B&W comparisons - part 2 - V1/V2/V3 SOOC

[RichDitch]

In the previous discussion Genome58 wrote:

I appreciate your reasoning, and methodology. However, my request stands, based on the assumption that each of the V models probably has a different JPEG engine. Hence, a comparison of all three models' SOOC monochrome output is useful. To complete the comparison, it's necessary to simultaneously output the same images in RAW and then apply monochrome software settings but no other corrections. This should provide more visual info than only noise differences. In summary, three cameras, same settings, same lens, one scene, set to output in RAW + JPEG. Let's put the specs to the ultimate critical test: our own eyes and visual processing systems (AKA brains).

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw. So I’m ignoring that here and looking only at SOOC monochrome images.

I selected an area that included a bright window to give a range of tones, and used the same 10/2.8 on a V1, V2, and V3 mounted on a tripod. Composition varies a bit since the A-S QR plate on each camera shifted the relevant camera position. Cameras were all set to the same parameters: manual exposure, 1/100th second, f/4. I went with auto ISO to avoid the tedium of zeroing the exposure scale assuming that each camera would pick the same ISO value. Unfortunately that didn’t happen, so either the light changed between cameras or the meter works differently in the V1.

Camera settings. Note V1 ISO differes from V2 and V3

Color reference of scene - SOOC V3 Jpeg

V1 SOOC B&W Jpeg

V2 SOOC B&W Jpeg

V3 SOOC B&W Jpeg

Observations

1. I should have set ISO manually
2. I don’t like SOOC images
3. finding the locations of each parameter that needed to be changed in three different cameras was a pain and I hope I got them all reset properly!

This concludes the comparisons as far as my involvement goes at this time. If I did any more I’d try to find a better subject, would set ISO manually, and would use an AF-S lens on an FT1 so the alignment wouldn’t shift as I changed cameras.

Final thought: if the goal is to pick the best V camera for SOOC B&W then all the in-camera settings that affect the results must be considered. Things such as Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, and Filter effects.

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

 

[ishwanu]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

 

[RichDitch]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

 

[Paul Pasco]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

 

[Paul Pasco]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

I look at things a little differently. When I want to shoot B&W, I set my V1 to monochrome and act like its film, looking for shots that I think will benefit from mono. So, its not a matter of whether or not its better or more convenient, it's just more fun for me.

And yeah, if it sounds like I would enjoy the Fuji half X, I probably would at first but I would tire of only having one focal length.

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[RichDitch]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

Over all my years I have been stubbornly doing or not doing a lot of things, and I see no shame in taking that position. But I have changed my position on some of them so there may be hope for you at some point in the future. Some of my positions that come to mind include

1. Automatic transmissions. My personal cars have all been manuals, until I made the switch in 2001. Mostly because that made it a lot easier to take photos of birds from the car while creeping along a dirt road.
2. Mexican food. We first encountered Mexican food when we spent a year in Palo Alto CA. We were eager to try it but were immediately punished by gastric distress that has us confined to a 30 second radius from our bathroom. But after decades of avoiding it we tried again and cannot get enough of it.
3. Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Judy Garland, and many other A list entertainers. Don’t like them and never will.

Please share your version of Molly if you still have it. I’d enjoy seeing it.

 

[Paul Pasco]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

Over all my years I have been stubbornly doing or not doing a lot of things, and I see no shame in taking that position. But I have changed my position on some of them so there may be hope for you at some point in the future. Some of my positions that come to mind include

1. Automatic transmissions. My personal cars have all been manuals, until I made the switch in 2001. Mostly because that made it a lot easier to take photos of birds from the car while creeping along a dirt road.
2. Mexican food. We first encountered Mexican food when we spent a year in Palo Alto CA. We were eager to try it but were immediately punished by gastric distress that has us confined to a 30 second radius from our bathroom. But after decades of avoiding it we tried again and cannot get enough of it.
3. Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Judy Garland, and many other A list entertainers. Don’t like them and never will.

Please share your version of Molly if you still have it. I’d enjoy seeing it.

I trashed it after I looked at it, but since you asked, I did it again. It's a big improvement to the SOOC jpeg, but not nearly as good as your RAW conversion, as I would expect.

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[RichDitch]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

Over all my years I have been stubbornly doing or not doing a lot of things, and I see no shame in taking that position. But I have changed my position on some of them so there may be hope for you at some point in the future. Some of my positions that come to mind include

1. Automatic transmissions. My personal cars have all been manuals, until I made the switch in 2001. Mostly because that made it a lot easier to take photos of birds from the car while creeping along a dirt road.
2. Mexican food. We first encountered Mexican food when we spent a year in Palo Alto CA. We were eager to try it but were immediately punished by gastric distress that has us confined to a 30 second radius from our bathroom. But after decades of avoiding it we tried again and cannot get enough of it.
3. Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Judy Garland, and many other A list entertainers. Don’t like them and never will.

Please share your version of Molly if you still have it. I’d enjoy seeing it.

I trashed it after I looked at it, but since you asked, I did it again. It's a big improvement to the SOOC jpeg, but not nearly as good as your RAW conversion, as I would expect.

That’s pretty good working from the jpeg. Molly can be a pan to work with - not only from the hair and dust she collects on her black fur, but also finding an exposure that retains some detail in the black fur while not completely blowing out the whites on er chest and face. Adobe Camera Raw has sliders for blacks, shadows, whites, and highlights, and when I first open a Molly raw file I always try the auto setting. It almost always goes way too far in bringing up the shadows and I need to reduce that a lot until it looks more natural to me. And I also find that I pull the highlights and whites back a bit from the auto setting as well.

For easier comparison to your adjustments to thr SOOC jpeg here is the final version I posted from the previous thread.

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

 

[Genome58]

Thanks for the effort and the degree of rigor applied. All of the comments in the thread are valid. PP software rules! However, you've mined another interesting point, which was the purpose of my query in the first place. Assuming the V2 was not slightly out of focus, its image is much less sharp than that generated by the V1 or V3. Furthermore, much to my surprise, despite the significant sensor megapixel difference between the V1 & V3, sharpness and resolution are quite similar.

V1

V2

V3

The details within the figure in the lower right are similarly sharp with V1 & V3. However, the pebbling in the wall is more distinctive with the V3. (The screen capture pngs above don't display this as well as the gallery images viewed on screen, of course).



--
*
"Gee, Officer Krupke,
We're down on our knees.
'Cause no one wants a fella with a social media disease."
*
Take care lest tongue-in-cheek becomes foot-in-mouth disease.
*
On a more serious note, does a three-dimensional form initiate the formation of a gravitational force or does gravitational force initiate the formation of a three-dimensional form?

 

[RichDitch]

Thanks for the effort and the degree of rigor applied. All of the comments in the thread are valid. PP software rules! However, you've mined another interesting point, which was the purpose of my query in the first place. Assuming the V2 was not slightly out of focus, its image is much less sharp than that generated by the V1 or V3. Furthermore, much to my surprise, despite the significant sensor megapixel difference between the V1 & V3, sharpness and resolution are quite similar.

V1

V2

V3

The details within the figure in the lower right are similarly sharp with V1 & V3. However, the pebbling in the wall is more distinctive with the V3. (The screen capture pngs above don't display this as well as the gallery images viewed on screen, of course).

In rushing this experiment I hadn’t noticed that obvious difference - thanks for pointing that out. If I can find more time this week I want to explore this some more. Feel free to download any and all of the large versions of these to help with your analysis. I just opened them all in Nikon NX Studio so I could look at the active AF Focus points and to compare more camera settings that are listed in my first panel. All three cameras were set to Auto area mode as that is how I mostly work. The array of active focus points for the V1 and V3 are similar, while the V2 shows fewer.

A few tests come to mind:

1. is AF consistent on the camera used for this test
2. how do my five V2 bodies compare with each other
3. would a flat panel be a better subject and result in more consistent focus point selection
4. would I get the same basic result as here if I tried the same comparison again with all 3 V cameras

So many variables to consider. So little time available!

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

 

[ishwanu]

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

I look at things a little differently. When I want to shoot B&W, I set my V1 to monochrome and act like its film, looking for shots that I think will benefit from mono. So, its not a matter of whether or not its better or more convenient, it's just more fun for me.

I certainly understand fun, and it can be had in a variety of ways. I mentioned in the other related thread the benefit of having a color image to convert to B&W later. Here's an example of what I mean ...

The source JPEG. It was converted from RAW, but it could just as well have been an in-camera JPEG.

Below is that source image simply desaturated. If I had shot the scene using the V3's B&W setting, I believe the result would have the same look as this:

Source image desaturated

Is it good? Hmmm, maybe.

But if I exercise a few filtering options in the color-to-B&W conversion, more possibilities open up just by moving some sliders, as in these examples:

One variation

Another variation

Many of the finest B&W photographers of the film era relied on color filters at the time of capture to get the tones they wanted. Today, we have much greater flexibility. I can treat the separate colors in the photo to achieve a different range of tones, easily producing results that I like more than the desaturated version. And it is rather fun.

 

[Genome58]

If you have the patience, full manual settings for focus and exposure will provide more consistent comparison data. With respect to the other test parameters you mention, given the number of bodies you own, the permutations involved comparing them could create a full-time occupation. Leave that for another life. One body of each model will suffice.

 

[Paul Pasco]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

Over all my years I have been stubbornly doing or not doing a lot of things, and I see no shame in taking that position. But I have changed my position on some of them so there may be hope for you at some point in the future. Some of my positions that come to mind include

1. Automatic transmissions. My personal cars have all been manuals, until I made the switch in 2001. Mostly because that made it a lot easier to take photos of birds from the car while creeping along a dirt road.
2. Mexican food. We first encountered Mexican food when we spent a year in Palo Alto CA. We were eager to try it but were immediately punished by gastric distress that has us confined to a 30 second radius from our bathroom. But after decades of avoiding it we tried again and cannot get enough of it.
3. Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Judy Garland, and many other A list entertainers. Don’t like them and never will.

Please share your version of Molly if you still have it. I’d enjoy seeing it.

I trashed it after I looked at it, but since you asked, I did it again. It's a big improvement to the SOOC jpeg, but not nearly as good as your RAW conversion, as I would expect.

That’s pretty good working from the jpeg. Molly can be a pan to work with - not only from the hair and dust she collects on her black fur, but also finding an exposure that retains some detail in the black fur while not completely blowing out the whites on er chest and face. Adobe Camera Raw has sliders for blacks, shadows, whites, and highlights, and when I first open a Molly raw file I always try the auto setting. It almost always goes way too far in bringing up the shadows and I need to reduce that a lot until it looks more natural to me. And I also find that I pull the highlights and whites back a bit from the auto setting as well.

For easier comparison to your adjustments to thr SOOC jpeg here is the final version I posted from the previous thread.

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

I use the “highlights and shadows” tab a lot which is what brought the detail back to the eyes and the white areas. The left side of her snout was a little too blown out for me to get much detail back without making everything else a little weird.

On the subject of RAW vs jpeg, some day when I’m less busy (working) I will earnestly try to develop a RAW workflow. Change is good…sometimes!

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[Paul Pasco]

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

I look at things a little differently. When I want to shoot B&W, I set my V1 to monochrome and act like its film, looking for shots that I think will benefit from mono. So, its not a matter of whether or not its better or more convenient, it's just more fun for me.

I certainly understand fun, and it can be had in a variety of ways. I mentioned in the other related thread the benefit of having a color image to convert to B&W later. Here's an example of what I mean ...

The source JPEG. It was converted from RAW, but it could just as well have been an in-camera JPEG.

Below is that source image simply desaturated. If I had shot the scene using the V3's B&W setting, I believe the result would have the same look as this:

Source image desaturated

Is it good? Hmmm, maybe.

But if I exercise a few filtering options in the color-to-B&W conversion, more possibilities open up just by moving some sliders, as in these examples:

One variation

Another variation

Many of the finest B&W photographers of the film era relied on color filters at the time of capture to get the tones they wanted. Today, we have much greater flexibility. I can treat the separate colors in the photo to achieve a different range of tones, easily producing results that I like more than the desaturated version. And it is rather fun.

I can make most of those adjustments on a jpeg also.

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[ishwanu]

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

I look at things a little differently. When I want to shoot B&W, I set my V1 to monochrome and act like its film, looking for shots that I think will benefit from mono. So, its not a matter of whether or not its better or more convenient, it's just more fun for me.

I certainly understand fun, and it can be had in a variety of ways. I mentioned in the other related thread the benefit of having a color image to convert to B&W later. Here's an example of what I mean ...

The source JPEG. It was converted from RAW, but it could just as well have been an in-camera JPEG.

Below is that source image simply desaturated. If I had shot the scene using the V3's B&W setting, I believe the result would have the same look as this:

Source image desaturated

Is it good? Hmmm, maybe.

But if I exercise a few filtering options in the color-to-B&W conversion, more possibilities open up just by moving some sliders, as in these examples:

One variation

Another variation

Many of the finest B&W photographers of the film era relied on color filters at the time of capture to get the tones they wanted. Today, we have much greater flexibility. I can treat the separate colors in the photo to achieve a different range of tones, easily producing results that I like more than the desaturated version. And it is rather fun.

I can make most of those adjustments on a jpeg also.

As I've said, my adjustments were performed on that JPEG source image. That's not an issue. The requirement is that the source image needs to be in color.

If you're saying you can make those adjustments starting from a monochrome JPEG, I'd very much like to see that. I don't think you are, though.

I think you're talking about the digital filters built into the camera when shooting monochrome. I can only choose yellow, orange, red, or green in my V3. Using software, I can design any custom filter with different percentages of red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and magenta.

 

[Paul Pasco]

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

I look at things a little differently. When I want to shoot B&W, I set my V1 to monochrome and act like its film, looking for shots that I think will benefit from mono. So, its not a matter of whether or not its better or more convenient, it's just more fun for me.

I certainly understand fun, and it can be had in a variety of ways. I mentioned in the other related thread the benefit of having a color image to convert to B&W later. Here's an example of what I mean ...

The source JPEG. It was converted from RAW, but it could just as well have been an in-camera JPEG.

Below is that source image simply desaturated. If I had shot the scene using the V3's B&W setting, I believe the result would have the same look as this:

Source image desaturated

Is it good? Hmmm, maybe.

But if I exercise a few filtering options in the color-to-B&W conversion, more possibilities open up just by moving some sliders, as in these examples:

One variation

Another variation

Many of the finest B&W photographers of the film era relied on color filters at the time of capture to get the tones they wanted. Today, we have much greater flexibility. I can treat the separate colors in the photo to achieve a different range of tones, easily producing results that I like more than the desaturated version. And it is rather fun.

I can make most of those adjustments on a jpeg also.

As I've said, my adjustments were performed on that JPEG source image. That's not an issue. The requirement is that the source image needs to be in color.

If you're saying you can make those adjustments starting from a monochrome JPEG, I'd very much like to see that. I don't think you are, though.

I think you're talking about the digital filters built into the camera when shooting monochrome. I can only choose yellow, orange, red, or green in my V3. Using software, I can design any custom filter with different percentages of red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and magenta.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about processing a RAW capture. I do not use any of the digital filters built into the camera.

--
Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad
WSSA Member #450

 

[ishwanu]

My apologies, I thought you were talking about processing a RAW capture. I do not use any of the digital filters built into the camera.

I see. Well, you might want to try them sometime when you feel like experimenting. They don't offer the same range of variation you'd get from converting a color image to B&W with software, but you could get up to four different looks to compare with the straight desaturation look.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

In the previous discussion Genome58 wrote:

I appreciate your reasoning, and methodology. However, my request stands, based on the assumption that each of the V models probably has a different JPEG engine. Hence, a comparison of all three models' SOOC monochrome output is useful. To complete the comparison, it's necessary to simultaneously output the same images in RAW and then apply monochrome software settings but no other corrections. This should provide more visual info than only noise differences. In summary, three cameras, same settings, same lens, one scene, set to output in RAW + JPEG. Let's put the specs to the ultimate critical test: our own eyes and visual processing systems (AKA brains).

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw. So I’m ignoring that here and looking only at SOOC monochrome images.

I selected an area that included a bright window to give a range of tones, and used the same 10/2.8 on a V1, V2, and V3 mounted on a tripod. Composition varies a bit since the A-S QR plate on each camera shifted the relevant camera position. Cameras were all set to the same parameters: manual exposure, 1/100th second, f/4. I went with auto ISO to avoid the tedium of zeroing the exposure scale assuming that each camera would pick the same ISO value. Unfortunately that didn’t happen, so either the light changed between cameras or the meter works differently in the V1.

Camera settings. Note V1 ISO differes from V2 and V3

Color reference of scene - SOOC V3 Jpeg

V1 SOOC B&W Jpeg

V2 SOOC B&W Jpeg

I do prefer the V2!

V3 SOOC B&W Jpeg

Observations

1. I should have set ISO manually
2. I don’t like SOOC images
3. finding the locations of each parameter that needed to be changed in three different cameras was a pain and I hope I got them all reset properly!

This concludes the comparisons as far as my involvement goes at this time. If I did any more I’d try to find a better subject, would set ISO manually, and would use an AF-S lens on an FT1 so the alignment wouldn’t shift as I changed cameras.

Final thought: if the goal is to pick the best V camera for SOOC B&W then all the in-camera settings that affect the results must be considered. Things such as Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, and Filter effects.

I hardly ever take SOOX shots!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab 8 user.
WSSA #456

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

I think I’ve covered the conversion from raw to jpeg already with the conclusions that not making adjustments in the raw conversion software is simply wasted effort, and only by taking full advantage of the adjustments available in raw conversion are there any advantages to shooting raw.

Undoubtedly true. For one thing, different RAW converters can produce different results with their 'no adjustments' settings.

I find it difficult to think that in-camera B&W JPEGs can be better in any way, other than more convenient, than shooting color and doing the conversion later, whether the source file is JPEG or RAW.

Right. There are so many options available for B&W when starting with a color raw file. Even if I considered shooting B&W SOOC jpegs I’d still want to clean up the results by fixing geometry, take out most of the dust and dirt that Molly’s fur picks up like a magnet, and tweet the tonal range. So why not simply shoot in raw and get all the benefits.

Since I stubbornly do not use RAW, I am staying out of this comparison challenge, but I could not help but comment on your comment about Molly's fur. After your previous part 1 post, I downloaded the SOOC jpeg of Molly to see what I could do with it compared to your processed RAW version. I have my usual process to PP jpegs and it resulted in a version very close in quality to your processed RAW, except for the random white flecks in Molly's fur! Of course I could remove these easily with the clone stamp tool but I wasn't doing this to save, so I didn't go that extra step. Having had cats (and dogs) for a large part of my life, I know what "like a magnet" means!

Over all my years I have been stubbornly doing or not doing a lot of things, and I see no shame in taking that position. But I have changed my position on some of them so there may be hope for you at some point in the future. Some of my positions that come to mind include

• Automatic transmissions. My personal cars have all been manuals, until I made the switch in 2001. Mostly because that made it a lot easier to take photos of birds from the car while creeping along a dirt road.

My dad's SAAB 900 was one of the very first, and its Borg-Wagner gearbox was the first automatic I used. Eventually, it did its B-W thing: refused to go into reverse.

• Mexican food. We first encountered Mexican food when we spent a year in Palo Alto CA. We were eager to try it but were immediately punished by gastric distress that has us confined to a 30 second radius from our bathroom. But after decades of avoiding it we tried again and cannot get enough of it.

Never tried that, but spiced food is nowadays the norm, after years in Thailand.

• Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Judy Garland, and many other A list entertainers. Don’t like them and never will.

That is sad. Kathrine and Spencer were a pair for decades, and Humphrey had his good sides. Judy was prepped with drugs since a kid by his manager, so who can blame her for being for being quite normal?!

Please share your version of Molly if you still have it. I’d enjoy seeing it.