Dektol Dan
Well-known
Please understand that the M10 was shot in B&W in the camera, which is .jpg.
The first monochrom image was shot in 2013, the second M 10 today, 2019.
However, I think you can get a pretty good idea of the image differences.
I have a number of older digital cameras that have, subjectively, advantages over newer cameras at the expense of ISO.
The first monochrom image was shot in 2013, the second M 10 today, 2019.
However, I think you can get a pretty good idea of the image differences.
I have a number of older digital cameras that have, subjectively, advantages over newer cameras at the expense of ISO.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
Well, looking at them on my computer screen, they measure about 4.25" x 6.5" (at 72dpi of course), so it's hard for me personally to see the difference you might be talking about. But, here is what I'm personally seeing: The exposure in the first shot is brighter than the exposure in the second shot, and the highlight on the gentleman's forehead in the first shot looks a bit blown. In the second shot, it's obviously darker but you're retaining good shadow detail and highlight detail too as a result of the darker exposure. Not sure if the highlight detail retention is strictly a result of the exposure or of the inherent qualities of the M10's CMOS sensor as well. So based upon these two shots as presented, that's what I'm seeing. If I had to choose which shot I prefer based solely on what I see here, I'd choose the second one (that may be also due to the gentleman's expression, pose, and of course the mood created by the the darker exposure). I can't quite tell, but the first shot might be a tad sharper. Were these shot at the same ISO and general camera/lens settings?
Personal Observations and Perspective: As you may know, I've had the M9, the CCD Monochrom and the 246 (CMOS) Monochrom, and was an early adopter of the 246. At base ISO the 246 is definitely cleaner than the CCD Monochrom, but it also renders better (IMO) in the shadows and highlights (I haven't shot with the M10). As a result, it gives me a better 'base' from which to start as I make adjustments. I've exhibited both CCD and CMOS images side-by-side in gallery situations -- 11"x16" prints, so not a huge size, but still a size that you can go and stick your nose against if you're so inclined -- and honestly I'm hard-pressed to say which were CCD and which were CMOS. I still have seasoned photographers to this day ask me if they are all 'darkroom' silver prints. Even looking at them on my Flickr I can't always remember which is which (unless I look at the date in which I took the shots, then I can kinda figure it out). Have a look through my 'Mapping the West' Flickr link below and see if you can pick out the CCD vs the CMOS (there's even an M9 or two in there), because honestly I can't. Don't get me wrong - I loved the CCD Monochrom and the results it produced for me, but I think the thing that did it for me was the infernal buffer that would stop me in my tracks after 8 continuous exposures, the screen size (minor quibble), higher ISO image quality and of course the possibility of sensor corrosion (and perhaps - just perhaps - my infrequent yet admitted quest to have the latest and supposedly greatest). I like the 246's bigger screen, the menu arrangement, the little built-in thumb rest, the illuminated brightlines in the viewfinder (red or white!), its higher ISO performance and of course the images it enables me to produce. I've never really seen any discernible 'magic' in the CCD-produced images versus the images from the 246, but maybe I'm just not sensitive to those nuances that evidently others see. Here again, I'm talking about prints. I prefer the 246 for my personal working methods, yet I don't expect everyone to go along with my personal assessment. I don't use the video on the camera too much, but when I have the results (both sounds and image) have been pretty good! I've made some 11"x16" black and white prints from my M-D as well, and they compare pretty favorably. I do wonder, however, if I'll be singing the praises of the M10 Monochrom when it comes out and will be dropping the 246 like a hot potato. Hmmm...time will tell!
Dan, what is it that you're seeing in the first shot that is markedly different than what's in the second shot? Clearly you are seeing something there, I'm curious to know a bit more about what it is.
Personal Observations and Perspective: As you may know, I've had the M9, the CCD Monochrom and the 246 (CMOS) Monochrom, and was an early adopter of the 246. At base ISO the 246 is definitely cleaner than the CCD Monochrom, but it also renders better (IMO) in the shadows and highlights (I haven't shot with the M10). As a result, it gives me a better 'base' from which to start as I make adjustments. I've exhibited both CCD and CMOS images side-by-side in gallery situations -- 11"x16" prints, so not a huge size, but still a size that you can go and stick your nose against if you're so inclined -- and honestly I'm hard-pressed to say which were CCD and which were CMOS. I still have seasoned photographers to this day ask me if they are all 'darkroom' silver prints. Even looking at them on my Flickr I can't always remember which is which (unless I look at the date in which I took the shots, then I can kinda figure it out). Have a look through my 'Mapping the West' Flickr link below and see if you can pick out the CCD vs the CMOS (there's even an M9 or two in there), because honestly I can't. Don't get me wrong - I loved the CCD Monochrom and the results it produced for me, but I think the thing that did it for me was the infernal buffer that would stop me in my tracks after 8 continuous exposures, the screen size (minor quibble), higher ISO image quality and of course the possibility of sensor corrosion (and perhaps - just perhaps - my infrequent yet admitted quest to have the latest and supposedly greatest). I like the 246's bigger screen, the menu arrangement, the little built-in thumb rest, the illuminated brightlines in the viewfinder (red or white!), its higher ISO performance and of course the images it enables me to produce. I've never really seen any discernible 'magic' in the CCD-produced images versus the images from the 246, but maybe I'm just not sensitive to those nuances that evidently others see. Here again, I'm talking about prints. I prefer the 246 for my personal working methods, yet I don't expect everyone to go along with my personal assessment. I don't use the video on the camera too much, but when I have the results (both sounds and image) have been pretty good! I've made some 11"x16" black and white prints from my M-D as well, and they compare pretty favorably. I do wonder, however, if I'll be singing the praises of the M10 Monochrom when it comes out and will be dropping the 246 like a hot potato. Hmmm...time will tell!
Dan, what is it that you're seeing in the first shot that is markedly different than what's in the second shot? Clearly you are seeing something there, I'm curious to know a bit more about what it is.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I looked at those two yesterday and today. At two different computers (graphic cards, screens).
First is kind low in the contrast with some barely OK highlights.
Second is kind of dark. By all means....
As I wrote some days ago, I have seen few good digital BW pictures so far. Monochrome included.
But, I guess, my taste is way too different. I'm Yousuf Karsh kind of guy.
First is kind low in the contrast with some barely OK highlights.
Second is kind of dark. By all means....
As I wrote some days ago, I have seen few good digital BW pictures so far. Monochrome included.
But, I guess, my taste is way too different. I'm Yousuf Karsh kind of guy.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Thanks for Looking
Thanks for Looking
My take on Vince's comments:
First, the ability to make a more detailed and controlled image
is better with the old 14 bit M9 with .dmg. I suppose that is why you will wait for the M10 mono.
As presented, the images look very similar, but if you look at them for subtleties in mid tone transitions, the CCD wins. But again, jpeg is the only option for B&W on the M 10.
If the images were 300 dpi the .dmg CCD would be the clear winner.
As I said before, the main advantage of newer cameras is higher ISO. I still shoot film. However, as far as image quality goes the M 10 in color is the first digital that I have used that convinces me that film has been equaled (disregarding exposure limitations and inconvenience).
The fellow in the picture, my neighbor Frank, is now 93. I'm pretty sure he'll still be around when, and if, the M 10 Mono comes out, but I still won't be selling my old Monochrom!
Thanks for Looking
My take on Vince's comments:
First, the ability to make a more detailed and controlled image
is better with the old 14 bit M9 with .dmg. I suppose that is why you will wait for the M10 mono.
As presented, the images look very similar, but if you look at them for subtleties in mid tone transitions, the CCD wins. But again, jpeg is the only option for B&W on the M 10.
If the images were 300 dpi the .dmg CCD would be the clear winner.
As I said before, the main advantage of newer cameras is higher ISO. I still shoot film. However, as far as image quality goes the M 10 in color is the first digital that I have used that convinces me that film has been equaled (disregarding exposure limitations and inconvenience).
The fellow in the picture, my neighbor Frank, is now 93. I'm pretty sure he'll still be around when, and if, the M 10 Mono comes out, but I still won't be selling my old Monochrom!
Bill Clark
Mentor
I just loaded a roll of TMX into one of my Hasselblads. It’s got a 150 on it and I think I will use it with that on today. We have so much snow now I have to get out and widen the entrance to our driveway as the side mirrors on our cars scrape the snow when driving in! I have a roll of Pan F plus I’m getting ready to develop. I’ve gotten it as far as loaded into the tank! When I make a print in my darkroom, I have black and white paper to use. Both RC and fiber. Mostly use RC as it works best for me.
My line of thinking, I use digital 100% for color. No digital black and white but I suppose I could use ACR to make a B&W file. I use RAW capture. The lab I used to use printed black and white using color paper.
But now I’m retired I can take my time. I have a 1930’s replica radio in my darkroom. It’s fun again!
My line of thinking, I use digital 100% for color. No digital black and white but I suppose I could use ACR to make a B&W file. I use RAW capture. The lab I used to use printed black and white using color paper.
But now I’m retired I can take my time. I have a 1930’s replica radio in my darkroom. It’s fun again!
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
Dan, couldn't you shoot the M10 in DNG, then suck all the saturation out of it in post? That would also give you a black and white image, but in DNG. Have you tried that to see what that might do for you?
Here again, it's hard for me to personally tell the difference as the exposures look different, at least to my eye.
Here again, it's hard for me to personally tell the difference as the exposures look different, at least to my eye.
willie_901
Mentor
The lower photo's exposure is inadequate. This makes direct comparisons impossible.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
DNG Color First and Inadequate Exposure
DNG Color First and Inadequate Exposure
I think the exposure is fine, quite frankly I think it is difficult to tell which image is better from what I posted, that is why I made the comment about ISO, which is something that can't be easily seen.
Vince you are right, the only way out, and a very much cheaper way than buying a future Monochrom M 10 is to shoot it in color DNG then convert to B&W.
Now we're back to the M 8 which shot B&W very well indeed, no conversion necessary.
Sorry about my DMG not DNG typo. Proof reading with glasses is an asset!
The original idea was an out of camera comparison.
DNG Color First and Inadequate Exposure
I think the exposure is fine, quite frankly I think it is difficult to tell which image is better from what I posted, that is why I made the comment about ISO, which is something that can't be easily seen.
Vince you are right, the only way out, and a very much cheaper way than buying a future Monochrom M 10 is to shoot it in color DNG then convert to B&W.
Now we're back to the M 8 which shot B&W very well indeed, no conversion necessary.
Sorry about my DMG not DNG typo. Proof reading with glasses is an asset!
The original idea was an out of camera comparison.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
I have the M 10 and the original MM and I prefer the B&W output from my MM over the M 10.
DwF
Well-known
There is a milkiness to the tonality in image two. I read that it was made from JPEG which I imagine makes fair comparison moot. Maybe that you could get the M10 to yield a better result but this is just how it comes across on my monitor.
As for comparing the MM, it is a camera that I have, and one that I have made comparison images to other cameras I own although admittedly not under strict conditions. I find the MM has special qualities tonally that are not always apparent, but they are qualities that I see here and other sites on various threads even in 72dpi. And they are qualities that distinguish the camera as a tool for B&W in a way that I have not seen in other cameras.
I'd best describe the MM as having a fully smooth tonal range and an almost "unfiltered" look ....edge is not the right word, but maybe rawness or freshness, and not RAW as in describing files.
As for comparing the MM, it is a camera that I have, and one that I have made comparison images to other cameras I own although admittedly not under strict conditions. I find the MM has special qualities tonally that are not always apparent, but they are qualities that I see here and other sites on various threads even in 72dpi. And they are qualities that distinguish the camera as a tool for B&W in a way that I have not seen in other cameras.
I'd best describe the MM as having a fully smooth tonal range and an almost "unfiltered" look ....edge is not the right word, but maybe rawness or freshness, and not RAW as in describing files.
icebear
Mentor
Whatever camera you have, you have to learn how to achieve the best possible result. Typically that process isn't close to be finished before people start looking for a new camera. Either with more mp or a different sensor technology or iso, or supposedly higher dynamic range.
Once you are close to maxing out the potential of your camera at time of exposure, optimize your careful post processing AND get a professional printer lay down the uncropped image on a high quality paper at 24x36", you will never know what it actually possible. Even with a by today's standards measly 18mp 7 year old digital camera. If the subject of your image isn't by chance a still life with a scull, it will look alive.
Once you are close to maxing out the potential of your camera at time of exposure, optimize your careful post processing AND get a professional printer lay down the uncropped image on a high quality paper at 24x36", you will never know what it actually possible. Even with a by today's standards measly 18mp 7 year old digital camera. If the subject of your image isn't by chance a still life with a scull, it will look alive.
ramosa
B&W
I find the first picture overexposed and the second one underexposed. Not offensively, but noticeably so. With the MM, of course, it’s important to keep a close eye on exposure in terms of the potential for blown highlights. It could be that a couple slider shifts could easily improve the exposure of the second one, but the highlighted forehead in the first one may be beyond quick remedy.
Most stunning to me, however, is that you were able to document this gentleman in the same place, across these six years (i.e., 2013 and 2019). Well done.
Most stunning to me, however, is that you were able to document this gentleman in the same place, across these six years (i.e., 2013 and 2019). Well done.