True Black and White from Camera.

<p>Hi,<br>

For B& W images I have usually convert the colour RAW from my D3 in Aperture 3 using NIK. I'm happy with the results mostly. But is it correct to set the camera to B&W setting and then work on the file as taken from camera, in other words, working with true B&W? What the best way to simulate B&W digitally?</p>

<p>The best way is to convert to B&W in post processing, not in the camera. That way you have more control over the conversion than if you leave it to the camera.</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>working with true B&W</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The camera still shoots in color. That's why, as Charles said, it is better to use your own conversion than the camera's conversion, you have a lot of choice. </p>

<p>Even a B&W film "shoots" in color, so to speak. With film you could choose the type of film, some range of sensitivity, etc.<br>

Of course there's always the theory that Calvin's dad tells him http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/09/19 - that the world used to be B&W.</p>

<p>Doing color conversions to B&W in post-processing is like having thousands of filters and thousands of kinds of film sensitivity. Ansel Adams (who used filters a lot) would have loved it.</p>

<p>The major advantage to working with full color raw files (or even JPEG, if nothing else) is the ability to adjust the tone for a wide range of hues. For example the in-camera b&w mode may render green and red roughly the same shade of gray. By adjusting the color file you can individually tweak the red and green channels to get the desired tonal separation. It's far more flexible than using color filters on the lens when shooting b&w film to accomplish tonal separation.</p>

There are some actual black and white digitals like the Leica M9 monochrom and the MaxMax black and white

conversions. For those you have to fall back on film techniques like filters to modify the image. But most people find

working from color images easier.

<p>Thanks, so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because sometimes convenience might matter more than quality.</p>

<p>Also, some people don't seem to do very good conversions on their own and prefer out of the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?</p>

<a name="00ajXx"></a></blockquote>

<p><br />For the same reason cameras shoot jpegs--because some people want the camera to do the processing for them.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

The manufacturers think customers believe this is a useful option (which it isn’t) to aid in selling cameras. Why force what might be a suboptimal B&W conversion on color data in-camera? Of course why let the camera take your raw file and render a JPEG with virtually no end user control, then throw away that lovely raw?

 

<p>... and because many people seem to think (incorrectly) that there is something more "real" or "true" about a B&W straight from the camera that is better than a B&W done in post. In the end, it's just 1's and 0's. A camera that generates B&W output (in addition to color output) requires no different hardware than one that generates color output only. The difference is simply in the programming, which if not free is at least darned cheap.</p>

<p>In camera B&W is just a JPEG setting so you lose right off the bat. Forget that idea or just use a cheap P&S.<br />You could always pony up for a Leica M9Monochrome Digital camera and produce real B&W only DNG files and learn how to shoot B&W with filters and everything all over again!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(...) so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some of the previous answers already indicated the right aspects to clarify your doubt.<br>

However, there is another usage that can justify cameras to offer this facility - you can use the in camera B&W for a quick check of your shots as you can set some menu adjustments that will affect the in camera produced JPEG in a way to help you to judge what you can get later on when you perform the conversion of the RAW file.<br>

Some cameras even allow you to use "B&W filters" (Y, G, R, B) to give you a better idea, but keep in mind that this doesn't make the best final option out of the in camera JPEG.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Thanks, so why is there the option to shoot in B&W mode in the camera, as shooting in colour is so more flexible?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes in-camera JPEGs with b&w or other art filter effects look great as-is. The Ricoh GRD IV offers some very good looking in-camera JPEG effects, including a "High Contrast B&W" effect that I can't quite duplicate when post processing the GRD's raw/DNG files. That setting also features a fairly authentic looking film grain effect that's pretty close to what I get pushing b&w films hard and souping in a grain-enhancing developer. The main problem is blown highlights cannot be recovered.</p>

<p>I also like the in-camera b&w effect from my old Olympus C-3040Z, which never offered raw files anyway. The look is pretty comparable to conventionally exposed and processed Tri-X or HP5+. Suits my preferences so I often use the camera for b&w shots.</p>

<p>My Nikon D2H doesn't offer a b&w option and the color JPEGs suffer from ghastly skin tones in some artificial light so I often convert to monochrome. With 4 meagerpickle files it's best to convert from raw, since the in-camera JPEGs are a bit overcompressed and don't offer enough wiggle room for contrast adjustments without posterizing.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the info... My in camera B7W are RAW not jpeg's so there will certainly be more information within the files. But I think I'll stick to the method I used as before and convert the colour, seems to make more sense.</p>

<p>Jake, RAW is always RAW - complete with Bayer matrix colour filtering. The camera cannot suddenly remove the Bayer micro-filter pattern from its sensor to take a pure monochrome RAW image. In fact, as Sarah said above, the output is just ones and zeroes that don't have any colour value at all except after they're allocated to a Red, Green or Blue channel. So it could be said that <em>all</em> digital images start out as raw B&W data.</p>

<p>Anyway that's just semantics. The point is that you'll find the RAW files will be exactly the same, whether the camera is set to output colour or B&W JPEGS. RAW data cannot be altered, since they're just the digitised brightness levels captured by each photosite on the sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But is it correct to set the camera to B&W setting and then work on the file as taken from camera, in other words, working with true B&W?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just be clear, unless you have a monochromatic digital camera such as the Leica Monochrom (that's the way Leica spells it) there is no such thing as a "true B&W" camera.<br>

All cameras that have a RGGB Bayer array sensor will always capture color data even when set to shoot B&W which is actually only a metadata tag. You are shooting color images even when a cameras is set to shoot B&W. The key is to how to control the conversion from color to B&W–the "panchromatic response of the sensor.<br>

Whether you do the color>B&W in the camera or in post processing, what's important is determining how best to make the conversion. There is no "best" solution...but there are lots of ways of doing so. You'll be netter off understanding that rather than thinking there's some sort of magic bullet...</p>

<p>Jake,<br /> you say "<em>My in camera B7W are RAW not jpeg's</em>" - I don't know of any camera, that does RAW in B&W, witch camera are you talking of?<br /> I use always RAW and when I set the camera to B&W, this is only possible with RAW and JPG. The B&W option only generates an extra JPG file in B&W. <br /> Two days ago I got my Leica M9 Monochrom and for the first time I get real B&W RAW and with higher resolution than with the RGGB Bayer array sensor.<br /> If you are interested, you may find the first pictures here:<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/<br /> dierk</p>

<p>Thanks all,<br>

Dierk, I use a Nikon D3 and set it to Monochrom, the files are RAW.</p>

<p>Jake, thanks very much. After digging 5-10 minutes into the menus, I found it :)<br>

But before the Leica MM I think, it was useless to store B&W from a Bayer Sensor and loose the ability to fine tune colors into B&W, like all the other posts explain perfectly.<br>

Now I have to buy a complete set of B&W filters for my Leica lenses in many different sizes and in best quality:(</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use a Nikon D3 and set it to Monochrom, the files are RAW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those Raws are color, not monochrom. If you don't belive it, make available any "Monochrom" NEF from your D3 and I'll show you they are color.</p>

<p>It depends on the sensor and the process used! I have a Minolta point and shoot digital, partly Konica and some Sony!. The colors suck! The B/W is awe inspiring! I find it easier to see and shoot in colr than modify later but the choice of filters... esp. use of greens! One i never used much.</p>

<p>Francisco,<br>

you are right!<br>

(and I have been right before) The menu says something like optimization and that offers B&W in RAW mode. Last time I just looked at the monitor and it was B&W (like setting it in JPG). Now I looked at the RAW <strong>and it is in color</strong>, as expected.</p>