Question for Monochrom users

Timmyjoe

Timmyjoe

Mentor
Local time
2:43 AM
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,820
For those of you who were B&W film users, and then purchased a Leica M Monochrom camera, has it changed your usage of B&W film?

Since 1976 I've been shooting 1-3 rolls of B&W film per week. But decades of processing film (and first printing in the darkroom and later scanning to the computer) is starting to get old.

I'm wondering if the Leica M Monochrom has replaced shooting B&W film for you, or does it mainly just supplement shooting B&W film for you?

A Leica M Monochrom would be a big financial commitment for me, but if it could replace my film usage, and streamline my workflow, it might be worth it. But if it's just another digital wonder (like my other digital cameras), then it wouldn't be worth the expense.

So, does the Leica M Monochrom replace shooting B&W film for you?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
So, does the Leica M Monochrom replace shooting B&W film for you
Click to expand...

Yes. Used to shoot 3-5 rolls a week and 2-3 a day when travelling. Have shot almost none since getting the MM in 2012 and the the 246 in 2015 (because my MM sensors kept corroding).

Marty
 
I have the original MM... owned it from new
After the initial bout of using it, I found myself putting film camera's back in the bag, even left it at home when I have been on holiday. HP5, M2 & TLR were the choice
Mixing digital and film in the bag has never worked for me either.
However I like it and taken some great photo's with it, but it hasn't replaced film.
I'm also not sure the 246 version was an upgrade either, the original had something I never saw in the later model
 
This will be an interesting discussion, though it seems like the nature of the question is likely to skew the resulting answers as most of the film shooters who wouldn’t eventually let the MM replace their film, never buy the MM in the first place, so they can’t respond, and most who go to the expense of the MM are already leaning digital to start with.

Maybe.
 
not a monochrom user... so I cannot help You there, though a lovely camera.
Still prefer Film for my Lifestyle and way of shooting

Have a Question for You Tim
If i remember correctly You have a Nikon DF.
It renders quite beautifully, lots of subtleties and refinement to that sensor/ and depending on lens

Does it not fulfill your needs ?
 
Larry Cloetta said:
This will be an interesting discussion, though it seems like the nature of the question is likely to skew the resulting answers as most of the film shooters who wouldn’t eventually let the MM replace their film, never buy the MM in the first place, so they can’t respond, and most who go to the expense of the MM are already leaning digital to start with.

Maybe.
Click to expand...

I've been a film shooter since the 70's
The MM doesn't replace film for me... but it can supplement and wins in low light
 
Tim,

I was a film die hard who swore never to go digital. I wanted to be totally old school and live in the past, partly because I went to art school in the seventies.

Then Leica made the perfect camera for me: the Monochrom. If Leica did not create this camera I would not have deviated. I bought mine prepaid and waited 5 months for my dealer to attend the waiting list. I still own the camera. Had the sensor replaced and overhauled by Leica for free.

I consider digital a separate medium; I don't scan; and I made an archive of negatives that I will wet print one day. I still shoot film and have more film cameras than ever.

You should realize that the original Monochrom is likely the most unforgiving digital camera ever made. With no Bayer filter array and a CCD sensor it is the easiest camera to blow the highlights.

Many here promote underexposing and pumping up exposure in post processing, but this amps up the noise, and is not the best. I print big, so the noise and artifact of overusing post is avoided.

A certain level of precision is required for best results, and this is easily acheieved learned by using the histogram and the clipping indicators to learn how to nail the exposure for clean files that require little manipulation.

The M-246 is a much more advanced camera, and with its CMOS sensor mucho more forgiving. The bit depth is only 12-bit on the M-246, so even though the sensor is 24 MP, the files are not so much bigger than the 18 MP sensor on my Monochrom which is 14-bit.

So the biggest change for me is that buying the Monochrom over 5 years ago has made me a better photographer.

Also along the way I went into Piezography and became a fine art B&W printer which cost me mucho money, especially because I print a lot and I compound this by printing big. In one year I bought $10K worth of paper and ink to have a stockpile and save money by exploiting sales.

In the end I take advantage of digital for speed. Analog remains a passion and is a more relaxed process.

Cal
 
Larry Cloetta said:
But, it’s inevitably a different look, yes?
Click to expand...

Larry,

When the Leica SL (Digital) was first released I went to PhotoPlusExpo with a 1975 SL-MOT to the Leica booth and asked, "Why should I buy a new SL when I have an old one?"

I met a guy named Richard Herzog (of Phase One fame, who is a large format shooter) who was manning part of the Leica booth.

When he inquired about my work I told him, "I'll be back in a minute," and I went to my friend Robert Rodriguez to borrow a 13x19 print that I had gifted him. Robert is the Canson "Artist In Residence" and over the years has been a bit of a mentor.

When I showed my Piezography print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge with a 28 Cron I kinda blew the guys in the Leica booth away. Richard Herzog asked me if I took the shot with large format and if it was a silver wet print.

This image has the detail that it looks even more large format in a 20x30.

Pretty much I'm using extraordinary means to exploit Leica glass and precision along with a printing process that compounds the great files I'm able to create.

You should know that my friend Christian is a large format shooter, and that when he was looking at some of my 6x9 negatives on a light table he remarked, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

BIG PRINTS DON'T LIE.

Cal
 
helenhill said:
not a monochrom user... so I cannot help You there, though a lovely camera.
Still prefer Film for my Lifestyle and way of shooting

Have a Question for You Tim
If i remember correctly You have a Nikon DF.
It renders quite beautifully, lots of subtleties and refinement to that sensor/ and depending on lens

Does it not fulfill your needs ?
Click to expand...

Hi Helen,

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, I do have a Df, and I find myself using it more and more for assignments, along with the bevy of old pre-AI Nikkor lenses, and setting my D4, D700 & f2.8 zooms aside.

But I'm not terribly thrilled with the B&W I get from it. It's okay, but doesn't hold up to Tri-X, shot with my M's.

Best,
-Tim
 
I would suggest that the relevant questions are: do you think that the photos you see from digital cameras on the web look "good enough" compared to film, and are you going to be content with basically one look for your images (you can change your film images drastically through exposure, filters, developer and film choices)? Do you think you are going to get as good a print as B&W film on fiber? Do you see yourself ink jet printing your images or sending them out to a third party to be printed? Are you someone that does not use alternative processes like lith printing?

If the answers to those questions are yes, then you have a clear path ahead of you.
 
I am not using a Leica Monochrome; however, if you are shooting film and scanning, rather than wet printing, unless you just like the look of scanned film, I recommend that you shoot digital black and white. It's quicker and you have tremendous control in LR. I no longer shoot film unless I specifically want to make gelatin silver or lith prints.
 
I shot with film over many years and processed my own B&W; occasionally I still shoot film. Based on my experience with MM:

I consider shooting with the Monochrom to be a very worthwhile in working with B&W yet digital. Although I was able to make some nice prints shooting film, generally results with my MM are more successful with results that are easier for me to attain. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about whether my images look like film. The experience of making, processing and viewing the images from the Monochrom is one that is uniquely satisfying.

I do make images with regular digital cameras that I choose to process B&W and that I find pleasing. When I am out with my MM however, it is a whole different experience. I recommend you try it and find a good camera at a good price knowing you will recoup most of your investment if it doesn't bear fruit for you artistically.

David
 
Thanks Steve,

Had an M8.2 for a couple years and did like the B&W converted images I could get from it, but hated the crop factor. Have used an M9 and while I love the color from that camera, the converted B&W from that camera leaves me flat.

Best,
-Tim
 
Calzone said:
Larry,

When the Leica SL (Digital) was first released I went to PhotoPlusExpo with a 1975 SL-MOT to the Leica booth and asked, "Why should I buy a new SL when I have an old one?"

<snip>

When I showed my Piezography print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge with a 28 Cron I kinda blew the guys in the Leica booth away.

This image has the detail that it looks even more large format in a 20x30.

Cal
Click to expand...

Cal,

If I am reading that right, you are talking here about a print made from a scanned negative taken by the Leicaflex SL, right, and not a digital file, right? Or, no?

And, a question regarding the MM, since you have both a Monochrom and a digital SL: When the SL came out, there were people saying that the files from it, converted to monochrome, were quite close in character to the files from the Monochrom. Close enough for government work. Would you agree with that, or not close enough, and still worth the bother to get a Monochrom even if one already had an SL? And assuming that differences are more obvious on a large print than on the web.

Larry
 
Larry, I sold my MM1 and bought an M6 as a one year return-to-film experiment. I think the question to ask is, which aesthetic do you prefer? If you like the look of digital files, the MM is tough to beat for BW. But if you prefer the more natural look of BW film, there's nothing like film. Maybe download some raw files and have a look.

I'm ambivalent about my decision. The perfection of the MM files really bothered me sometimes, but the camera produced some of my favorite photographs over the last few years. I completely get what you're saying about the workflow issues. For a high-volume BW shooter, the Monochroms have a lot to offer.

John
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,

If I am reading that right, you are talking here about a print made from a scanned negative taken by the Leicaflex SL, right, and not a digital file, right? Or, no?

And, a question regarding the MM, since you have both a Monochrom and a digital SL: When the SL came out, there were people saying that the files from it, converted to monochrome, were quite close in character to the files from the Monochrom. Close enough for government work. Would you agree with that, or not close enough, and still worth the bother to get a Monochrom even if one already had an SL? And assuming that differences are more obvious on a large print than on the web.

Larry
Click to expand...

Larry,

Sorry for the confusion. I do not scan and my negatives are made for wet printing.

The Piezography print I mentioned was from a file from my Monochrom.

I think because I'm an old school analog guy and because I print glossy on Baryta papers exclusively that I get mighty close to an analog wet print look to my digital printing.

I use Heliopan filters that are marked "Digital." I found that these filters marked "Digital" have both UV and IR filters built in that make for cleaner histograms with less clipping. Pretty much I get a better signal to noise ratio.

Add onto that with my Monochrom I use a 2X yellow filter to boost my contrast at time of image capture instead of using LR5 and post. My post processing is very minor as to not to add digital artifact and noise so I can print big/huge.

In comparing the SL and Monochrom files all I can say is they are different. First off I don't use a yellow filter on the SL for contrast control. Also I have to tweak the SL files a bit more.

I can also say that the CCD sensor has a different look than the CMOS. The histograms also are different. While the CMOS has smoother roll-off in the highlights and more shadow detail I find the mids to be somewhat scooped.

Meanwhile the CCD sensor has this wonderful vast midrange that when exploited by big/huge prints jumps formats and can look easily like medium format and even large format. When we look at large format the rendering becomes more about the mids and less about contrast.

Don't get me wrong. The M-246 is a much more advanced camera with better high ISO, better roll-off in the highlights, more shadow detail, better screen, liveview, bigger buffer, faster shooter... but the original Monochrom has the mids of larger formats.

I use the SL to cover my gal's fashion blog. She has over 568K followers, earlier this year won a "Shorty Award," and last year gave a TED Talk.

For me I find I get more of my best shots from my Monochrom. Warts and all I find my Monochrom to be more like a film camera, and the way I shoot it is as if I'm a large format shooter maximizing IQ at the time of image capture as if I'm trying to make a perfect negative for contact printing like I'm shooting an 8x10 camera.

Back in the seventies I was trained to make negatives that could be straight printed on a number 2 grade paper consistently.

Also a 12x18 image size for me is required as a test print size because smaller prints really don't reveal enough detail and the tonality does'nt open up on smaller prints.

Cal
 
My use of the Monochrom is more for low light work.
Film is for 100-400asa range for me on the M7, when I need quicker, then the Monochrom is what I reach for.
 
Thanks for the response, John. Downloading some Monochrom RAW files is a good idea, will see what I can find.

And Cal, thanks as well. That's more specific information than I have found elsewhere regarding the SL and Monochrom versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top