B&W query

[Midland Red]

Is it best to shoot in b&w on the camera, or colour and convert in processing?
What are the pro's and con's, if any?
May sound simple basic questions, but then it is I, the simple one!
Keen to know from those who do know
Thanks guys!

 

[Sharky]

Shoot raw + jpg, set the camera to a BW profile so your previews on the back of the screen are in BW so you get a sense of the final image. Back on your PC while processing the RAW file it will be full colour that you then process to your BW tastes. Only the jpg will be baked in camera as BW.

 

[StephenM]

As above. You ideally need more than 8 bits for black and white, so jpg would be a poorer choice. Additionally vastly different colours can convert to the same shade of grey, so it's normal in black and white film photography to use coloured filters to distinguish things. If you do this digitally, you can use channel mixer (or other methods) in PhotoShop to simulate, and you can do this selectively on different areas of the image. You'll have much more control over the end result, and should be easily able to do better than your camera.

 

[Brian G]

I always shoot colour and convert later in software.
By using a commercial program (like Nik Silver Efex Pro or Topaz B&W Effects) to convert a colour original to B&W you have the option of using coloured filters which simulate the operation of filters with film.
You also have the option of applying a simulation of a wide variety of popular film grain styles and types.

 

[Peter69]

I always shoot B/W raw.
I like the way I can see the tone without being confused by colour.
Raw always contains all the information.
Silver Efex Pro gives good looks though

 

[Pookeyhead]

See this thread.

 

[Brian G]

See this thread.

Agreed!
But if you use a commercial program like Nik or Topaz to do the conversion, you can see the result of applying a coloured filter at the click of a button, rather than messing about with sliders.

 

[Midland Red]

Guys! Thanks for all this
It'll take some time to digest it all and try (some of it) out
Very much appreciated.

 

[Pookeyhead]

@Brian G

But you only have red, orange. yellow, green and blue, and they're buttons.. you can't control the amount, or intensity. It's just laziness. Also... it doesn't work at raw level... it exports the image first, and works at a bitmapped level. Why would you want to do this, other than the laziness of not being bothered to take full control at raw level. It's obviously better to do this yourself in lightroom, or Adobe Camera Raw.

 

[simon ess]

I used to use Nik silver effex.

I find LR much, much better.

 

[Peter69]

@Pookeyhead, I guess the question of shooting in b/w in camera refers to jpg not raw? As I said earlier, I shoot always in b/w even if I want colour. Does anyone else do this or am I just weird?

 

[Pookeyhead]

@Pookeyhead, I guess the question of shooting in b/w in camera refers to jpg not raw? As I said earlier, I shoot always in b/w even if I want colour. Does anyone else do this or am I just weird?

I don't get this. If you shoot raw, you can do anything you like, and have full control. Each to their own I guess.

 

[Brian G]

@Brian G

But you only have red, orange. yellow, green and blue, and they're buttons.. you can't control the amount, or intensity. It's just laziness. Also... it doesn't work at raw level... it exports the image first, and works at a bitmapped level. Why would you want to do this, other than the laziness of not being bothered to take full control at raw level. It's obviously better to do this yourself in lightroom, or Adobe Camera Raw.

When you were shooting B&W with filters you only had red, orange. yellow & green, so the software option actually gives you more choice.

As for controlling the amount or intensity, in Topaz at least, the filter is fully adjustable, like all the Topaz plug-ins:

View attachment 23516

Edit: I just checked and Nik Silver Efex Pro offers exactly the same adjustment options.

 

[Sharky]

@Pookeyhead, I guess the question of shooting in b/w in camera refers to jpg not raw? As I said earlier, I shoot always in b/w even if I want colour. Does anyone else do this or am I just weird?

I do it from time to time in very contrasty conditions as it allows you to see the highlights vs shadows much easier on the back of the camera. A much cleaner view.

 

[Pookeyhead]

When you were shooting B&W with filters you only had red, orange. yellow & green, so the software option actually gives you more choice.

As for controlling the amount or intensity, in Topaz at least, the filter is fully adjustable, like all the Topaz plug-ins:

View attachment 23516

Edit: I just checked and Nik Silver Efex Pro offers exactly the same adjustment options.

Apologies.. I'm on an old version (never used it, so never updated)... mine just has the buttons. Has none of the other control underneath.. not even in anything hidden.

It still exports it as a bitmapped file before applying anything though, so you lose the ability to change the image without having to process it again.. not a major issue, but more importantly, you can't work outside of a bitmapped format. That's the real issue for me. I wouldn't be able to work at raw level. I prefer to make all global changes at raw level.. only going to Photoshop for actual retouching.

 

[Brian G]

Of course, if I'm still in Lightroom I can change my edits as much as I want.

Apologies.. I'm on an old version (never used it, so never updated)... mine just has the buttons. Has none of the other control underneath.. not even in anything hidden.

It still exports it as a bitmapped file before applying anything though, so you lose the ability to change the image without having to process it again.. not a major issue, but more importantly, you can't work outside of a bitmapped format. That's the real issue for me. I wouldn't be able to work at raw level. I prefer to make all global changes at raw level.. only going to Photoshop for actual retouching.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your fixation on editing "raw" files.
The whole point of programs like Lightroom is that you DON'T edit the raw file - it's left completely untouched.
Your screen merely shows the decoded and rendered file with all the adjustments and edits applied.
As soon as you move the file outside of Lightroom, whether it be to Photoshop, Topaz or whatever, it always ceases to be a raw file and is displayed in a bitmap format.
Once you edit the bitmap, any adjustments are "baked in" and you can't go back and change your mind.
You can of course apply the edits in stages as Photoshop layers, which does offer some scope for alterations, but that seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

If I go back and review an edited bitmap image and decide I don't like it I, usually erase it and start again, since it's usually more productive than trying to re-adjust an edit I'm not happy with.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Of course, if I'm still in Lightroom I can change my edits as much as I want.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your fixation on editing "raw" files.
The whole point of programs like Lightroom is that you DON'T edit the raw file - it's left completely untouched.

Exactly.... but that's not the only advantage.

What you're not getting is that making such global changes at the raw level allows a wider scope of adjustment without the same quality penalty, as the image is not locked into a bitmapped format yet. This is true for most adjustments.. exposure, white balance etc... as well as channel adjustments. Using Nik has to convert it to a bitmapped format first... THEN make the changes, which limits the range of adjustments that can be made compared to making those adjustments at the raw level. With Nik you're working on a TIFF or a JPEG.

It's good practice to make global changes at raw level... that's really the point of raw I just don't see the point in a plug in that makes the SAME global changes, but at a bitmapped level. Why not just use what you have already... LR or ACR. Why use a plug in for a raw program, that does the same things, but NOT at a raw level. The irony is delicious... a plug in for a raw program that makes global changes.. but not at raw level.

Just don't get it. I guess laziness wins every time with most people.

 

[Brian G]

Exactly.... but that's not the only advantage.

What you're not getting is that making such global changes at the raw level allows a wider scope of adjustment without the same quality penalty, as the image is not locked into a bitmapped format yet. This is true for most adjustments.. exposure, white balance etc... as well as channel adjustments. Using Nik has to convert it to a bitmapped format first... THEN make the changes, which limits the range of adjustments that can be made compared to making those adjustments at the raw level. With Nik you're working on a TIFF or a JPEG.

You don't have to convert it to a bitmap FIRST, if you are working within Lightroom you select "Edit In" and when you've made your selection you are offered the options to Edit a Copy WITH Lightroom adjustments, which is normally what I do.
If you make extreme adjustments in raw there can still be a penalty, so it's not a panacea for everything - garbage in/garbage out.

It's good practice to make global changes at raw level... that's really the point of raw I just don't see the point in a plug in that makes the SAME global changes, but at a bitmapped level. Why not just use what you have already... LR or ACR. Why use a plug in for a raw program, that does the same things, but NOT at a raw level. The irony is delicious... a plug in for a raw program that makes global changes.. but not at raw level.

Just don't get it. I guess laziness wins every time with most people.

But as I just pointed out, you are NOT making the SAME changes, you take the Lightroom changes into the external editor, you don't remake them, they are already there.
I think you are criticizing something you have no knowledge of.
Most plug-ins can create adjustments that are not possible or extremely difficult in the host program.

It's NOT a matter of laziness, it's a matter of using the best tool for the job.
Do you drill holes with a hand brace or are you lazy and use a power drill?

 

[Pookeyhead]

You don't have to convert it to a bitmap FIRST

Yes you do.. you have no choice... Nik does that as part of the process.

, if you are working within Lightroom you select "Edit In" and when you've made your selection you are offered the options to Edit a Copy WITH Lightroom adjustments, which is normally what I do.
If you make extreme adjustments in raw there can still be a penalty, so it's not a panacea for everything - garbage in/garbage out.

I'm sorry.. it doesn't. When you select "edit in" and select "Silver Effex", then select "Edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments", as soon as you do this, it creates a second copy as a TIFF, and then that point on, whatever you do in Nik, you're working with that copy.

What is it you feel Nik has that LR doesn't?.. apart from the cheesy presets that is.

 

[Brian G]

Yes you do.. you have no choice... Nik does that as part of the process.



I'm sorry.. it doesn't. When you select "edit in" and select "Silver Effex", then select "Edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments", as soon as you do this, it creates a second copy as a TIFF, and then that point on, whatever you do in Nik, you're working with that copy.

What is it you feel Nik has that LR doesn't?.. apart from the cheesy presets that is.

When you view an image generated by Lightroom on screen, just what do you think you are seeing?
It's not a raw image, because a raw file is not an image file, and if you sent raw image data to your graphics driver card it would have no idea how to interpret the data.
It's a bitmapped image generated within Lightroom, that you are seeing, and all the adjustments created in Lightroom are applied to the bitmap, not the raw file, which is why the raw file remains untouched.
Once you move the image outside Lightroom it has to become a bitmap, but provided you maintain adequate bit depth, then there's no penalty in carrying out further edits.

I must confess that I'm not a fan of B&W processing, I don't do it very often, and the only reason I have Silver Efex and Topaz is because they each came as part of another package.

You've already disqualified yourself from judging either program by saying you don't have them, so it's not up to me to justify their existence.
All I can say is, when I have played with them they seem to be capable programs and I rather liked the results I could achieve with basic programming, although less so with their "film simulation" modes.

I joined this thread in order to contribute something that might be helpful to the OP, not to start a debate on the methods and merits of different pieces of software.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

To return to the OP's question...

My take on it is if you just want a ready to use black and white image, then shoot black and white JPEG's in camera. You will be able to set up the camera to shoot with more / less contrast depending on the look you want.

If you want more input into the finished article, and have access to some software to do it, then shooting in colour (ideally in Raw) will allow you to produce a far more expressive photograph. It does require practice of course. Software like Lightroom is more about making global adjustments to the image, as is Nik Silver Efex, although using their 'control points' can help make local adjustments, as well as using masks.

Photoshop gives the greatest flexibility for conversion and subsequent processing if you want to do Ansel Adams style darkroom work.

Personally, I desaturate in Lightroom, then open it up in Photoshop. I then make selective adjustments using curves to get the image reasonably 'balanced', and then do further adjustments on the black and white image in Nik Color Efex Pro. I find the tools in this are more subtle than Nik Silver Efex (and I have used that software a lot over the last 5 years), but that's just what works for me.

 

[Pookeyhead]

When you view an image generated by Lightroom on screen, just what do you think you are seeing?
It's not a raw image, because a raw file is not an image file, and if you sent raw image data to your graphics driver card it would have no idea how to interpret the data.

I know.. I'm not talking about what you see on screen (which in most people's cases is a crappy 6bit image anyway) I'm talking about the changes made at raw level when you finally export the image. Until you export the image, anything you are doing in LR is working with the raw data regardless of the preview on the screen.

It's a bitmapped image generated within Lightroom, that you are seeing, and all the adjustments created in Lightroom are applied to the bitmap

Exactly my point. Nik however... exports the image AS a bitmap, THEN makes it's adjustments.

You've already disqualified yourself from judging either program by saying you don't have them

I have silver effex.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

I don't shoot much digital, and when I do, I keep it in colour, as that is what digital is good at. Most of my photography these days is b/w film anyway.

However, when I did shoot b/w digital, I found my favourite method - which just gave me the results that I desired, was to:

• Shoot in RAW
• Open RAW files in the Open Source RAW editor UFRaw (but other editors would have been fine).
• In UFRaw, I would edit it in Channel Mixer as a monochrome. The RGB sliders ideally equaling 100%. It gives results similar to fitting colour filters onto a film camera with b/w film, only is far more controllable and post process. Each image would be different.
• Once I'm happy with my monochrome, I'd complete any other PP edit in RAW, then save as a low compression jpeg file if I wanted more PP using the open source Gimp software, or a higher compression and resize if I wanted to upload to the Internet.

That is the method that I enjoyed. Shoot in RAW, edit at home as a RAW on Channel Mixer and save a monochrome jpeg.

 

[odd jim]

Shoot colour raws no doubt or debate this is the best way.

When you process (not just straight conversion) you can process each colour channel in software such as Lightroom and CS, giving you a far more striking end result (and far more control over the final image).

There are some really good books on this very subject, though I can't recall the name of the last one I read on holiday!