Shooting in monochrome and filter question

Usually not, but it depends. If the photos you shoot are exclusively .jpeg then you lose the ability to change the 'camera default B/W conversion' in PP. How good a monochrome .jpeg will look depends a lot on the color palette (and color/tone contrasts) in the scene. You sometimes intuitively know that a scene with little color interest but with rich tonal contrast and/or 'texture interest' would look good in monochrome.

If you shoot in jpeg + RAW then the the monochrome (jpeg) picture style should give you a B/W preview. If the monochrome .jpeg looks fine to you - in PP too - then you can just use the .jpeg. But then you still have the RAW file available in case you want to adjust the B/W conversion in PP.

If you only shoot in RAW (as I do), the the monochrome picture style has no effect on the RAW file (other than being stored as meta-data). A color photo (.jpeg/RAW) has much more information available than a monochrome .jpeg. So you can experiment with different conversions in PP (and with different presets and conversation plugins like Nik Silver Efex Pro). So in general, my advice would be: when in doubt, shoot in color (or jpeg +RAW).

Canon has a useful tutorial on the monochrome picture style here

Unless you have a dedicated mono camera ($$$), using a B&W option in a digital camera is actually a rendered RGB image. With the former, you must use B&W filters to achieve the desired results. With the latter, you can achieve the same results when processing the image, assuming you keep the raw image. B&W in the camera is only rendered to JPEG copies.

Could you still use B&W filters with rendered images? Probably, if you turn AWB off and use either the daylight or tungsten settings.

Shooting in mono allows you to see what the picture looks like in BW before you shoot it.

Shooting in mono allows you to see what some software designer’s generic vision of a black and white photo is. Just remember, when you’re looking at this, there might be a million and one other black and white conversions that could look like a very different picture. There is no color or black and white version of a picture. There are lots of them.

The digital filters (R/Y) can overdue it a bit

Unless they’re rented and the date of return has passed, digital filters can overdo it a bit! :)

Sam, I blame the Mac spell checker for changing my "overdo" to "overdue".

You're easier on yourself than I am on myself. I blame myself for not double-checking the spell checker!

Shooting in mono allows you to see what some software designer’s generic vision of a black and white photo is. Just remember, when you’re looking at this, there might be a million and one other black and white conversions that could look like a very different picture. There is no color or black and white version of a picture. There are lots of them.

Sam, Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course, I'm not looking at the final BW print view. That depends on how you post process it. The point I was trying to make is that you're looking at a BW image rather than color before you shoot it. The aesthetics are different. It makes form and shape more apparent and provides for a different look than color which could be distracting.

When I set up for shooting BW in my 4x5 film camera, I'll use a small digital camera set on monochrome to view the scene to see if I like it before setting up the film camera. Obviously, the P&S digital BW view will not match what I get with BW Tmax film. But the monochrome view before shooting will help in the process. USing the filter in the digital camera could help deciding whether to use a real filter on the film camera as well.

The point I was trying to make is that you're looking at a BW image rather than color before you shoot it. The aesthetics are different. It makes form and shape more apparent and provides for a different look than color which could be distracting.

Thanks for clarifying. Yours is not an unusual approach and I’ve heard others experience this similarly.

Personally, color doesn’t seem distracting to me even when I’m planning a black and white shot. As a matter of fact, it feels like it adds a textural layer to my black and white thinking. I like the challenge of abstracting form and shape as part of the process of seeing an image both in my mind and in reality and, as I gain more experience of that, I don’t find I have a harder time doing that in color than in black and white, when it’s desired.

Clearly, different methods and processes work well for each of us. I tend not to use my preview screen before I take a shot, though sometimes check it afterward for a variety of reasons.

When I set up for shooting BW in my 4x5 film camera, I'll use a small digital camera set on monochrome to view the scene to see if I like it before setting up the film camera

Consider buying a Black and White Viewing Filter - the Monocle Type: much quicker, much simpler. It views the scene wherever your eye is looking.

Before I wrote this reply, I checked to see if the item is still made, this one at B&H Photo is very similar to the one I have had for ages - (assume from your Portfolio, you're in the USA) - LINK

WW

Consider buying a Black and White Viewing Filter - the Monocle Type: much quicker, much simpler. It views the scene wherever your eye is looking.

 

Before I wrote this reply, I checked to see if the item is still made, this one at B&H Photo is very similar to the one I have had for ages - (assume from your Portfolio, you're in the USA) - LINK

 

WW

Thanks. I actually have a 6x7 F64 brand viewing filter that I've had for decades for my RB67 medium format camera. The filter is the same format as the RB67: 6x7 also in the format of 6x7. But I found I didn't use it too much. What I like now about using a P&S camera besides its metering and seeing the scene in BW, the zoom allows me to frame the picture to let me know which lens I need before I set up the 4x5 camera and tripod. Once I have the shot lined up with the P&S, I place the tripod right there and install the lens that matches the zoom setting on the P&S. It saves a lot of walking around and changing positions for the camera and selecting the wrong lens.

The OP hasn't been back since a few hours after posting this question . . .

My advice, I don't see it specifically here, is to shoot in color, without filters, and convert in post processing. You can simulate the effect of pretty much any color filter and many "in between" colors as well. Allowing for the conversion after, you can experiment with several options for each image and even do split filtering and other effects.

Let's hope that the OP comes back and let's us know if he has any questions and what he thinks of the advice . . .

Personally, I find it easier to shoot in monochrome when my digital camera is set to monochrome mode. It's more like shooting with b&w film. But it's purely psychological and is probably a result of my shooting b&w film for decades before digital cameras came along.

A good solution, as described in previous comments, is to set the camera for monochrome JPEG + RAW. The RAW file preserves the original colors and offers great flexibility for applying filter effects later in software. To simulate the "true" b&w film experience, however, shoot in monochrome JPEG only. The resulting files will be approximately as inflexible as a b&w negative. Or put the digital camera aside and shoot b&w film in a film camera.

SO here's a question: is it correct that if one shoots digital in RAW, one is getting the maximum amount of information onto the sensor. BUT when one switches a camera setting to any "filtered" or other effect, the file is reduced to jpeg, and isn't allowing all the info onto the sensor?

Just thinking if this is true, then wouldn't shooting in RAW with a red, green, or other filter on the lens, still get maximum info to the sensor, yet produce the desired "effect"?

Maybe I'm WAY off base here but this is what I always thought in terms of shooting digital images: go for absolute maximum info to the sensor, and edit to your heart's content from there. Then again, with today's super-megapixel cameras/sensors, maybe it doesn't matter?

RAW has nothing to do with getting information "onto the sensor" . . . RAW is about retaining all of the information that comes from the sensor in your file. Any software application (in camera or out) causes the file to be converted to a JPEG which, for the most part, will lose some of the information. However, the RAW file can be retained when this happens.

I don't see any sense to filtering an image likes you describe. The thing to do is apply the filters digitally to the RAW file after capture.

Think of it this way . . If you put a dark red filter over the lens, it will absorb the blue from the image and that blue data will never make it to the sensor and then will not make it to the file.

There is no color or black and white version of a picture. There are lots of them.

I agree; well put.