Black & White vs Color In-Camera: This topic is open for discussion, and the two attached images are open for modification. Both images are pretty much as they were out of the camera.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

This topic is open for discussion, and the two attached images are open for modification.

Both images are pretty much as they were out of the camera. No cropping, and no major enhancements. Both images had the exact same minor levels adjustment applied and saved with EXIF data intact.

The B&W image:
Camera set to Monochrome with 5 button presses on back of camera.
Red/Polar filter attached to lens.
Camera Ev = -1Ev
Minor Levels adjusted

The Color image:
Camera set to normal color with 5 presses of button on back of camera.
No filters on camera.
Camera EV = -1Ev
Minor Levels adjusted (same values as in B&W image)

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate how easy it is to take B&W pictures with a little effort and no major PP time on the computer.

I am aware both images can use some PP (Post Processing) work, and they can be improved. The issue is in spending as little time as possible in the digital darkroom.
Both images, combined, took less than 5 minutes to process.

Michael G

PS Personally, I would prefer the Color Flag, with CPL filter applied.

MG

B&W Flag

Color Flag

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

Armadillo wrote:

This topic is open for discussion, and the two att... (show quote)

You set out to take the first image in monochrome. Did you try converting the second to B&W in PP to see if there are discernible differences? I've heard it said that if you take the picture in native B&W it is "better" than converting a color image.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Armadillo, I'm not sure I understand the question, if indeed there even is one. If you shoot raw, there is no difference.
But if you're looking to shoot B&W, a shot needs areas of high contest to not come out looking muddy.
The example you present is all mid-tones, except maybe the flag.
For me, a bad candidate for B&W.
And before tweaking the shades of grey, you should at least push the histogram toward the white triangle of death, to maximize the contrast.
Just my 2cents.
SS

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

doduce wrote:

You set out to take the first image in monochrome. Did you try converting the second to B&W in PP to see if there are discernible differences? I've heard it said that if you take the picture in native B&W it is "better" than converting a color image.

I've heard the opposite: better to shoot in color so the tonal range can be adjusted by individual color. Here's a tutorial on this process.

http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/CS3Color_To_BWSM.mov

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I've heard the opposite: better to shoot in color so the tonal range can be adjusted by individual color. Here's a tutorial on this process.

http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/CS3Color_To_BWSM.mov

Interesting. Perhaps the "expert" I read wasn't doing ANY PP on the monochrome image, just a simple conversion.

waykee7 Loc: Cortez, Colorado

My technical knowledge is limited. I was told that if you wanted black and white to shoot in color, then post process it on your computer. The argument was that by shooting in black and white on the camera, there was a loss of important information. I do a lot of black and white, and I use SilverEfex2, which is a Photoshop add-on. There are filters, such as red, yellow, orange, blue, and green which I am unsure would have any functionality in the computer program if the data weren't there for those colors. I am unsure if other tools such as "soft contrast" would function similarly with the digital version of the image that didn't contain the color information. Again, I'm no expert, and if one was only concerned with a relatively straightforward b&w image, then shooting b&w on the camera may well be satisfactory but if you're looking for increasing degrees of abstraction or trying to render an image as you visualized it in b&w, or even just a "fine art" print, the b&W image shot IN the camera may preclude that.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

doduce wrote:

You set out to take the first image in monochrome. Did you try converting the second to B&W in PP to see if there are discernible differences? I've heard it said that if you take the picture in native B&W it is "better" than converting a color image.

doduce,

No, I did no conversion. The B&W was captured first, then the Red Polar filter was removed and the camera reset to normal color.

I have tried to convert color to grayscale, it works, but will not give the tonal differences a B&W capture will provide. One can spend hours in PP to get a color image conversion looking like an original B&W. Why spend hours in digital darkroom if you don't have to?

The argument has been made to always capture the image in color so you don't throw away all the color information. With the time it takes to remove one filter, and press the camera image style button 5 times, you can forget about saving any time in PP. The B&W was captured first, the color second, and the time spent in changing settings was less than 30 seconds.

Michael G

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

SharpShooter wrote:

Armadillo, I'm not sure I understand the question,... (show quote)

SS,

Good points. The flag was just outside my building, and was a handy subject. The sun was in a good position for partial Polar filter action.

What I am trying to point out is the tonal differences between the flag, the soft clouds in the background, and the dominate tree in the right side.

I was trying to capture both images without major PP, and what tiny bit I did perform was to both original images, this so a comparison could be made.

I also made both images downloadable so all could see the background data, and experiment on their own.

Michael G

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I've heard the opposite: better to shoot in color so the tonal range can be adjusted by individual color. Here's a tutorial on this process.

http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/CS3Color_To_BWSM.mov

LoneRangeFinder,

I cannot argue with your point, it can be done.

What I an trying to illustrate is; if we use the proper filtration in front of the lens, we might be able to get the image we had in mind, when we visualized it in our mind in B&W.

Why spend hours in front of a computer, experimenting with PP software, looking up complex procedures to allow the software to perform the task we are trying to create, if we can get an original direct out of the camera?

Michael G

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

waykee7 wrote:

My technical knowledge is limited. I was told that... (show quote)

waykee7,

Your question brings up an interesting point discussed a few decades ago, when color print film was introduced, and an adventurous individual could build his own darkroom (chemical). The argument was; that a color print image could be printed on B&W paper and achieve the same artistic quality as the color print. The argument was defeated with several examples.

Michael G

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Armadillo wrote:

LoneRangeFinder, br br I cannot argue with your p... (show quote)

I get your primary point, which is to produce the image without a lot of PP fuss. To be honest, this is the part of photography that I enjoy the least-- perhaps because it draws up the smell of Dextol.

However, I'm not sure how this would be done if the visualized image required the manipulation of the tonal range of several different colors in the same image.

I'll think about this. I still have all of my old B&W filters, 80a to darken the blue in a sky, etc....

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I get your primary point, which is to produce the image without a lot of PP fuss. To be honest, this is the part of photography that I enjoy the least-- perhaps because it draws up the smell of Dextol.

However, I'm not sure how this would be done if the visualized image required the manipulation of the tonal range of several different colors in the same image.

I'll think about this. I still have all of my old B&W filters, 80a to darken the blue in a sky, etc....

LoneRangeFinder,

And several other nasty chemicals. "P....U....."

To the serious photographer, there will always be a need to PP, a need to improve the captured image a little.

Using a colored filter in front of a digital sensor has the same effect that it does on B&W film, it absorbs specific wavelengths of light.

The object is to prevent the unwanted light waves from striking the photo sensitive device and making an impression.

(Another point to consider; there may well be several after market plugins available for editing programs that can do a decent job in converting a color image to B&W, but why spend the extra dollars and time, if the wheel has already been invented?)

Michael G

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

FWIW, I shoot in-camera B&W only as a stunt when I am messing about. Otherwise I shoot raw (in the camera-- I am always clothed!) and then do the lo-down on the computer. Is it better that way? It is for me.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Armadillo wrote:

LoneRangeFinder, br br And several other nasty ch... (show quote)

I tend to think toward the print with B&W. Ultimately, I'd like to see two files prepared & compared in print

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

Sunwriter wrote:

FWIW, I shoot in-camera B&W only as a stunt when I am messing about. Otherwise I shoot raw (in the camera-- I am always clothed!) and then do the lo-down on the computer. Is it better that way? It is for me.

Sunwriter,

If you have the option to change the camera style to Monochrome, and add a Red filter to your lens, try both on the same image. That is the only way you can decide if your artistic creations will meet your requirements.

Michael G