Emile de Leon
Well-known
The new Monochrome w/50mm APO..
A pretty compelling argument for it below..
If you got the dough..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU4rjFXfupU
A pretty compelling argument for it below..
If you got the dough..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU4rjFXfupU
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I doubt it is sensor, just bad TTL metering.
My M-E is not so good for TTL metering. Olympus E-PL1 I have is way better for it.
Here is one for X.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4388590157/a-second-glance-two-takes-on-the-leica-x
Monochromes seems to be the same.
Basically $$$$ digital Leica remains as manual exposure camera. They could pull it with wide latitude film, but on digital this luck of technology is visible.
Is this new Leica fans look? To me as old school bw gelatin silver prints dude is is next to awful on tonality images in this video. And I already mentioned awful ISO 16000 banding in this video in another thread. @ 8:45 if I'm not mistaken.
Worse video to promote M10M, IMO.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I aint buyin it anytime soon..lol..
As..I can get way better tonality out of contact prints with LF 5x7 and up..
But that M10 with the 50 APO..not too shabby..for digital..
If thats your game..
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Lets not lie to ourselves...
Here is way better digital BW. From M8, M9 and from very few Monochrome users. Not to mention bw conversions from another digital cameras. My 40$ Lumix gives better and SOOC. IMO.
The only great advantage of Monochrome I see is better resolving power. But tonality from its average user, including reviewers, which they are getting from it is far from economy Kentmere 400 film scans taken by Zorki.
retinax
Well-known
Yes well I looked at one of the linked reviews and also from some other stuff I've seen, apparently a lot of people seem to fail to understand that the huge dynamic ra -ok ok, exposure range- results in very flat files that need the contrast bumped up a lot. I'm also pretty certain that "tonality" can be anything the user wants, but some people need to get familiar with the curves tool.
Huss
Mentor
There's a reason Leica used to bundle SilverFX with the camera. Because of the intentionally flat files. W/ SilverFX, boom - pick your moody preset!
Silver Efex Pro and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
After registration of the camera, a full version of the world's leading black-and-white image processing software, NIK Silver Efex Pro, is supplied as a free download along with a copy of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. Silver Efex Pro incorporates a unique and powerful set of darkroom-inspired tools to maximize the quality of monochrome prints produced by the M Monochrom. Silver Efex Pro emulates over 20 different black and white film types to recreate the classic monochrome look of film. The emulation is based on detailed analysis of multiple rolls of each film type. This results in accurate reproductions of popular film from ISO 32 to ISO 3200.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Bingo! I didn't knew it. SilverFX is not panacea for experienced user, but good amateur starting point.
icebear
Mentor
Trying to evaluate the image quality of a camera from files embedded into a you tube video??
THIS ^^
And THIS^^ as well. A film negative is also just a flat starting point. You have to choose the right developer, right parameters, right printing paper. If you print a low contrast negative on low gradiation paper, you'll get a flat looking print.
I tried SFX with my MM at the beginning and didn't like it at all. It just didn't give me any improvement and looked somehow artificial for me. On the other hand I never had the intention to fake a certain analog film grain look
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
True enough. It’s also true that what’s “good tonality” for someone can be “ungood tonality” for someone else since it’s not a hard scientific term the way it is often used and tossed around. More often than not in discussions “good tonality” only means “I like the way it looks, it fits my style”.
Curves are a valuable tool, but are only a way of manipulating local and overall contrast. The tonal results obtained via the curves tool can be significant, but curves cannot create new information that wasn't captured by the sensor or the negative + developer to begin with. It’s not possible to make absolutely every photo appear exactly how you want it to appear using any sensor or film stock. Sensor tech matters. If the data isn't here to begin with, from film or sensor, there is no post processing method that can ever tease it out. The “tonality” available is going to depend, to a certain extent on the sensor used, and, not to forget, the microcontrast and macrocontrast of the lens used.
Even with all that considered, the “tonality” of the end result file or print will come down to the skill of the person doing the processing, film or digital.
With that in mind, it would be helpful, in threads like this, where terms like “good tonality” are tossed back and forth, if people could post examples of their own work, as it relates to the thread, so others will understand exactly what that person means when they are using the term.
retinax
Well-known
Sure, I didn't mean to say that the curves tool is the one and only ticket to "good tonality", but I was mainly responding to Ko.Fe. and his observation that most samples have bad tonality. I suspected that the main culprit is the flat look that a system with huge exposure range is bound to give in all but the most contrasty situations unless the contrast is worked on, and curves are the simplest and most flexible way to do that, is all. Of course there is more to "good tonality" (although it's very subjective), and the main thing IMHO is light. But without getting the contrast right for the viewing medium (although of course also a matter of taste), that all amounts to nothing.
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
Exactly. I wasn’t thinking you thought otherwise, was just making some comments about the “good tonality” thing, in general. Sorry, that it might have appeared otherwise.
Freakscene
Obscure member
As I said in my PM response, DR and ER are only similar for sensors and camera systems with conventional architecture. And in the absence of a better definition, exposure range is the range of light values the camera system can capture however it achieves that.
ETTR leads to problems because a lot of photographers don’t know how to judge how far to the right the histogram should go. I still see more digital photography work with ugly blown highlights because the photographer exposed too far to the right than with noise problems because the photographer exposed too far to the left.
When we use B&W film, there is a lot more information on the film than you put onto paper, or, more recently, you display in a scan. For TMY in Xtol, for example, there are 13-16 stops worth of light range range in the scenes we photograph, minimum, and at CI 0.58 there are 19.5, but there are only about 8 in a print or scan. The advantage of increasing the amount of information in files is that It gives you more choices about how to present the image. And, most importantly to me, it facilitates a gentler roll-off from high/light grey values to pure white, akin to burning some highlights in a darkroom print. There is already a huge amount of shadow information in raw files from these cameras to ‘dodge’’ the shadows.
Having a monochrome raw file is underrated. The in camera B&Ws from other cameras often look good, but because they are jpgs if you need to tweak something they fall apart as soon as you try to adjust anything.
Marty