weekend to determine why Lightroom was turning part of the image Black rather than preserving the shadow detail. I wrote a FORTRAN program to rewrite the DNG file header.<p>

 

<p>

Using code that I DID NOT Write myself,<p>

 

<a href=" title="L1005046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7741/18099313128_299ae24346_o.jpg" width="379" height="576" alt="L1005046_100crop"></a>

 

<p>

My Code<p>

 

<a href=" title="G5046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8875/18100975559_9db0eac470_o.jpg" width="420" height="554" alt="G5046_100crop"></a> <p>

 

Evidently, the M Monochrom has more detail "in the Black" than the manufacturer thought it was capable of.<p>

 

<p>

 

<a href=" title="G5046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7774/18100975949_a0b0e0a75a_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="G5046"></a><p>

 

Digital is very real to me.