what if...

back alley said:
had an m4-p and the elmar as well...
film is dead for me...just sayin'
Click to expand...
To each their own. :)

I have always loved everything about film photography. I never did get the digital bug.
I can see some good things about digital, like variable ISO capability, but it also has its shortfalls - like hours spent at the computer, the fear of hard drive failures and resulting loss of images, etc.

One good thing about digital is the way it drove the prices of used film cameras down - there are many outstanding film cameras that can now be bought for a song. This is a good thing for we film photographers.

The bad thing is that many outstanding film cameras are now extinct. The Fuji
GX 617 comes to mind. I always liked that camera but never got one when they were still available. :(
 
Ed Weatherly said:
I have a question. What do you do with two files? I shot that way for a very short time and found I had RAW files to work on, then jpegs and I felt they cluttered up the hard drives. Now I shoot in RAW and process in PS5 and Lightroom 4 and then just output as highest quality jpeg (for printing) and lower quality small jpegs for web viewing.
Click to expand...

I shot sometimes that way .jpg low quality on one card and .raw on the other if I have to handle the .jpg to clients who want or need to make a selection quickly.

GLF
 
back alley said:
...someone wanted to shoot digital, black and white and could not afford (or maybe doesn't want) a leica monochrom...
would it be 'better' to shoot raw and convert to black & white or shoot jpeg and in mono in the first place?
would there be a difference in the end result (image)...

and please don't assume that a 'film like' result is desired.
Click to expand...

Are we comparing in camera .jpg vs .jpg made from .raw or any of these two vs Monochrom? In the second case if I understand correctly we would have still some difference due to different filtration on the sensor. Also, if I understand there is the possibility of removing antialiasing, IR and UV filters from any camera and I would be really curious to compare the pictures produced by these modified cameras vs the Monochrom.

GLF
 
If u set the xp1/xe1 to b&w, the evf will show the monochrom image. The raw file has an imbedded jpg which is used to show the preview of what is in the raw file during import by most photo editing programs. Once imported, if the raw is supported, it should turn back to a color raw file, which can be manipulated w/ the b&w mode of your choice.

Since I am an aperture user, I tend to use jpg+raw mode, so I can sort and do preliminary processing w/ jpg before I decide which raws I want to send to a raw converter.

I tend to use the silver fx pro plug-in for my b&w converter once I import the color tiff back into aperture.

Gary
 
giellaleafapmu said:
... Also, if I understand there is the possibility of removing antialiasing, IR and UV filters from any camera and I would be really curious to compare the pictures produced by these modified cameras vs the Monochrom.
Click to expand...

In many cases, easier said than done.

G
 
giellaleafapmu said:
Are we comparing in camera .jpg vs .jpg made from .raw or any of these two vs Monochrom? In the second case if I understand correctly we would have still some difference due to different filtration on the sensor. Also, if I understand there is the possibility of removing antialiasing, IR and UV filters from any camera and I would be really curious to compare the pictures produced by these modified cameras vs the Monochrom.

GLF
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, there are three filter in play here on normal digital cameras..
- Bayer/xtran
- anti alias
- ir/uv

The monochrom removes 2 of the filters, m9 and xp1/xe1 removes only the AA filter.

The monochrom has a higher mp sensor, so should do a much better job of resolving and truer b&w... A raw image from any other camera during conversion will be using a raw file which has a Bayer/xtran overlay, so true color or pixel level color resolution can never be the same as a camera w/ a foveon sensor which also only has an ir filter.

Even for a foveon based camera, the monochrom should win based on other factors.

For my needs, I don't need or want a monochrom, b&w work w/ either the Fuji or the sigma dp1/2 Merrill is good enough for me.

Gary
 
Godfrey said:
In many cases, easier said than done.

G
Click to expand...

There are their party companies that do just that. Most started as doing conversions for ir and have since expanded their business into even doing their own version of a monochrom w/ a select few cameras. But the monochrom still has the advantage of a complete digital processing path designed for mono. These converted cameras, still have firmware that assumes a Bayer filter algo needs to be run.

Gary
 
As an addendum to previous post... Check on this thread staring at post 275 by Kerry McClain, he posted his ir converted Fuji xp1.. There are several follow up post from that later in the thread which eventually points to the company he used.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1986759&postcount=275

He used maxmax to do a ir conversion to 720nm.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1987326&postcount=280

This page not only shows the ir conversion but has list of other types of conversions including the monochrom.
http://www.maxmax.com/IRCameraConversions.htm

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
There are their party companies that do just that. Most started as doing conversions for ir and have since expanded their business into even doing their own version of a monochrom w/ a select few cameras. But the monochrom still has the advantage of a complete digital processing path designed for mono. These converted cameras, still have firmware that assumes a Bayer filter algo needs to be run.

Gary
Click to expand...

Sure. But it's easier to do on some cameras, and quite challenging on others. A friend desperately wanted an IR converted whatchamacallit (can't remember his favorite camera). Took one of the service providers six tries to get it right.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Sure. But it's easier to do on some cameras, and quite challenging on others. A friend desperately wanted an IR converted whatchamacallit (can't remember his favorite camera). Took one of the service providers six tries to get it right.

G
Click to expand...

Agreed.. But could also be the experience level of that provider w/ that specific camera as well. I know I would not want to tackle it.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
There are their party companies that do just that. Most started as doing conversions for ir and have since expanded their business into even doing their own version of a monochrom w/ a select few cameras. But the monochrom still has the advantage of a complete digital processing path designed for mono. These converted cameras, still have firmware that assumes a Bayer filter algo needs to be run.

Gary
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking of. Also some guidance on this craft (together with a lot of IR and UV pictures) can be found here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Also, for some time Fuji produced forensic cameras without the IR/UV filters which can be now found quite cheaply. I tried one of them and it was not bad in BW.

GLF
 
giellaleafapmu said:
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Also some guidance on this craft (together with a lot of IR and UV pictures) can be found here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Also, for some time Fuji produced forensic cameras without the IR/UV filters which can be now found quite cheaply. I tried one of them and it was not bad in BW.

GLF
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link... It has been a very long time since I last visited his site. I forgot he was into ir.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top