Boston: B&W Architecture with Leica Q2M: From a Purist Perspective.

I swear I was going to switch out my black and white ONLY Leica Q2M to a regular Q2 color camera before going to this trip.  I"m glad I didn't.  

Oh, before I forget, take a look at my icandy slide shows.  I will be making slideshows that is designed for big screen TV's.  Take a look at this one:

Ok, back to the topic on hand.  So one of the most asked question about the Leica Q2M is, 'why limit yourself to just black and white when you can easily convert color photos to BW?'  Very good question.  My answer is,  if you know with certainty you want the best quality BW image possible, you want the dedicated monochrome camera.  Am I being a staunch purist? or is there a practical argument for it? Let's talk about it. 

Beacon Street Boston,  MA
One of many beautiful architecture on that hill.  

First, this camera doesn't have any moire filter on the sensor.  Moire filters are on most color camera sensors to get rid of those annoying repeating patterns that looks like concentric rings when photographing narrow repeating patterns like a herringbone suit.  It's essentially a detail destroying filter designed to blend these patterns.  So with cameras without these filters, the details are a lot finer.  Some specialty color cameras are being offered without the moire filter, now.  So if you're not photographing executives in herringbone suits, you're sorta ok with not having the moire filter, I think.

Boston Public Library
Got there as soon as it opened so I can get an uncluttered shot of this iconic room. 

Can you really tell the difference in sharpness?  Yes, and no... Yes, you'll see it when you blow it up on a large print.  No, you can't see the difference when you just view it on a tiny phone screen, like the ones you're looking at now.  I don't want to bring out the age-old debate of "Does sharpness matter?" and its siblings, "when is lens sharp enough?" But sharpness is a quality that most people would think it is good... except portrait photographers who like softer renderings of detailed wrinkles to smooth out skin tones.  But for architecture, sharpness allows you to enjoy all the little carvings that the architect took long time to design. Not to mention the craftsfolks that actually did the handiwork... dangling way high up from the ground! 

Downtown shopping area on Summer Street.
Look at those intricate carving details!

I was using a red filter on this lens.  putting a red filter on black and white film is an old technique that has been pretty much forgotten since we all switched to digital.  Putting a red filter on a black and white camera does not turn the image red because it only records shades of grey.  What it does is that it allows all the red shades through the filter and blocks anything that is opposite of red which is cyan/blue.  In short, it will make anything in the reddish color brighter/lighter and anything in bluish color darker when shot with BW film/sensor.  

So the red filter did this: made the blue sky dark, made the foreground redstone building brighter, made the bluish shadow areas darker. That made the building pop more and dramatic. 

There are some of you who are saying, " Well, you can darken up the sky in BW image (from color) in LightRoom, Photoshop..." Once again, yes, that is true but getting it right in camera first will always get you the best results.   Can you see the difference between a red filtered BW image vs non filtered color image worked in post (Photoshop, LightRoom...)?  This probably will be harder to distinguish between the two.  But consider this: when you "work" an image in a computer, making it darker, lighter, more saturated, adding sharpener filters... you're stressing the information.  Much like over-kneading the dough, or flipping the fish too much.  

To be honest, I am reaching a bit here... There are plenty of flexibility in working with RAW images and the higher bit color depth of modern cameras makes my last argument a bit thin.  But if you noticed the title of this blog, it is from a "Purist" perspective. 

I forgot to take off the red filter here, making the iso shoot up to 6400

Here is the detail of the same shot  What noise? It is clean!

One bad thing that happens when you put on the red filter is that you lose like 3 stops of light.  That's a lot. So what that means is that you will need a very fast lens and/or crank up the ISO setting on your camera to make up for the light loss from the filter.  The image above was taken at 6400 iso but it could've been at 800 if I had removed the filter.  When you push the iso high (above 1600), most cameras start showing "noise" on the image.  If you look very closely at the above image, you will see zero noise.   This camera is the superhero of low light!  This camera is clean at even at 128,000 iso.   

So my point is that having a red filter is a good thing with the drawback being, loss of light.  But, the better sensor on monochrom cameras can easily make up that loss.  Do you now see why this is the perfect BW camera?

Ok I know what some of you are saying. Well, if you take off that red filter when you get inside, you don't need a super low light camera."  You're absolutely right! But in my advancing age, I forget stuff.  One being, take off the filter indoors, then put it on outdoors.  Or 'did I feed the dog today?'  That's just one more moving part that I can get rid of to make my life easier.  

The details in the highlights and still be able to pick out the details on the shadows is what this camera is all about.  The ability to show what you saw with your eyes. 

The Leica Q2M or any Monochrome sensored camera is bit controversial now days because of the arguments that I've made for and against above.  By the way, the only other BW only camera is also made by Leica (M10 now discontinued), who has the deepest roots in handheld "reportage" way of photographing the world.  

Most of us who got into photography seriously before the digital era were black and white photographers.  That is because of lower cost and ease of processing your own film/print compared to color negative or slides.  Sure, we shot color film but I would say at least the half of us if not more, were BW shooters back in the days.  So for us, BW photography is not a niche genre, but rather the familiar old friend.  Also, all the masters that we looked up to like Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams or Edward Weston all used shades of grey as their medium. 

This is the real reason why I didn't change my camera to the color version.  It is an homage to my roots of photography.  Its back to seeing things in the shades of grey.  With color removed, you can pay attention to light better, I think.  Its similar to losing one's eyesight where your hearing gets heightened.

Also, this camera with simple layout marries itself to that very idea of stripping things away that you don't need that can clutter up your mind, which then can taint your vision and ultimately your photographs.  Now I'm not even close to say that color photography clutters your photographic vision.  What I'm saying is that if you are specifically looking for monochromatic images, color can be distracting factor. 

This camera is not for everybody.  Its serving a very specific purpose for me.  Photography is personal, so you need to listen to yourself first.  Then you'll have to listen to your spouse talking about how you need to be more fiscal because this camera will set you back $6,250 bucks! Enjoy.