B&W converted to Color by Adobe

[ilya_e]

<p>Why Adobe changes B&W images to color after they are copied to a hard drive? I don't want that to be happening. Is there a way to prevebt it? Thanks</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>RAW images are always color. Generally your RAW converter software does not follow any settings you made in the camera, like B&W.</p>

<p>You will get better B&W results by converting them to B&W in the computer, rather than relying on your camera to do it.</p>

<p><Chas><br /></p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Yeah but if I take hundreds of photos I would not remember which ones were color and which ones were B&W. And what's the reason to have B&W option on your camera then? When I take a photo in B&W I want to preserve it and work on it without any additional steps.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>THe B&W option on your camera is only "applied" if you shoot JPG, or if you shoot RAW but ONLY use Canon's Digital Photo Professional as your RAW convertor / viewer. Otherwise, it's just Canon-specific metadata and has no bearing on the actual image recorded by the camera.</p>

<p>I still set the camera to B&W mode sometimes for chimping purposes, i.e., previewing in the field exactly how the composition is turning out without the distraction of color.</p>

[peter_foiles2]

<p>It is clear from your question that you are shooting raw format images on your Canon camera then using non-Canon software to process the raw images. To start, Adobe is not changing a B&W image to color. The raw (cr2) file that you copy to your hard drive is not an image at all, it is not color, it is not B&W it is just raw data. Included with that data is information on camera settings such as sharpness, contrast and yes color or b&w. Also included in the raw data is a small jpeg file made by the camera using those settings. That is the file you see when reviewing images on your camera. Once on your hard drive you may use Canon software to convert your cr2 files to an actual image (jpeg, tif) or, as you are doing, use third party software such as an Adobe product to make the conversion. Canons' software by default will read the camera settings and produce an image file accordingly, essentially matching the embedded jpeg. Third party software ignores the camera settings and produces an image based either on its own defaults or on settings you provide.<br>

So, your choices for getting where you want to go are 1) shoot jpeg in camera or 2) use Canons software for doing you raw conversions.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Ok, so there is no way for the Adobe to preserve the images? Its strange that they wouldn't support such a feature. Many DSLR users use Adobe and not EOS utility. That brings another question, will there be any differences if I take B&W in the camera or do it in post? If yes, what are they? Thanks</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>

<p>Its not an issue of "preserving" the image. Its a matter that Adobe does not read the "tag" in the file that shows you set the camera to B&W. I am not sure why as they do read the white balance setting, although they do have their own interpretation of it what that setting produces.<br>

The difference in converting to B&W in post processing ( my preferred method) is subtle, but it does give you much more control over the outcome. You can also batch process to handle hundreds of images in a matter of seconds.</p>

</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Given that you are not using DPP, choosing B&W in-camera will have ZERO relevancy to the recorded image. So between B&W in-camera to B&W in post, by definition there will be a difference, namely, one will actually be in B&W and one won't. I don't know how to put it more simply than that, haha.</p>

<p>Even if you COULD actually apply B&W in camera (as you do if you shoot JPG, for instance), I would vastly prefer to do so in post. That way you get to do more complex, ad-hoc B&W treatments that take into account color filters—e.g., specifically converting blues to a darker grey, to increase sky drama, for example.</p>

<p>Adobe and other companies likely aren't motivated to reverse-engineer proprietary image metadata for every RAW format / camera various camera manufacturers produce. It's already a huge allocation of resources to provide RAW decoding for all the camera models makers put out there. Or much more accurately, they aren't motivated to reverse-engineer DPP's specific image treatment algorithms (and do so every time Canon tweaks their formulae). There may be especially convoluted copyright issues I'm not taking into account as well, though I doubt it in this case.</p>

<p>I agree with you though that since presumably the Canon B&W downmix is probably just a simple luminance mix, it would be convenient if Lightroom and Aperture and the like could read it and automatically apply the effect (non-destructively, of course) on import. I know I would enjoy it if I could set non-destructive image treatments via Canon's picture styles in-camera, especially if I could customize Aperture to do specific conversions for each custom picture style. Imagine it: set the picture style to "standard" or "neutral" and instead of Canon's prebaked DPP effects, you get an entirely custom Aperture image preset applied upon import. Now there's a useful feature!</p>