-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Shooting in monochrome vs. making it B/W in SW
- Thread starter barnum1
- Start date
Kinda... nothing.
Mono settings in-camera simply does the conversion in camera, and bakes it into the JPEG file.
Shooting in RAW and converting in post gives you a lot more options, but the basic concept is the same. It's using software in both cases to do the conversion.
Yes and no. If the capture is in raw then the base data file is the same. The camera sends its "idea" from settings made by user plus the camera company interpretation of how it should be processed along with the raw capture data and presents the results to the user as a B&W playback even if the capture (as is normal has full colour). The camera has to understand that the user "knows" what they want and has set the camera appropriately.
A good post processing program should replicate exactly what the raw data says + apply the camera settings to the resulting first screen image. But users are often thought to be idiots and the post processing program might well correct white balance and a few other obvious mistakes or lapses such as exposure automatically. Hence much of the popularity of always processing from raw. You don't have to worry nearly as much about whether you need bother getting the image correct at capture stage.
As far as the camera is concerned it has to believe that the user knew what he or she was doing.
Post processing raw does allow you to change all the adjustment factors that the camera would automatically make to give a playback image.
Therefore using raw can be a very useful tool. But using raw at its most creative level is hard work, time consuming, and needs a lot of learning and ultimately at the coal face relies on the user's judgement. I think most post processing is done at the "make me a good corrected image" level and finessing is a skill only half learned over time.
That said. If you process a raw capture to B&W in post processing then you get a unique B&W renditon based on the software you use and your personal skills in using it. If you let the camera make the B&W image you depend on the limited range of control over it given by your particular camera, your own camera settings, and how the camera manufacturer's own firmware decides how to process it.
A good post processing program should replicate exactly what the raw data says + apply the camera settings to the resulting first screen image. But users are often thought to be idiots and the post processing program might well correct white balance and a few other obvious mistakes or lapses such as exposure automatically. Hence much of the popularity of always processing from raw. You don't have to worry nearly as much about whether you need bother getting the image correct at capture stage.
As far as the camera is concerned it has to believe that the user knew what he or she was doing.
Post processing raw does allow you to change all the adjustment factors that the camera would automatically make to give a playback image.
Therefore using raw can be a very useful tool. But using raw at its most creative level is hard work, time consuming, and needs a lot of learning and ultimately at the coal face relies on the user's judgement. I think most post processing is done at the "make me a good corrected image" level and finessing is a skill only half learned over time.
That said. If you process a raw capture to B&W in post processing then you get a unique B&W renditon based on the software you use and your personal skills in using it. If you let the camera make the B&W image you depend on the limited range of control over it given by your particular camera, your own camera settings, and how the camera manufacturer's own firmware decides how to process it.
One important difference is that when shooting B/W with a camera, you see the image in the viewfinder in B/W, which can be very helpful. The best way is to shoot jpeg+raw. That way you have a B/W photo as made by the camera, and a colour RAW for any further post-processing.
dmanthree
Forum Pro
Maybe. If you shoot raw and process in something like PS's B&W module, that's a huge advantage over shooting B&W in camera. You can't really apply the color filters on an image shot in B&W. Lots more flexibility shooting raw and post processing through the manipulation of color channels.
bgalb
Senior Member
+1. With Lightroom, you have saturation sliders for eight different colors that can be used in any combination in B&W mode along with all of the other controls available in Lightroom. It's arguable whether any of the specialized Mononchrome softwares can do anything better than you can do converting a RAW into a monochrome image in LR. (now I am sure a number of people WILL argue that claim 
)
)You can, with a Pen F.
Walt Palmer
Senior Member
And now the Lumix GX85. But the Lumix can also do color with no AA. I have been enjoying restricting myself again. Tri-X had a set of characteristics, and we always had to work WITH those pre-baked characteristics. I have been enjoying restricting myself to JPEGs and learning to use those pre-baked characteristics again.
Last edited:
JudyN
Senior Member
Enormous difference, whether you shoot jpg or raw. In post, you choose how to "interpret" the photo in B&W. There are many ways to create a B&W image and many tools as well. Lightroom itself, lightroom presets, Photoshop plugins.
I generally run through some Lightroom B&W presets I have and decide what kind of result I want. I don't do the same thing with every image for sure. Sometimes I want high contrast, sometimes I want something more subtle, sometimes darker, sometimes lighter, etc.
I generally run through some Lightroom B&W presets I have and decide what kind of result I want. I don't do the same thing with every image for sure. Sometimes I want high contrast, sometimes I want something more subtle, sometimes darker, sometimes lighter, etc.
twenty200
Leading Member
The only difference between shooting in monochrome and turning a color photo into monochrome in post, such as in Photoshop or Lightroom, is that if you're shooting in monochrome, you see in monochrome through the viewfinder. That means seeing the scene differently, which often leads to better shots since some things translate better to B&W than others.
With a Pen F, you flick the lever to have a color wheel pop up in your viewfinder. Spin one dial to choose the color to filter and spin the other dial to choose the strength for that color filter.
With other cameras, like the EM1, you can go into the menu preferences and choose a color filter, but with the Pen F, you do it live in the viewfinder. It's so fast and easy to do that I end up doing it often while framing up shots. Flick the lever, spin the dials. For me, it's as much a part of setting up a shot as choosing the aperture or shutter speed. Flick the lever, spin the dials & you can see how the settings affect the scene. It's amazing.
For anyone who likes to shoot in monochrome, in my opinion, the Pen F is as good as it gets. I love mine.
EXACTLY.
With a Pen F, you flick the lever to have a color wheel pop up in your viewfinder. Spin one dial to choose the color to filter and spin the other dial to choose the strength for that color filter.
With other cameras, like the EM1, you can go into the menu preferences and choose a color filter, but with the Pen F, you do it live in the viewfinder. It's so fast and easy to do that I end up doing it often while framing up shots. Flick the lever, spin the dials. For me, it's as much a part of setting up a shot as choosing the aperture or shutter speed. Flick the lever, spin the dials & you can see how the settings affect the scene. It's amazing.
For anyone who likes to shoot in monochrome, in my opinion, the Pen F is as good as it gets. I love mine.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
IMO, it's about the same as shooting B&W film and having a lab process and print it, vs processing and doing the prints myself. I prefer to have more control over the results. When shooting film, I would choose colored filters depending on the scene and what I wanted the print to look like, not to mention the choice of film, how it was processed, what paper I printed on et al. Even with a print, the final version involved dodging, burning and other processes which affected the overall look.
Take a gander at the B&W forum and you'll see a lot of people only think of B&W conversion in the most elementary terms. To them, an in camera B&W capture is acceptable. Some of the stuff I see on that forum (and elsewhere) is terrible. Probably the biggest thing people need to learn about B&W is how colored filters affect the final rendering of a given scene/subject. Since in camera monochrome setting usually allow the selection of a limited number of applied "filters", it's a good idea to experiment if you prefer in camera conversion.
Still, even cameras which have "art" filters intended to give various monochrome effects only go so far.
I use Topaz B&W Effects on .tiffs generated from RAW files for the very reason that I can use a wide and customizeable set of features to come up with the final image. Of course, not everyone wants to devote that much time to PP, so your mileage may vary.
Walt Palmer
Senior Member
But it's also worth noting that Topaz (and other Filter/Effect sets) also work on JPGs, not only on RAWs or TIFFs. Ditto printing. Each print from a JPG can be as different as from a RAW or TIFF (or PNG, or...) The RAW file gives you the flexibility to "develop" it differently each time you look at it; unlike my old negatives, which were developed once (like a JPG) and then you start from there to produce whatever output you want. A RAW file can be processed as B&W today, then as color tomorrow. My old Tri-X can never be a color negative; not can my newer monotone JPGs.
I'm forcing myself to make choices again, rather than deferring every decision until I have time later. My challenge now is to capture correctly for the "visualized" result. I'm having fun again. I still have so many more choices than the "old days" - and DAMN! this is SO MUCH EASIER. Focus stacks in camera, rather than tilts and shifts and bellows factors! Wow!
I'm forcing myself to make choices again, rather than deferring every decision until I have time later. My challenge now is to capture correctly for the "visualized" result. I'm having fun again. I still have so many more choices than the "old days" - and DAMN! this is SO MUCH EASIER. Focus stacks in camera, rather than tilts and shifts and bellows factors! Wow!
Last edited:
timo
Veteran Member
To put it as simply as possible, the camera will just give you the b/w rendering it has been set up to deliver. That's it.
Developing a raw file on your computer in Lightroom (say) will give you the option to produce a similar result, if you choose; but b/w comes in many flavours and you will be able to indulge your personal taste. Much more flexibility. The balance between colour channels ( = filters, in effect) is just one example.
gary0319
Forum Pro
The reason to "shoot" in monochrome, is that you experience the scene in monochrome through the EVF. Monochrome is all about shapes, tone (lighting), and textures, and being able to concentrate on those attributes of a scene without the distraction of the color is a great advantage.
Sure, you can look at your color image in post processing, and decide it might look better in B&W, or you could have made the same decision ahead of time and maximized the shot for monochrome at the time of capture. If you shoot Raw+jpeg, you can make the decision to revert to color after the fact, anyway.
With my Pen F, I can quickly turn the front creative dial 2 clicks to change to my favorite monochrome setting, see the scene in mono, dial in my filters, and filter strength if I want (see the effect of the filter in the EVF) and concentrate on that texture, tone and shape.
Sure, you can look at your color image in post processing, and decide it might look better in B&W, or you could have made the same decision ahead of time and maximized the shot for monochrome at the time of capture. If you shoot Raw+jpeg, you can make the decision to revert to color after the fact, anyway.
With my Pen F, I can quickly turn the front creative dial 2 clicks to change to my favorite monochrome setting, see the scene in mono, dial in my filters, and filter strength if I want (see the effect of the filter in the EVF) and concentrate on that texture, tone and shape.
1. Monochrome conversion is much harder than people tend to think.
2. Back in the day, photographers were familiar with black and white photography. No so today.
3. Most monochrome conversions you see are meh.
4. That will especially be true for straight luminance-to-grayscale conversions whether done in camera or in post.
5. Shooting black and white in camera is useful as it renders the EVF in black and white.
6. Jpeg+raw gives the best of both worlds, as always.
and finally
7. The OOC monochrome conversions from the PEN-F are amazing.
2. Back in the day, photographers were familiar with black and white photography. No so today.
3. Most monochrome conversions you see are meh.
4. That will especially be true for straight luminance-to-grayscale conversions whether done in camera or in post.
5. Shooting black and white in camera is useful as it renders the EVF in black and white.
6. Jpeg+raw gives the best of both worlds, as always.
and finally
7. The OOC monochrome conversions from the PEN-F are amazing.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
How does the GX85 disable the color filter on each bayer filtered pixel to be sensitive for every color?
As the Leica camera has B/W sensor, meaning every pixel is sensitive for every color, unlike with the bayer sensor where R pixel is sensitive for only red light, G pixel only for green light and B pixel only for blue light.
I have searched about this Panasonic L.Monochrome mode but nothing says it can do what Leica sensor can do (Leica camera can't shoot color as there is no color filters on the pixels).
Moti
Veteran Member
everything is hard if you don't invest in building up kills. Otherwise it is easy.
Just the opposite. Back in film, only those who processed and printed themselves in a darkroom were familiar. Today, everyone who uses an image editing software can learn it in no time.
bcause people don't know how to do it properly.
right, because this is the wrong way to convert to monochrome.
Yes, it give some help to start with but if you are skilled, you don't really need it.
That is a cliché because it depends entirely on the photographer,
Indeed, but a skilled photographer will always get better results in PP.
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
Moti
Veteran Member
Not at all a stupid question. It all depends on what you want to get and how much time and effort you are willing to devote. Today there are cameras such as the Pen F for example, that render very beautiful monochrome images which would satisfy most of us.
However, if you are skilled and talented, you will aleways get better results in PP than in the camera. For me one of the beauties of processing yourself, is the ability to apply local adjustments, which is a set of features that no camera in the world can give you and this can make a huge difference.
Moti
dmanthree
Forum Pro
Nice. But once you save the image, is the raw file or resulting jpg permanent? Can you go back and change you mind if you want to apply a red filter instead of a yellow filter? Do you have endless combinations of filters, including simulated infrared? Can you vary the intensity and luminance of each color channel?
It sounds like a nice feature, but I really doubt it offers the flexibility and control that Lightroom or Photoshop does.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum