Question for Monochrom users

Larry Cloetta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Larry,

I have owned the Monochrom for over 5 years and the SL for three. My hope is one day that Leica builds one-day a SLM. Of course I'll keep the SL because it remains a great camera.

To add, recently I got to play with an entire Leica "S" kit. A friend was lent by Leica this kit for a shoot. He picked it up from some guy who was given the entire kit to use with the condition that it could be loaned out on occassion. Why couldn't this be me? LOL.

Really remarkable how transparent and intuitive it was for me to operate the "S." Pretty much the layout, the menues, and all the functions were all the same.

Oddly the "S" weighed about the same rigged as my SL with the monster 50 Lux-SL.

Another thought about the original Monochrom is that it is really one of the most basic digital cameras ever made. Today I enjoy that it is rather primitive, just like a film camera. No video, kinda slow processor, small buffer, no frills...

All this simplicity makes the original Monochrom the camera most like a film camera.

Cal
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,

I am trying to pare down my storehouse of camera types and models. Thanks for (not) helping.

Larry
Click to expand...

Larry,

As old men we build "bunkers" to ensure our survival. Nothing wrong with that.

"Greed is good," said Gordon Gecko in the film "Wall Street" staring Micheal Douglas.

For entertainment value read my post today in the "December NYC Meet-Up" thread.

In the end it is about living life to the fullest and dying with little remorse. Perhaps that is what keeps some of us young and full of life.

All the best.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Larry,

As old men we build "bunkers" to ensure our survival. Nothing wrong with that.

Cal
Click to expand...

Who you calling an "old man", old man!!!?

Anyway, I'm doing my bit keeping my bank account numbers as small as possible because doing the math on every month's statement is easier that way.

Best wishes,

Larry
 
An M246 with a 50/1.1 MS Sonnetar is a hell of a thing.

Out of sheer experimental urges, I've shot (both on my own with my 8yo) many dozens of rolls of TMY and Ultrafine in the last year on a variety of cameras, and other than the nostalgia trip of using old Nikons and Konicas, 35mm b/w film just can't compete.

The M246 outresolves film, out ISOs it, has no generational loss due to scanning; exhibits no film scratches, watermarks, cold-weather static or streaks; doesn't have to be manually catalogued, and generally out-conveniences film. It also shoots a massive number of pictures on a charge without the volumetric footprint of 10-20 rolls of film. If you want to get film-like grain, you can always jack things up to 5-digit ISOs or use a commercial software package to introduce it. But why? Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

You can print the M246 pictures on Ilfospeed Rapid on a frontier, and now you have RC silver prints that can be perfectly calibrated and repeated. That last part is where it goes to "game over" for small-format film unless you are really invested in optically printing 35mm to fiber paper, which I regard as fairly low return on a major time if not also money investment.

So in short, my answer is that it has relegated 35mm black and white to a novelty. It has not supplanted my use of 6x9 and 6x12 film cameras in any way, but those mainly serve my need to get away from computers for a few hours a week.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
An M246 with a 50/1.1 MS Sonnetar is a hell of a thing.

Out of sheer experimental urges, I've shot (both on my own with my 8yo) many dozens of rolls of TMY and Ultrafine in the last year on a variety of cameras, and other than the nostalgia trip of using old Nikons and Konicas, 35mm b/w film just can't compete.

The M246 outresolves film, out ISOs it, has no generational loss due to scanning; exhibits no film scratches, watermarks, cold-weather static or streaks; doesn't have to be manually catalogued, and generally out-conveniences film. It also shoots a massive number of pictures on a charge without the volumetric footprint of 10-20 rolls of film. If you want to get film-like grain, you can always jack things up to 5-digit ISOs or use a commercial software package to introduce it. But why? Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

You can print the M246 pictures on Ilfospeed Rapid on a frontier, and now you have RC silver prints that can be perfectly calibrated and repeated. That last part is where it goes to "game over" for small-format film unless you are really invested in optically printing 35mm to fiber paper, which I regard as fairly low return on a major time if not also money investment.

So in short, my answer is that it has relegated 35mm black and white to a novelty. It has not supplanted my use of 6x9 and 6x12 film cameras in any way, but those mainly serve my need to get away from computers for a few hours a week.

Dante
Click to expand...

Dante,

I take your side that small format film is a novelty today, and for me wet printing small format is the only reason to keep my SLR's and Leica film cameras.

At almost 61 I hope to have that darkroom one day that I can't have today in my Madhattan apartment. Meanwhile just make negatives...

The IQ of digital can jump formats and printing big is not a problem.

Really takes medium format film to compete with small format digital B&W.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: Know that I already have the capabilities to print digital negatives for contact printing, so basically I see that the next development for me is to print negatives and wet print them via contact printing. I already have these capabilities with the Epson 7800 I use for digital printing using Piezography. No ink changes required either. Pretty much all I need is studio space.

I can do a "Salgado" and I don't require the best lab in Paris to do this, and a working slob like me has the means to do this. All I need is space.

Pretty much I expect retirement to be like returning back to art school again where I spend mucho time in my studio playing around seeing what I might develop.
 
Calzone said:
Know that I already have the capabilities to print digital negatives for contact printing, so basically I see that the next development for me is to print negatives and wet print them via contact printing. I already have these capabilities with the Epson 7800 I use for digital printing using Piezography. No ink changes required either. Pretty much all I need is studio space.
Click to expand...

Cal, can you explain how you are printing digital negatives for contact printing?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
 
Dante_Stella said:
Small format shooters of the 50s would have worshipped the M246 as if it were a god.

Dante
Click to expand...

Some still do, though I tend to see that as a problem, not a mental asset which is much of an aid in producing interesting photos, and more resolution won't help with that anyway.

The advantages of digital are numerous, as noted, but the idea that digital can be manipulated to look like film seems inexplicably deep into never the twain shall meet territory. It's fine to prefer the look of digital over film, and there's no getting around the "easier" bit, but, for better or worse, it's a different look, one completely resistant to software presets pretending otherwise, and seems destined to remain so.

Maybe "close enough" is "good enough", but that's a personal choice.

And when did 'novelty' become something to be avoided instead of actively sought out?
 
Timmyjoe said:
Cal, can you explain how you are printing digital negatives for contact printing?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Tim,

Visit www.Piezography.com.

Here is a timeline of development: I bought my Monochrom over 5 years ago; 4 years ago I bought a Epson 3880 from B&H and enjoyed a $250.00 rebate (about $750.00 cost to me); three years ago bought a 27 inch EIZO, bought about $10K worth of paper and ink, finally loaded the 3880, and started to print using Piezography. BTW I gave the OEM Epson inks away to a friend.

Meantime right after I bought my Monochrom at my boring day job I started researching about Piezography. Jon Cone is a mighty clever guy and is a fine art printer who is rather historic in the development of fine art inkjet printing.

Back then he developed a process for printing digital negatives on clear overhead projection film. I used a credit card as collateral and had him send me a portfolio of prints, and one of the prints was a digital negative, but at that time the system required an ink change and more or less was impractical because it kinda required a dedicated printer for just making digital negatives.

Realize that Jon Cone's site back then was a bit of a mess, and doing this research involved using my Master's in Journalism to do mucho data mining to connect the dots, but I had the vision way back when to see the potential knowing that things would develop.

What I did not expect that things would happen at an accelerated pace and things would mature so quickly. Walter Blackwell teamed up with Jon Cone and things expanded. First thing is that Walter cleaned up the Piezography website, streamlined and organized everything in a great way. Then they developed Piezography Pro an new printing system. This happened about two years ago.

Because I was such a heavy user I got invited to be an early adopter of Piezography Pro, got a generous insider discount, and had access to this new printing system for about a year in advance of the general public.

Know that I had mucho support and any problems were addressed by either Jon Cone himself or Walter. Pretty much because I was a heavy spender during the right time combined with I kinda just got swept into this development in a great way. It is Jon Cone (who printed for Richard Avedone and many others) and Walter who deserve all the credit for all the heavy lifting performed.

So this Piezography Pro system allows the mixing of split-tone in the print head. It also uses nanotechnology in making the blackest black available, but also allows printing digital negatives without an ink change with the same printer.

This is a game changer. Imagine proofing a digital negative by making first a digital Piezography print. Imagine using Lightroom or Photoshop as a tool to make a perfect negative to contact print. Imagine a system that is so turnkey that not only can it be used for making negatives for silver wet printing, but also extends to alternative processes.

Then imagine that all I need to buy is an I1 Pro and about $150.00 worth of software that Piezography developed and I have a calibrated system, can profile papers and inks, and pretty much seamlessly get what I see. At this level pretty much it is a turnkey system and all the heavy lifting has been done for you.

I'm not joking that the technology for producing a show like Salgado's "Genesis" has trickled down to the consumer. All I need is the I1 and the software to make the digital negatives, but the real crunch is setting up a studio for the contact printing.

You need to know that if printing larger than 8x10 you really need a piece of equipment called a "Vacuum Frame" to hold and maintain the negative in contact with the paper. This is not small or lightweight, but this is eventually where I'm going.

On one hand I planned for this, but I'm not ready yet. I need workspace. Workspace is really the bottleneck, and living in Madhattan is not a practical place to solve my situation.

Cal
 
Larry,

I would argue that my digital printing rather closely resembles a wet print.

First off that is my aesthetic. There is good reason why I print glossy on Baryta coated papers: to replicate the look of a wet print.

Then again one might argue that my films look digital. I use compensating developers so my negatives kinda have a HDR like effect because of my high level of contrast control. Pretty much like in art school I try to make negatives that pretty much just require "straight printing."

As you can tell I approach both analog and digital photography as if I'm a large format shooter. My aesthetic is for broad tonality, fine detail, and small grain (or grain that is not distracting). Even with my Monochrom I seldom shoot above 800 ISO to limit digital noise.

Kinda funny how Acros to some looks "too digital" but these same critics likely would be offended by nice large format prints well done.

I wonder how many here can keep analog-analog and digital-digital like I have: to keep them as two discreet separate mediums?

I look forward to the time when I will make digital negatives for contact printing which for me will be the merging of digital and analog.

Contact printing open editions with steep price increases using digital negatives and contact printing seems like a great break from my day-job. Meanwhile I have been mostly concentrating on image capture of a "Changing and Disappearing NYC."

Cal
 
Mine is in for free sensor replacement at almost 5 years. The camera is magic. It is different to film. I still shoot black and white film. If I had to choose it would be the Monochrom. It is like pushing Tri-X 2-3 stops and getting Plus X negatives. It is like medium format tonal subtlety at base ISO. The detail is sometimes astonishing. The shutter is smoother and quieter than my M9-P. I had to have it. I have to keep it.
 
I had a Monochrom for a while, with the mythical/mythical Sonnetar 50. A great combo. The files from the MM are beautiful. Medium format like, especially with a lens with a wide aperture. I found I generally preferred older lenses on the camera, whose "character" (or, nowadays, "flaws") seemed to work well with the camera's somewhat sterile files.

I also owned an M4 at the same time, and I would occasionally shoot a roll of Tri-x or something along side. I don't have a darkroom set up right now, so all my film is scanned. Inevitably, there would one or two frames where I'd say, "the Monochrom can't do THAT!" (Of course, there were many times when I could say, "I couldn't do THAT with film!")

Mostly, it is a textural thing. I think it's safe to say that 135 film can have loads of texture. And, even with the scanned film, which is still sort of a half-assed process unless you own a Imacon, there is a depth that is missing from the MM files. I do enjoy the added post processing flexibility that the digital world has brought us.

So, I still shoot film. I enjoy using the cameras, I enjoy developing my own film. I love the feeling when you pull a roll from the dev tank and it...works (again!). How exciting to create a physical object containing your photo info.

I recently bought a little Fuji XE3 so I could have a digicam with autofocus available to me. Those Acros jpegs are pretty damn nice...
 
Thanks oldwino,

Well I committed. Just picked up an MM1 with corroded sensor and rushed it off to Leica in hopes of beating the Saturday price increase for sensor replacement. Good price on the camera, and I'm okay with waiting a few months to be able to use it. (Been lusting for one since 2012, so what's a few more months).

I'm also looking forward to trying my collection of old LTM lenses with the MM1. I've got a few Nikkors from the late 1940's, early 1950's and a couple of Canons from 1957. Will be interesting to see how they render with the B&W CCD.

Thanks for everyone's input so far.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top