Topic: LEICA M MONOCHROM : keep sharing pictures, guys, .... (Read 333057 times)

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #520 on:** December 21, 2015, 07:38:25 am »

LoL yeah if I'm shooting with a 500 C/M or a rolleiflex. If the images needs it I don't mind a square crop even with MY MM.

Rob C · « **Reply #521 on:** December 21, 2015, 10:13:07 am »

Quote from: Allen Bourgeois on December 20, 2015, 08:33:21 pm

Hi Rob,

I shot film for decades. In fact for a while in college I shot a lot of large format 4X5 and 8X10 and learned the zone system (yes I did all the tests). I also owned and shot with Hasselblads for a couple of decades. I also shot 35mm film some Leica mostly Canon F-1s tri-x developed in Rodinal (definitely gritty). I have seen some amazing street work shot with med format and also some amazing grainy street images. At this point in time I prefer shooting digital and I really like the look. It is great to be able to shoot with a small camera at really high ISOs and get images that in 12 X 18 prints look as clean or maybe even cleaner than medium format images with AMAZING dynamic range. The tools allow me to achieve that so why wouldn't I use those tools to their fullest potential. Also to be able to shoot one frame at 320 ISO and the next at 6400 just adds flexibility.

If I wanted the film look I would shoot film.

Don't make the mistake of judging the shadows from a 80kb compressed jpg on a computer monitor.. Take my word for it the prints from the MM are spectacular.

Thats why I prefer shooting B&W with my MM at this point in time.

Thanks for your reply, Allen, and I certainly wasn't implying you didn't know about film - what would I have had to base that idea upon?

I understand all you say, but for me, it boils down to this: if I buy a ticket for a hard Chuck Berry gig, I don't expect to see the Beach Boys come out on stage, all saccharine and gloop. In other words, for me, the street thing is all about the days when it was a viable job and people were commissioned by the generally left-wing magazines that used such work, accounting for the visual bias towards poor people, run-down city parts and suburban areas around Paris. Much the same, I guess, is behind most of that American material for the Farm Securities thing; it's political, like it or not.

So, I expect anyone attracted to similar imagery might feel a fondness for the same type of look: a touch of grain, which does not have to mean OTT, pushed film; HC-B seldom seemed to need to have that done to his negatives, though Horvat clearly had to sometimes. That grain I find missing isn't really for effect: it's for honesty of genre-look; being in tune.

I also had to use 4x5 format for some of my employed days, but the moment I could fly on my own I ditched it all, staying with 135 and 120 from then on in.

Quote from: BrianVS on December 20, 2015, 09:49:36 am

You have raised a film versus digital question. Both have a different look.

..............................................................

If you don't like the digital look- shoot film.

That, Brian, is hardly the point of the question in my post; neither is it about how I would shoot, redundant in this case as I am not a street shooter. It is a specific question aimed at a specific type of imagery by somebody with, as I stated, an excellent eye for the genre. As an underlying thought, I find the lack of shadow detail disturbing, not in a nice way, but more as representative of some kind of sensor failure. As Allen says not so, then perhaps if he's going to post images here, especially in a thread I understand to be largely a paean to Leica Mono, then it would seem to me a better idea to make jpegs for LuLa tailored to suit the medium of here. Yes, my monitor is calibrated.

Rob C

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #522 on:** December 21, 2015, 10:23:57 am »

Rob sorry I wasn't trying to imply that you thought i didn't know film just that I have a very strong film background and love the look of film. I also really like the look of digital and all the things i can now do with digital. My point was if I want the film look I would shoot film. You can also add grain to a digital image but I say the point of digital is clean images and with the MM there is just so much in the files especially the shadows.

I personally like some of the cleaner street work from some of the med format street shooters. In fact a lot of the years I shot film I strived for the look I now get with the MM. Nice to have choices and if I wanted my work to look like tri-x processed in rodinal I would certainly do that. I personally prefer for my work, at this point in time, to look like it does. I don't want to be a product of the past and not that there is anything wrong with those that do but I now have technology that allows my work to be about today in subject, tone and feel. I want my subject and overall look to be of today. I think the challenge as a street photographer is the same as it was with Evan, Frank, Winograd or Meyerowitz. They made images of their times not previous times and made them interesting. I think our challenge now is similar. How do we make images of our times and make them interesting?

Don't know if I mentioned this, I just picked up an M 262 and I hope to be all over to Leica M even for my commercial work before the end of 2016. Just sold some of my Canon gear. Really hated to part with the 200 2L but I am totally addicted to the rangefinder shooting experience.

I will still be shooting all of my personal work with my MM.

Thanks for your response.

Allen

And pushed film is a look that by it's nature under exposes and over develops. Contrasty with lack of shadow detail. That pushes that shadows down below the threshold of exposure and pulls the highlights back up to the shoulder or to what the should be through extended dev time. Thus increasing contrast and loosing the toe (shadows) by pushing down to far to recover, below the threshold of exposure (clear film other than film base + fog). With most B&W film and developer combos after 50% of the development time the shadows are formed thus you are controlling the placement of highlights by development time and/or temp. So if you like wonderful shadow detail and subtle mid tones then pushing is not the way to go.

Rob C · « **Reply #523 on:** December 21, 2015, 01:22:40 pm »

[quote author=Allen Bourgeois link=topic=72404.msg878044#msg878044 date=1450711437

And pushed film is a look that by it's nature under exposes and over develops. Contrasty with lack of shadow detail. That pushes that shadows down below the threshold of exposure and pulls the highlights back up to the shoulder or to what the should be through extended dev time. Thus increasing contrast and loosing the toe (shadows) by pushing down to far to recover, below the threshold of exposure (clear film other than film base + fog). With most B&W film and developer combos after 50% of the development time the shadows are formed thus you are controlling the placement of highlights by development time and/or temp. So if you like wonderful shadow detail and subtle mid tones then pushing is not the way to go.
[/quote]

Absolutely correct, and it's why I get mad at people who happily swear that you can uprate film speed as you want, and only have to develop longer. All that gets you is blocked highlights which, in some cases, works, but mostly not. You have simply pushed the exposure higher up the curve, and prolonged development only creates a bit more contrast within the shadow areas you have already caught, it doesn't give you new shadow exposure.

And that's where the difference in look between your digital images and pushed film: your highlights are perfecly fine, it's the shadows look somewhat empty; not at all the look of pushed film. Indeed, two very different mediums.

But still damned nice images.

Rob C

BrianVS · « **Reply #524 on:** December 21, 2015, 01:47:15 pm »

The lack of shadow detail is not a sensor failure issue. The sensor itself is recording a great deal of detail in the shadow areas given a properly exposed image. Clipping highlights is more likely to occur with a properly recorded image. The problem is that the sensor records intensity values using 14-bits, images have to be reduced to 8-bits for jpeg, and most monitors cannot do that justice. As Allen states, the prints do better in displaying the image. Applying a curve to the DNG image reduces resolution as most software retains the 14-bits rather than scaling it up to 16-bits. Intensity values get binned together. It's amazing how much detail is retained in the shadows after translating the image to 16-bits and then applying a curve to bring it out. But, most people don't do that to an image just to display it on a thread such as this.

So- lost shadow detail, not a problem with the sensor- just a problem with displaying digital images on a camera forum.

Straight export from DNG to JPEG.

L1005046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

100% crop,

L1005046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Running the DNG file through my FORTRAN program to convert to 16-bit pixels using a Gamma curve.

G5046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

G5046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Running image processing code written in the 1980s on M Monochrom images- on a DOS computer, too much fun.

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #525 on:** December 21, 2015, 04:29:56 pm »

Thanks Rob, The shadows are where the MM really shines. There is just SO much info in there and it shows in prints. Not so much 80 kb compressed jpgs on a web site. The info is there but then theres the way each individual processes the files. I tend to like a lot of detail.

With pushed film you are underexposing the film so you are loosing all of the shadows. Push one stop pushes the toe (shadows) down a stop thus many then fall below threshold of exposure (clear film so nothing is there to have detail). Push two stops even zone III is now gone. When you increase the dev time to bring the highlights back where they belong you are also increasing the gamma of the film curve making the film more contrasty.

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #526 on:** January 02, 2016, 01:23:51 pm »

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #527 on:** January 24, 2016, 02:55:49 pm »

Finally was able to get out for a couple of hours today

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #528 on:** January 30, 2016, 07:43:30 pm »

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #529 on:** January 31, 2016, 02:55:09 pm »

drmike · « **Reply #530 on:** January 31, 2016, 03:24:18 pm »

As always interesting. In the first one with the guy in the cowboy hat dare I suggest you clone the person peeping over the shoulder of the man holding the lady's hand?

I hope and assume the guy giving you the evil eye was in fact quite OK about the photograph

Mike

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #531 on:** January 31, 2016, 04:44:44 pm »

Hey Mike if its street stuff I pretty much leave as is. I don't know if he was ok with it or not. I saw him and watched and waited for something to happen. The when the lady on the left looked at him I pushed to shutter.

drmike · « **Reply #532 on:** January 31, 2016, 05:06:44 pm »

I think you got a good moment but a little 'gardening' might might it a little better but as you say it's street. Myself I'll clone almost anything but only rarely move things (but that's because I'm rubbish at it).

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #533 on:** February 01, 2016, 10:10:59 am »

With street work I usually don't like to alter other than crop, burn, dodge and other things I could do in a darkroom. It's there on the street so it's all part of the deal. It's about the raw energy and not so much perfection. I work in that world of pre-staged, over thought, create by committee all week long so it's so refreshing to let all of that go when it's just for me. The perfect photograph has not been made yet though Breton, Winograd, Franky Adams, Weston all came close a few times.

drmike · « **Reply #534 on:** February 01, 2016, 10:56:09 am »

I understand what you mean. I feel we are often obsessed with perfection in all its forms but sometimes for me it's worth a little adjustment of reality to produce more power.

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #535 on:** February 01, 2016, 12:09:10 pm »

Mike the problem with street photography is more altering than the things i mentioned take away from the credibility. Many contests involving street/documentary type work don't allow for more alterations than I mentioned.

drmike · « **Reply #536 on:** February 01, 2016, 12:19:35 pm »

With a large smile on my face - remember that - what do you want? The best image or a competition entry? I asked that at the club and was somewhat severely mauled

There's a thread somewhere about that guy who added a plane to a shot that was taken up a ladder thing where he had added the plane in post processing. Boy has he had some stick. The image is nothing without the plane. Different discipline though and I really do understand your reluctance.

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #537 on:** February 01, 2016, 07:11:47 pm »

I do think in street work and documentary work you need to have that cred. In other types of photographs not so much.

BrianVS · « **Reply #538 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:26:03 am »

Adding the plane to the photograph makes it a collage. Been around for a long time. Call it a collage and not a photograph, it's fine. Call it a photograph- it's a fake.

I've added radiometrically calibrated planes to digital images decades ago. It was a computer simulation. That took a lot of code. I had to convince some people that my simulations were not just photographs.

Allen Bourgeois · « **Reply #539 on:** February 09, 2016, 06:20:18 pm »

Author Topic: LEICA M MONOCHROM : keep sharing pictures, guys, .... (Read 333057 times)