Micro 4/3 Panasonic's in-camera Monochrome filter/s

I sold my G9 to buy the OM-1 , and my Gx-8 and GM5's don't have L.MonoD , so I am considering another Panasonic model at some stage purely for the L.MonoD . There's a few things i didn't like about the Gx9 when i tried one - below expectation EVF, no weathersealing etc - but it may well be the best option .
 
I had to fossick through a hard drive, but here's an L.MonoD shot from the G9. The moment i saw the jpeg i was in love with the smooth , rich tones. I then got my local Teds Camera's to run a print for me at 16 inches on the long side, and neither myself nor Rick (the store manager) could believe how well it printed straight up. Too well actually, i could see all the dust and rain splotches on the dials :D

yeah, I'm missing the L.Mono. You can get beautiful monochrome from the Pen-F in mono2 mode as well, but it's a different look to the Panasonic setup.




P1007549C.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
I sold my G9 to buy the OM-1 , and my Gx-8 and GM5's don't have L.MonoD , so I am considering another Panasonic model at some stage purely for the L.MonoD . There's a few things i didn't like about the Gx9 when i tried one - below expectation EVF, no weathersealing etc - but it may well be the best option .
If you have a camera that supoorts L.Mono (not D) then youcan use my Lightroom preset here to replicate L Mono D.
 
I sold my G9 to buy the OM-1 , and my Gx-8 and GM5's don't have L.MonoD , so I am considering another Panasonic model at some stage purely for the L.MonoD . There's a few things i didn't like about the Gx9 when i tried one - below expectation EVF, no weathersealing etc - but it may well be the best option .

I more or less did exactly what you are considering, Jason - I sold my GX8 (which, at the time, had the nicest EVF of any digital camera I had ever used, as well as a really nice 'feel' to it) to buy a GX9, both because of its lack of an anti-aliasing filter (which the GX8 had) but mainly for its l.monochrome.d capabilities. And it really hasn't disappointed me yet. Part of the reason why I like it, I think, is because its form factor is very close to that of another Lumix I had before the GX8, namely the GX7, which I truly loved. In many ways the GX9 is close to being an updated version of my old GX7. And its EVF-viewfinder, while much maligned, is definitely no worse (to my eyes, at least) than that of my old GX7. In my own case, I wound up purchasing the optional (and sometimes hard to find) eyecup for the GX9, which subjectively seemed to radically improve the EVF for me. And, true, it doesn't have weathersealing which the GX8 did (though to make real use of it probably would have required weather-sealed lenses as well).

My two part solution: the GX9 has become my defacto monochrome shooting camera of choice (both because of l.monochrome.d, and because of one or two marvelous small Lumix & PanaLeica primes) - while my recently acquired X-T3 now fills the bill for a smallish camera with a superb EVF (even better than the GX8's) + weather-sealing as well.
 
I had to fossick through a hard drive, but here's an L.MonoD shot from the G9. The moment i saw the jpeg i was in love with the smooth , rich tones. I then got my local Teds Camera's to run a print for me at 16 inches on the long side, and neither myself nor Rick (the store manager) could believe how well it printed straight up. Too well actually, i could see all the dust and rain splotches on the dials :D

yeah, I'm missing the L.Mono. You can get beautiful monochrome from the Pen-F in mono2 mode as well, but it's a different look to the Panasonic setup.
Yes l.monochrome.d is something. The prints using that are just very well-balanced. I enjoyed that with the GX9.

I sold the GX9 last year so I resorted to the actual GX9 l.monochrome.d DCP using Rawtherapee. The prints are the same.
P1080561.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
I more or less did exactly what you are considering, Jason - I sold my GX8 (which, at the time, had the nicest EVF of any digital camera I had ever used, as well as a really nice 'feel' to it) to buy a GX9, both because of its lack of an anti-aliasing filter (which the GX8 had) but mainly for its l.monochrome.d capabilities. And it really hasn't disappointed me yet. Part of the reason why I like it, I think, is because its form factor is very close to that of another Lumix I had before the GX8, namely the GX7, which I truly loved. In many ways the GX9 is close to being an updated version of my old GX7. And its EVF-viewfinder, while much maligned, is definitely no worse (to my eyes, at least) than that of my old GX7. In my own case, I wound up purchasing the optional (and sometimes hard to find) eyecup for the GX9, which subjectively seemed to radically improve the EVF for me. And, true, it doesn't have weathersealing which the GX8 did (though to make real use of it probably would have required weather-sealed lenses as well).

My two part solution: the GX9 has become my defacto monochrome shooting camera of choice (both because of l.monochrome.d, and because of one or two marvelous small Lumix & PanaLeica primes) - while my recently acquired X-T3 now fills the bill for a smallish camera with a superb EVF (even better than the GX8's) + weather-sealing as well.


Out of interest, how do you find the X-T3 for monochrome output, Miguel?
 
Out of interest, how do you find the X-T3 for monochrome output, Miguel?

In the limited amount of monochromatic shooting which I've done with the X-T3, it's very, very good.
Part of my particular problem is, I'm an enormous fan (and user of) some of the (many) in-camera jpeg film simulations available to different X-Trans sensored cameras, most of which I've found on the Fuji-X Weekly website, a treasure house of jpeg film sims for different Fujis --- including quite a number of different monochromatic ones. Essentially, I'm slowly working my way through them - trying to determine which (if any) I truly love. I haven't found my ideal one yet, though most are uniformly very good...

And then there's the camera's built-in Acros jpeg simulation which, in a word, is excellent.

So the short answer is: I find the X-T3 very good for monochromatic output. Although for me it (finding the right monochromatic setting) is still an ongoing work-in-progress.
 
Three SOOC shots taken with my GX9, using l.monochrome.d.
The subject is an antique 'motor cycle' (literally a large extra-heavy-weight bicycle frame with a motor mounted on it), displayed in a shop-window (not a motorbike store!) in Ashland, Oregon.

GX9_Sept13_23_antique_motorcycle_in_shopwindow#1.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


A different angle--

GX9_Sept13_23_antique_motorcycle_in_shopwindow#2.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And one more--

GX9_Sept13_23_antique_motorcycle_in_shopwindow#3.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
I like all these nifty photos, and the people taking them are much more advanced and have a better eye than I ever will. However, I am completely mystified by this talk about using in-camera processing like this to achieve a particular look.

I mean, why not just shoot color (RAW would be better, but even jpg), and then change the image in PP. The Nik Silver EFex plugins are pretty popular, and all I ever hear about in talk from video shooters are LUTs (which can be used for stills too). Surely you can get ANY look you want with these software tools (or even the tools that come in many image editors). Why talk about buying a particular camera model just to get one look you like?? Head-scratching time for me...
 
Next week I may have a chance to try out the Leica B&W in the G9II. Depends on if we ever again see the sun here in the NW (birding on Friday, so no B&W, unless I get close to an Egret. Not the reason I bought the G9II but it does intrigue me).
 
I like all these nifty photos, and the people taking them are much more advanced and have a better eye than I ever will. However, I am completely mystified by this talk about using in-camera processing like this to achieve a particular look.

I mean, why not just shoot color (RAW would be better, but even jpg), and then change the image in PP. The Nik Silver EFex plugins are pretty popular, and all I ever hear about in talk from video shooters are LUTs (which can be used for stills too). Surely you can get ANY look you want with these software tools (or even the tools that come in many image editors). Why talk about buying a particular camera model just to get one look you like?? Head-scratching time for me...

Well, Rich, I don't pretend to either be more advanced than anyone else or to have a better eye. The way I see it (pun intended), each one of us has our own way of seeing things or looking at things, and further complicating the question is that, as time passes or life changes, a person may change or modify how they see things - and the kinds of pictures they take, with one or another camera.

The only way I can answer your question (about why not just shoot color and then modify the image in PP) - is really a personal answer which has to do with who I am and how I see things and how I have developed. I spent a few decades shooting mostly black & white film, usually Tri-X but occasionally some Ilfords, in a handful of Pentaxes. I then spent what now seems to me like years developing the film and then trying to print it in various darkrooms, and get not only pictures I liked - but also certain tonal qualities as well, the ways in which the film captured light and shadow and rendered everything. Of course, that was also dependent on the kind of photo paper I was printing on at the time and, ultimately, the patience and skill of the photographer, i.e. me, in attempting to turn my black & white negatives into images on paper. At times I almost felt like I was starting to get good at it; at other times I knew I had a long way to go. I also fooled around reading books about how film works, half-heartedly trying to master Ansel Adams infamous zone system (for different black & white shadings), and trying to master using good light meters to truly figure out the exposures which, coupled with film, developing and later printing, might come close to something I liked.

Fast forward decades to today more or less. With the advent of powerful software and a number of processing tools including presets or plug-ins, it's possible to create or recreate monochrome images with a whole variety of different PP tools. And I don't miss years of inhaling noxious darkroom chemicals. I've also spent a moderate amount of time and energy trying to process different RAW images, which always started out in color, into black & white 'looks' or results that I truly like or (gulp) love. In many ways, doing that, for me, is just as hard if not harder as it was back when I was developing, processing and trying to print my black & white film images. For me, at least, though, it isn't and hasn't been 'easy' at all to use a variety of tools to get black & white (or monochrome) images whose tones and characteristics I truly appreciate, and I've spent probably far too much time in those pursuits. Sigh. Incidentally, I do appreciate the power and versatility of tools like the Nik Silver Efex plugins for Lightroom. I've gotten some great results using them. But I've also gotten a moderate amount of frustration from them too.

Putting all that in context, when I more or less stumbled across certain monochrome 'presets' - for certain cameras - I was, in a nutshell, both incredibly surprised - happy - and blown away. Because, for me, and the way I see things. some of those in-camera settings or presets or recipes (the terms vary) have come closer to literally giving me the 'look' I worked towards and studied over years of film shooting and more years of PP processing, than I can say. Near the top of my personal list is the l.monochrome.d preset for certain newer Lumix cameras (but NOT for all of them and NOT for many older models). Somehow, the variables in that preset come closer to the film images I love than most of the PP work I've fooled around with for ages. And it's no accident, in my opinion, that the brilliant Japanese photoengineer who came up with it, spent a long time shooting Tri-X in old Pentaxes, processing it, printing it on a variety of papers, and then studying actual prints made (which, according to him, are radically different in some subtle tonalities than looking at digital images even on the best of monitors). Whew.

So, for me, buying a camera which could give me those looks - my Lumix GX9 - was like a Crusader finding a Holy Grail they had sought for years.
And, really, I also believe that each one of us has different looks or things or whatever in our minds - so each person's solution will be different. But for me, getting a camera whose SOOC output is, in some weird personal ways of mine, 'better' than much of the processing I can do... a real treat.

Addendum: obviously other cameras can create great black & white and monochrome looks - as can other processing. I love the Acros monochrome in-camera setting on some Fujifilm cameras, as well as a handful of black & white 'recipes' that a handful of brilliant Fujiholics have invented, which can be easily input into different Fujis (one of the reasons I like them so much). And let's not even talk about dedicated monochrome-only cameras, including various ultra cool digital Leicas (several M Monochroms, the Q and Q2 Monochrom models) or Pentax's awesome (in my opinion) K-3.iii Monochrome version. They tend to create looks which are almost virtually impossible for any other digital camera to pull off, or any amount of digital PP. And let's admit, sometimes (often!) those tiny little differences are or can be so subtle that it's hard to see or perceive them. If I had a bit more disposable cash, or if I won the lottery, a Pentax K-3 Mk III monochrome would be my next camera purchase.

But until then, the l.monochrome.d pictures which my GX9 makes (and which a small handful of other Panasonics, including the G9, the S1 and S5, and even the FZ1000.ii, also have as part of their built-in firmware-software) ... somehow keep satisfying me in ways that both surprise me... and have saved me the hours of obsessive tweaking I've done to convert other digital RAWs into monochromes that I 'like'.

Short-answer to the original question: probably 'cause I'm obsessed ;)
 
Last edited:
Well, Rich, I don't pretend to either be more advanced than anyone else or to have a better eye. The way I see it (pun intended), each one of us has our own way of seeing things or looking at things……

Short-answer to the original question: probably 'cause I'm obsessed ;)

Great post, Miguel! I found it very insightful.
 
Last edited:
...
But until then, the l.monochrome.d pictures which my GX9 makes (and which a small handful of other Panasonics, including the G9, the S1 and S5, and even the FZ1000.ii, also have as part of their built-in firmware-software) ... somehow keep satisfying me in ways that both surprise me... and have saved me the hours of obsessive tweaking I've done to convert other digital RAWs into monochromes that I 'like'.

Short-answer to the original question: probably 'cause I'm obsessed ;)
Very informative reply, Miguel. It does explain to me quite well why you are doing what you are doing.

I certainly agree that having to experiment every time you want to convert your images to that look in PP software would be a non-starter. I guess I was just thinking that it would be possible to find a preset (or create a preset) with some software like Nik Silver Efex that would give you an EASY way to use PP on your images instead of using a particular camera. And maybe someday you might have, but yeah, since you have found a way to get those images instantly sooc, and looking exactly the way you want, that does make sense to do it that way, for sure. Soldier on! :flowers_2:
 
Very informative reply, Miguel. It does explain to me quite well why you are doing what you are doing.

I certainly agree that having to experiment every time you want to convert your images to that look in PP software would be a non-starter. I guess I was just thinking that it would be possible to find a preset (or create a preset) with some software like Nik Silver Efex that would give you an EASY way to use PP on your images instead of using a particular camera. And maybe someday you might have, but yeah, since you have found a way to get those images instantly sooc, and looking exactly the way you want, that does make sense to do it that way, for sure. Soldier on! :flowers_2:

I have to agree with you, Rich - it should be possible to create a preset, with software that works for you, which would then give you a relatively easy way to apply it to a lot of images and... Voilà! you come close to getting it the way you'd like it, almost instantly. Some photographers seem able to do that. Patrick Laroque, the great Fujifilm photographer based in Québec, has developed a handful of 'presets' over the years which he actually sells for other photographers interested in getting something close to what he has, and it's a tempting thought. Another great (in my opinion, at least) contemporary photographer, Josh White, who has lived and worked in Seoul, Korea, for years (his website is jtinseoul.wordpress.com), and who shoots mainly in black and white, has worked with a variety of cameras - Fujis, Ricohs, Leicas - and his processing tends to be very high contrast and, for reasons I don't fully understand, truly compelling. The end result is that, no matter which camera he's shooting with, many of his photographs and images have a 'look', no matter what camera or lens or combination he was using. He's written essays about all of the things he does in PP to make his images and - long story short, I think most photographers develop their own styles, in their own ways - including their own ways of doing PP.

I'm evolving to the point where the less 'work' I have to do an a particular image, the better. You idea of an easy Preset is a good one I think. So is what Ritchie Roesch does on his Fuji X Weekly website, where he's developed literally scores of custom 'recipes' that can be input, relatively easily, to a large number of Fuji X-Trans cameras - and the theoretical and practical results of just shooting jpegs, with a 'recipe' you like, is... you can pretty much stick to the SOOC picture. Moral of the story is, they're all good, I think. Or as my mother used to say (and she had an archly ironic sense of humor), "there's more than one way to skin a cat" ;)
 
With the resurrection of this thread, I thought I’d revisit l.monochrome.d and my recently neglected GX9 & O17-f/1.8. Both are among my favorite photographic tools and are my very favorite combo for street photography.

The ‘58 Chevy Nomad was taken at a nearby reseller of old vehicles. The others were taken around the house. They are all JPEG’s with only minor cropping. The books and stove front have very slight exposure adjustments. The vase was taken using the green filter. The others were taken with no filter.

Snapseed.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


1F739C64-699D-4E97-A76B-BE114AB7FD8F.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


E9863B3B-C496-4D31-BEE6-F8DF94CEC6EB.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


IMG_5803.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Avec la résurrection de ce fil, j'ai pensé revisiter l.monochrome.d et mes GX9 & O17-f/1.8 récemment négligés. Les deux font partie de mes outils photographiques préférés et constituent mon combo préféré pour la photographie de rue.

La Chevrolet Nomad 58 a été achetée chez un revendeur de véhicules anciens à proximité. Les autres ont été emmenés dans la maison. Ce sont tous des JPEG avec seulement un recadrage mineur. Les livres et la façade du poêle ont de très légers ajustements d’exposition. Le vase a été pris à l'aide du filtre vert. Les autres ont été prises sans filtre.

View attachment 431986

View attachment 431984

View attachment 431987

View attachment 431985
Bravo 👏 c'est excellent très bon travail mon ami Akiter t'es un pro 📸💯🏆💝
 
Back
Top