Troll Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Which cameras are particularly good at producing in-camera B&W images?<br> Thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Panasonic L1, G1, L10. Multiple and adjustable B&W JPEG renderings. </p> <p>But I never use in-camera JPEG image processing. I produce my B&Ws from RAW captures. </p> <p>Godfrey</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Thanks, Godfrey. I knew that I could count on you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Bill, you may know this already, but a technique sometimes used by B&W digital photographers is to shoot RAW+Small-jpg with the jpg set to black-and-white. The b&w jpg (which shows up for reviewing on the LCD) helps the photographer envision what the image will look like in monochrome, while the RAW image remains in color. The photographer can then chuck the jpg (which has the camera-maker's choices for filtration) and use the color RAW file to - as Godfrey recommends - do the conversion from color to b&w in Photoshop, "filtering" it to taste. This avoids being being committed to the default filtration the camera applied to the jpg when the shutter was clicked with "Black and white" selected in camera.</p> <p>Fwiw, CS3 and CS4 are the most convenient for filtered conversion to b&w (Image > Adjust > Black and White) but the Channel Mixer and numerous other tools work fine in earlier versions of PS.</p> <p>What I wish is that the LCD only could be readily switched from color to monochrome to help me upon review envision what the shot will look like in black-and-white, while the file type actually recorded, whether jpg or RAW, remained in color for later filtration.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Bill, there are many fans of the Ricoh GR-D black & white jpegs -- often straight out of the camera. That Ricoh is a compact with considerable manual control and a fixed 28mm (equiv) lens.</p> <p>Many of the aficionados, and their photos (some of them excellent) can be found here, on another forum:</p> <p>http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>[[ But as the first response it may well have sabotaged my geting some serious responses.]]</p> <p>Can you site any examples of this on photo.net?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Panasonic LX3 for a compact camera. B&W JPGs are very good out of camera (with the understanding that the camera is fundamentally limited by dynamic range, as all small-sensor cameras are). I often prefer the JPGs to what I can (easily) get from RAW using Lightroom, which is saying something. You can also shoot JPG+RAW and have the best of both worlds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry_carter Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Panasonic LX3 produces nice B/W photos. There is a selection of film modes, which can be like having a choice of Pan or Tri-X films. My photos are mostly taken in the RAW format. This was was taken using an R72 Infrared filter....<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rat8bug/image/107714692" alt="" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>The best B&W conversions will be with a high-definition camera with a wide dynamic range and high ISO capability. At present, that would be a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Whether using a DSLR or scanning, it's best to stay in 16-bit mode until all adjustments have been made. You can make 8 bit copies of the image for printing.</p> <p>The D300/D700 are reported to have a very natural in-camera B&W capability. It's still a conversion, but done in-camera. I would not care to do that, shooting RAW instead. That gives me choices not available in-camera, including keeping the color. If all you want is a mindless conversion, there are a couple dozen options in Lightroom to do just that. If you want control over range and tonality, use Channel Mixer or one of the many third-party plugins for Photoshop.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>By the way, I agree with Vincent. You can buy an used Nikon F100 for the price of a mediocre P&S, and shoot B&W film until the cows come home. It's extremely easy (and preferable) to process it at home. No DSLR (let alone P&S) will come close to the dynamic range of B&W film. You need a medium format DSLR for that.</p> <p>This may be a "digital" forum, but it is usually attended by photographers who select the right tool for the job.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p><em>"... At present, that would be a Nikon or Canon DSLR. ..."</em><br /> <br /> Just nonsense, Edward. One can produce superb B&W renderings from many more cameras than just Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras. And you can produce better B&W renderings from these digital cameras than from 35mm film, IMO. <br /> <br /> <img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/48.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <em>"Subterranean" - Bronxville 2005<br /> ©2006 Godfrey DiGiorgi<br /> Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1<br /> ISO 200 @ f/3.2 @ 1/3 second, Av mode</em><br /> <br /> <em>Larger rendering opens in a separate window:</em> <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/48-half.jpg" target="new1">http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/48-half.jpg</a><br /> <br /> Captured in RAW and processed to finish in Photoshop CS2 + Camera Raw. First and second place awards in exhibition, several sales.<br /> <br /> Godfrey</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>There is no need for in-body B&W conversions. Just shoot in RAW. The RAW image preserves all the unaltered data from the R, G, and B pixels, so that you can do whatever you want with it in the computer -- including making the exact same B&W conversion the camera would make, if that's what you want. (You can of course be a bit more creative if you choose.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p><strong></strong> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/Troll">http://www.photo.net/photos/Troll</a><br> Thank you all for the excellent advice, but when I am shooting B&W there is very little need for any more correction than cropping, adjusting local contrast, and a little sharpening. Elements 2.0 usually has all the editing power I need.<br> My 10 year old computer would choke (as would my pocketbook) with the addition of Photshop CS3, and would require Union Approval for the overtime required to process RAW files.<br> Again, thank you all, especially Godfrey, who has given me so much good, practical advice over the years.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <i>Just nonsense, Edward. One can produce superb B&W renderings from many more cameras than just Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras. And you can produce better B&W renderings from these digital cameras than from 35mm film, IMO. </i> <p><p> I'm sure there are other DSLR's that would do an adequate job. Sigma and Fuji cameras are a little pixel-challenged, but have a good dynamic range. <p><p> Anyone who says a digital conversion is as good as B&W film can't be speaking from experience, at least skilled experience, unless convenience is the only consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Thems fightin' words, Edward. Here's a few examples directly out of the LX3 JPG engine using standard B&W mode, followed by the same JPG manipulated for tonality in Lightzone. I'll tell you right now that they're pretty good compared to any film rendering I've ever seen, as long as you take care some care not to blow out the highlights.</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>OK, same after some manipulation:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Another, straight out of camera:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>After some manipulation:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>And another before:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>And after: BTW these print very nicely at 14" across the long dimension</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_kreithen Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>BTW, meant to ask: Godfrey, does the G1 do as well with its JPG engine? I imagine so, it seems like Panasonic has spent time on the B&W options, unlike some other manufacturers. I think they really nailed it with the LX3.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcuknz Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>I would have thought it is not which camera gets the best B&W results but which photographer knows how to work their editor and printer to get the good results.<br> Some people have not emerged from the film world where everything was done for them by a lab into the digital world where we have full control ... but of course have to learn how to use the tools available to us. The essence is not the gear but the person.<br> The first post answered a foolish question with a humourous answer in my opinion .... I would have answered any Panasonic camera :-) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>My D3 set at high ISO (6400 and up) and then converted to mono in CS3 produced a really nice image, however after some breif shooting time with a Leica M8.2 the otherday, and from comments and reviews I have read, I think you will be hard pressed to beat the little M. This is a much more expensive option of course; I'm not sure of your budget.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>Hi Dan, </p> <p>Sorry, but I can't really tell you what the G1's JPEG engine does from first hand use. For it, the L1 and LX1 that I had a ways back, I've only ever even looked at the RAW files. From what I've seen others post, it does very nicely with the B&W JPEG processing. </p> <p>Godfrey</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael j hoffman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 <p>I always do my own conversion. That said, the monochrome feature on my Rebel XSi yields decent black and whites. I could get by with in-camera black-and-white jpeg files with contrast set to +1, and sharpness set to +2.</p> <p>Michael J Hoffman</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now