B&W processing of Merrill and Quattro raw files with SPP 6.6.1

[Scottelly]

Since I have decided to create a blog post at SigmaPhotoPro.com about advanced B&W processing in SPP 6.6.1, this forum seemed like a good place to start a thread discussing the latest processing techniques. I'm hoping I can "enhance" my post using what I learn in this thread.

Today and yesterday I processed some photos and uploaded a bunch of jpegs to a gallery at my website here: https://www.bigprintphotos.com/SDQH-vs-SD1M

In that gallery you will find downloadable files, exported from SPP 6.6.1 as level 12 quality jpegs, along with many screen shots that show the settings I used in the Monochrome tab. Here is a series of those screen shots, showing red, green, and blue at 100% on the color wheel, for both SD1M and SDQH raw files:


SD1M set to 100% red on the color wheel


SD1M set to 100% green on the color wheel


SD1M set to 100% blue on the color wheel


SDQH set to 100% red on the color wheel


SDQH set to 100% green on the color wheel


SDQH set to 100% blue on the color wheel

As you can tell by the settings, I did my best to recover the highlights, which meant major adjustments. These images are therefore just examples of hypothetical settings, and not examples of finished photos. I would not normally make a final photo so dark. I just wanted to see what it would take to recover the images. They are also not the best examples of a comparison of highlight recovery capabilities, because the light was changing, because of cloud cover, so the exposure from the SD1 Merrill received either more or less light than the one made with the SD Quattro H, even though the shutter speed and aperture were the same.

You'll also see that I shot these two photos at ISO 100. Comparing SD1 Merrill and SD Quattro H files shot only at ISO 100 is not really fair, because there could be an advantage that one camera has at a higher ISO setting, so this "test" is not supposed to be some exhaustive comparison. It is something that people can use to "get a feel" for what can be done with the two cameras using the Monochrome tab in SPP 6.6.1 though.

Here is an example of processing using 100% green with a shot of a garage from the SD Quattro H:


SD Quattro H processed with 100% green in Color Mixer

I "recovered the highlights from the light as much as possible" here, and since I like contrasty and detailed B&W shots I set the Detail adjustment to the most Crispy setting. I did use X3F Fill Light and Shadow adjustment too, but only lightly. As you can imagine, using 100% blue with this image made the reddish brown doors much darker, which I didn't like. Using 100% red made them lighter, but I like this use of the green channel best, I think. Here is a full color version of this image for reference:


SD Quattro H - 4 seconds at f5.6 and ISO 100

Hopefully we'll have some good discussion about B&W processing in SPP from various visitors to this forum here in this thread.

The raw files for these two photos you see above in the screen captures are available at the bottom of the blog post here:

https://sigmaphotopro.com/advanced-bw-processing-in-spp-6-6-1/

EDIT: This morning I shot a brightly lit house, and when processing the Quattro file I discovered something - the Detail tool affects highlight recovery. Here is a pair of screen shots that show it:









As you can see by the red overexposure indicators, changing the Detail setting from Smooth to Crispy has blown some parts of the image. It's easy to fix, but it's something to keep in mind for certain situations, where a file is very close to being blown. A possible last ditch highlight recovery method might include setting Detail to Smooth.

This will not, of course, work with a Merrill raw file, because the Detail tool is only available for Quattro files.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[Ovid46]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

 

[Scottelly]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

That's exactly the way I feel about it Richard. In fact, I think setting the Color Mixer to 100% or at least mostly green often achieves a more pleasing image than setting it to mostly blue. I suspect that using a greater level of red (like 50% ore more) in many portraits would make for more pleasing images too. Using mostly blue or 100% blue seems to produce brighter skies, when the photo contains blue sky, and I actually prefer the sky to look darker, so using more red would accomplish that. Of course if you combine the blue channel with filters on your lens, then things could end up quite different I guess. I've never tried that. I also suspect that setting the Color Mixer to 100% blue might produce better results in comparison to 100% red or green, when shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. That may not be the case with Quattro files though. From what I've read that is the case with Merrill files though. I'm planning to shoot a series of ISO 1600 photos, and then processing those with a full mix of colors on the Color Mixer in B&W, as well as 100% blue, green, and red. Hopefully this will show some greater differences between Merrill and Quattro files.

I'm wondering why there has been so little input here in this thread. I actually expected dozens of comments by now, with image examples and a variety of different people making contributions. That's what I was hoping for, because I want to improve my post on SigmaPhotoPro.com, about advanced B&W processing with SPP 6.6.1, as much as possible. I'd like to include a truly meaningful conclusion in that post too, and I don't think that's what I have there now. I expect to edit that post there at least two or three more times over the next few days/weeks.

 

[Joris1632]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

That's exactly the way I feel about it Richard. In fact, I think setting the Color Mixer to 100% or at least mostly green often achieves a more pleasing image than setting it to mostly blue. I suspect that using a greater level of red (like 50% ore more) in many portraits would make for more pleasing images too. Using mostly blue or 100% blue seems to produce brighter skies, when the photo contains blue sky, and I actually prefer the sky to look darker, so using more red would accomplish that. Of course if you combine the blue channel with filters on your lens, then things could end up quite different I guess. I've never tried that. I also suspect that setting the Color Mixer to 100% blue might produce better results in comparison to 100% red or green, when shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. That may not be the case with Quattro files though. From what I've read that is the case with Merrill files though. I'm planning to shoot a series of ISO 1600 photos, and then processing those with a full mix of colors on the Color Mixer in B&W, as well as 100% blue, green, and red. Hopefully this will show some greater differences between Merrill and Quattro files.

I'm wondering why there has been so little input here in this thread.

I suspect because it's a dead end. I have the impression that most simply save a TIFF from SPP and process elsewhere with a dedicated b&w editor such as Silver Efex or many many others, Converting to monochrome in SPP using the blue channel for its reputed lower noise is theoretical but in practice ......... ?

I actually expected dozens of comments by now, with image examples and a variety of different people making contributions. That's what I was hoping for, because I want to improve my post on SigmaPhotoPro.com, about advanced B&W processing with SPP 6.6.1, as much as possible.

Again, hardly anyone uses SPP for advanced processing in colour let alone B&W .......

I'd like to include a truly meaningful conclusion in that post too, and I don't think that's what I have there now. I expect to edit that post there at least two or three more times over the next few days/weeks.

Good Luck with that .......

 

[Scottelly]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

That's exactly the way I feel about it Richard. In fact, I think setting the Color Mixer to 100% or at least mostly green often achieves a more pleasing image than setting it to mostly blue. I suspect that using a greater level of red (like 50% ore more) in many portraits would make for more pleasing images too. Using mostly blue or 100% blue seems to produce brighter skies, when the photo contains blue sky, and I actually prefer the sky to look darker, so using more red would accomplish that. Of course if you combine the blue channel with filters on your lens, then things could end up quite different I guess. I've never tried that. I also suspect that setting the Color Mixer to 100% blue might produce better results in comparison to 100% red or green, when shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. That may not be the case with Quattro files though. From what I've read that is the case with Merrill files though. I'm planning to shoot a series of ISO 1600 photos, and then processing those with a full mix of colors on the Color Mixer in B&W, as well as 100% blue, green, and red. Hopefully this will show some greater differences between Merrill and Quattro files.

I'm wondering why there has been so little input here in this thread.

I suspect because it's a dead end. I have the impression that most simply save a TIFF from SPP and process elsewhere with a dedicated b&w editor such as Silver Efex or many many others, Converting to monochrome in SPP using the blue channel for its reputed lower noise is theoretical but in practice ......... ?

I actually expected dozens of comments by now, with image examples and a variety of different people making contributions. That's what I was hoping for, because I want to improve my post on SigmaPhotoPro.com, about advanced B&W processing with SPP 6.6.1, as much as possible.

Again, hardly anyone uses SPP for advanced processing in colour let alone B&W .......

I'd like to include a truly meaningful conclusion in that post too, and I don't think that's what I have there now. I expect to edit that post there at least two or three more times over the next few days/weeks.

Good Luck with that .......

Thanks George.



I am surprised that you were one of the people who seemed to think the Merrill had some advantage in monochrome, but you don't seem to have anything to say about how to best process the files for B&W using SPP. Is it just that you use an older version of SPP instead of SPP 6.6.1? If so, how do you deal with not having the built-in color cast adjustments for the newer lenses included in SPP?

 

[Joris1632]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

That's exactly the way I feel about it Richard. In fact, I think setting the Color Mixer to 100% or at least mostly green often achieves a more pleasing image than setting it to mostly blue. I suspect that using a greater level of red (like 50% ore more) in many portraits would make for more pleasing images too. Using mostly blue or 100% blue seems to produce brighter skies, when the photo contains blue sky, and I actually prefer the sky to look darker, so using more red would accomplish that. Of course if you combine the blue channel with filters on your lens, then things could end up quite different I guess. I've never tried that. I also suspect that setting the Color Mixer to 100% blue might produce better results in comparison to 100% red or green, when shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. That may not be the case with Quattro files though. From what I've read that is the case with Merrill files though. I'm planning to shoot a series of ISO 1600 photos, and then processing those with a full mix of colors on the Color Mixer in B&W, as well as 100% blue, green, and red. Hopefully this will show some greater differences between Merrill and Quattro files.

I'm wondering why there has been so little input here in this thread.

I suspect because it's a dead end. I have the impression that most simply save a TIFF from SPP and process elsewhere with a dedicated b&w editor such as Silver Efex or many many others, Converting to monochrome in SPP using the blue channel for its reputed lower noise is theoretical but in practice ......... ?

I actually expected dozens of comments by now, with image examples and a variety of different people making contributions. That's what I was hoping for, because I want to improve my post on SigmaPhotoPro.com, about advanced B&W processing with SPP 6.6.1, as much as possible.

Again, hardly anyone uses SPP for advanced processing in colour let alone B&W .......

I'd like to include a truly meaningful conclusion in that post too, and I don't think that's what I have there now. I expect to edit that post there at least two or three more times over the next few days/weeks.

Good Luck with that .......

Thanks George.



I am surprised that you were one of the people who seemed to think the Merrill had some advantage in monochrome,

I think if you look back you will see that I said "if I'm thinking B&W I reach for my DP3M" or something along those lines, BUT I never said Merrill had an advantage per se; my thinking was along the lines that most B&W subjects seem to need a small, portable, unobtrusive camera. Check the Black and White forum.

but you don't seem to have anything to say about how to best process the files for B&W using SPP.

I said that I think most use SPP simply to convert X3F to Tiff for process elsewhere. I do that. Also for colour. I have a clear impression that is how most here choose to use SPP, including yourself?

Is it just that you use an older version of SPP instead of SPP 6.6.1?

I always use the most up to date version

If so, how do you deal with not having the built-in color cast adjustments for the newer lenses included in SPP?

What??!! I will not spend what's left of my life fretting about such minutiae: I prefer to enjoy my visual world and hopefully communicate my enjoyment in images.

Scott, I will say once more, concentrate on good exposure and processing will become so much easier.

I'm going to take my own advice and end my participation in these pointless exchanges.

 

[Scottelly]

Hi Scott.

Many thanks for putting up all this work on B&W in SPP. As a fan of converting images in SPP I'm intrigued by your images. What do you conclude from your comparison of choosing either Blue, Red, or Green ? I usually look at each one to see what looks best, and also look at combining all the channels. I know the Blue channel is supposed to have the least noise, yet sometimes one of the other channels seems to provides a greater/more pleasing tonal range.

Your thoughts ...

Richard

That's exactly the way I feel about it Richard. In fact, I think setting the Color Mixer to 100% or at least mostly green often achieves a more pleasing image than setting it to mostly blue. I suspect that using a greater level of red (like 50% ore more) in many portraits would make for more pleasing images too. Using mostly blue or 100% blue seems to produce brighter skies, when the photo contains blue sky, and I actually prefer the sky to look darker, so using more red would accomplish that. Of course if you combine the blue channel with filters on your lens, then things could end up quite different I guess. I've never tried that. I also suspect that setting the Color Mixer to 100% blue might produce better results in comparison to 100% red or green, when shooting at high ISO settings, like ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. That may not be the case with Quattro files though. From what I've read that is the case with Merrill files though. I'm planning to shoot a series of ISO 1600 photos, and then processing those with a full mix of colors on the Color Mixer in B&W, as well as 100% blue, green, and red. Hopefully this will show some greater differences between Merrill and Quattro files.

I'm wondering why there has been so little input here in this thread.

I suspect because it's a dead end. I have the impression that most simply save a TIFF from SPP and process elsewhere with a dedicated b&w editor such as Silver Efex or many many others, Converting to monochrome in SPP using the blue channel for its reputed lower noise is theoretical but in practice ......... ?

I actually expected dozens of comments by now, with image examples and a variety of different people making contributions. That's what I was hoping for, because I want to improve my post on SigmaPhotoPro.com, about advanced B&W processing with SPP 6.6.1, as much as possible.

Again, hardly anyone uses SPP for advanced processing in colour let alone B&W .......

I'd like to include a truly meaningful conclusion in that post too, and I don't think that's what I have there now. I expect to edit that post there at least two or three more times over the next few days/weeks.

Good Luck with that .......

Thanks George.



I am surprised that you were one of the people who seemed to think the Merrill had some advantage in monochrome,

I think if you look back you will see that I said "if I'm thinking B&W I reach for my DP3M" or something along those lines, BUT I never said Merrill had an advantage per se; my thinking was along the lines that most B&W subjects seem to need a small, portable, unobtrusive camera. Check the Black and White forum.

Interesting.

but you don't seem to have anything to say about how to best process the files for B&W using SPP.

I said that I think most use SPP simply to convert X3F to Tiff for process elsewhere. I do that. Also for colour. I have a clear impression that is how most here choose to use SPP, including yourself?

Normally I make jpegs with SPP, because they're at least slightly better than what comes out of the camera, but I sometimes process to TIFF, but more often than not I just export a couple of different jpegs and combine them in GIMP. Normally I only work on a TIFF if I've decided to make major edits to brightness or color in GIMP or some other program, or if I intend to print the photo at really high quality or very large size.

I was under the impression that people here do like to use the B&W mode in SPP, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Certainly there are plenty of programs that can be used to make color photos into B&W or some other type of monochrome images. I've used Aperture for that many times . . . but I do like the way SPP works to make monochrome images. I think it's a pretty useful tool. Still, GIMP and other programs let me do things like brightening or darkening just one part of the image, whether that be in some complex way like masking the sky or a building to adjust/manipulate it, or by burning or dodging one or more small areas.

Is it just that you use an older version of SPP instead of SPP 6.6.1?

I always use the most up to date version

If so, how do you deal with not having the built-in color cast adjustments for the newer lenses included in SPP?

What??!! I will not spend what's left of my life fretting about such minutiae:

I only asked the question on an "if so" basis. Since you don't use the older versions of SPP, like some people do, then the question should have just been ignored, because you don't have to deal with that problem.

I prefer to enjoy my visual world and hopefully communicate my enjoyment in images.

Scott, I will say once more, concentrate on good exposure and processing will become so much easier.

I don't see a problem with my exposures, like you seem to think you see George.

I'm going to take my own advice and end my participation in these pointless exchanges.

No worries.

 

[richard stone]

Scott

I like BW images, I really do. I've sold a few, but that was many years ago. I have little doubt that good BW images can be made using mainly SPP 6.6.X But I think people have expectations that they can do "better" (whatever that might mean) with one of the more usual "Post..." programs that "everyone" uses to create the desired BW "look" that everyone is accustomed to seeing.

Second: Shooting BW images means seeing things in a different and obviously desaturated way. Clearly color itself can no longer be the subject of the image. Something else has to matter to the photographer and viewer. I actually think good BW images are easier, and more meaningful, than color images. which can tend towards vacuousness.

Third, people have made great(!) BW images with Holgas. (And some stubborn souls are probably still doing that.) If that is possible, why not possible with an sdQ? Or SD10? One issue is of course the film "curves" for any film camera, including the Holga. Do we need to emulate that look? Should we try? I think not: instead, work to find the strength of the camera and be honest about what it does, and the results. Be bold. Try not to be imitative. That just seems weak, unless one is working on/practicing technique.

Finally, as I see this, the Sigma/Foveon sensor seems a different creature entirely if we shoot BW, precisely because shooting for BW appears (to me at least) to greatly (in effect) increase the dynamic range ("DR") of the camera. There is no purple blotching or color noise that needs to be removed, etc., with the concurrent loss of detail.

Richard

 

[richard stone]

Delaguete, Cebu, evening, beached boat

Darker skies due to red color picker. -.6 sharpening.

--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

 

[Scottelly]

Delaguete, Cebu, evening, beached boat

Darker skies due to red color picker. -.6 sharpening.

I like it Richard. I think I remember seeing that photo here in color. I think I just may prefer it in B&W. Thanks for including the processing adjustments you chose to make.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

http://www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[xpatUSA]

Since I have decided to create a blog post at SigmaPhotoPro.com about advanced B&W processing in SPP 6.6.1, this forum seemed like a good place to start a thread discussing the latest processing techniques. I'm hoping I can "enhance" my post using what I learn in this thread.

An interesting thread which discusses the variations possible in SPP for conversion of color to gray-scale with Merrill or Quattro images.

Hopefully this thread will conclude that no single method (e.g. 100% blue or some mixture, etc.) will fit all possible scenes.

Martin Cadik tested various color-to-gray conversions used 7 known methods on 24 images and presented the results to 119 observers for scoring; almost 20,000 tests. The scoring was presented in graphic form with ... you've guessed it ... numbers. :-D

Martin Cadik - Perceptual Evaluation of Color-to-Grayscale Image Conversions

Martin Cadik - Perceptual Evaluation of Color-to-Grayscale Image Conversions

cadik.posvete.cz

Loading…

cadik.posvete.cz

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation.pdf ... especially see Page 3 ...

 

[richard stone]

Since I have decided to create a blog post at SigmaPhotoPro.com about advanced B&W processing in SPP 6.6.1, this forum seemed like a good place to start a thread discussing the latest processing techniques. I'm hoping I can "enhance" my post using what I learn in this thread.

An interesting thread which discusses the variations possible in SPP for conversion of color to gray-scale with Merrill or Quattro images.

Hopefully this thread will conclude that no single method (e.g. 100% blue or some mixture, etc.) will fit all possible scenes.

Martin Cadik tested various color-to-gray conversions used 7 known methods on 24 images and presented the results to 119 observers for scoring; almost 20,000 tests. The scoring was presented in graphic form with ... you've guessed it ... numbers. :-D

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation-slides.pdf

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation.pdf ... especially see Page 3 ...

Apparently the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[Scottelly]

Since I have decided to create a blog post at SigmaPhotoPro.com about advanced B&W processing in SPP 6.6.1, this forum seemed like a good place to start a thread discussing the latest processing techniques. I'm hoping I can "enhance" my post using what I learn in this thread.

An interesting thread which discusses the variations possible in SPP for conversion of color to gray-scale with Merrill or Quattro images.

Hopefully this thread will conclude that no single method (e.g. 100% blue or some mixture, etc.) will fit all possible scenes.

Martin Cadik tested various color-to-gray conversions used 7 known methods on 24 images and presented the results to 119 observers for scoring; almost 20,000 tests. The scoring was presented in graphic form with ... you've guessed it ... numbers. :-D

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation-slides.pdf

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation.pdf ... especially see Page 3 ...

Thank you Ted. That's really interesting stuff. I like how some color images with easily discernible patterns ended up just gray boxes when converted. Wow! I also thought this was amazing: "However, no deep experimental study exists" and " To the best of our knowledge, the study presented in this paper is the first perceptual evaluation of color-to-grayscale conversions." It's a bit shocking, isn't it?

I mean with all the universities in the World, and all the years that has gone by with digital cameras and software in existence by that time (2008), which does things like color-to-grayscale conversion, I'd think many studies would have been done, including multiple perceptual evaluations of color-to-grayscale conversions. I guess it's really something that very few people consider. I would have thought that the military would have considered it though. Maybe it's something that's been kept secret. I wonder how many more such experiments have been done over the past ten years.

The differences between the different types of conversions were probably the most amazing thing. I almost can't believe my eyes! lol The letters were the most in-my-face demonstration of how the conversions result in different images. Wow! For instance from CIE Y to Rasche 05 it looks like two totally different images! It's interesting that in Color2Gray the R becomes almost indiscernible, and in Smith 08 the C becomes practically invisible. To me the Rasche 05 stands out as a real outlier (very different results), so it might be a conversion method to seek out.

I like the chosen icon (yin-yang) too.



Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

 

[xpatUSA]

Martin Cadik tested various color-to-gray conversions used 7 known methods on 24 images and presented the results to 119 observers for scoring; almost 20,000 tests. The scoring was presented in graphic form with ... you've guessed it ... numbers. :-D

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation-slides.pdf

http://cadik.posvete.cz/color_to_gray_evaluation/cadik08perceptualEvaluation.pdf ... especially see Page 3 ...

Thank you Ted. That's really interesting stuff. I like how some color images with easily discernible patterns ended up just gray boxes when converted. Wow! I also thought this was amazing: "However, no deep experimental study exists" and " To the best of our knowledge, the study presented in this paper is the first perceptual evaluation of color-to-grayscale conversions." It's a bit shocking, isn't it?

Well the CIE original color vision tests were done with far fewer people (29?) and we're still quoting the 1931 chromaticity diagram to this very day, even though others followed ...

The differences between the different types of conversions were probably the most amazing thing. I almost can't believe my eyes! lol The letters were the most in-my-face demonstration of how the conversions result in different images. Wow! For instance from CIE Y to Rasche 05 it looks like two totally different images! It's interesting that in Color2Gray the R becomes almost indiscernible, and in Smith 08 the C becomes practically invisible. To me the Rasche 05 stands out as a real outlier (very different results), so it might be a conversion method to seek out.

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

 

[xpatUSA]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

 

[xpatUSA]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

For the Merrill in SPP5, I made drastic color adjustments and saved them into an X3F twice. The Monochrome saved images from that X3F were both the same, implying that the X3F raw data is used for the Merrill.

I thought maybe the embedded JPEG (not altered by SPP adjustments) could also be used (easy enough to test) but it is lower quality than the raw ...

--
Ted

 

[Scottelly]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

For the Merrill in SPP5, I made drastic color adjustments and saved them into an X3F twice. The Monochrome saved images from that X3F were both the same, implying that the X3F raw data is used for the Merrill.

I thought maybe the embedded JPEG (not altered by SPP adjustments) could also be used (easy enough to test) but it is lower quality than the raw ...

Thanks for this input Ted. About the Quattro raw files and SPP 6.6.1 . . . there is no white balance when using the monochrome tab.

:O

 

[xpatUSA]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

For the Merrill in SPP5, I made drastic color adjustments and saved them into an X3F twice. The Monochrome saved images from that X3F were both the same, implying that the X3F raw data is used for the Merrill.

I thought maybe the embedded JPEG (not altered by SPP adjustments) could also be used (easy enough to test) but it is lower quality than the raw ...

Thanks for this input Ted. About the Quattro raw files and SPP 6.6.1 . . . there is no white balance when using the monochrome tab.

Obviously not (!) and it is the same for Merrill/SPP5.

To clarify: I set the adjustment tab to Color, made drastic changes, saved the settings into the X3F ... then changed to Monochrome and saved one BW image. Then back to the color tab, made more drastic adjustments (e.g. from Vivid to Neutral), saved the settings again ... then back to Mono and saved another BW image. The two BW images look the same in FastStone.

--
Ted

 

[Scottelly]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

For the Merrill in SPP5, I made drastic color adjustments and saved them into an X3F twice. The Monochrome saved images from that X3F were both the same, implying that the X3F raw data is used for the Merrill.

I thought maybe the embedded JPEG (not altered by SPP adjustments) could also be used (easy enough to test) but it is lower quality than the raw ...

Thanks for this input Ted. About the Quattro raw files and SPP 6.6.1 . . . there is no white balance when using the monochrome tab.

Obviously not (!) and it is the same for Merrill/SPP5.

To clarify: I set the adjustment tab to Color, made drastic changes, saved the settings into the X3F ... then changed to Monochrome and saved one BW image. Then back to the color tab, made more drastic adjustments (e.g. from Vivid to Neutral), saved the settings again ... then back to Mono and saved another BW image. The two BW images look the same in FastStone.

 

[xpatUSA]

Wouldn't it be cool if Sigma would include various conversion methods in a drop-down selection box within SPP, so we could pick which method we want to use for producing our B&W images?

Until then, RawTherapee offers a lot and I'm sure there are others equally good.

Today I'm looking at X3F raw layer extractions and not finding them hugely different so far (just a few minutes into the exercise).

I'm wondering if the Monochrome Mode output is affected by color settings such as WB, Color Mode, Working Color Space?

If the Monochrome Mode output is affected, would that tell us that the Method is a conversion from RGB?

If not, would that tell us that the Method is extraction of the raw layer signals.

I can test that for a Merrill and SPP5 but not Quattro and SPP6 ...

For the Merrill in SPP5, I made drastic color adjustments and saved them into an X3F twice. The Monochrome saved images from that X3F were both the same, implying that the X3F raw data is used for the Merrill.

I thought maybe the embedded JPEG (not altered by SPP adjustments) could also be used (easy enough to test) but it is lower quality than the raw ...

Thanks for this input Ted. About the Quattro raw files and SPP 6.6.1 . . . there is no white balance when using the monochrome tab.

Obviously not (!) and it is the same for Merrill/SPP5.

To clarify: I set the adjustment tab to Color, made drastic changes, saved the settings into the X3F ... then changed to Monochrome and saved one BW image. Then back to the color tab, made more drastic adjustments (e.g. from Vivid to Neutral), saved the settings again ... then back to Mono and saved another BW image. The two BW images look the same in FastStone.

Thanks for the clarification Ted.

I chose 3200 ISO to compare some Merrill BW images both out of SPP and out of RawDigger. Turned out to be a wise choice!

First, the raw histogram:


Both X and Y axes are linear

At 3200 ISO, the exposure levels are seriously low; almost -7EV at the sensor so, if there's any noise, we're gonna see it - won't even have to measure it.

Roland has always told us that the lower Merrill layers are noisy. Since I always shoot at 100 ISO, I've never really noticed it, but the following images tell the tale sure enough!

Here's the RD raw exports compared:


Dull because of the low exposure.

Here's the SPP 5.5.3 mono outputs compared:


Bottom Right is 33% each channel.

It is quite obvious to me, now, that those who use the blue channel only will be rewarded with relatively noise-free pictures - as has been said here before. For those who prefer to play around with the color mixer, they should expect to need some NR.

--
Ted