"LEICA MONOCHROME" - SOOC w/ the S9

[TOPSHELFJUNIOR]

They really have this dialed in !!!

 

[Tinstafl115 112]

I have been thinking of a monochrome camera but I just convert in post after setting mine to mono too see the shot.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

I have been thinking of a monochrome camera but I just convert in post after setting mine to mono too see the shot.

The Panasonic S9 isn't a monochrome camera. It's just a new mirrorless camera with a monochrome JPEG output option.

Converting a color original to monochrome in post is typically the better option for best results.

 

[TOPSHELFJUNIOR]

I have been thinking of a monochrome camera but I just convert in post after setting mine to mono too see the shot.

I'm at the point in my life where, the LESS time spent on POST...the better. All of the photos in that video, were done in camera. No time spent on post, SOOC. Didn't edit them, didn't adjust them, just used Leica Monochrome and shot. What they were is what you see.

 

[cgw117 142]

I'm at the point in my life where, the LESS time spent on POST...the better. All of the photos in that video, were done in camera. No time spent on post, SOOC. Didn't edit them, didn't adjust them, just used Leica Monochrome and shot. What they were is what you see.

Film sims are no big deal. Fuji Acros? Still JPEGS, y'all for stills. Your preference? Bravo.

 

[DigiFilm]

Panasonic has had the L monochrome absolutely nailed for quite some time. I had it in my GX9, maybe in the G9 too, can't recall. Top-drawer stuff SOOC.

 

[DigiFilm]

The Panasonic S9 isn't a monochrome camera. It's just a new mirrorless camera with a monochrome JPEG output option.

Converting a color original to monochrome in post is typically the better option for best results.

Lumix's L Monochrome is an exception to that rule.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

Lumix's L Monochrome is an exception to that rule.

No, it's a camera JPEG. However good it may be it's a camera JPEG and given a raw file I will never fail to produce a superior result.

 

[DigiFilm]

No, it's a camera JPEG. However good it may be it's a camera JPEG and given a raw file I will never fail to produce a superior result.

I shoot RAW, and I'd say 'always', but the L Monochrome was a rare exception. So little manipulation was required that the jpeg was an acceptable starting point.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

I shoot RAW, and I'd say 'always', but the L Monochrome was a rare exception. So little manipulation was required that the jpeg was an acceptable starting point.

Only under limited conditions and editing a JPEG causes further image degradation -- bad idea. When converting a color scene or image to monochrome the risk is always present that colors in the scene will convert to similar shades of grey. The camera processor that creates a JPEG provides at best crude control to address this potential problem. Post processing a raw file is far superior. The best you can do in some cameras is fake the application of a single color filter. Try this with your camera: darken blues in a selected one third of the image while not darkening blues in the other two thirds of the image but there darkening oranges. You can't do it and yet it's a trivial task processing a raw file.

 

[DigiFilm]

Only under limited conditions and editing a JPEG causes further image degradation -- bad idea. When converting a color scene or image to monochrome the risk is always present that colors in the scene will convert to similar shades of grey. The camera processor that creates a JPEG provides at best crude control to address this potential problem. Post processing a raw file is far superior. The best you can do in some cameras is fake the application of a single color filter. Try this with your camera: darken blues in a selected one third of the image while not darkening blues in the other two thirds of the image but there darkening oranges. You can't do it and yet it's a trivial task processing a raw file.

I am well aware of the differences. You may have missed the part where I said:

"So little manipulation was required that the jpeg was an acceptable starting point."

I am also well aware of the following:

jpeg files, while lossy, aren't devastated by mild processing.

A good processing program can apply the same filter type adjustment modules to jpeg as RAW, albeit to a lesser extent. Masking works on all file types. You can also manipulate HEIF, DNG, PNG, etc. files provided your software is capable.

To reiterate, the files from the Lumix in L Monochrome were exceptional SOOC.

 

[TOPSHELFJUNIOR]

I shoot RAW, and I'd say 'always', but the L Monochrome was a rare exception. So little manipulation was required that the jpeg was an acceptable starting point.

The above video / images isn't "L Monochrome" though. It is "LEICA Monochrome", not to be confused w/ L Monochrome. They are both inside camera, but different. For the images above, LEICA MONOCHROME was selected.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

I am well aware of the differences. You may have missed the part where I said:

"So little manipulation was required that the jpeg was an acceptable starting point."

In limited cases but not remotely close to all cases. As soon as the lighting condition becomes difficult the camera processor crashes and burns.

I am also well aware of the following:

jpeg files, while lossy, aren't devastated by mild processing.

But they are further degraded -- why do that when you have a better alternative.

A good processing program can apply the same filter type adjustment modules to jpeg as RAW, albeit to a lesser extent. Masking works on all file types. You can also manipulate HEIF, DNG, PNG, etc. files provided your software is capable.

But once the image is monochrome you entirely lose the ability to control the translation of colors into grey values. With your SOOC L Monochrome JPEGs you miss the boat and can't accomplish the same post processing functions and result.

To reiterate, the files from the Lumix in L Monochrome were exceptional SOOC.

And I will never fail to produce a superior final result by processing a raw file.

Go back to square one with the camera. To get your exceptional SOOC JPEG you have to expose for it. Which means you have to expose for the camera's JPEG processing instead of exposing for the sensor and raw file. You mentioned a Panny G9. Here's a sample G9 photo (JPEG) from the DPreview website: Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 sample gallery Arguably it's a well-exposed JPEG at base ISO. But the raw file for that photo is nearly two stops underexposed from the sensor's capacity. What would that JPEG look like with an added 1.7 stops exposure? I would never expose a camera sensor so badly as did the camera in this case. They all do it by the way. The engineers build it into the camera's JPEG processors and so you have to accept a result with a lower SNR and less DR if you want a JPEG. I don't. There are other ways in which camera JPEGs are out-of-the-box by design inferior.

Converting a color original to monochrome in post is typically the better option for best results.

 

[DigiFilm]

In limited cases but not remotely close to all cases. As soon as the lighting condition becomes difficult the camera processor crashes and burns.

But they are further degraded -- why do that when you have a better alternative.

But once the image is monochrome you entirely lose the ability to control the translation of colors into grey values. With your SOOC L Monochrome JPEGs you miss the boat and can't accomplish the same post processing functions and result.

And I will never fail to produce a superior final result by processing a raw file.

Go back to square one with the camera. To get your exceptional SOOC JPEG you have to expose for it. Which means you have to expose for the camera's JPEG processing instead of exposing for the sensor and raw file. You mentioned a Panny G9. Here's a sample G9 photo (JPEG) from the DPreview website: Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 sample gallery Arguably it's a well-exposed JPEG at base ISO. But the raw file for that photo is nearly two stops underexposed from the sensor's capacity. What would that JPEG look like with an added 1.7 stops exposure? I would never expose a camera sensor so badly as did the camera in this case. They all do it by the way. The engineers build it into the camera's JPEG processors and so you have to accept a result with a lower SNR and less DR if you want a JPEG. I don't. There are other ways in which camera JPEGs are out-of-the-box by design inferior.

Converting a color original to monochrome in post is typically the better option for best results.

WHEW! That's an awful long way to go, but I applaud your persistence.

Clearly a jpeg is simply the engineering team's opinion on what your finished jpeg should look like. How does that prevent the photographer from learning their equipment? Sony underrates their sensors, I know this, and even though I shoot in RAW, I overexpose the image rather than (or to reduce, if I blow it) boosting in post.

Additionally, the example given isn't that of L Monochrome D, or for that matter Leica Monochrome. Those styles were produced with a specific look in mind and isn't necessarily comparable to the standard in camera processing, the same as any LUT or style.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

WHEW! That's an awful long way to go, but I applaud your persistence.

Clearly a jpeg is simply the engineering team's opinion on what your finished jpeg should look like. How does that prevent the photographer from learning their equipment?

It doesn't. One of the things the photographer needs to learn about their equipment is the limitations that apply to the camera processed JPEGs. What the camera software makes available to the photographer to moderate the JPEG output is fairly crude. You can't change that. Much of what the camera does to create the JPEG is entirely out of the photographer's control and you just have to accept it, including if it's cr*p.

What you can do is expose the sensor and process a raw file yourself. This allows the photographer to produce a better result than the SOOC JPEG including Panny's Leica and L Monochrome JPEGs.

Here's a simple example. The photo is of Rathbone's Hardware in St. Louis. The building is constructed deliberately using different colors/shades of brick. The different bricks give the building texture. An SOOC JPEG in monochrome will do a poor job recording that. I can't show you an SOOC JPEG as I don't have one and if I did the highlights would be nuked to h*ll because I exposed correctly for the sensor. ;-) But I can create a JPEG using the same film simulations built into my Fuji X-T2 and let the software auto adjust the exposure. So first here's a JPEG using the Across/yellow filter film simulation.

You can see the texture in the bricks but it's not faithful to the experience of seeing the original in color. In the next photo I hand processed the raw file and controlled the color to greyscale translation so as to make evident and even enhance the texture in the building's brick wall. No SOOC monochrome JPEG can compete with what I did. And you can't post process the JPEG to achieve that result either.

Sony underrates their sensors, I know this, and even though I shoot in RAW, I overexpose the image rather than (or to reduce, if I blow it) boosting in post.

If you want a good SOOC JPEG you can't "overexpose." Look at your language -- you just said you "overexpose." Are you overexposing? What are you overexposing? Relative to what? All JPEGs from my cameras have the highlights nuked to h*ll because I typically expose +1.3 to +2 stops above the camera's meter reading. I do that in order to correctly expose the sensor.

Additionally, the example given isn't that of L Monochrome D, or for that matter Leica Monochrome. Those styles were produced with a specific look in mind and isn't necessarily comparable to the standard in camera processing, the same as any LUT or style.