Best digital for black and white?

Rictus

Rictus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
63
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
No
To all, I am well aware that the best black and White results can be achieved by shooting raw and converting afterwards, manipulating the colour levels etc. But I am becoming more and more of the impression that canon slr's seem to produce a much more satisfying tonal range and a certain, well undefinable b&w quality. That is of course while making allowances for lenses. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
 
Ps I've posted this in general photography on purpose, rather than equipment, as I don't want it to be seen as a dissection of equipment settings just a general out of the camera thing, much like different film types give different qualities.
 
I am not sure, but isn't there a Sony dslr that is supposed to give one of the best tonal ranges?

for some reason I am thinking S5, but don't think that is sony.
 
Last edited:
my old sony gave some great colours straight out of camera when paired with minolta lenses. the raw unworked file just had something about it that my canon now doesn't produce, the colours from the canon seem cooler whereas the minolta colours were more saturated and pleasing to me.

nothing that can't be produced in pp now though, but it was nice to have those colours as a base to work from.
 
That's what I mean - I don't want to be enslaved to the digital darkroom when I can have the camera get me most of the way in the first place. I'm not big on digital editing, I normally just clone out any obvious nasties, a little skin smoothing and dodging and burning plus the standard controls. Maybe it's just the old darkroom days calling me but I really want something that will do it out of the camera as best as possible. I certainly feel that Nikon deliver better bolder colours and Canon seem to have a nice tonal feel to them...

@Harvey_Nikon- The S5 you're referring to is probably the Fuji. It's a D200 body (still f-mount) with the amazing EXR sensor and Fuji firmware.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I am not sure, but isn't there a Sony dslr that is supposed to give one of the best tonal ranges?

for some reason I am thinking S5, but don't think that is sony.
Click to expand...

You're thinking Fujifilm.

Judging by current tastes, B&W is all about photocopier-style contrast, and not the subtlety of someone even as recent as James Ravilious.
 
This is an interesting subject to me as I'm getting more and more into black and white photography, especially when it comes to animals as there is a crisp (literally in some cases) cleaner feel to them.
The D300's in-camera conversion is really rather good, here is a side by side comparison.

Converted in camera



Converted in photoshop

 
Tricky one, maybe it would be a better comparison with the same photo?

Really though, if you want to shoot black and white from the off, you're kidding yourself if you don't shoot film :cool:
 
I love shooting b&w. I use a d90 but never use the in camera b&w as it's not that great. I shoot raw then use aperture to convert.

The best results I've seen have been with lieca m8/9 but that's out of my price range and though they produce amazing results I'm not a rangefinder fan
 
Don't think I've tried my sony in B & W mode. I seem to be in a colour phase at the moment so I'm after vivid colours. The colours are definitely more vivid than with the panasonic I have. Once the colder crapper weather arrives I may revert to moody B & W...

I reckon the sony 18-55 has a slightly cooler colour balance than my older lenses. Must be down to the different coatings. I also noticed differences with film cameras and later digitals when mags did side by sides of the same scene. You could tell which brand took what without reading the label most of the time.
 
I've always fancied the idea of an updated Kodak DCS 760m, a true monochrome digital camera with no colour filter array, which only captures grey levels like monochrome film.
 
TBH, I don't think it makes a lot of difference. There are a few cameras that really offer "something different" Fuji S5 for dynamic range, although the new breed of D7000, D3, D3s, D3x knock it out of the water (but cost a lot more)

I love B&W conversions from my Kodak SLR14n, (no anti-alaising filter) but it crucifies you on anything over ISO200 and you really have to watch patterns in material. If you get the exposure bang on, you are fine

When I see how good the NiK SilverFXpro2 plug-in for light-room and photoshop is, unfortunately, any minor differences that the cameras make are pretty much blown out of the water, by the software emulation (which is pretty speedy)

If you are after an older looking photograph, invest in some older lenses, which have a different feel in terms of contrast and have the typical distortions from the day. That's the joy of shooting with something like a Nikon D3s - you can pretty much slap on any Nikon lens ever made

For my eyes, the difference between digital and film is "how much dynamic range you have" and the structure of the crystals in the film emulsion Vs Sensor layout. The NiK software goes a long way to bringing the 2 medium closer

Also, for my eyes, the best B&W film shots are 50/50 in terms of camera vs darkroom skills. I don't think there is a lazy way around this, you need to commit to PP time, just like you needed to commit to darkroom time in the film days
 
Last edited:
IMO Best B&W would come from an old lower contast lens. Modern multicoatings are designed for very high microcontrast (especially so in cameras with live view) This then results in an overly detailed image, where the overall contrast seems low if that makes sense - a bit like if you print lots of black and white dots on a paper, stand away from it it looks grey.
 
To be honest, if you are shooting in RAW you are pretty much getting B&W by default and then colour after the bayer demosaicing algorithm has been applied in you post processing software. The obvious exception being cameras using a Foveon sensor.

There are conversion which remove the IR filter, I'm not sure I've hear of any that remove the bayer filter.
 
I do t thi k brands come into it. Rather the way you convert to b&w.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I am not sure, but isn't there a Sony dslr that is supposed to give one of the best tonal ranges?

for some reason I am thinking S5, but don't think that is sony.
Click to expand...

The Fuji S5 had a reputation for that. The new Sigma (SD1???) is meant to have incredible, and distinctive, tonal range.

Given how much sharing of sensor technology goes on between the major players (or seems to) I'd be surprised if one or other had a 'better' look across the range for black and white.
 
I'd always convert after the fact in the computer, but I know the Nikon D300/S can apply virtual filters in camera which can make a surprising difference to the B&W. B&W was/is more than just an absence of colour. It can about emphasizing, or not, the different shades of grey.

I would imagine that most of the newer DSLRs would have similar features. It is a blanket adjustment though.

If I went out to take B&W pics I'd put the camera in B&W mode, but shoot RAW + Jpeg, that would give me the benefit of seeing the review image in B&W, which can aid composition, and a RAW file to convert to B&W in any way I want if you think I could do better, or wanted to convert differently. :shrug:
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
There are conversion which remove the IR filter, I'm not sure I've hear of any that remove the bayer filter.
Click to expand...

I think it would

a) be too difficult to achieve physically without damaging the sensor

b) throw all the assumptions upon which the camera's firmware was built into wild disarray.
 
Superewza said:
Really though, if you want to shoot black and white from the off, you're kidding yourself if you don't shoot film :cool:
Click to expand...

This.
 
Musicman said:
I think it would

a) be too difficult to achieve physically without damaging the sensor

b) throw all the assumptions upon which the camera's firmware was built into wild disarray.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're right with (a), I think practically it would have to be omitted at the time of manufacture, or even design.

However on the issue of firmware, if you are shooting in RAW then the demosaicing is done off-camera anyway. You would need suitably modified software for handling your RAW's though.
 
Last edited:
Leica M8 is pretty good shooting B&W jpgs. My wife has an M8 and that is now the only thing she shoots.
 
My advice would be to use any camera but try DxO Film Pack for the pp. It's got 15-20 B&W film emulations, ranging from ISO25 to 1600, plus colour filtering and adjustable grain. You can even mix and match the tone from one film with the grain from another.
 
All you need is a very clean and well exposed RAW file to start from. Lightroom 3 has enough controls to mix and match the colour conversion to pretty much any desired result. You can create presets for certain types of shots.

Personally, I think 1DsII is one of the best tools for BW. The files are very detailed and very clean so almost perfect.
 
daugirdas said:
All you need is a very clean and well exposed RAW file to start from. Lightroom 3 has enough controls to mix and match the colour conversion to pretty much any desired result. You can create presets for certain types of shots.

Personally, I think 1DsII is one of the best tools for BW. The files are very detailed and very clean so almost perfect.
Click to expand...

First, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL YOU GREAT PEEPS!!

Good thing I searched before starting another thread...I just downloaded the DXO film pack 3 trial and it looks half decent except for 1 or 2 things...

Will jpegs from my 1Ds II look the same as jpegs from the next Nikon (or, heaven forbid:p, Sony or Pentax)

Or jpegs from my 5D for that matter...

Surely, by the time the jpegs are opened in the software dozens of parameters have been applied?
 
The colours from each camera type, nevermind manufacturer, are different. Then there are Picture Styles (each manufacturer has their own version) which alter colours in different ways, Portrait, Landscape, Vivid etc, which if applied could give different Jpegs from people with the same camera. The Picture Styles may adjust Contrast, Brightness, Sharpening, Saturation, Hue/Tone. And that is a lot of variables to alter and affect the Jpeg.

So there could be slight differences with two images from different cameras of the same scene, or big differences, but they probably won't be the same. If you are converting to B&W, hopefully the software or conversion method you use would give you the control to alter the underlying colours to give the grey tones you want. :shrug:

I wouldn't worry too much though as you get used to the camera you have and work with what you've got. :shrug: :)
 
redhed17 said:
The colours from each camera type, nevermind manufacturer, are different. Then there are Picture Styles (each manufacturer has their own version) which alter colours in different ways, Portrait, Landscape, Vivid etc, which if applied could give different Jpegs from people with the same camera. The Picture Styles may adjust Contrast, Brightness, Sharpening, Saturation, Hue/Tone. And that is a lot of variables to alter and affect the Jpeg.

So there could be slight differences with two images from different cameras of the same scene, or big differences, but they probably won't be the same. If you are converting to B&W, hopefully the software or conversion method you use would give you the control to alter the underlying colours to give the grey tones you want. :shrug:

I wouldn't worry too much though as you get used to the camera you have and work with what you've got. :shrug: :)
Click to expand...

Exactly as I suspected...which basically means that if it is film results you want, SHOOT FILM!

Anything less is handy and fancy but not necessarily anywhere near the real thing...
 
I was going to suggest using film but looks like I've been beaten to it. My own thoughts are that the only way you will achieve quality b&w images is with film, I generally use Ilford Delta but I'm sure others will suggest alternatives. The proof of the pudding of course is what comes out on the final print.
 
spaniel said:
I was going to suggest using film but looks like I've been beaten to it. My own thoughts are that the only way you will achieve quality b&w images is with film, I generally use Ilford Delta but I'm sure others will suggest alternatives. The proof of the pudding of course is what comes out on the final print.
Click to expand...

Absolutely M8:thumbs:

There are so many variables but I have always been a great fan of FP-4 and PAN-F 50.

Just looking around for a nice 4 x 5 Linhof...dabbled with Pentax 67s but I want the big boys:nuts:
 
Rictus said:
To all, I am well aware that the best black and White results can be achieved by shooting raw and converting afterwards, manipulating the colour levels etc. But I am becoming more and more of the impression that canon slr's seem to produce a much more satisfying tonal range and a certain, well undefinable b&w quality. That is of course while making allowances for lenses. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
Click to expand...

A good scanner for your B&W film lol


As for digital it's all about the
Processing camera makes b****r all difference
 
Ricoh GRD 1 set to B+W jpeg with 1 Sharpness and 2 contrast. Perfect for my needs and no PP needed at all.

Okay, the IQ will not be up there with DSLR but I don't need it to be.
 
I too would suggest using film but would do so not because of anything that happens at the film stage but instead, at the print stage.

Digital black and white prints IMO will just never be able to compete with a wet print done in the darkroom.

I shoot both film and digital and do my conversions in post as there isn't a camera out there that can shoot the type of black and white image I want, when I shoot film I use a high acutance developer and print at pretty hard grades, 4 and 5.

The only time I've gotten close to a jpeg looking like that has been from my Sony NEX which had a "High Contrast b&w" setting.
 
The variables with choice of B&W film, filters, developing choices, choice of paper and darkroom technique (and that is if you do a lot of that yourself) mean it is no as simple a choice as it may seem. ;)

Whatever gets you the results you want though. :thumbs: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top