Question for Monochrom users
Old 11-27-2018   #1
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Question for Monochrom users

For those of you who were B&W film users, and then purchased a Leica M Monochrom camera, has it changed your usage of B&W film?

Since 1976 I've been shooting 1-3 rolls of B&W film per week. But decades of processing film (and first printing in the darkroom and later scanning to the computer) is starting to get old.

I'm wondering if the Leica M Monochrom has replaced shooting B&W film for you, or does it mainly just supplement shooting B&W film for you?

A Leica M Monochrom would be a big financial commitment for me, but if it could replace my film usage, and streamline my workflow, it might be worth it. But if it's just another digital wonder (like my other digital cameras), then it wouldn't be worth the expense.

So, does the Leica M Monochrom replace shooting B&W film for you?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #2
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
So, does the Leica M Monochrom replace shooting B&W film for you
Yes. Used to shoot 3-5 rolls a week and 2-3 a day when travelling. Have shot almost none since getting the MM in 2012 and the the 246 in 2015 (because my MM sensors kept corroding).

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #3
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
I have the original MM... owned it from new
After the initial bout of using it, I found myself putting film camera's back in the bag, even left it at home when I have been on holiday. HP5, M2 & TLR were the choice
Mixing digital and film in the bag has never worked for me either.
However I like it and taken some great photo's with it, but it hasn't replaced film.
I'm also not sure the 246 version was an upgrade either, the original had something I never saw in the later model
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #4
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
This will be an interesting discussion, though it seems like the nature of the question is likely to skew the resulting answers as most of the film shooters who wouldn’t eventually let the MM replace their film, never buy the MM in the first place, so they can’t respond, and most who go to the expense of the MM are already leaning digital to start with.

Maybe.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #5
helenhill
Chasing Shadows ... Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,574
not a monochrom user... so I cannot help You there, though a lovely camera.
Still prefer Film for my Lifestyle and way of shooting

Have a Question for You Tim
If i remember correctly You have a Nikon DF.
It renders quite beautifully, lots of subtleties and refinement to that sensor/ and depending on lens

Does it not fulfill your needs ?
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #6
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
This will be an interesting discussion, though it seems like the nature of the question is likely to skew the resulting answers as most of the film shooters who wouldnt eventually let the MM replace their film, never buy the MM in the first place, so they cant respond, and most who go to the expense of the MM are already leaning digital to start with.

Maybe.
I've been a film shooter since the 70's
The MM doesn't replace film for me... but it can supplement and wins in low light
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #7
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodt16s View Post
I've been a film shooter since the 70's
The MM doesn't replace film for me... but it can supplement and wins in low light
But, its inevitably a different look, yes?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #8
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Tim,

I was a film die hard who swore never to go digital. I wanted to be totally old school and live in the past, partly because I went to art school in the seventies.

Then Leica made the perfect camera for me: the Monochrom. If Leica did not create this camera I would not have deviated. I bought mine prepaid and waited 5 months for my dealer to attend the waiting list. I still own the camera. Had the sensor replaced and overhauled by Leica for free.

I consider digital a separate medium; I don't scan; and I made an archive of negatives that I will wet print one day. I still shoot film and have more film cameras than ever.

You should realize that the original Monochrom is likely the most unforgiving digital camera ever made. With no Bayer filter array and a CCD sensor it is the easiest camera to blow the highlights.

Many here promote underexposing and pumping up exposure in post processing, but this amps up the noise, and is not the best. I print big, so the noise and artifact of overusing post is avoided.

A certain level of precision is required for best results, and this is easily acheieved learned by using the histogram and the clipping indicators to learn how to nail the exposure for clean files that require little manipulation.

The M-246 is a much more advanced camera, and with its CMOS sensor mucho more forgiving. The bit depth is only 12-bit on the M-246, so even though the sensor is 24 MP, the files are not so much bigger than the 18 MP sensor on my Monochrom which is 14-bit.

So the biggest change for me is that buying the Monochrom over 5 years ago has made me a better photographer.

Also along the way I went into Piezography and became a fine art B&W printer which cost me mucho money, especially because I print a lot and I compound this by printing big. In one year I bought $10K worth of paper and ink to have a stockpile and save money by exploiting sales.

In the end I take advantage of digital for speed. Analog remains a passion and is a more relaxed process.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #9
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
But, its inevitably a different look, yes?
Larry,

When the Leica SL (Digital) was first released I went to PhotoPlusExpo with a 1975 SL-MOT to the Leica booth and asked, "Why should I buy a new SL when I have an old one?"

I met a guy named Richard Herzog (of Phase One fame, who is a large format shooter) who was manning part of the Leica booth.

When he inquired about my work I told him, "I'll be back in a minute," and I went to my friend Robert Rodriguez to borrow a 13x19 print that I had gifted him. Robert is the Canson "Artist In Residence" and over the years has been a bit of a mentor.

When I showed my Piezography print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge with a 28 Cron I kinda blew the guys in the Leica booth away. Richard Herzog asked me if I took the shot with large format and if it was a silver wet print.

This image has the detail that it looks even more large format in a 20x30.

Pretty much I'm using extraordinary means to exploit Leica glass and precision along with a printing process that compounds the great files I'm able to create.

You should know that my friend Christian is a large format shooter, and that when he was looking at some of my 6x9 negatives on a light table he remarked, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

BIG PRINTS DON'T LIE.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #10
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
not a monochrom user... so I cannot help You there, though a lovely camera.
Still prefer Film for my Lifestyle and way of shooting

Have a Question for You Tim
If i remember correctly You have a Nikon DF.
It renders quite beautifully, lots of subtleties and refinement to that sensor/ and depending on lens

Does it not fulfill your needs ?
Hi Helen,

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, I do have a Df, and I find myself using it more and more for assignments, along with the bevy of old pre-AI Nikkor lenses, and setting my D4, D700 & f2.8 zooms aside.

But I'm not terribly thrilled with the B&W I get from it. It's okay, but doesn't hold up to Tri-X, shot with my M's.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #11
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
I would suggest that the relevant questions are: do you think that the photos you see from digital cameras on the web look "good enough" compared to film, and are you going to be content with basically one look for your images (you can change your film images drastically through exposure, filters, developer and film choices)? Do you think you are going to get as good a print as B&W film on fiber? Do you see yourself ink jet printing your images or sending them out to a third party to be printed? Are you someone that does not use alternative processes like lith printing?

If the answers to those questions are yes, then you have a clear path ahead of you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #12
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,667
I am not using a Leica Monochrome; however, if you are shooting film and scanning, rather than wet printing, unless you just like the look of scanned film, I recommend that you shoot digital black and white. It's quicker and you have tremendous control in LR. I no longer shoot film unless I specifically want to make gelatin silver or lith prints.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #13
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,031
I shot with film over many years and processed my own B&W; occasionally I still shoot film. Based on my experience with MM:

I consider shooting with the Monochrom to be a very worthwhile in working with B&W yet digital. Although I was able to make some nice prints shooting film, generally results with my MM are more successful with results that are easier for me to attain. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about whether my images look like film. The experience of making, processing and viewing the images from the Monochrom is one that is uniquely satisfying.

I do make images with regular digital cameras that I choose to process B&W and that I find pleasing. When I am out with my MM however, it is a whole different experience. I recommend you try it and find a good camera at a good price knowing you will recoup most of your investment if it doesn't bear fruit for you artistically.

David
__________________
DwF DwFs Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #14
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Thanks Steve,

Had an M8.2 for a couple years and did like the B&W converted images I could get from it, but hated the crop factor. Have used an M9 and while I love the color from that camera, the converted B&W from that camera leaves me flat.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #15
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Larry,

When the Leica SL (Digital) was first released I went to PhotoPlusExpo with a 1975 SL-MOT to the Leica booth and asked, "Why should I buy a new SL when I have an old one?"

<snip>

When I showed my Piezography print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge with a 28 Cron I kinda blew the guys in the Leica booth away.

This image has the detail that it looks even more large format in a 20x30.

Cal
Cal,

If I am reading that right, you are talking here about a print made from a scanned negative taken by the Leicaflex SL, right, and not a digital file, right? Or, no?

And, a question regarding the MM, since you have both a Monochrom and a digital SL: When the SL came out, there were people saying that the files from it, converted to monochrome, were quite close in character to the files from the Monochrom. Close enough for government work. Would you agree with that, or not close enough, and still worth the bother to get a Monochrom even if one already had an SL? And assuming that differences are more obvious on a large print than on the web.

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #16
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Cal,

If I am reading that right, you are talking here about a print made from a scanned negative taken by the Leicaflex SL, right, and not a digital file, right? Or, no?

And, a question regarding the MM, since you have both a Monochrom and a digital SL: When the SL came out, there were people saying that the files from it, converted to monochrome, were quite close in character to the files from the Monochrom. Close enough for government work. Would you agree with that, or not close enough, and still worth the bother to get a Monochrom even if one already had an SL? And assuming that differences are more obvious on a large print than on the web.

Larry
Larry,

Sorry for the confusion. I do not scan and my negatives are made for wet printing.

The Piezography print I mentioned was from a file from my Monochrom.

I think because I'm an old school analog guy and because I print glossy on Baryta papers exclusively that I get mighty close to an analog wet print look to my digital printing.

I use Heliopan filters that are marked "Digital." I found that these filters marked "Digital" have both UV and IR filters built in that make for cleaner histograms with less clipping. Pretty much I get a better signal to noise ratio.

Add onto that with my Monochrom I use a 2X yellow filter to boost my contrast at time of image capture instead of using LR5 and post. My post processing is very minor as to not to add digital artifact and noise so I can print big/huge.

In comparing the SL and Monochrom files all I can say is they are different. First off I don't use a yellow filter on the SL for contrast control. Also I have to tweak the SL files a bit more.

I can also say that the CCD sensor has a different look than the CMOS. The histograms also are different. While the CMOS has smoother roll-off in the highlights and more shadow detail I find the mids to be somewhat scooped.

Meanwhile the CCD sensor has this wonderful vast midrange that when exploited by big/huge prints jumps formats and can look easily like medium format and even large format. When we look at large format the rendering becomes more about the mids and less about contrast.

Don't get me wrong. The M-246 is a much more advanced camera with better high ISO, better roll-off in the highlights, more shadow detail, better screen, liveview, bigger buffer, faster shooter... but the original Monochrom has the mids of larger formats.

I use the SL to cover my gal's fashion blog. She has over 568K followers, earlier this year won a "Shorty Award," and last year gave a TED Talk.

For me I find I get more of my best shots from my Monochrom. Warts and all I find my Monochrom to be more like a film camera, and the way I shoot it is as if I'm a large format shooter maximizing IQ at the time of image capture as if I'm trying to make a perfect negative for contact printing like I'm shooting an 8x10 camera.

Back in the seventies I was trained to make negatives that could be straight printed on a number 2 grade paper consistently.

Also a 12x18 image size for me is required as a test print size because smaller prints really don't reveal enough detail and the tonality does'nt open up on smaller prints.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #17
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3,028
My use of the Monochrom is more for low light work.
Film is for 100-400asa range for me on the M7, when I need quicker, then the Monochrom is what I reach for.
__________________
Instgram
https://www.instagram.com/filmtwit/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/

The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #18
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Thanks for the response, John. Downloading some Monochrom RAW files is a good idea, will see what I can find.

And Cal, thanks as well. That's more specific information than I have found elsewhere regarding the SL and Monochrom versions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,284
50K photos from 2.5K users:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/mmonochrom/
Many images are in the large size.

Then I'll decide to quit from film, it is going to be Monochrom. It is not just another digital camera, but another M Leica .
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #20
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
That is an impressive collection of images Ko. Fe.

Thanks for supplying the link.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #21
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Thanks for the response, John. Downloading some Monochrom RAW files is a good idea, will see what I can find.

And Cal, thanks as well. That's more specific information than I have found elsewhere regarding the SL and Monochrom versions.
Larry,

I have owned the Monochrom for over 5 years and the SL for three. My hope is one day that Leica builds one-day a SLM. Of course I'll keep the SL because it remains a great camera.

To add, recently I got to play with an entire Leica "S" kit. A friend was lent by Leica this kit for a shoot. He picked it up from some guy who was given the entire kit to use with the condition that it could be loaned out on occassion. Why couldn't this be me? LOL.

Really remarkable how transparent and intuitive it was for me to operate the "S." Pretty much the layout, the menues, and all the functions were all the same.

Oddly the "S" weighed about the same rigged as my SL with the monster 50 Lux-SL.

Another thought about the original Monochrom is that it is really one of the most basic digital cameras ever made. Today I enjoy that it is rather primitive, just like a film camera. No video, kinda slow processor, small buffer, no frills...

All this simplicity makes the original Monochrom the camera most like a film camera.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #22
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Cal,

I am trying to pare down my storehouse of camera types and models. Thanks for (not) helping.

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #23
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Cal,

I am trying to pare down my storehouse of camera types and models. Thanks for (not) helping.

Larry
Larry,

As old men we build "bunkers" to ensure our survival. Nothing wrong with that.

"Greed is good," said Gordon Gecko in the film "Wall Street" staring Micheal Douglas.

For entertainment value read my post today in the "December NYC Meet-Up" thread.

In the end it is about living life to the fullest and dying with little remorse. Perhaps that is what keeps some of us young and full of life.

All the best.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #24
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
You're right. If you die rich you've led a poor life...
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #25
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
You're right. If you die rich you've led a poor life...
Great sentiment to live by Jaap.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #26
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Larry,

As old men we build "bunkers" to ensure our survival. Nothing wrong with that.

Cal
Who you calling an "old man", old man!!!?

Anyway, I'm doing my bit keeping my bank account numbers as small as possible because doing the math on every month's statement is easier that way.

Best wishes,

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #27
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,409
If you are less than 100 years old, you are young.

Interesting discussion,Thanks to All.

Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #28
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livesteamer View Post
If you are less than 100 years old, you are young.

Interesting discussion,Thanks to All.

Joe
Joe,

It is all about quality of life.

Also, "Crazy is good," I say.

Stay young.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #29
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,757
An M246 with a 50/1.1 MS Sonnetar is a hell of a thing.

Out of sheer experimental urges, I've shot (both on my own with my 8yo) many dozens of rolls of TMY and Ultrafine in the last year on a variety of cameras, and other than the nostalgia trip of using old Nikons and Konicas, 35mm b/w film just can't compete.

The M246 outresolves film, out ISOs it, has no generational loss due to scanning; exhibits no film scratches, watermarks, cold-weather static or streaks; doesn't have to be manually catalogued, and generally out-conveniences film. It also shoots a massive number of pictures on a charge without the volumetric footprint of 10-20 rolls of film. If you want to get film-like grain, you can always jack things up to 5-digit ISOs or use a commercial software package to introduce it. But why? Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

You can print the M246 pictures on Ilfospeed Rapid on a frontier, and now you have RC silver prints that can be perfectly calibrated and repeated. That last part is where it goes to "game over" for small-format film unless you are really invested in optically printing 35mm to fiber paper, which I regard as fairly low return on a major time if not also money investment.

So in short, my answer is that it has relegated 35mm black and white to a novelty. It has not supplanted my use of 6x9 and 6x12 film cameras in any way, but those mainly serve my need to get away from computers for a few hours a week.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #30
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
An M246 with a 50/1.1 MS Sonnetar is a hell of a thing.

Out of sheer experimental urges, I've shot (both on my own with my 8yo) many dozens of rolls of TMY and Ultrafine in the last year on a variety of cameras, and other than the nostalgia trip of using old Nikons and Konicas, 35mm b/w film just can't compete.

The M246 outresolves film, out ISOs it, has no generational loss due to scanning; exhibits no film scratches, watermarks, cold-weather static or streaks; doesn't have to be manually catalogued, and generally out-conveniences film. It also shoots a massive number of pictures on a charge without the volumetric footprint of 10-20 rolls of film. If you want to get film-like grain, you can always jack things up to 5-digit ISOs or use a commercial software package to introduce it. But why? Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

You can print the M246 pictures on Ilfospeed Rapid on a frontier, and now you have RC silver prints that can be perfectly calibrated and repeated. That last part is where it goes to "game over" for small-format film unless you are really invested in optically printing 35mm to fiber paper, which I regard as fairly low return on a major time if not also money investment.

So in short, my answer is that it has relegated 35mm black and white to a novelty. It has not supplanted my use of 6x9 and 6x12 film cameras in any way, but those mainly serve my need to get away from computers for a few hours a week.

Dante
Dante,

I take your side that small format film is a novelty today, and for me wet printing small format is the only reason to keep my SLR's and Leica film cameras.

At almost 61 I hope to have that darkroom one day that I can't have today in my Madhattan apartment. Meanwhile just make negatives...

The IQ of digital can jump formats and printing big is not a problem.

Really takes medium format film to compete with small format digital B&W.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: Know that I already have the capabilities to print digital negatives for contact printing, so basically I see that the next development for me is to print negatives and wet print them via contact printing. I already have these capabilities with the Epson 7800 I use for digital printing using Piezography. No ink changes required either. Pretty much all I need is studio space.

I can do a "Salgado" and I don't require the best lab in Paris to do this, and a working slob like me has the means to do this. All I need is space.

Pretty much I expect retirement to be like returning back to art school again where I spend mucho time in my studio playing around seeing what I might develop.
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #31
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Know that I already have the capabilities to print digital negatives for contact printing, so basically I see that the next development for me is to print negatives and wet print them via contact printing. I already have these capabilities with the Epson 7800 I use for digital printing using Piezography. No ink changes required either. Pretty much all I need is studio space.
Cal, can you explain how you are printing digital negatives for contact printing?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #32
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

Dante
Some still do, though I tend to see that as a problem, not a mental asset which is much of an aid in producing interesting photos, and more resolution won't help with that anyway.

The advantages of digital are numerous, as noted, but the idea that digital can be manipulated to look like film seems inexplicably deep into never the twain shall meet territory. It's fine to prefer the look of digital over film, and there's no getting around the "easier" bit, but, for better or worse, it's a different look, one completely resistant to software presets pretending otherwise, and seems destined to remain so.

Maybe "close enough" is "good enough", but that's a personal choice.

And when did 'novelty' become something to be avoided instead of actively sought out?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #33
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Cal, can you explain how you are printing digital negatives for contact printing?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
Tim,

Visit www.Piezography.com.

Here is a timeline of development: I bought my Monochrom over 5 years ago; 4 years ago I bought a Epson 3880 from B&H and enjoyed a $250.00 rebate (about $750.00 cost to me); three years ago bought a 27 inch EIZO, bought about $10K worth of paper and ink, finally loaded the 3880, and started to print using Piezography. BTW I gave the OEM Epson inks away to a friend.

Meantime right after I bought my Monochrom at my boring day job I started researching about Piezography. Jon Cone is a mighty clever guy and is a fine art printer who is rather historic in the development of fine art inkjet printing.

Back then he developed a process for printing digital negatives on clear overhead projection film. I used a credit card as collateral and had him send me a portfolio of prints, and one of the prints was a digital negative, but at that time the system required an ink change and more or less was impractical because it kinda required a dedicated printer for just making digital negatives.

Realize that Jon Cone's site back then was a bit of a mess, and doing this research involved using my Master's in Journalism to do mucho data mining to connect the dots, but I had the vision way back when to see the potential knowing that things would develop.

What I did not expect that things would happen at an accelerated pace and things would mature so quickly. Walter Blackwell teamed up with Jon Cone and things expanded. First thing is that Walter cleaned up the Piezography website, streamlined and organized everything in a great way. Then they developed Piezography Pro an new printing system. This happened about two years ago.

Because I was such a heavy user I got invited to be an early adopter of Piezography Pro, got a generous insider discount, and had access to this new printing system for about a year in advance of the general public.

Know that I had mucho support and any problems were addressed by either Jon Cone himself or Walter. Pretty much because I was a heavy spender during the right time combined with I kinda just got swept into this development in a great way. It is Jon Cone (who printed for Richard Avedone and many others) and Walter who deserve all the credit for all the heavy lifting performed.

So this Piezography Pro system allows the mixing of split-tone in the print head. It also uses nanotechnology in making the blackest black available, but also allows printing digital negatives without an ink change with the same printer.

This is a game changer. Imagine proofing a digital negative by making first a digital Piezography print. Imagine using Lightroom or Photoshop as a tool to make a perfect negative to contact print. Imagine a system that is so turnkey that not only can it be used for making negatives for silver wet printing, but also extends to alternative processes.

Then imagine that all I need to buy is an I1 Pro and about $150.00 worth of software that Piezography developed and I have a calibrated system, can profile papers and inks, and pretty much seamlessly get what I see. At this level pretty much it is a turnkey system and all the heavy lifting has been done for you.

I'm not joking that the technology for producing a show like Salgado's "Genesis" has trickled down to the consumer. All I need is the I1 and the software to make the digital negatives, but the real crunch is setting up a studio for the contact printing.

You need to know that if printing larger than 8x10 you really need a piece of equipment called a "Vacuum Frame" to hold and maintain the negative in contact with the paper. This is not small or lightweight, but this is eventually where I'm going.

On one hand I planned for this, but I'm not ready yet. I need workspace. Workspace is really the bottleneck, and living in Madhattan is not a practical place to solve my situation.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #34
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,938
Larry,

I would argue that my digital printing rather closely resembles a wet print.

First off that is my aesthetic. There is good reason why I print glossy on Baryta coated papers: to replicate the look of a wet print.

Then again one might argue that my films look digital. I use compensating developers so my negatives kinda have a HDR like effect because of my high level of contrast control. Pretty much like in art school I try to make negatives that pretty much just require "straight printing."

As you can tell I approach both analog and digital photography as if I'm a large format shooter. My aesthetic is for broad tonality, fine detail, and small grain (or grain that is not distracting). Even with my Monochrom I seldom shoot above 800 ISO to limit digital noise.

Kinda funny how Acros to some looks "too digital" but these same critics likely would be offended by nice large format prints well done.

I wonder how many here can keep analog-analog and digital-digital like I have: to keep them as two discreet separate mediums?

I look forward to the time when I will make digital negatives for contact printing which for me will be the merging of digital and analog.

Contact printing open editions with steep price increases using digital negatives and contact printing seems like a great break from my day-job. Meanwhile I have been mostly concentrating on image capture of a "Changing and Disappearing NYC."

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #35
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,136
Mine is in for free sensor replacement at almost 5 years. The camera is magic. It is different to film. I still shoot black and white film. If I had to choose it would be the Monochrom. It is like pushing Tri-X 2-3 stops and getting Plus X negatives. It is like medium format tonal subtlety at base ISO. The detail is sometimes astonishing. The shutter is smoother and quieter than my M9-P. I had to have it. I have to keep it.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #36
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Thanks Richard. Appreciate your input.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2018   #37
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,620
The MM is the only B&W digital that I warmed up to. I think Richard said it best.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2018   #38
oldwino
Registered User
 
oldwino is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 136
I had a Monochrom for a while, with the mythical/mythical Sonnetar 50. A great combo. The files from the MM are beautiful. Medium format like, especially with a lens with a wide aperture. I found I generally preferred older lenses on the camera, whose "character" (or, nowadays, "flaws") seemed to work well with the camera's somewhat sterile files.

I also owned an M4 at the same time, and I would occasionally shoot a roll of Tri-x or something along side. I don't have a darkroom set up right now, so all my film is scanned. Inevitably, there would one or two frames where I'd say, "the Monochrom can't do THAT!" (Of course, there were many times when I could say, "I couldn't do THAT with film!")

Mostly, it is a textural thing. I think it's safe to say that 135 film can have loads of texture. And, even with the scanned film, which is still sort of a half-assed process unless you own a Imacon, there is a depth that is missing from the MM files. I do enjoy the added post processing flexibility that the digital world has brought us.

So, I still shoot film. I enjoy using the cameras, I enjoy developing my own film. I love the feeling when you pull a roll from the dev tank and it...works (again!). How exciting to create a physical object containing your photo info.

I recently bought a little Fuji XE3 so I could have a digicam with autofocus available to me. Those Acros jpegs are pretty damn nice...
__________________
wandering the Earth with an Leica I conv, M2, M-D, a bunch of old lenses, and occasionally a Mamiya-Six or Isolette III.

beckmeyerphotographs.format.com
current stuff https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2018   #39
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is online now
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,979
Thanks oldwino,

Well I committed. Just picked up an MM1 with corroded sensor and rushed it off to Leica in hopes of beating the Saturday price increase for sensor replacement. Good price on the camera, and I'm okay with waiting a few months to be able to use it. (Been lusting for one since 2012, so what's a few more months).

I'm also looking forward to trying my collection of old LTM lenses with the MM1. I've got a few Nikkors from the late 1940's, early 1950's and a couple of Canons from 1957. Will be interesting to see how they render with the B&W CCD.

Thanks for everyone's input so far.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2018   #40
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,620
Congrats Tim. I still have the original MM. My go to camera for personal work.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.