Bad Example
Member
Hello all,
I am returning to Leica RF Photography after many years of shooting w a digital Nikon SLR. Prior to the Nikon experience, I shot w M3 and MP bodies and still have several excellent m-mount lenses. I am now deciding between a new monochrom an M11. I prefer B&W for most subjects and am wondering if I will achieve better results w the monochrom in B&W? With the M11 I can always desaturate w/ software. It would be nice to have the color option in the same camera as opposed to buying another (probably Fuji-X) body for color shooting. Also, do most monochrom shooters underexpose as a matter of course?
Thanks for the opines!
I am returning to Leica RF Photography after many years of shooting w a digital Nikon SLR. Prior to the Nikon experience, I shot w M3 and MP bodies and still have several excellent m-mount lenses. I am now deciding between a new monochrom an M11. I prefer B&W for most subjects and am wondering if I will achieve better results w the monochrom in B&W? With the M11 I can always desaturate w/ software. It would be nice to have the color option in the same camera as opposed to buying another (probably Fuji-X) body for color shooting. Also, do most monochrom shooters underexpose as a matter of course?
Thanks for the opines!
If you use Orange and Red filters, you will see a big difference as you are essentially eliminating the Blue and Green pixels in the color camera from contributing to the image.
A medium Yellow- you are mostly eliminating the Blue pixels.
You save a lot of time in post processing by using the dedicated Monochrome camera. Less time in front of the computer, more time thinking before the image is taken on how you want it to look.
SO- almost all Monochrome final product, experience with shooting film, collection of good lenses and filters- dedicated Monochrome camera in terms of final output and the process.
Shoot with no filters, not sure how you want the final rendering, use a color camera and convert in post.
I often bring both the M9 and M Monochrom. 10 years ago I did a direct comparison of shooting the M9 and M Monochrom with the same static scene and doing a conversion. M Monochrom with a red filter, M9 using a simulated red filter. Big difference in the edges, smooth on the M Monochrom and "bright/dark outlines" with the converted images.
Nikon built a prototype monochrome version of the Df, the sensor is used in their microscope cameras. The latter- color and monochrome versions available. They did not release it, buy the Nikon rep assured me it was amazing.
A medium Yellow- you are mostly eliminating the Blue pixels.
You save a lot of time in post processing by using the dedicated Monochrome camera. Less time in front of the computer, more time thinking before the image is taken on how you want it to look.
SO- almost all Monochrome final product, experience with shooting film, collection of good lenses and filters- dedicated Monochrome camera in terms of final output and the process.
Shoot with no filters, not sure how you want the final rendering, use a color camera and convert in post.
I often bring both the M9 and M Monochrom. 10 years ago I did a direct comparison of shooting the M9 and M Monochrom with the same static scene and doing a conversion. M Monochrom with a red filter, M9 using a simulated red filter. Big difference in the edges, smooth on the M Monochrom and "bright/dark outlines" with the converted images.
Nikon built a prototype monochrome version of the Df, the sensor is used in their microscope cameras. The latter- color and monochrome versions available. They did not release it, buy the Nikon rep assured me it was amazing.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I am probably overlooking something obvious, but why would a Monochrome shooter underexpose as a matter of course?
Luke_Miller
Established
Color bodies produce three channels of image data. If one clips due to overexposure, the image can often be salvaged using data from the other two. The Monochrom has only the luminance channel. If it clips there is no recovery. I normally dial in -0.7 EV exposure compensation when there is risk of clipping.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
So you underexpose because you are afraid of overexposing? Are there no downsides to underexposing every frame? Sounds antithetical to ETTR, not that I ever climbed board that train. Still, it had some purported theoretical basis. I haven't seen much discussion of it in a few years, so maybe it fell out of favor.
1)Digital Cameras preserve shadow detail better than film. Film preserves highlights better than digital. Digital cameras have a much more linear response, film has a curved response.
Many Monochrom shooters underexpose the image as they know the shadow detail can be pulled up.
2) When using an Orange or Red filter, the light meter of the camera significantly underexposes the image. The spectral response of the sensor and the photodiode are different. Test this before using a particular filter.
https://cameraderie.org/threads/add...mage-thinking-out-loud-and-experiments.38778/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157717138036137
I do not underexpose the image on mine. I do not mind some blown highlights. They show up as bright white, the eye would have a difficult time differentiating the values.
Luke_Miller
Established
Not talking about specular highlights. I have a white house. If I photograph it with my Monochrom using aperture priority or auto ISO in full sun with no exposure compensation the image is overexposed to the point all detail in the house it lost. An unsalvageable image. With the Monochroms there is little downside to a bit of underexposure because they are typically a stop better in ISO noise performance due to the absence of the Bayer array.
In the case of my house photo I am not underexposing, rather using exposure compensation to accomplish what manual exposure using the histogram would have accomplished. But maintaining the -.7 EV compensation does not hurt anything in other situations and keeps me from forgetting to dial it in when needed.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
I do not use any auto modes. I will usually meter the full sun or bright areas before I start shooting. Take a fast test shot and see where my zones are falling. Get the exposure right for that and remember that. Do the same for the shade. Remember that. And go from experience for the things in between. I rarely have any trouble. I shot with transparency film for decades and this is not a lot different from that. I had the M9M for 9 years and I now have the M 10 M and the M9M was less forgiving. I think other camera companies build in a buffer that Leica doesn't build in. Knowledge and experience are key here. Fully knowing the limitations of your tools.
peterm1
Mentor
From my experience most people who do this, under expose their shots deliberately not because they are afraid of over-exposing the shot across the range of tonal values in the image, but rather to avoid blown highlights specifically. The human eye is much more attuned to seeing great ugly blobs of blown highlight (in the sky for example) and perceiving it as unaesthetic than it is to viewing excessively dark shadows and loss of some shadow detail and perceiving it in the same way. In other words - blown highlights are ugly (if not "fugly"
) but dark shadows not so much. In fact, photographers very often want deep shadow in some areas of their image as part of the final image's aesthetic. Especially with black and white images. The truth is I want to avoid pretty much any blown highlights but can tolerate all except the most egregiously dark shadows.I also deliberately under expose images when shooting with digital cameras in conditions which I know will be high contrast and potentially result in blown highlights in part of the image. I should add that I almost always shoot in RAW format too as obviously RAW files help by holding more image data.
Typically, if I am shooting out of doors in bright sunny conditions punctuated by shadowed areas, the shot taken in these conditions with deliberate under exposure (usually two thirds to one full stop under) will come out of camera with less blown highlights but the price I pay is that there will also be some excessively dark shadows as well as some general under exposure. Usually, these RAW files shot in this way still have enough latent detail in the highlights that those details can be fully recovered. Adjusting highlight and shadow tones in post on a computer can usually then fix both problems provided that some latent detail is still available in both and it so happens that this works better if the image is originally under exposed thereby limiting the extent of the blown highlights. What remains can often be fixed in post.
When post processing in Lightroom for example, there are multiple tonal sliders including one that specifically targets highlights and another which specifically targets shadows. These work a treat. I found that this technique of deliberate under exposure was absolutely essential with CCD sensor cameras but still helps with CMOS sensors - even moreso in a way as CMOS sensors have greater tonal latitude and hence better ability to pull detail out. (I accept however that Monochrome sensors are less able tolerate this kind of manipulation in post due to there not being multiple color channels but for this reason under exposure of the image is perhaps even more advisable - i.e. there is less latitude to fix it later.)
You are quite right in saying that this practice contradicts the "expose to the right "rule" but I have always thought that ETTR was a concept which makes sense if you are shooting in studio conditions where lighting is totally under the photographer's control and he/she is seeking absolute image quality, but does not make sense in out of doors lighting conditions where lighting is outside of the photographer's control and you are forced to take whatever nature gives you. If this is likely to result in blown highlights (which these shooting conditions often can do) then it makes eminent sense to mitigate this by under exposing deliberately and accepting that you are theoretically losing some other detail.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
ETTR is a technique for minimizing noise by giving a digital sensor as much exposure as possible without clipping highlights (though many people see sacrificing specular highlights as acceptable in applying ETTR). Doing what is necessary to ensure highlights don't blow isn't inherently antithetical to ETTR.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I use both an M9 and M9M. I am constantly pleased with the rendering I get with my M9M. I use my judgement about when to underexpose and when not to, with either camera. When the subject has bright sky, I underexpose 1/3 or 2/3 stop. If the tones seem uniform, I don't underexpose. At times I overexpose if the scene doesn't have much in the way of highlights. I find the histogram very useful as a guide. I don't know how this applies to the more recent Monochrome.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I shot a lot with the M240 and loved the images til about 800/1600. I had this moment of decision about what sort of photographer I wanted to be. I’m one who enjoys creative limitations, so I dedicated my daily use and documentary type work to BW. Shooting often in low light, I dumped the MP240 and grabbed the M246 and what struck me was the amount of greys in the midtones there were and how nice it looked at high ISO. It’s hard to explain and maybe it’s in my head, but the sliders in lightroom on the 246 seem to have a lot more “information” to them. Like a little 10% shift on the 246 was equal to a 25% shift on a mp240. As far as underexposing, YES. I have learned to protect the highlight zones and trust the cameras sensor ability to bring the shadows up where I need. This took me a while at first, but it works very well. I think it’s a bit of a finicky camera regarding exposure and processing to some degree but it is very well worth the results. I often use a YG filter and am quite happy with the results of that filter.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I never "underexpose", with any camera. I expose properly, taking into account what the meter tells me about the subject I've framed. ... Just because a meter suggests a particular setting doesn't mean that's the proper setting.
G
G
peterm1
Mentor
I agree though I seldom over-expose. But otherwise it's basically what I do.