Monochrom: First pics from Melbourne

Anyone who has dabbled in digital B&W for a long time will never even consider a sensor without RGB channels. You want as much info in the raw file as possible.

The resolution and sharpness of MM is in fact a drawback because in b&w a softer, less detailed look lends itself to smooth tonal transition and it has been the main characteristic of B&w film since it beginning... Most digital B&W is spoiled by too much sharpening which is like a compulsion among lots of photographers.
 
A simple boolean search on Google will bring up enough DNG files to play with. There is also a Flickr group with images taken with the Monochrom (some jpegs up to full res.) While a DNG will give more adjustment leeway, a jpeg is sufficient.

Flickr group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1891662@N25/

One negative thing I am seeing with this camera is the tendency to produce pinstripe banding in deep shadows at any ISO (even 320), much like my three M9's did. It doesn't happen all the time but if you look… you'll find it. It is very subtle and highly unlikely a deal breaker in my opinion.
 
funkydog said:
Monochrom noob alert, not picking a fight. Why the need for Silver efex treatment if the ooc output is better than digicam greyscale? Style? Personal preference?
What do the ooc jpg/raw converted to jpg look like without silver efx?
Click to expand...

i was thinking along the same lines really. i mean none of this as an attack or criticism but none of the work looks like tri-x that i know nor tmax 400? if anything, it resembles neopan 400 on my screen (which is NOT a bad thing as i love that stuff).

is this discrepancy a result of the Silver Efex processing?
 
leicashot said:
Hi Helen here are the originals without processing...very very grey, lots of tonal range.

ScreenShot2012-09-01at115854AM.png


ScreenShot2012-09-01at115824AM.png
Click to expand...

out of pure curiosity leicashot... would an original be possible? i respect and understand if this is not something you want to do.
 
tightsqueez said:
Very interesting.

I like the untouched versions a lot better than the adjusted. This is good news. Thanks for posting both.
Click to expand...

I like the original versions better. Smoother and lusher look. The processed files look "too sharp" to my eye... but hey you are the photographer, not me!

Great job! I want a M9M too!:D
 
Vincent.G said:
I like the original versions better. Smoother and lusher look. The processed files look "too sharp" to my eye... but hey you are the photographer, not me!

Great job! I want a M9M too!:D
Click to expand...

There's no best way to do any of this, and the same goes for darkroom processing....we do what we personally like. When it comes to this line of work i process in a way that best fits how i saw the scene, and what I was trying to achieve at the time of exposure. I don't shoot and process after effects. I try to stay as close to the real deal as possible, even if that means the end effect is different to what people are expecting.

I just to what makes me happiest ;)
 
The quality of the images exceeds anything else I've seen from digital. The camera looks like a game changer to me!
 
A few months ago my mantra (like many people's) was digital for colour and film for black and white. I agree - the MM is a game changer. The results are wonderful. The OP's pics here are particularly superb.

For me I'll still continue with Acros and Tri-X in an M3 (and actually Portra for colour too) but I can see why people would move up to the MM. I still love the darkroom too much, and simply don't have the funds but one day...

I really enjoy seeing the results from the MM so keep posting guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top