B&W, Camera or PP..?

Messages
778
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got an oldie, a Canon 40D.

I was thinking about going the route of taking B&W's using the cameras settings, maybe with a 590 filter to capture them

OR, should I just mono them in CS5..?

My main queriy is that is the Old 40D good enough at mono or is it best for me, to use Photoshop/Lightroom..

Thanks all (I know this question's probably been asked a couple of times before..)
 
I probably wouldn't limit myself to a jpeg, Just wonder if the B&W Raw would be as good a a PP B&W..

Are later cameras better at taking Monos than earlier..?
 
Last edited:
I love mono and would NEVER leave it to the camera to do it for me. I shoot raw then adjust in LR4.

S
 
B&W in PP for me it's the only way, I sometime know before shooting and image or just after I've shot it that it's getting converted, but you've got so much more creative control doing it in PP than your ever going to have in camera
 
Raw. There are loads of effects and filters you can apply to create different styles of B&W post process to suit different photos.
 
Never shoot B&W in camera.. unless you really want to do it the full on way we used to prior to digital.. using colour filters to separate tones etc. Shoot RAW, as you're not locked into the whole 256 tones of RGB of a 8bit JPEG, then do your B&W conversions post process.

Do not just remove colour, desaturate etc... think about how tones relate to grey once converted.


Making a great mono image from a colour one relies on understanding what colours are translated to what tones. As an example, remove the colour from a shot, and something that's red, and something that's green may well end up being the exact shade of grey depending the exact colour and brightness.

Never just convert an image using convert to greyscale, and personally, for the same reason I;d never set the camera to shoot in black and white either... because you have NO control over where the tones fall.

I nearly always use Lightroom's B&W function (or photoshop's.. they behave in the same way... but LR is working on the RAW and is completely reversible should you decide to change it later)

Look at this shot.

qfIFi.jpg


A straight "Convert to greyscale" in Photoshop resulted in this.

RlsLp.jpg


All the tones are almost identical.

As the most differentiation in the colour shot is between red, blues and yellows, I adjusted those channels in Lightroom's B&W palette to give a visually similar separation of tones in the balls and the sign.

Df0BM.jpg


Which resulted in this... a much more pleasing rendition.

uukVJ.jpg



Why anyone shoots B&W in camera, or just converts to greyscale is beyond me, as you have zero control over where the tones lie. It's for this reason those who used to shoot extensively with mono film will have used colour filters to do exactly the same thing... separate out tones.


[edit] These images are unedited in any other way... so they may look a bit flat. I've only played with teh colour channels in B&W to make my point.


Have a play with it... don't rely on pug-ins etc... they teach you nothing.. (unless you have plug-ins that allow manual adjustment of colour channels).
 
No problem.
 
I'm with Pookey...shoot in colour then convert to b&w in pp, adjusting the tones to suit....you are doing the final output a disservice by just desaturating. Although I tend not to shoot RAW much these days as the ooc jpegs from the fuji are outstanding.
 
I used to shoot raw with the camera set to B&W and used colour filters. B&W preview, raw flexibility.
 
I used to shoot raw with the camera set to B&W and used colour filters. B&W preview, raw flexibility.

Almost exactly what I was about to type.

With my Canon I shoot RAW with an appropriate B&W picture style. All the benefits of RAW with a decent mono preview
 
Thanks for the explanation from me too. In Digikam the B&W converter offers a choice of simulated filters and film types that provides a slightly less controllable (but somewhat simpler) set of options that does similar things.
 
Back
Top