Shooting B&W?

[slackercruster]

Does black and white come out better if shot in monochrome in the camera? Or is it just as good if done later in the computer?

Thanks

edit: talking about digital not film.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Bossy]

I vote done later I'm assuming your talking about digital though.

[gryphonslair99]

No. A DSLR only captures images in color. Monochrome is another one of those "idiot" settings that processes in the camera giving you no control of the final product. You are far better to convert the image in post processing so you can adjust the final product to what you want.

Good tutorial: Colour & monochrome

Better tutorial if you have photoshop: Adobe Photoshop Monochrome Tutorial

[Judobreaker]

Afterwards.
You'll have much more control over your B&W conversion if you do it on your computer.

[slackercruster]

Thanks guys!

I'm not into photoshop. Looked too complex for me. (I'm not much of a computer person.)

Any basic program for basic touching up photos, changing them to BW, I can look at? Or is photoshop the best option?

[bigtwinky]

I always shoot in RAW, never in JPG.
When doing urban walks, I change my Picture Style to Monochrome. This means that the image I see on the back of the LCD is in black and white, which is great, as I "see" urban in black and white. However, because I am shooting RAW, the file contains all the data, including the colour, so when I upload it to my computer, its in colour. I then re-process to black and white.

There have been a few shots that I've processed in black and white and someone suggested I do in colour and I much preferred it in colour. Wouldn't of been able to do that had I shot in JPG black and white only.

[bigtwinky]

Thanks guys!

I'm not into photoshop. Looked too complex for me. (I'm not much of a computer person.)

Any basic program for touching up photos, changing them to BW, I can look at? Or is photoshop the best option?

Photoshop can be a beast. Maybe start with Photoshop Elements? A simpler, yet still very powerful, editing software. I use Adobe Lightroom for 80% of my edits.

[gryphonslair99]

I always shoot in RAW, never in JPG.
When doing urban walks, I change my Picture Style to Monochrome. This means that the image I see on the back of the LCD is in black and white, which is great, as I "see" urban in black and white. However, because I am shooting RAW, the file contains all the data, including the colour, so when I upload it to my computer, its in colour. I then re-process to black and white.

There have been a few shots that I've processed in black and white and someone suggested I do in colour and I much preferred it in colour. Wouldn't of been able to do that had I shot in JPG black and white only.

That's the problem with you kids today. Can't see squat in your mind.

Why in my day, color photos were hand painted after the fact. That color film was far to expensive for us to buy. Why I remember one time walking 5 miles in the snow barefoot up hill both ways just to by a single roll of film for my camera. Now that was photography I tell you. None of these fancy dancy bells and whistles you find on these here modern cameras.



You made a good point that I forgot to put in my first post. Shoot RAW not jpg.

[KmH]

Thanks guys!

I'm not into photoshop. Looked too complex for me. (I'm not much of a computer person.)

Any basic program for basic touching up photos, changing them to BW, I can look at? Or is photoshop the best option?

There are 4 different versions of Photoshop, but Photoshop is the industry standard.

For $75 or so there is the consumer grade (de-featured) Photoshop Elements 10 - Adobe Photoshop Elements 10

For $657 there is the professional grade Photoshop CS5 - Adobe Photoshop CS5

For $888 is Photoshop CS5 Extended that hs 3-D and Scientific capabilites - Adobe Photoshop Extended CS5

For $150 there is the database management and cataloging compliment to Photoshop CS5 and CS5 Extended: Photoshop Lightroom 3 - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

[IByte]

Bring out the Gimp(gimp 2 in this case), and watch tutorials before investing Photoshop.

[Judobreaker]

I always shoot in RAW, never in JPG.
When doing urban walks, I change my Picture Style to Monochrome. This means that the image I see on the back of the LCD is in black and white, which is great, as I "see" urban in black and white. However, because I am shooting RAW, the file contains all the data, including the colour, so when I upload it to my computer, its in colour. I then re-process to black and white.

There have been a few shots that I've processed in black and white and someone suggested I do in colour and I much preferred it in colour. Wouldn't of been able to do that had I shot in JPG black and white only.

That's the problem with you kids today. Can't see squat in your mind.

Why in my day, color photos were hand painted after the fact. That color film was far to expensive for us to buy. Why I remember one time walking 5 miles in the snow barefoot up hill both ways just to by a single roll of film for my camera. Now that was photography I tell you. None of these fancy dancy bells and whistles you find on these here modern cameras.



You made a good point that I forgot to put in my first post. Shoot RAW not jpg.

Damn... You're old! :P

[480sparky]

Creating the conversion in-camera only give you ONE option...... however some engineer in a far-away country thinks you want it to look.



ALWAYS convert in post. You have a million more options that way.

Original, SOOC shot:






Conversion in post, using a 'red' filter (i.e, leaving the reds alone while making the other colors darker during the conversion):





"Yellow filter":





"Green":





"Cyan":






"Blue":





"Magenta":

[w0M]

Great examples Sparky. Really illustrate the difference well.

[cannpope]

You really can't beat PS Elements for less than $100.

[Jeremy Z]

I think it depends on what you're going to do with the pic.

Maybe I'm one of these idiots that someone is talking about, but my new Olympus XZ-1 has two B&W modes: one just de saturated all the color out. That, you could do later in software. But if you know you want black and white, why bother doing it later when you can have the camera do it now? Tweak the contrast later, if you want, but the camera saves you a step.

The other black and white mode in my camera is "Grainy Film". This one is not so easy to replicate later, unless you have time, fancy software, and skills with the software. It not only de-saturates, but cranks contrast way up and adds grain as if I was shooting at least ISO 800 film. It is a little too contrasty for me, as it has only a few mid tones. But the film-like grain, I like!

It is very popular here to shoot in raw, as it gives lots of post-shot control. But it also assumes you have plenty of time to edit your photos, and not everyone has that luxury.

I'm open minded. If it is important enough, I shoot in jpg + raw. Most of the time, the jpg the camera makes is better, even after I do my best edits in the raw file. Highlight and shadow exposure control is better in raw, everywhere else, a well-executed jpg is better.

Olympus' jpg processing is just fantastic. It really does save me work. Ditto for Canon .