Mono: Is it better to convert or shoot B&W?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Creo
  • Start date Start date
C

Creo

Guest
I am very much drawn to mono landscape photography, this forum has been inspirational for me in seeing how good photographers can produce such stunning images in mono.
I have been shooting digital colour, and had a few attempts at converting to mono, and realise I have much to learn!
But I am wondering what the accepted wisdom is as to whether it is better to shoot mono in the first place, or convert from colour.
I am also wondering about the viability to use a film camera shooting B&W film, and have that itch to give it a go. If so, is there a basic setup you would recommend?
Thank you.
 
Shoot RAW and convert.
You can pick up a 35mm with lens for peanuts give it a go.
As for B+W film there is a lot to choose from, I personally like Fuji Acros or XP2.
 
It's better to shoot black and white film in my opinion.

If you want to stay with digital, I would always shoot it as colour and convert it later. Better to capture the whole image then throw away the information you don't use later rather than let the camera decide what it is going to keep.

happygolucky said:
You can pick up a 35mm with lens for peanuts give it a go.
Click to expand...

Whilst this is true, for landscape use I would suggest going straight to medium format.

EDIT: I have just had a thought about something: When we use black and white film, many of us use yellow, orange and red filters to increase contrast - particularly with white clouds and blue sky.

Now I know the effects of these filters can be added later during a black and white conversion process, but in my mind, I have the idea that it might be better to use these filters at the taking stage to use the full dynamic range of the sensor. Obviously this will produce a yellow, orange or red toned colour image before conversion.
Does anyone have any experience of doing this and if so, have you found any benefit?


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your feedback.
Any specific suggestions for a 35mm or medium format film camera, thats cheapish, and easy to learn to operate?
 
Steve Smith said:
EDIT: I have just had a thought about something: When we use black and white film, many of us use yellow, orange and red filters to increase contrast - particularly with white clouds and blue sky.

Now I know the effects of these filters can be added later during a black and white process, but in my mind, I have the idea that it might be better to use these filters at the taking stage to use the full dynamic range of the sensor. Obviously this will produce a yellow, orange or red toned colour image before conversion.
Does anyone have any experience of doing this and if so, have you found any benefit?


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yep, tried it, and to be perfectly honest, in my experience I found I got better digital results just by shooting in raw, and apply my filtering in Lightroom/Photoshop or even occasionally using SilverFX.

But, I still prefer the whole process of shooting on proper slow B&W film in medium format - the shots may or may not be better - frankly it's probably "operator variability" that makes a bigger difference in the shots on the occasional times when I've shot the same image back to back on digi and film... to the tune that on a single roll, taking maybe 10 images in an afternoon, one each on film and digi, and I've preferred 4 film 3 digi and hated the other 3 equally...
 
Steve Smith said:
It's better to shoot black and white film in my opinion.

EDIT: I have just had a thought about something: When we use black and white film, many of us use yellow, orange and red filters to increase contrast - particularly with white clouds and blue sky.

Now I know the effects of these filters can be added later during a black and white conversion process, but in my mind, I have the idea that it might be better to use these filters at the taking stage to use the full dynamic range of the sensor. Obviously this will produce a yellow, orange or red toned colour image before conversion.
Does anyone have any experience of doing this and if so, have you found any benefit?


Steve.
Click to expand...
Coloured filters will ONLY work with B&W film, because it has a different spectral response than a digital sensor.
 
Creo said:
Thanks for your feedback.
Any specific suggestions for a 35mm or medium format film camera, thats cheapish, and easy to learn to operate?
Click to expand...

Have to say, I'm loving my Mamiya RZ67 which is cheap compared with brand new digital camera but perhaps more than you're looking to spend? The other things to remember with MF are: (1) its difficulty in going really long (less of an issue for landscape/street); (2) generally higher f/stops means less light gets in (and film is poorer than digital in low light and with long exposures); and (3) DOF is a lot shallower at the same f/stop (my fastest MF lens is a 110mm f/2.8 which is more or less equivalent to a 34mm f/0.9 on my crop sensor digital camera in terms of f/l and DOF).

I'm loving it though - have only had mine for less than a month and can't wait to get it out again when I'm back home (oo-er!)
 
I'd always shoot RAW and then convert, especially for landscape. You could always set the camera to shoot both if you wanted the camera generated mono JPEG
 
dandeakin said:
I'd always shoot RAW and then convert, especially for landscape. You could always set the camera to shoot both if you wanted the camera generated mono JPEG
Click to expand...

Dan, please do us all a favour and stop digging up old posts - this one was last posted to in december 2014 before you excavated it....
 
AFAIK the sensor in a digital camera is a colour sensor, so if you set your camera to B&W it is just doing a conversion anyway and you have little control. If you shoot raw and then convert in Lightroom (or whatever) you can control the conversion.
 
TheBigYin said:
Dan, please do us all a favour and stop digging up old posts - this one was last posted to in december 2014 before you excavated it....
Click to expand...
I can't see anything unethical or disruptive in someone coming across an old post, finding it of of interest and continuing it ... that seems entirely valid.
 
I agree.

It may help newer members if valid points are raised again if they missed them the first time.

Or do the Mods suggest we should trawl through millions of posts to find the answer we're looking for, that just MAY have been posted before?

I'd be interested to know why a post shouldn't be "excavated"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top