shooting in monochrome on Nikon dslr

<p>is there any software that will preserve BW raw images, rather than convert to color; for MAC? thank you</p>

<p>Hi Frank. Can you clarify what you mean? The raw images capture the sensor pixels, which are optically filtered. The resulting numbers are reconstructed to a colour image (not usually in the colour space of the sensor filters). A lot of software lets you convert to monochrome with your own choice of how to prioritise each colour (as though you had a colour filter over the lens of black and white film) from that colour image - certainly Photoshop (expensive) and GIMP (free) do it, but I'm sure almost everything supports it.<br />

<br />

There is no "preserving" of black and white, because what comes out of the sensor pixels is pre-filtered by colour - software then attempts to reconstruct intensities to give you full colour data at each pixel. You'd only really have black and white straight from the sensor if the sensor itself was monochrome - which Nikon DSLR sensors aren't, unless someone has filed off the bayer filters. I believe there are companies that do this conversion, but the cameras are rare enough that I doubt much software knows about them; theoretically all you need is to read the pixels without modification, though. I would hope any company offering a "black and white conversion" would be able to point you at suitable software.<br />

<br />

Sorry if this isn't very helpful. Could you elaborate on your problem please?</p>

<p>As Andrew stated: the output from the sensor is in color. Will change to monochrome if you have the Bayer filter removed. Have a look at Lifepixel's website, they do IR conversion. Their website shows (showed?) some examples of what the output after conversion looks like. </p>

<p>you could buy a Leica Monochrom Frank - http://petapixel.com/2013/07/22/review-leica-monochrom-is-not-quite-a-black-and-white-decision/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you could buy a Leica Monochrom Frank </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

But in which case the post has to be moved. Kodak did make a 6MP version based on the Nikon F5.</p>

<p>You are way way better off shooting in color and using the color mixer in PS to post process your images as you might have done with conventional darkroom photography.</p>

<p>Results can be wonderful.</p>

<p>I'm wit' Peter.<br>

The RAW file itself will contain a whole slew of information and data that are invaluable in subsequent conversion to B&W/monochrome in Adobe RAW. It's like having a kit with thousands of filters, and a vast number of negatives taken....<br>

I'd even shoot B&W i<em>n film in color</em> and convert if it weren't for the unique wide latitude and incredible creamy grainlessness of Ilford XP2 chromogenic monochrome film.</p>

<p>Mr. Hamm & Mr. JDM have it exactly right...PS is a little more than I need, so I use LR, on a MAC, and the conversion tools are plentiful. I use it for RAW files and film, and it works beautifully. I will say this...once you load RAW files into LR, get the image right to where it looks best in color, then...do the conversion, and then do any more editing as necessary, you'll be pleasantly surprised at your results! Most of all...have fun!</p>

<blockquote>It's like having a kit with thousands of filters</blockquote>

<p>To be fair, it's like having a kit with thousands of filters, all made up of combinations of the same few. If you're really trying to capture a specific set of wavelengths, you won't get there with the Bayer sensor, and you end up fighting the integrated filters (speaking as someone who recently acquired a couple of filters for light pollution reduction and who has some IR filters). But <i>most</i> camera filters, at least for monochrome use, aren't this precise, and it's absolutely true that traditional coloured filters can be matched pretty well - and with way more control after the fact - by channel mixing in software.<br />

<br />

'scuse my pedantry. I've got my nose buried in colour science literature at the moment, so metamerism is on my mind. Historically I shot bluebells on film (Velvia) because I didn't like what Nikon's bayer filters did to them. It's possible that Nikon's current filter set work a bit better (allegedly there was a change in the D800/D810 generation, unless I'm confused), but I might be imagining it.</p>

Surprisingly, Photoshop doesn't make it a simple

matter to apply a colour filter and get an authentic

effect as if the same filter was attached to the

camera lens. IIRC, the closest I could get was to

create a separate layer of the desired solid filter colour and then apply it to the image using a blend mode. The issue being that you can only remove data from a single digital image, and any drastic change usually results in visible posterisation. Adding colour by means of another layer is a true addition of data and overcomes the posterisation effect to a large extent.

 

Anyway, all that's a bit off topic. IME, getting a decent B&W image from a digital colour original usually needs the application of a different tone curve (I.e use of the curves tool). Otherwise the contrast usually looks a bit flat and totally unlike what would be got from B&W film.

 

Otherwise +1 to what others have said about simply desaturating a "normal" RAW file. Starting out with the highest bit-depth the camera offers of course. But in fact some loss of tonal smoothness gives a closer approximation to the true film experience, since on a microscopic level film is only able to show pure black or pure white; all shades of grey being dithered from the random pattern of opaque silver "grains". This applies to chromogenic film also, where the dye blobs are all of a similar size and density.

<p>I don't quite understand how so many try to complicate making a good B&W image from a raw file. Use the free Nik software and go to Silver Effects and play around to get what you want. About as simple and fun as you can get.</p>

Nikon makes a Monochrome version of the sensor used in the Nikon D4 and Df; it is used in their full-frame microscope

camera. It's been stated that Nikon made a monochrome version of the Df, but did not bring it to market. I'd buy one. I use

quite a few Nikkor lenses on my Leica Monochrom.

<p>+1 Tim Holte</p>

<p>+2 Tim Holte :-)</p>

<p>If you like the B/W you shoot with your camera (as it will show on the display), shoot raw and convert with the Nikon software (Capture NX-D), which will maintain your camera settings for the conversion of NEF to JPEG. Capture NX-D is free, so that makes it a bit more economic than a Leica ;-) The actual raw file will still be colour, but if you're happy with how the camera does the conversion to B&W, then this software will make it easier to keep that look.<br>

<br /> Nik Silver Effects give a truckload more options, though, and being equally free probably a better time investment.</p>

<p>There's nothing really complicated about shooting in color and using layers in Photoshop to convert to black and white. You get to choose the balance of colors available in the original photo. You can manipulate the colors using the color sliders, but what you see on-screen are changes in black and white output. Unless you have a formula for generating black and white conversions, this gives room for adjustments that work better for each capture. Of course, if you want the same formula/algorithm applied to all B&W conversions, there are simpler ways to go.</p>

<p>I'm with Peter and JDM on this one.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.outdoorphotoacademy.com/black-white-photography/"><em><strong>This link</strong></em></a> might be helpful for assessing the various suggestions made above. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you might want to use a combination of approaches to get exactly what you want.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.outdoorphotoacademy.com/converting-to-black-and-white/"><em><strong>Here</strong> </em></a>is the associated video.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's like having a kit with thousands of filters<br>

To be fair, it's like having a kit with thousands of filters, all made up of combinations of the same few.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pedantry aside, color filters differ not only in color (it's all RGB or some other color space, after all), but also in <strong>density</strong>. Those sliders may be digital, but in human perceptual terms it's pretty continuous, ain't it?<br>

Even with actual color filters in film days, practice was "combinations of the same few" so far as I can see.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/8-reasons-to-use-silver-efex-pro-2-for-your-black-and-white-conversions/"><em><strong>Here</strong></em></a> is the case for using Nik Silver EfexPro 2.</p>

<p>There is also <a href="https://www.google.com/nikcollection/"><em><strong>this page</strong></em></a> to consider, along with <a href="https://plus.google.com/+NikCollection/posts/AFGsG2Di7EK"><em><strong>this.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

JDM: I was trying to say that the RGB capture represents

a three-component quantization of the scene. The filters

are intended to provide a good approximation to the

L/M/S cones in the eye across a wide range of colours

(sweeping the differences between some people's

comes under the carpet), but they're not perfect. There

was an interesting talk at SIGGRAPH this year about the

merits of capturing a more complete spectral response

and how human skin, in particular, doesn't respond the

same way to three-channel light reproduction in the

studio - though I concede that's not quite the same thing

as were discussing here.

 

More specifically, while traditional monochrome filters

may have been non-specific, there are times when more

finesse is relevant. The bluebell case I mentioned is an

example: to the eye, in daylight, bluebells tend to look a

bit purple. The camera often makes them more blue -

they have an odd spectral emission curve and the

camera happens not to match the eye. The greenness of

some fluorescent tubes is another example, I believe.

Some filters - particularly light pollution reducers

designed to filter artificial light, but also "contrast

enhancement filters" and so on, have different tuning

and can produce different effects. A yellow filter that

actually cuts blue and green would be different from

what a Bayer sensor captures. I appreciate these are the

exception for monochrome shooting, but they're out

there.

 

I second the call that I'd be tempted by a Df mono with a

D4 (or D5) sensor without the filters, though I'd prefer it

in a D810 body. It does help resolution a bit, but it also

adds sensitivity. Only ever in a second camera, though -

colour is too useful.

<p>I thought that was what you were saying, but I couldn't resist yanking your chain. In a not unrelated question: are you an <em>engineer</em>? :)</p>

<p>The bluebell/purple/etc. problem goes back a long way in film, as well as in digital, of course. Lots of blueish flowers are trying to attract insect eyes, not human ones.</p>

Andrew wrote: "The (Beyer) filters are intended to provide a good

approximation to the L/M/S cones in the eye

across a wide range of colours"

 

 

Actually they're engineered to be 'brick wall' filters

as much as possible. Try photographing a prismatic spectrum of sunlight. You'll find great gaps in the yellow and cyan regions as well as a lack of violet beyond the blue region.

 

 

The x,y,z cones of the eye have almost 100% overlap, with very broad peaks in the red, green and blue parts of the spectrum. The 'red' sensing cones kick up in the far blue again to give the sensation of purple. Nothing like the too-narrow cut Beyer filters used.

 

 

Again I'll bang the drum for a light-efficient RCYB array, where not much can fall down the cracks. It needs a bit more processing, but quite a bit can be done with hardware to take the strain off the graphics processor.

<p>I posted some links on Purple/Blue in a new thread in Casual....<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00eFXr</p>

<p>+3 Tim Holt</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Use the free Nik software and go to Silver Effects and play around to get what you want. About as simple and fun as you can get.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I use the one method that's even simpler. I shoot FP4 or HP5 in a Nikon F3T. :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>But then you have to get all the chemicals and develop the film and then get more chemicals and do the printing. I did all that stuff for years and enjoyed the process but I enjoy the digital process even more. Like Sly and the Family Stone said in one of their hits "Do what you wanna do!"</p>