Parking Lot Picture (Monochrome Sample)

It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately. But this sample from the Sigma FP-M (adding an "M" for monochrome seems to be the convention for converted cameras) looks extremely good and extremely clean on my monitor (NEC MultiSync PA272W). I have some nicer example pictures already, and will share some after I collect some more, but I just thought you might want a taste of what the camera with the converted sensor is capable of.

These detail crops should be at 100% after you click on them; hopefully the sharpness is not too compromised as you see it. (I'll find a different site to post samples on, so you can see them in all their glory.)

Again, I hope you can see this on your device, if not you'll have to take my word for it, but you can actually see shadow detail inside the wheel well of the pickup truck...the amount of detail this camera can capture seems well in excess of what I'm used to from 24-MP sensors.

Fine detail in the background is excellent. Part of this is the lens, which is exceptional—very sharp without being harsh.

Finally, check out the little dude "parked" on top of the streetlight! Best seat in the house. This detail looks haloed somewhat as presented here, and I'm not seeing that in Photoshop.

Finally, how's this (ISO 400) for a "shadow/sun" test? Put a textured white surface in direct sunlight and see if it still shows texture....  :-)

(You'll see it 100% after you click on it.) Of course these are edited to something near my taste in tonal values, so they may not be to everybody's liking...even if you could see them the way they're supposed to be. I know from experience that as I "exercise the muscle" I'll get better at correcting the files. I'm just kind of finding my way at the moment, learning what the available controls do and which works for what. For example, some strategies for raising shadow values seem to work better than others. I'm already using curves in ACR much more than I do with color pictures. More samples to come.

By the way, just as an aside, I'm having great fun shooting with this. It's very satisfying to me.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rick Popham: "Are you shooting raw files and processing them with ACR? I was under the impression that removing the Bayer filter required a specialized raw processor, but I admit I haven't looked into it. I'm not likely to get a monochrome camera, but this is pretty interesting."

Mike replies: As recommended on the Monochrome Imaging website, I'm using the Monochrome2DNG converter app by FastRawViewer for the out-of-camera files so that demosaicking isn't applied. It's very simple to use. I just use it between the card and the destination file, so it doesn't even add a whole step the workflow...maybe half a step, because you have to set the filename and the destination folder. The files then open in Photoshop (or Lightroom, I presume) with the Monochrome profile already set.

Chris Kern (partial comment): "Re 'It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately.' One option that might give you better control over image quality would be to use a link to an external public site for photographs."

Mike replies: I'm readying an album of photographs on Flickr that will show some of the B&W test shots that I've done with the Sigma FP so far. However I want to have at least a dozen files up to start with and I've found I can't work on the files in the daytime—the glare in my office makes it impossible to evaluate lights and darks on the screen. It's a little iffy because I'm new to converted sensor files and also to Flickr. And a little out of practice with B&W. But that's how you learn: do.

Comments

[Kenneth Tanaka]

“By the way, just as an aside, I'm having great fun shooting with this. It's very satisfying to me.”

Well that’s all the justification you need for using any camera, at least avocationally!

Nobody needs to tell me that summer and fall are times to make expeditions with tools and techniques new (to you). I have drawers full of mementos from such experiments. (Few were productive but all were fun!)

And I agree; Sigma’s newer series of lenses are absolutely terrific in every dimension! Having recently sold my entire L-mount kit I no longer have a Sigma lens. But the clarity of your images does reflect those lenses. But it also reflects working with a native camera/lens kit in the digital era. Adapted lenses never in my experience produce superior images on digital cameras.

[Grant]

Your aside is the reason that I was encouraging you to convert the A6600. You should be having some fun with this!

I trust that you will be doing OL/OC/OY?

[Peter Komar]

Those images and your enjoyment taking them will probably cost you a fair amount of money fairly soon. I don’t think you will need much more time and experimentation before you take the plunge into a B&W monochrome digital system. The images remind me of 4x5 B&W film, they are creamy smooth and the way the shades of gray and tones blend with one another is so film like. Perhaps your site would showcase more of your B&W images and on a regular basis once you commit to a Monochrome system. Thanks for taking us along on the B&W ride.

[robert e]

I'd say the Sigma passed these tests with flying, er, grays. Looking forward to low key tests, and of course beyond the tests. Glad you're having fun!

[John Holmes]

Mike I know you can't do it, but it would be nice to see an image made with a monochrome camera compared with a similar image made with a similar camera and lens that was converted into a monochrome image ... and not tweaked differently. That would show the true differences.

[Kodachromeguy]

Cool. It would be interesting to compare with a regular FP where the files have been converted to monochrome.

[Chris Kern]

Mike: It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately.

One option that might give you better control over image quality would be to use a link to an external public site for photographs. Even better, and, although I don’t use Typepad myself, I suspect the software will let you do this: use a small image in your weblog entry as a link to a higher-quality one on the external site.

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

Subjective vs objective. I completely understand this entire path you are going down. The same impulses have me shooting some film lately and have me very intrigued with your monochrome sensor envy. But from my seat watching you, I have more objectivity than with my own pursuits. The bottom line is that the sample images on-screen aren't really different than what would come from a similar conversion of a color sensor. And I would argue the same could be said for a well-printed version. In the end, you as the photographer are getting more joy because it feels better. It feels more real. But I'm lead to believe that 99% of the benefit is how it makes you feel. Not any actual objective difference that others see. Same can be said for the "idea" of shooting a Leica as opposed to a Sony/Nikon/Canon?

[When I get the A6600 conversion, one of the things I'll do is compare the output to a 24-MP Fuji X-H1 color file converted with Nik Silver Efex Pro 2. --Mike]

[Dave Haberman]

Looks like very nice monochrome rendition ….. enjoy the camera.
I would love to use an M camera.

[Wait, do you mean M as in monochrome, or M as in Leica M? Or both? --Mike]

[Bear.]

Now you just need a non-converted Sigma FP to compare to converted colour files...

[Kye Wood]

3D. The top two photos in particular, are astoundingly 3D on my screen.

Nobody else has mentioned this? I'm very much into 3D video/photography, so maybe I'm more attuned to noticing it than most folk.

I'm used to seeing that with Sigma cameras (The DP1,2 and 3). Less used to seeing it with non-stacked sensors.

One point of confusion though. The website of the place that converted that Sigma camera you have, make no mention of doing the conversion on Sigma cameras?

[Daniel confirmed that the Sigma FP uses a Sony sensor, which he's familiar with. He says he's done four conversions of FP's so far. --Mike]

[Jeff1000]

Senor Don Quixote! 🤠👍

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Well, it does look like that camera is holding up its end!

I rather like the second interpretation of the clouds over the lake!

And I hope we get to watch you learning to do B&W digital! I'm sure it will be educational.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's true, image files viewed on monitors may not be the same everywhere. It's an even bigger issue than lighting on paper prints.

But most of us, if we use our computers in our photography, are likely to have good monitors and probably even calibration on them—the end result may be that we see things more accurately than paper prints under random mixed lighting (which is what most rooms have, even rooms owned by photographers).

[Ed Hawco]

It’s been a busy week so I’m just seeing this now (Friday). But dang, my legs are getting all wobbly just looking at those…