black and white question

[sknowles]

First, let me say this is a thinking out loud question, so verbal pummeling isn't necessary. It's a question

about people's experience and understanding. And so on to the question.

 

It's a followup to the difference between shooting raw files in monochrome images in the camera or

converting color images. Rightfully so, many argue the value of shooting color and converting in

Photoshop, and some argue the simplicity of shooting monochrome. That's not my question, but today

while scanning some black and white negative film I can get 16-bit tif files while cameras produce 12-bit

raw files in a 16-bit format.

 

So what differences would you see in a scanned 16-bit tif file versus a 12-bit color converted raw file? I

plan on doing some tests with different black and white film (and I still have some Agfapan 25 too), but

I'm curious what folks think since that's a lot of extra grayscale in the additional 4 bits. Or, as usual, am I

missing something?

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<i>So what differences would you see in a scanned 16-bit tif file versus a 12-bit color converted raw file?</i>

<p>

I assume you arent even talking about the dynamic range and tonal qualities of B&W film here...

<p>

I was intially scanning B&W film on a Nikon IV and found I needed to move to the 4000ED as with 12-bit channels I was getting posterisation with many tonal manipulations. That being said, as a raw scan you probably are even pushing it to get 12-bits of information out initially - <i>those 4.2 ... 4.8 dmax numbers are meaningless</i>

[davecollopy]

It depends on what you want. Some photographers prefer contrast and don't even use the full grayscale. Either way you'll loose much of it digitally printing. For myself, I like developing and scanning 6x9 film. Sometimes I'll scan once for the shadows, once for midtones and once for highlights and put it all together in PS. This way I end up with enough information to manipulate in order to create the illusion of tonal values that otherwise are not possible in a digital print.

[sknowles]

I'm using a Nikon 5000D ED which scans at 16-bit grayscale. I'm wondering if that far

exceeds the range in any 35mm film. At 4000 dpi and 16-bit grayscale, Agfapan 400 comes

out interesting. It just got me into thinking about all the talk of monochrome in the camera

versus color conversion in Photoshop, etal and the 12-bit grayscale. Sometimes in my

learning process I get a "Hmmm...., I wonder...", and thus the question. Thanks for the

responses.

[dbcooper]

I'm not digitally savvy enough to comment meaningfully on the bit depth, but as far as I'm concerned, I think converting a digital/digitized image outside the camera offers better control and versatility. That is to say that 'convert to B&W' software seems to do a much better job than in-camera conversion does.

 

With digital conversion, one can also try the equivalent of using different filters and see if, say, a light orange or yellow filter works better for a given image, without the cost or bother of shooting a scad of frames.

 

And that's not to mention the possibility of digitally using a yellow-green filter for skin and, say, red for clouds, in the same image. You could also do something like using polycontrast paper and masking to accent different areas of the image, only much more conveniently and accurately. All this without putting an extra layer of glass (a filter) in front of the lens as would be done with film or in-camera conversion. That's my 2 cents' worth.

[sknowles]

In response to D.B., thanks. Some interesting thoughts. While converting color in

Photoshop has more tools than shooting in-camera monochrome, which by the way some

cameras come with yellow, orange, red, sepia and and other "filter" capabilities, shooting

in the camera offers the versatility in the field, while you're shooting in 12-bit raw or 8-bit

jpg. It saves a lot of post-processing work. And I would ask if color conversion is better or

just different?

 

I'm just curious why all the argument about 12-bits raw files when it doesn't expand the

dynamic range, only fill it in with more values. And when you can scan in true 16-bit, even

with the same dynamic range (film is generally equivalent to digital, or vice versa, however

you view the debate), you're just adding even more values.

 

In the end it's still the image that's important, however you get there.