RAW and Black&White

<p>I hope that this isn't a stupid question so here goes. If the final output is to be black and white, is there any advantage (in post processing) to shooting in RAW as opposed to JPEG fine? I am shooting more RAW than before as well as becoming more interested in black and white and am therefore wondering about this. Thanks! cb :-)</p>

<p>Absolutely, always shoot RAW even for black and white. You have 16 bits vs 8 bits to work with, exposure correction and all the color information to work with if you want to apply colored filter effects to your black and white image, meaning you can duplicate colored filters used for black and white film. Your tones will be smoother when working with levels and other light/contrast controls. There is just too much compression and loss of information when shooting JPEGs.</p>

<p>As Alex says: absolutely and for all the reasons he lists plus more control.</p>

<p>Absolutely - <em>especially</em> if you are going to black and white! For one thing you'll want to work in 16-bit as long as you can in order to avoid banding and other artifacts that are more problematic in BW.</p>

<p>It also makes sense to capture the best color image you can since you'll do much of what you might have done in-camera with film (e.g. filtering) in post.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>All what Alex say except for the 16bit part where in real life it could yield to no difference visually.. I always shoot raw to get the most of my camera, and open this image in RGB in Photoshop, appliying some filter to transform it to BW, i that way always keep all the color information, the use of all the filter, and a safety net in case i want a color shot instead.</p>

<p>Actually Patrick, the 16 bit does indeed yield a difference. You won't find any of the top fine art printers around who would agree with you. Now that said, in real life, most Raw is 14 bit from DSLRs.....only higher end backs have 16 bit Raw.</p>

<p>The advantage comes from making contrast adjustments be they whole field or local area. Tonality will fall apart in an 8 bit file and posterization becomes an issue when large scale adjustments are made to contrast. This is evident in the picket fence histograms one sees in 8 bit files that have been adjusted.</p>

<p>Sorry, but you need those 14 or 16 bits in order to insure tonality is maintained and posterization doesn't occur. This is a well known and accepted fact.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "...16bit ... in real life it could yield to no difference visually ..."</p>

<p>We're talking about editing, where more bits from the original image capture equals more control over output.</p>

<p>You're confusing editing with printing. In printing, most printers convert any input file to 8-bits per color channel, so sending a 16-bit file and an otherwise identical 8-bit file to a printer probably will not show any eaisily discernable print differences. You're also confusing Raw versus JPG, where even though JPG is 8-bits, it is also lossy in that it throws away more than "just" 4-bits or more of original capture data, but JPG also groups pixels into groups of 8 x 8 to further reduce information it believes is redundent within each group so it can toss additional data it thinks are not necessary for printing in a photo journal. JPG's goal is satisfactory printing, NOT accurate and flexible editing and tweaking. Never use JPG for anything but a publishing/distribution copy of a lossless high-bit original master! </p>

<p>As photo editors, we know Raw and higest bit count make a significant difference.</p>

<p>As printers, we know that higest quality JPG is probably at least easiest for subcontractors to handle, but even printing from our own computers, full data from TIF or PSD edited copies makes a world of difference over JPG. Just do a JPG copy difference overlay on the TIF master and see what's lost!</p>

<p>Charles, don't forget to play with channel mixing over your color/chrome originals to tune the resulting grayscale/tones for subject contrast and differentiation. ("Black and white"would be 2-bit, right? We're talking about grayscale, acutally, right?)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>sorry, but you will have to prove me wrong with a real example. Being a professional retoucher for 15years, and working with file that come from a P45+ most of the time, theres is, and i can assure you, not many time where i really need a 16bit image to work on.</p>

<p>And even when i developed a 16 vs a 8bit file, on screen the difference are close to none...when printed on a regular high end printer (a 7880 epson for example) if you dotn select a 16bit output function, you wont see any difference in the print.</p>

<p>16bit file have become a *standard* from what people want to look like to be a pro you need it, all the amateur could use 8bit... the real one need 16bit..but in fact, when you look at a file on screen or printed IF you didtn need to make major tweaking, you wont see any difference.</p>

<p>I seriously dont really care about what a self proclaim (or not) fine art printer can say..the fact is when you have 2 print side by side the difference is not that shocking.</p>

<p>"...Sorry, but you need those 14 or 16 bits in order to insure tonality is maintained and posterization doesn't occur. This is a well known and accepted fact..."</p>

<p>you should add "..if you use major tweaking or dont know how to work properly on your image.." Yes i agree 16bit in ProPhoto could ensure quality on those file. But if you are working in ProPhoto theres is little enehancement you will gain form a 16bit.</p>

<p>i will be glad if you can provide a example where you can see with no doutb the major difference between a 16bit vs 8bit file..in the mean time i can post a 8bit image on beauty retouching for a major add campaing to show you that a 8bit file could look good..and that is a well known accept fact by me : )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i dotn confuse jpeg for raw..thats one point : )</p>

<p>And i fully understand the editing / printing process..i should have said, 16bit part where in real life it could yield to no difference visually even when you are still in Photoshop.<br>

see my previous answer for the rest (i post my answer without seing youres before Peter)</p>

<p>The funny thing is a lot of people keep saying that 16bit in ProPhoto is so good and the best (i dont say its not good in some case or mathematically..i said *visually* ) etc...but no one can post 2 well developed image side by side to show a user where is the difference? surprisingly, people also seem to think that i dont know what im talking about..maybe because they dont what i do for work? Its OK..im certainly not the one with the holy truth, but i can provide example that can make you think otherwise : )</p>

<p>Patrick, I don't consider ad campaigns to require the highest quality printing. I suggest you look at examples from Charles Cramer, George Dewolfe, Clyde Butcher, among many other master printers who don't agree with you. I've seen the difference with my eyes. I've noticed these differences at fine art printing workshops as have other attendees. I've shown the differences in workshops I've conducted.</p>

<p>If you can't see the difference, I'd say the problem is with your eyes.....as most of us have no problems with telling the difference. And please, spare me the ad campaign chest thumping. I see blown highlights, posterization, poor tonaility, poor sharpening technique, and color issues in the overwhelming majority of ad campaign work. It is hardly the acid test for high end printing quality.</p>

<p>16-bit (or whatever higher number of bits you can work in) does indeed make a difference in post-processing black and white images if you do any significant modification of the image. Sky, in particular, is less likely to visibly band if you are doing things like applying strong color filters or making significant adjustments to levels, curves, contrast, etc.</p>

<p>Once you are finished you can certainly convert to 8-bit format for sending out a file for printing (that's almost certainly what your printer will ask you do do) or for (obviously) creating jpgs.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Dave, you said it all..</p>

<p>i will return to my chest thumping ad campaing retouching that i do with my bad vision : )..but feel free to show us simple mortal by posting your image in 16bits vs a 8bit one..i would love to see example from a knowledgable person.</p>

<p>If you really want to see a sample in print, I suggest you consult the people I mentioned above. They are considered to be some of the best digital printers in the US in the fine art printing arena. I can provide some more of the top fine art printers and photographers in the world if you wish to review a list.</p>

<p>As I, among everyone else in this thread disagree with you, then maybe it is indeed you that are incorrect. By the way, a simple google search comes up with thousands of examples.....virtually all of which disagree with you as well. How odd. I guess they don't teach the maintenance of tonality in Montreal photo schools.</p>

<p>ah ah Dave, arrogant to the last drop..i like that ; )</p>

<p>I have the chance to see Greg Gorman, Jeff Shewe, Bruce Fraser, and many other live, have a drink with them, and get home with a superb print from Jeff..there print really look good..</p>

<p>but i was asking to see a 16 vs 8 bit image here in PN, post from your sublime collection. And dont confuse your 5 post for *everybody*..its the same guy who post them..you : ) LOL.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry, all my work is 16 bit.....like most fine art professionals. By the way....aside from my posts, the others don't agree with you either.....neither do the fine art printers I mentioned. Care to guess to guess why they/we/I all disagree with you? It's very simple....we've done some B&W printing tests comparing an 8 bit workflow with tonal adjustments to a 16 bit workflow. Easy to see.....for some of us I guess.</p>

<p>I think years of ad campaigns with poor quality have made you blind to the issues in fine art printing.....which ad campaign posters they aren't. </p>

<p>I think you two aren't talking about the same thing.</p>

<p>Patrick, I'm sure you'll agree that if you work in 8 bits end-to-end, you're likely to see posterization somewhere along the way that you wouldn't see if you had been working in 16 bits. I think that's the sort of thing Dave is talking about.</p>

<p>Dave, I think Patrick is talking about 16-bit in the printing phase, not for the entire workflow. If you work on the image in 16 bits, then convert to 8 immediately before printing, the result is quite similar to sending 16 bits to the printer -- even those printers which claim to support more than 8 bits. I've seen numerous requests from people looking for evidence of a difference between 8 bit prints and 16 bit prints, but like Patrick, I've never seen anyone present any.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... working with file that come from a P45+ most of the time, theres is, and i can assure you, not many time where i really need a 16bit image to work on ... IF you didn't need to make major tweaking ... wont see any difference ... print side by side the difference is not that shocking ..."</p>

<p>"... print ..." Not edit!</p>

<p>You said it all -- the difference between editing and printing. </p>

<p>Not surprising is the rarified experience of being able to witness the "not that shocking" output difference between Raw and JPG from professional photographers using extreamly expensive professional cameras, who have studied control over exposure, composition, and lighting during capture! </p>

<p>In the the real world of the original poster -- "fairly new to digital photography" according to member's profile -- Raw versus JPG is significant for editing, specifically for recovering details in shadows, and white balance and color correction, and printing without banding after editing.</p>

<p>BOTH our experiences are "right", just not much overlap between pro and newbie. </p>

<p>If the previous poster just reviews their own experience and re-reads their own posts, and quotes themselves accurately, they won't be accused of confusing Raw and JPG again, confusing editing and printing again. ;-)</p>

<p>Visual examples of shadow detail recovery, white balance, and collor correction differences between editing JPG and Raw "originals" are available over the Internet via simple Google searches -- and don't just look at 8-bit versus 16-bit, but study editing JPG copies versus Raw originals. Or, just do it ourselves -- bring up the level of shadow detail, white balance, and color correction in a screen copy from a Raw original, and do the same shadow detail recovery level adjustment, white balance, and color correction using an in-camera JPG copy of that Raw capture, and THEN do a difference overlay. Ouch! =8^o</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>I think Patrick made a distinction between "mathematically" versus "visually", but since none of us seem to have any images that can, at the moment, show the problems with manipulating 8-bit images I think we must discuss the mathematics. </p>

<p>If you have an image with a lot of highlights and have any 8-bit words that are close to the 255 max, then any addition or multiplication operations you do to those values are in danger of overflowing or saturating (hopefully) the 8-bit word. Unless you store every intermediate value as 16-bits, you are going to have erroneous data. It is good that currently we have 14-bit sensor data stored in 16-bit words, otherwise we would have the same problem unless we did all editing at 32-bits.</p>

<p>I can definitely understand how Patrick might have many images that show no degradation at 8-bit editing, the data in all those images must be such that the edits are not causing 8-bit saturation. But, that does not mean that there are not a whole lot of images, particularly those with a lot of dynamic range and extreme highlights, that will not show problems with 8-bit editing.</p>

<p>Dave i dont know why you still assume that i just talk about ad campaing retouching? or that i only do that kind of retouching?..but anyway, it was fun, but you sound to arrogant to be of some interested anymore for me...like a new toy, you where fun to start, now just plain boring. Im sure on another thread i will learn to like you again : )</p>

<p>Mark, i think youre right, as i said, if you work on a 8bit file the wrong way or too far adjustment could yield to posterisation at some place, but you can managed around it if you are carefull, where of course the 16bit file will still maintain the most of the details, render better gradation and more subtle tone..but many user wont see the difference between 2 of there own image for many reason.</p>

<p>Of course i was not debating anything about jpeg vs raw (sorry if somewhere i could have sound like it?)..just a raw develop as a 8 bit file, vs a the same raw developed as a 16bit file, both work and edit the same way and with the same filter, then comparaing them side by side ON SCREEN, where i still think from a serious camera you wont see any major difference at that stage IF you have work on it not to the extreme. AND once print, those 2 file should look prety close...Im not talking about histogram here, but visual difference only.</p>

<p>Sasvata, that is what i meant but try to explain with my bad english (and bad vision LOL)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Original Poster wrote: "... <em>shooting in RAW as opposed to JPEG</em> ..."</p>

<p>One recent response: "... <em>not debating anything about jpeg vs raw ... just a raw develop as a 8 bit file, vs a the same raw developed as a 16bit file</em> ..."</p>

<p>Hence the confusion. This thread is about Raw versus JPG, not 16-bit versus 8-bit.</p>

<p>Actually this thread is about color to black and white, and wondering if original color bit depth matters, perhaps leading to the 16-bit versus 8-bit discussion.</p>

<p>Whew. Figured THAT one out! Now I can re-read the entire thread and separate the Raw versus JPG chat from the 16-bit versus 8-bit chat. Cool this -- two threads shuffled together. I guess it happens a lot.</p>

<p>Charles, are you still with us? What do you think so far? Okay, we've ignored the "black and white" (actually, grayscale) part of your inquiry. So, see the bottom of this other thread for concurrent topical discussions elsewhere:</p>

<p><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SME2">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SME2</a></p>

<p>... for an example of some of my own chrome-to-tone (color to grayscale) conversions. I used 14-bit capture to 12-bit storage to 8-bit distribution, by the way, and NO level adjustments anywhere except via green or red filtering at the conversion from 12-bit storage to 8-bit distribution stage. I converted each image 3 times. Once using prototypical RGGB demosaicing and white balance, then with a digital green filter to grayscale. Once using prototypical RGGB demosaicing and white balance, then with a digital red filter to grayscale. And once using prototypical RGGB demosaicing and white balance only.</p>

<p>Helpful?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Hey Peter-yes, I'm still around! I certainly didn't mean to start a debate between 8 bit and 16 bit but as far as my original question is concerned, I guess that I have come to the conclusion it's time to shoot RAW even if the final output is to be black and white. I do appreciate all the replies. Thanks guys. cb :-)</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>If the final printing portion is what we are discussing, then I would agree that you'd be hard pressed to notice any differences in tonality from an 8 bit print driver vs 16 bit. In the editing workflow there is no question that 16 bit provides better flexibility and higher quality. This was proven so long ago that it's stunning some would even argue the point....if indeed he is refering to the editing stage.</p>

<p>interestingly enough, there is now a post referring to an article in Outdoor Photographer on digital black and white and it says to shoot it as RAW. here is a link to the article. cb</p>

<p><a href="http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/gear/cameras/best-dslrs-for-baw.html">http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/gear/cameras/best-dslrs-for-baw.html</a></p>

<p>This posting has made me happy I'm closing up shop on my B&W film to digital workflow and going to a darkroom.</p>