borge
Established
Hey guys.
After using the Monochrom exclusively as my only camera for about one year I decided to do a short write-up of my experience with the camera.
http://bophotography.net/2013/10/11/one-year-with-a-leica-monochrom-a-study-in-black-and-white/
After using the Monochrom exclusively as my only camera for about one year I decided to do a short write-up of my experience with the camera.
http://bophotography.net/2013/10/11/one-year-with-a-leica-monochrom-a-study-in-black-and-white/
mfogiel
Mentor
Well, I do not want to sound critical, but this review is in my eyes rather superficial.
Looking at these images, I notice two things:
- you are very far away from what I would define as a proficient B&W photographer, so your claim, that you have "mastered" B&W processing, is in my opinion premature. Perhaps it would have been more useful, to do this one year B&W experiment on film, and learn better how to get the best of it, to have a good yardstick. Recently, there has been an article on the dying art of B&W printing - this is a good place to start:
http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/
- secondly, from what I can see, Monochrom has an advantage over colour sensors not only in resolution, but also in tonality, and this you will not be able to replicate with the M240, so your claim is too optimistic, and also because of this, you have sold this camera prematurely
My point of view is, that although experienced photographers can make the Monochrom images look very close to film, it is still deficient in critical highlight rendition. On the other hand, it has superior resolution and great ISO performance, so for somebody who is content with this look, it certainly is a unique tool.
Perhaps the key lesson for you could be, that you are not a B&W photographer, and this in itself can be very valuable, letting you concentrate on what you really care about.
Looking at these images, I notice two things:
- you are very far away from what I would define as a proficient B&W photographer, so your claim, that you have "mastered" B&W processing, is in my opinion premature. Perhaps it would have been more useful, to do this one year B&W experiment on film, and learn better how to get the best of it, to have a good yardstick. Recently, there has been an article on the dying art of B&W printing - this is a good place to start:
http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/
- secondly, from what I can see, Monochrom has an advantage over colour sensors not only in resolution, but also in tonality, and this you will not be able to replicate with the M240, so your claim is too optimistic, and also because of this, you have sold this camera prematurely
My point of view is, that although experienced photographers can make the Monochrom images look very close to film, it is still deficient in critical highlight rendition. On the other hand, it has superior resolution and great ISO performance, so for somebody who is content with this look, it certainly is a unique tool.
Perhaps the key lesson for you could be, that you are not a B&W photographer, and this in itself can be very valuable, letting you concentrate on what you really care about.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Hi Bo!
You'll have to get used to some honest and pretty direct critique in here. Been there ;-)
It was interesting to read your experience with the Monochrom. I myself gave it a few thoughts at some point, but dropped them soon as I was (and am) sure that it wouldn't turn out to be the right tool for me. The truth is, the more effort producers put into making cameras that deliver clean and crispy files even at high ISO, the more I appreciate and love the tangible coarseness of real film, so for me it wouldn't make sense to buy such an expensive digital camera to "deteriorate" its files into images like those you see on my blog.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that you can now process any image, from any camera, fairly similarly to how you can process the M Monochrom’s files in black and white. From the images in your review, I'd say that, unlike me, you seem to appreciate all tonal range you can get out of your camera. And in this respect I'm not sure that "any camera" can give you the same possibilities as a Monocrhom. But perhaps you meant that you developed a digital workflow you're happy with for your black & white work, in which case you surely can reproduce it with any camera (though in this case you probably could have matured the same experience using any other camera). Anyway, as long as you're happy with your choices, no one here can argue with that.
PS: I think we live in the same city
You'll have to get used to some honest and pretty direct critique in here. Been there ;-)
It was interesting to read your experience with the Monochrom. I myself gave it a few thoughts at some point, but dropped them soon as I was (and am) sure that it wouldn't turn out to be the right tool for me. The truth is, the more effort producers put into making cameras that deliver clean and crispy files even at high ISO, the more I appreciate and love the tangible coarseness of real film, so for me it wouldn't make sense to buy such an expensive digital camera to "deteriorate" its files into images like those you see on my blog.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that you can now process any image, from any camera, fairly similarly to how you can process the M Monochrom’s files in black and white. From the images in your review, I'd say that, unlike me, you seem to appreciate all tonal range you can get out of your camera. And in this respect I'm not sure that "any camera" can give you the same possibilities as a Monocrhom. But perhaps you meant that you developed a digital workflow you're happy with for your black & white work, in which case you surely can reproduce it with any camera (though in this case you probably could have matured the same experience using any other camera). Anyway, as long as you're happy with your choices, no one here can argue with that.
PS: I think we live in the same city
Vince Lupo
Barely Known
Sorry that things didn't work out between you and the Monochrom. As you say, everyone is different and what works for some may not work for others.
I've had my Monochrom for almost a year, and it works perfectly for the type of work that I do for myself (I use a D4 and D800 for commercial work). Can't complain about the quality of the files or the final images. Having said that, there are some things that I've found that you need to be mindful of when working with this camera and the files it produces....
First, a word about the camera's ability to render 'critical highlight detail'. It does so just fine, but you have to make sure that you're exposing properly in order to get that 'critical highlight detail'. You know the old adage 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'? Well with the Monochrom I've found it to be almost the opposite -- 'expose for the highlights, post-production for the shadows'. Just imagine that the Monochrom is loaded with slide film, and expose it like that. You'll find that you'll retain that 'critical highlight detail', and at the same time the files are so malleable that they'll retain all that shadow detail too. The key is to slightly underexpose your shots (anywhere from 1/3 to 1 stop, depending on the situation), and you'll have all the highlight detail you want.
Second, some people complain that the files straight from the camera can look rather 'flat'. They should really think of this as a good thing. When I develop film, I like flat negs -- lots of good shadow detail, good detailed highlights. Adding contrast is done in the darkroom, and can be done in multiple ways. Much easier to add contrast to a neg than to try and take away contrast. Same with a digital file.
As far as being able to render images of the same quality with other cameras as the Monochrom, I can't really say for certain, but you could be right. I've done some pretty nice black and white conversions from my D4 files, but would I want to use my D4 for my personal work? No. Just a personal preference, and the Monochrom fits in with my personal workflow and style.
Guess if I had any complaint about the camera, it would be that 8-frame buffer. Shooting shooting shooting, then then you hit that buffer ceiling and the camera may as well be a doorstop for 20 seconds. Really guys, you need to do something about that.
So yes, the Monochrom is likely not for everyone, and it was quite a tough decision for me to make the shift from film Leicas to an M9 (which is no slouch!) and ultimately to the Monochrom. But I'm glad I did -- just hope they don't come out with the Monochrom 2 for quite some time!
I've had my Monochrom for almost a year, and it works perfectly for the type of work that I do for myself (I use a D4 and D800 for commercial work). Can't complain about the quality of the files or the final images. Having said that, there are some things that I've found that you need to be mindful of when working with this camera and the files it produces....
First, a word about the camera's ability to render 'critical highlight detail'. It does so just fine, but you have to make sure that you're exposing properly in order to get that 'critical highlight detail'. You know the old adage 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'? Well with the Monochrom I've found it to be almost the opposite -- 'expose for the highlights, post-production for the shadows'. Just imagine that the Monochrom is loaded with slide film, and expose it like that. You'll find that you'll retain that 'critical highlight detail', and at the same time the files are so malleable that they'll retain all that shadow detail too. The key is to slightly underexpose your shots (anywhere from 1/3 to 1 stop, depending on the situation), and you'll have all the highlight detail you want.
Second, some people complain that the files straight from the camera can look rather 'flat'. They should really think of this as a good thing. When I develop film, I like flat negs -- lots of good shadow detail, good detailed highlights. Adding contrast is done in the darkroom, and can be done in multiple ways. Much easier to add contrast to a neg than to try and take away contrast. Same with a digital file.
As far as being able to render images of the same quality with other cameras as the Monochrom, I can't really say for certain, but you could be right. I've done some pretty nice black and white conversions from my D4 files, but would I want to use my D4 for my personal work? No. Just a personal preference, and the Monochrom fits in with my personal workflow and style.
Guess if I had any complaint about the camera, it would be that 8-frame buffer. Shooting shooting shooting, then then you hit that buffer ceiling and the camera may as well be a doorstop for 20 seconds. Really guys, you need to do something about that.
So yes, the Monochrom is likely not for everyone, and it was quite a tough decision for me to make the shift from film Leicas to an M9 (which is no slouch!) and ultimately to the Monochrom. But I'm glad I did -- just hope they don't come out with the Monochrom 2 for quite some time!
borge
Established
mfogiel:
1. I didn't say that I had mastered B&W processing. I said that I felt that I had learned what I wanted to learn from the camera.
2. I don't want to use film. I don't want to process B&W so that they look like film. Digital is a different format and medium. Different formats yields different results. Why would I want to try and mimic a different medium all together? Stick to your film, and I'll stick to my digital.
3. The Monochrom is a great camera, but from my opinion, after using it exclusively for a year, your demands (and prints) would have to require some insane tonality and levels of detail to actually take advantage of what the Monochrom offers. I'm willing to bet that 99.5% of the MM owners out there never really takes advantage of what the sensor on that camera can deliver in a print.
4. I never considered myself a "B&W photographer". That's like saying "I'm a street photographer". Brandings like that are retarded in my book. I'm simply a photographer. Someone that likes to take pictures of objects or subjects that interest me. Why make the street more narrow than it has to be? Sounds boring.
Andrea:
I have no problems with critique, as long as they are objective and not subjective. And that's rare to come by these days.
What I ment was that I now know how I prefer processing my black and white images. I know my style. I know my taste. I don't want a Tri-X or Neopan1600 looking file, I want my look. And I have no problems getting much of the same look out of a Fuji X-E1 or an M9. The files from the MM gives you much more headroom to process ofcourse, since the files are extremely rich and solid. They can take more beating without showing any artifacts. But I discovered that I never push files that far in any direction. I prefer more or less a simple and neutral look.
Yup, I live in Trondheim as well. Mailed you a few times last year at about this time, when you had your M9-P for sale by the way, and then I bought the MM
Vince Lupo:
Things did work out for me and the Monochrom. I love that camera. It's a superb camera. But at the same time it's very limiting, and I don't want to run around with several cameras around my neck, and that's why I parted with it.
With the MM you are totally right. You have to expose for highlights and then you can just lift the shadows almost as much as you want in post without much loss of quality or artifacts showing up. The files are extremely solid due to the lack of CFA interpolation. Personally I almost always used a yellow filter with zero exposure compensation which resulted in most highlights being saved...
Anyway, the highlights madness is also overrated. Unless the highlights are critical to your image: Why the heck not just blow them? Personally I don't view photography as something that should look identical to reality. I prefer to use my creativity and create the results I want. And you are totally right. Flat files are a good thing. They are, as you say, digital negatives. And needs to be treated and processed as such.
I'm not saying that everyone can render images from other cameras like on the Monochrom. I was talking from MY experience for MY style. The article is about my experience with the camera, and what I learnt from it and how I developed my style from using it.
8-frame buffer? You mean 5 right? It might be 8 frames in theory, or on some spec sheet, I have no idea.. But in reality it chokes at 5. And that was not only tested on mine...
I wish I could have it still. But considering the costs of these cameras I could never justify running around with one M and one M Monochrom when my personal output from both cameras will be virtually identical. And that's the only reason I decided to sell it.
1. I didn't say that I had mastered B&W processing. I said that I felt that I had learned what I wanted to learn from the camera.
2. I don't want to use film. I don't want to process B&W so that they look like film. Digital is a different format and medium. Different formats yields different results. Why would I want to try and mimic a different medium all together? Stick to your film, and I'll stick to my digital.
3. The Monochrom is a great camera, but from my opinion, after using it exclusively for a year, your demands (and prints) would have to require some insane tonality and levels of detail to actually take advantage of what the Monochrom offers. I'm willing to bet that 99.5% of the MM owners out there never really takes advantage of what the sensor on that camera can deliver in a print.
4. I never considered myself a "B&W photographer". That's like saying "I'm a street photographer". Brandings like that are retarded in my book. I'm simply a photographer. Someone that likes to take pictures of objects or subjects that interest me. Why make the street more narrow than it has to be? Sounds boring.
Andrea:
I have no problems with critique, as long as they are objective and not subjective. And that's rare to come by these days.
What I ment was that I now know how I prefer processing my black and white images. I know my style. I know my taste. I don't want a Tri-X or Neopan1600 looking file, I want my look. And I have no problems getting much of the same look out of a Fuji X-E1 or an M9. The files from the MM gives you much more headroom to process ofcourse, since the files are extremely rich and solid. They can take more beating without showing any artifacts. But I discovered that I never push files that far in any direction. I prefer more or less a simple and neutral look.
Yup, I live in Trondheim as well. Mailed you a few times last year at about this time, when you had your M9-P for sale by the way, and then I bought the MM
Vince Lupo:
Things did work out for me and the Monochrom. I love that camera. It's a superb camera. But at the same time it's very limiting, and I don't want to run around with several cameras around my neck, and that's why I parted with it.
With the MM you are totally right. You have to expose for highlights and then you can just lift the shadows almost as much as you want in post without much loss of quality or artifacts showing up. The files are extremely solid due to the lack of CFA interpolation. Personally I almost always used a yellow filter with zero exposure compensation which resulted in most highlights being saved...
Anyway, the highlights madness is also overrated. Unless the highlights are critical to your image: Why the heck not just blow them? Personally I don't view photography as something that should look identical to reality. I prefer to use my creativity and create the results I want. And you are totally right. Flat files are a good thing. They are, as you say, digital negatives. And needs to be treated and processed as such.
I'm not saying that everyone can render images from other cameras like on the Monochrom. I was talking from MY experience for MY style. The article is about my experience with the camera, and what I learnt from it and how I developed my style from using it.
8-frame buffer? You mean 5 right? It might be 8 frames in theory, or on some spec sheet, I have no idea.. But in reality it chokes at 5. And that was not only tested on mine...
I wish I could have it still. But considering the costs of these cameras I could never justify running around with one M and one M Monochrom when my personal output from both cameras will be virtually identical. And that's the only reason I decided to sell it.
Since you have no interest in film, I would suggest your claim to "forcing yourself to learn B&W imaging and processing" is overblown in the extreme. You'll understand little, or nothing, about B&w imagery until you understand B&W film, even if its to understand b&W Digital capture in contrast to traditional silver halide.
doolittle
Well-known
The OP sold the camera and he is happy with his decision, that's fair enough to me.
I would love an MM, but know it is overkill for my purposes too. A3 is the biggest I print. I have an M8 which does that digitally and I could never give up shooting TriX. I still love looking at the pictures people are making with the MM, it really does have its own look.
I guess with demand for the MM you didn't loose a whole lot on the transaction? Probably cheaper than renting.
I would love an MM, but know it is overkill for my purposes too. A3 is the biggest I print. I have an M8 which does that digitally and I could never give up shooting TriX. I still love looking at the pictures people are making with the MM, it really does have its own look.
I guess with demand for the MM you didn't loose a whole lot on the transaction? Probably cheaper than renting.
Vince Lupo
Barely Known
mfogiel:
8-frame buffer? You mean 5 right? It might be 8 frames in theory, or on some spec sheet, I have no idea.. But in reality it chokes at 5. And that was not only tested on mine...
For those situations in which I shoot more rapidly, it usually gives out at 8 frames. However I have the camera set at DNG only, and maybe I'm not as 'rapid' as other shooters. Maybe that's why in my experience with the Monochrom and the M9, it's been 8 frames. I'm sure if I had the camera set at DNG+JPEG and was really going for it, it likely would be much less than 8.
Thanks, Borge, for sharing your experiences with the MM and experimental conclusions. There are so many different opinions and preferences that it's natural that not all will see things the same way.
The MM is an alluring concept, and I admire Leica's enterprise in creating it. I would have bought it myself in 2008 had it existed, since my getting an M8 then was intended only for B&W with that touch of IR.
That experiment was not as intensive as yours, but I learned from it that somewhere along the way I had become a color photographer. Fortunately, the M8 is easily bent to that task!
As to film, I'm inclined to feel differently about that than Marek. But it's hard to disprove a contention that B&W film experience is a prerequisite for success in digital B&W, if I understand that correctly. I can't separate myself from many years of souping my own film and making B&W prints in the home darkroom. The difficulty of doing color there effectively constrained my choices.
Now I feel a great sense of freedom in being able to effectively control color output through digital processing. I try to make it look good in its own right, not trying to look like film. And no need to burn/dodge and spot each individual print, just the digital file from which prints are made.
The MM is an alluring concept, and I admire Leica's enterprise in creating it. I would have bought it myself in 2008 had it existed, since my getting an M8 then was intended only for B&W with that touch of IR.
That experiment was not as intensive as yours, but I learned from it that somewhere along the way I had become a color photographer. Fortunately, the M8 is easily bent to that task!
As to film, I'm inclined to feel differently about that than Marek. But it's hard to disprove a contention that B&W film experience is a prerequisite for success in digital B&W, if I understand that correctly. I can't separate myself from many years of souping my own film and making B&W prints in the home darkroom. The difficulty of doing color there effectively constrained my choices.
Now I feel a great sense of freedom in being able to effectively control color output through digital processing. I try to make it look good in its own right, not trying to look like film. And no need to burn/dodge and spot each individual print, just the digital file from which prints are made.
borge
Established
Well, in regards to B&W film, I personally don't like high-contrast B&W.
If I were to shoot B&W film I would definitely pick Fuji Acros or Agfa Scala as one of my favorite films, although the latter is discontinued and not possible to get developed any more if I remember correctly.
The typical high-contrast, noisy and "toneless" high contrast films are not appealing to me. Except maybe Neopan 1600 if you really want to push it as some visual effect. I never liked the Tri-X "look" that almost everyone seems to consider the epitome of B&W photography.
But that's just me.
If I were to shoot B&W film I would definitely pick Fuji Acros or Agfa Scala as one of my favorite films, although the latter is discontinued and not possible to get developed any more if I remember correctly.
The typical high-contrast, noisy and "toneless" high contrast films are not appealing to me. Except maybe Neopan 1600 if you really want to push it as some visual effect. I never liked the Tri-X "look" that almost everyone seems to consider the epitome of B&W photography.
But that's just me.
Mudman
Well-known
I guess I find the blog post a bit condescending concerning b&w photography, and photography in general. To say that you've learned all that you need to know about b&w photography in a year, seems a bit short sighted to me. Filters, lighting, searching for contrast in subject matter, etc. there is a lot of material. I might say that it's given you a step in the right direction, but I wouldn't say that you've mastered it. The work is good, but not monumental. I enjoyed your photography, but there is definite room for critique. Did you explore the MM with any color filters to see their effect? Utilize the Zone system at all in conceptualizing your images? Besides being a B&W sensor, what did the MM teach you about working in B&W? I guess I found your post lacking in substance on the matter.
I'm happy you learned from the experience, but think the post needs a bit more meat on the bones so to speak.
I'm happy you learned from the experience, but think the post needs a bit more meat on the bones so to speak.
Pioneer
Mentor
I admire you for being able to commit to the Monochrom for a year. It would be interesting to try but I am not certain I could live without film that long.
Frankly, for what you shoot, you probably would have used Pan-X back in film days. Faster film, i.e. Tri-X, was typically used for low light/fast moving subjects. What you've posted on your blog appear to me static subjects where slower films such as Plus-X (iso 125) or Panatomic X (iso 32) were traditionally used.
Wagon wheels and static pets aren't especially pushing the envelope. And this is where some basic familiarity with film processes might assist you in developing a "vision;" most film photographer's "look" was more a function of what was required to get the shot than it was an aesthetic decision. For you, as a digital shooter, it's simply a preference.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The statements made about having to use film to understand or master black and white photography are about what I expect to hear around here.
I personally still prefer the look of film to digital and the MM is no exception in this department but that doesn't mean I regard film as a superior or a better learning medium for monochrome images ... I'll leave that type of arrogance for others to espouse.
I personally still prefer the look of film to digital and the MM is no exception in this department but that doesn't mean I regard film as a superior or a better learning medium for monochrome images ... I'll leave that type of arrogance for others to espouse.
pieter
Established
I'm still not sure which way to go when using my Monochrom.
I mean when shooting and processing my pictures from the Monochrom I keep thinking or wanting to know just what a normal black and white picture should look like. Then I realise that with "normal" my mind seems to imply film b&w. I mean I would like to know what a typical film b&w photographer feels is a correct way for the highlights to roll off or how the shadows disappear.
With the Monochrom it can be daunting to have to make all these choices yourself. It almost seems like you have to know more about b&w photography than when using film, because the Monochrom processing keeps asking what kind of look you want from it, instead of letting some of those choices be made partly by your film.
I read some books like the zone system by Ansel Adams but realised that if I wanted to learn such things I should use film camera's.
But the same realisation which told me that old film wisdom is of only partial use for the Monochrom also told me that the Monochrom is only partially useable as a film camera. Learn film if you want to learn film. Learn Monochrom when you want to learn the Monochrom. It really is not a film substitute, neither in the positive or the negative sense.
I have the Monochrom for half a year now, but I know I wont last a year without color. I enjoy b&w for myself, but it really is kind of a egoistical camera for me. My wife and friends enjoy my color pictures much more, and for the free work I do for a charity organisation I need color anyway.
But I think I'm going a different route with my Monochrom. I feel it's an end-station for my egoistical photography. I would like to keep it for many years while updating my color cameras when needed.
Anyway, Borge, sad to see you stop using the Monochrom, since I liked your pictures with it. And I liked your review, so thanks for the inspiration.
I mean when shooting and processing my pictures from the Monochrom I keep thinking or wanting to know just what a normal black and white picture should look like. Then I realise that with "normal" my mind seems to imply film b&w. I mean I would like to know what a typical film b&w photographer feels is a correct way for the highlights to roll off or how the shadows disappear.
With the Monochrom it can be daunting to have to make all these choices yourself. It almost seems like you have to know more about b&w photography than when using film, because the Monochrom processing keeps asking what kind of look you want from it, instead of letting some of those choices be made partly by your film.
I read some books like the zone system by Ansel Adams but realised that if I wanted to learn such things I should use film camera's.
But the same realisation which told me that old film wisdom is of only partial use for the Monochrom also told me that the Monochrom is only partially useable as a film camera. Learn film if you want to learn film. Learn Monochrom when you want to learn the Monochrom. It really is not a film substitute, neither in the positive or the negative sense.
I have the Monochrom for half a year now, but I know I wont last a year without color. I enjoy b&w for myself, but it really is kind of a egoistical camera for me. My wife and friends enjoy my color pictures much more, and for the free work I do for a charity organisation I need color anyway.
But I think I'm going a different route with my Monochrom. I feel it's an end-station for my egoistical photography. I would like to keep it for many years while updating my color cameras when needed.
Anyway, Borge, sad to see you stop using the Monochrom, since I liked your pictures with it. And I liked your review, so thanks for the inspiration.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I think you've hit on the difference between digital and film photography really. The good and the bad of digital is that you can do pretty much anything. If you have no reference to start with then it's very hard to find out or work out what works - effectively trying to replicate 100 years of film development by teams of very cleaver people on your own in a short space of time.
Film frees you form this and lets you get on with picture making. Of course, it also restricts freedom, but that's a choice that's easy to make when you feel unable to deal with the tyranny of choice that digital procssing can represent.
Using film for a period of time, or on an ongoing but not exclusive basis, can also give you a solid reference for digital processing - then when you move away you do so deliberately and knowingly, rather than blindly and unknowing.
This wasn't intended to be an argument that shooting film is necessary, just thinking about some of the difficulties with using digital effectively (it's anything so it's nothing?) and how a film background can bring some order to the process.
Also, I understadn the MM being the end of egotistical photography. I sometimes wonder if I should adopt that approach, but it would also mean the end of any film for me I fear, which I enjoy and engage with still - despite the inconvenience.
Mike
Richard G
Mentor
Excellent insight here. This is where the M9 jpegs in black and white can be liberating. They are nicely done and don't need anything much added. Shooting RAW plus jpeg gives you the best of both worlds. I don't usually do this, however. When this was a crucial expedient was at an anniversary dinner where the lighting was the university colours, blue, or red. By setting the M9 to raw plus jpeg I could see black and white normal looking images on the LCD. Some of the shots at ISO 1600 were so good in the jpeg I was unable to replicate them from the RAW file despite much effort.
Vince Lupo
Barely Known
I think you've definitely hit on an interesting point regarding how experiences with film/darkroom can influence how your digital images will look. I just finished printing a bunch of Monochrom images from my new Epson 3880 printer, and I pulled out some of my old FB silver gelatin prints for comparison. The way in which I rendered the tonality and the general 'feel' of the Monochrom prints could fit right alongside prints I did 15 years ago in my darkroom. And honestly, the image quality on that Epson Exhibition Fiber paper (at least to my eyes) is virtually indistinguishable from my Ilford Multigrade FB prints. But it's early days yet in my new digital 'darkroom', so there's still much to learn.
But even in the traditional darkroom, one can make many choices that can influence the final image outcome -- paper types, finishes, toners, developers etc are but of few of the options available to the darkroom enthusiast (you could even be extreme and make gum bichromate or cyanotype prints). Dodging and burning can also affect how the highlights 'roll off' and the shadows disappear (heck, even the manner in which you exposed and developed the negative influences those elements). And like a digital file, you can't get in the print what's not in the neg (a blown highlight is a blown highlight, digital or film). So in some respects, working in the film darkroom is not so different than working in the digital darkroom. What was it that Ansel said?...."The negative is the score, the print is the performance"? Guess you could potentially replace the word 'negative' with 'DNG', and it would still ring true.
I too tried various effects with software like Silver Efex Pro on my Monochrom images, but after all the playing was done, I went back to that which I developed (no pun intended!) when I was shooting film. Likely it was also influenced by the photographers who influence me, not to mention my general subject matter over all these years (which interestingly, hasn't changed all that much). I'm sure it's the same for many of us photographers who've been shooting for a number of years and have straddled both the analog and digital camps.
So is having a foundation black and white film essential for really mastering the art of black and white digital? I can't say definitively what works for everyone, but for me personally I'm glad that I had that foundation upon which to build. And believe me, after 35 years of shooting black and white, I'm still learning!
But even in the traditional darkroom, one can make many choices that can influence the final image outcome -- paper types, finishes, toners, developers etc are but of few of the options available to the darkroom enthusiast (you could even be extreme and make gum bichromate or cyanotype prints). Dodging and burning can also affect how the highlights 'roll off' and the shadows disappear (heck, even the manner in which you exposed and developed the negative influences those elements). And like a digital file, you can't get in the print what's not in the neg (a blown highlight is a blown highlight, digital or film). So in some respects, working in the film darkroom is not so different than working in the digital darkroom. What was it that Ansel said?...."The negative is the score, the print is the performance"? Guess you could potentially replace the word 'negative' with 'DNG', and it would still ring true.
I too tried various effects with software like Silver Efex Pro on my Monochrom images, but after all the playing was done, I went back to that which I developed (no pun intended!) when I was shooting film. Likely it was also influenced by the photographers who influence me, not to mention my general subject matter over all these years (which interestingly, hasn't changed all that much). I'm sure it's the same for many of us photographers who've been shooting for a number of years and have straddled both the analog and digital camps.
So is having a foundation black and white film essential for really mastering the art of black and white digital? I can't say definitively what works for everyone, but for me personally I'm glad that I had that foundation upon which to build. And believe me, after 35 years of shooting black and white, I'm still learning!
pieter
Established
I can certainly see how many years of experience with black & white film photography can be a big help when shooting with the Monochrom. But for a beginning photographer like me, I find it to be very hard to selectively apply theory about b&w film processing to my Monochrom use.
The zone system being a good example: I now know the basics of the system, but can hardly find a way to apply this to my use of the Monochrom. Obviously the monochrom actually displays some information about exposure which has to do with the zone system, but Lightroom and the whole workflow and choices seem quite remote to how the zone system is intended to work with a film camera.
Film experience can be a big plus when shooting the Monochrom, but when just starting out I don't think it would be helpful to first shoot film for many years and then start on the Monochrom.
Part of the Monochrom experience seems to be a new kind of black and white photography, somehow different from film but also from how digital black and white has functioned up till now.
It uses things like color filters on the lens, just like film. (which is very different from lightroom adjusting the filter in post process, which is a big part of digital black and white). But it's versatility and tabula-rasa like processing seems to be more like digital (even considering all the options film processing has).
The more I think and write about it, the more I realise it really is a truly unique camera of which we still haven't seen the best of.
The zone system being a good example: I now know the basics of the system, but can hardly find a way to apply this to my use of the Monochrom. Obviously the monochrom actually displays some information about exposure which has to do with the zone system, but Lightroom and the whole workflow and choices seem quite remote to how the zone system is intended to work with a film camera.
Film experience can be a big plus when shooting the Monochrom, but when just starting out I don't think it would be helpful to first shoot film for many years and then start on the Monochrom.
Part of the Monochrom experience seems to be a new kind of black and white photography, somehow different from film but also from how digital black and white has functioned up till now.
It uses things like color filters on the lens, just like film. (which is very different from lightroom adjusting the filter in post process, which is a big part of digital black and white). But it's versatility and tabula-rasa like processing seems to be more like digital (even considering all the options film processing has).
The more I think and write about it, the more I realise it really is a truly unique camera of which we still haven't seen the best of.
gilpen123
Gil
Back in the days the only choice is only film and slide, those that have been in this period would most likely look at replicating this medium in the modern days. I was in that period as well but to me digital more specifically B&W conversion or the monochrome provides more leeway in choosing how the shooter would envision the result to be. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot and process B&W film though getting less and less now. I still love the tonality and dynamic range B&W film gives but also love how digital comes of age. With the various post processing software available now and IMO the much better DR of new digital cameras as opposed to several years back, I think one does not need to have that foundation so to speak. I'm pretty sure, those that shoot digital B&W have seen many samples either in the net or in books and may have pretty good idea of how different B&W films look.
To the OP, your experiment surely taught you a lot. They are good though we have not seen the other shots yet. Go with what you believe is best for you. RFF members are mostly film shooters and probably are the best critics I mean real critics when it comes to B&W.
To the OP, your experiment surely taught you a lot. They are good though we have not seen the other shots yet. Go with what you believe is best for you. RFF members are mostly film shooters and probably are the best critics I mean real critics when it comes to B&W.