Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM
From: jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:39:15 -0600
References: <K9V61n00z0AFV7C019V7m7>, <52E71094.5080901@cox.net> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E9E683D31D@WhizzMAIL01.whizz.org> <3941DB73-ED40-4DBC-AB4F-A065EA3E682E@gmail.com> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E9E684A46B@WhizzMAIL01.whizz.org> <106455A3-8D0D-47AD-AA36-1DCA2E75079A@archiphoto.com>

Both are very good, Greg.  I prefer the first one, because it gives a 
better feel of the isolation. Thanks for sharing.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA

On 1/29/2014 6:17 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
> I would say expose for the highlights, because if they're overcooked 
> you'll never see them again. Process (develop) for the shadows. This is 
> closer to how one treated slide film and in that sense it's like all 
> digital files. With the MM files you just have more DR and can easily pull 
> things out from the shadows when necessary.
>
> Henning
>
>
> On 2014-01-29, at 12:50 AM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> You are correct Lluis, over 16 years since I last developed a B&W film! 
>> Zone system all the way, spotmeter, exposure tests for base density then 
>> development tests for highlights all measured on a densitometer - how 
>> quickly I forgot :-(
>>
>> john
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Are you sure of this? "expose for the highlights and develop for the 
>> shadows just like film..", what I remember is expose for the shadows and 
>> develop for the highlights., at least in the Ansel Adams book "The 
>> Negative"...
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lluis
>>
>>
>> El 28/01/2014, a las 03:32, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> 
>> escribi?:
>>
>>> If you burn out the whites with the Monochrom there is no recovery 
>>> whereas there might be with colour. However the Monochrom can pull a lot 
>>> of detail from underexposed/shadow areas, so expose for the highlights 
>>> and develop for the shadows just like film......
>>>
>>> The Monochrom images usually start flat and can pushed or pulled
>>> almost any way you want ;-)
>>>
>>> john
>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> The MM image looks flat to me, as you say like TMax compared to TriX.
>>> Or at least that was my experience with 35mm film.  The MM image is an
>>> unknown grayscale, and the M9 image is sRGB.  How would that affect
>>> the comparison, especially as this might affect web display?
>>>
>>> Question #2: I have been looking again at the dynamic range
>>> differences between film and digital especially as concerns b&w.  For
>>> film, the advantage is more room in the shoulder as compared to
>>> digital.  How does the MM compare there, i.e., range in the shoulder
>>> vs. color digital cameras?
>>>
>>> Thx
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/27/2014 3:28 PM, Robert Rose wrote:
>>>>>  From these shots there seems to be no reason to prefer one over the 
>>>>> other, it is just an emotional preference.  Perhaps the M9 has a 
>>>>> richer black, but in Lightroom you could boost the black point of the 
>>>>> MM image and achieve the same result as the M9.  All of your images 
>>>>> are very good.
>>>> If I had to choose I would think the M9 looked like Tri-X without the 
>>>> grain, and the MM looked like TMax.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us which you prefer, if you like one better that is.  Also, for 
>>>> the M9 did you shoot in color and convert to B&W, or in jpg with the 
>>>> B&W setting?
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the M9, but that is probably because I already bought one.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Rose
>>>>
>>>> Message: 20
>>>> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:20:47 +0100
>>>> From: Lluis Ripoll <lluisripollphotography at gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: [Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM
>>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>>> Message-ID: <5498B81A-FBC7-4DCC-805C-D7F940A2394B at gmail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>
>>>> The casta?uelas seller
>>>>
>>>> Leica M9, Lux 75
>>>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Barcelona/20140123_L1038519.
>>>> jpg.html>
>>>>
>>>> the previous one posted with the MM was this one:
>>>>
>>>> MM Lux 75
>>>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Barcelona/20140123_L1000827L
>>>> R5w.jpg.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Young Couple
>>>>
>>>> Leica M9, Lux 75
>>>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Barcelona/20140123_L1038523.
>>>> jpg.html>
>>>>
>>>> the previous one with the MM and Summilux 35
>>>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Barcelona/20140123_L1000863.
>>>> jpg.html>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking, your c&c will be appreciated
>>>>
>>>> Saludos cordiales
>>>> Lluis
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
> Henning Wulff
> henningw at archiphoto.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>




In reply to: Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM)
Message from lluisripollphotography at gmail.com (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Comparing B&W M9/MM)