D7100 Question, can I have this camera shoot every photo in color and BW

[Scatterbrained]

One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.

A good bw image depends on the contrast of tones of white, grey and black.
The absolute worst way to get a good bw image is to take a good color image and take the color out by desaturation.
.
.
.
.

Does not really matter to me, because we are only speaking about perhaps .05 percent of total shots, and perhaps .01 percent if you take the tens of thousands of photos that I might take in an active week into account.

Quit spraying and praying. Lean to see and compose the shot. Action? It's called "anticipating the shot". Learn to anticipate the "peak action" of a movement rather than just holding down the shutter button and praying you'll get something. Unless you're shooting a full wedding or NFL game every day there is no reason on earth for 10,000 shots a week. None. At that rate you'll wear the shutter of a pro SLR out in a matter of months.

If you really are working in the tech field you should know that certain specialties require B&W monitors and they are still in production. Granted I doubt you could afford a medical grade Eizo 25mp B&W monitor, but they are out there and being manufactured currently.

Jpegs superior to raw? That's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read today. Despite cameras being "digital" that doesn't mean that being "computer literate" translates to being "photography literate". So step back and listen to the people here who know what they are talking about. Derrel is right, your primary obstacle at the moment is yourself. You want to be able to see "thousands" of images at a time in B&W in the off chance that you may have captured something that will look better as a black and white image. That just smacks of desperation to me. It is the epitome of "spray and pray", and something you should be actively seeking to avoid. If it's too time consuming to have to sift through thousands of images, don't take thousands of images. Shoot with intent, not abandon.

Autumn Splendor
Auslese's

Animals do no pose for shots, the joy is in capturing the moments.

Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.

PS. 6 shots per second, times 1 hour is 21,600 photos, Nikon designed this quite on purpose for people who shoot nature in motion.

Kids don't pose for shots either, neither do racers, or dancers, or birds in flight. My 1Dx takes 14 shots per second and yet I still don't come home with 10,ooo shots in a week. Why, because I can anticipate when to shoot.

I don't feel the need to convert every shot to B&W just to see if it might work. Why? Because I've learned to see and evaluate the tones and contrast in a scene. Tonal contrast is what makes good B&W images. If you're just hoping that an image will magically look better when converted to B&W then you've already got a problem. The image should stand on it's own, color or B&W. You should be able to evaluate an image based on it's composition and tones.

13654658605_22c643324e_o

I watched this black bear cub climb this tree, and I watched it's mother return and tell it to come down and leave, because they were being watched. There are 400 shots in this line, I have them all. I missed the bear shots in your link, are you hiding them for some reason?

I spent a lot of time hunting growing up. I've spent more time than I care to think about sitting in a blind, or up a tree. Animals aren't nearly as unpredictable as you think. They are either meandering, or sitting still, or on the move. There is usually a tell before they get moving. A flick of an ear, a lift of the head to look around, or a crouch when prey is spotted. Even then the need to just "spray and pray", as you are so proud to do, is nonexistent. That's the point of anticipating action. Why do you need 400 pictures of a bear climbing up and down a tree? That's just a waste. What are you going to do with those 400 images? Frame 400 images of a bear climbing a tree up on the wall? Make a book "Cub Climbs Tree"? You seem to insist that you somehow "need" all of these images. I don't think so.
I bought a 600mm lens thinking I'd like to get into birding and wildlife. You know what I figured out? It bored me to death. While I enjoy getting out in the wild and hanging around with wild animals all day, the images just bore me. Most wildlife photographs are just "pictures of things". Images made to show that you were there and actually saw the animal. Boring. The best wildlife images are ones that use light and atmosphere to create a mood, but those are quite rare. Do you need 400 images to prove that you saw a cub climb a tree? No? Didn't think so. If you really feel like you need to savor every second, just record a video. Most cameras can do that nowadays. It sounds to me like you'd be better served with a camcorder anyhow.

Here's a fun one. This meercat climbed a log and looked around. Then he got down, climbed a rock and looked around. Mostly, he stood and looked around, so you know what I did? I took a picture of him looking around. Not 400 pictures, not even 40. I think I might have taken less than half a dozen total, shot one at a time.
Is That You Bob? by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a seagull coming in for a landing. Manually focused, shot one shot at a time. I may have taken a grand total of three images of this bird.
Gull Landing by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a cardinal foraging. Did I take 1,000 photos of it? No. Why would I? I think I may have taken 4, maybe 5 pictures of it. What would I do with 100 images of a foraging cardinal that all look almost identical?
Foraging Cardinal by tltichy, on Flickr

Think about sports. I could go to a motorcycle race and only shoot about 700 images, all day, of at least 100 different competitors. One shot at a time. Even then I usually don't publish them because once you've done it once, it gets boring and repetitive.
Charging Past by tltichy, on Flickr
What would I do with even 10 shots of this guy coming by me? Really? One is enough.

 

[The_Traveler]

Actually I think I've had my fill of the OP and will unfollow this thread and ignore him in perpetuity.

Surely my loss.

 

[Derrel]

Why would I want to convert hundreds of thousands of pictures to BW, and store them, just to keep a few. It's a waste of time, space and money.

Who said anything about keeping and storing all the images? Are you missing the most fundamental concept here, of getting rid of unwanted Lightroom conversions? You can do a batch convert on IMPORT, and it might take a few minutes for Lightroom to make the preview images, but that would be a very simple thing to do. There is however no need to store and keep unwanted images.

Since you have Photoshop Elements, and do not own Lightroom, you likely are unaware of how Lightroom 1) creates previews 2)leaving the raw files un-edited and 3) allows you to make "exported" files of whatever size you want to make, in either color, or B&W and 4) allows rapid, easy batch conversion of files to different types of processing settings.

The idea that you own Photoshop Elements and yet are shooting like a machine gunner just doesn't make much sense. Lightroom is well,well worth the cost.

Do you feed that cheap, bargain basement dog food you can buy at discount stores? it is all ANY dog needs, I can assure you. Plenty good.

 

[astroNikon]

Oh

My

Gosh

The answer is simple. By a film camera and use B&W film.


or
use Lightroom, after all, you're still taking all those photos and somehow have to sort them out either before or after you import them from the SD card.

 

[snowbear]

I want to see all of the images in BW, not converted to BW just have the color removed for viewing.

Simple -- monochrome monitor.

(Now I am done.)

 

[Jim Walczak]

Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?

The fact of the mater is that if you "just remove the color" from a color computer monitor, CRT or otherwise, then you'll simply have -black- and not white. Like TV's, computer monitors use what's called additive color...the 3 primary colors, red, green and blue (in other terms "RGB") combine to create "white" when they're at their full intensity. This is the opposite of subtractive color, such as you find with paints, inks and pigments where the combination of colors creates black (actually a dark, muddy brown). In similar terms, "color" and "black & white" are 2 very different things. For someone who seems to think he knows so much about computers, it's rather funny you didn't know that.

Bye the way there are no junkyards with CRT black and white monitors, because color was already in place when CRT computer monitors were invented.

You seem to be over-looking the fact that monochrome CRT's were in fact popular with computers (particularly "terminals") LONG before color monitors became common place. The reason for this is that in the old days of computers you had this thing called "DOS" or Disk Operating System and in the earliest days of computers, it was all command line operations. Sure there were some early color systems like Commodore/Amiga, however with early PC's (such as the IBM XT) which were originally intended for business applications, the concept of color graphics wasn't really a priority. After all, who really needs color for word processing or spread sheets? In other words, the technology for color monitors was certainly available, however the computer industry was slow to follow until Windows came around and started to go head to head with Apple.

Likewise as tirediron said, yea...you can still find old monochrome monitors around at thrift stores and such, usually for dirt cheap (although I'm aware of your paranoia regarding "used equipment). In fact I suspect that if you checked with some place that handles "e-scrap", you would in fact find that yea, there ARE junkyards that have CRT's and such

Then I would need to replace my 500 dollar video card to incorporate a vga plug

In fact, NO, if you did in fact have some desire to run an older monitor, you do NOT need to replace your "$500 video card" (wow, must be nice to have soooooo much bread to blow on toys). If you are in fact using a workstation video card and you have some genuine desire to use an older monitor, you can pick up a "display port to VGA adapter" for $40 or less (saw one listed for $15). Again, really surprised that someone who considers himself such a guru wouldn't know this.

I do not have a six core i7-3930 processor to run obsolete garbage, that someone threw away 25 years ago.

So dude...what's with your irrational fear of obsolescence? Were you just limited to worn out hand-me-downs as a kid or something?

I have to say this in all earnestness...I run a home built i5 based system (I used to be a hardware tech as well) and the truth is that I'm still running XP64. Not only do I run Photoshop CS 5.5, I'm able to do 3D modeling with Maya (2013), I do my audio recording with Sonar 4 (and Reason 4 for my midi work), I do my video editing in Premiere CS4, etc., etc., and ya know what? It works just fine. I guess I could be wrong here, but you really strike me as a person who's really A LOT more concerned about having the newest, fastest, coolest, bestest toys on the block rather than someone who's actually concerned about the work he creates with such tools.

I doubt your capable of really understanding this, however regarding your views about gear that's "obsolete", consider this old axiom; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And "RAW is actually inferior"....???????? Wow. That has to singularly be one of the most ignorant comments regarding digital imaging I've seen in a while. Here's a thought, try setting your camera to save both, then run both thru Adobe Camera RAW to see which has more adjustment latitude....it's NOT gonna be the jpeg.

In any case, the simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of ways to create black & white images on computers today and we've already seen some very good suggestions (without the specific need for a b&w monitor). I don't do much b&w these days at all, however I will indulge should a specific image warrant it, so yea, Photoshop alone is more than capable of producing very good b&w representations and by creating batches or even actions, this can be done to multiple images very quickly. While I don't use Lightroom personally, I suspect it's equally capable of doing such tasks with tremendous efficiency. The problem is that none of the options presented seem to lend themselves to the way YOU think they should be. As Derrel said, the problem isn't with your camera or your computer/software, it's simply your attitude.

I have no doubt that you'll come up with all kinds of excuses here, just as you have with other suggestions people have tried to make in this thread. Should be rather amusing.....I'll make sure I have some popcorn ready .

 

[Auslese]

One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.

A good bw image depends on the contrast of tones of white, grey and black.
The absolute worst way to get a good bw image is to take a good color image and take the color out by desaturation.
.
.
.
.

Does not really matter to me, because we are only speaking about perhaps .05 percent of total shots, and perhaps .01 percent if you take the tens of thousands of photos that I might take in an active week into account.

Quit spraying and praying. Lean to see and compose the shot. Action? It's called "anticipating the shot". Learn to anticipate the "peak action" of a movement rather than just holding down the shutter button and praying you'll get something. Unless you're shooting a full wedding or NFL game every day there is no reason on earth for 10,000 shots a week. None. At that rate you'll wear the shutter of a pro SLR out in a matter of months.

If you really are working in the tech field you should know that certain specialties require B&W monitors and they are still in production. Granted I doubt you could afford a medical grade Eizo 25mp B&W monitor, but they are out there and being manufactured currently.

Jpegs superior to raw? That's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read today. Despite cameras being "digital" that doesn't mean that being "computer literate" translates to being "photography literate". So step back and listen to the people here who know what they are talking about. Derrel is right, your primary obstacle at the moment is yourself. You want to be able to see "thousands" of images at a time in B&W in the off chance that you may have captured something that will look better as a black and white image. That just smacks of desperation to me. It is the epitome of "spray and pray", and something you should be actively seeking to avoid. If it's too time consuming to have to sift through thousands of images, don't take thousands of images. Shoot with intent, not abandon.

Animals do no pose for shots, the joy is in capturing the moments.

Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.

PS. 6 shots per second, times 1 hour is 21,600 photos, Nikon designed this quite on purpose for people who shoot nature in motion.

Kids don't pose for shots either, neither do racers, or dancers, or birds in flight. My 1Dx takes 14 shots per second and yet I still don't come home with 10,ooo shots in a week. Why, because I can anticipate when to shoot.

I don't feel the need to convert every shot to B&W just to see if it might work. Why? Because I've learned to see and evaluate the tones and contrast in a scene. Tonal contrast is what makes good B&W images. If you're just hoping that an image will magically look better when converted to B&W then you've already got a problem. The image should stand on it's own, color or B&W. You should be able to evaluate an image based on it's composition and tones.

I watched this black bear cub climb this tree, and I watched it's mother return and tell it to come down and leave, because they were being watched. There are 400 shots in this line, I have them all. I missed the bear shots in your link, are you hiding them for some reason?

I spent a lot of time hunting growing up. I've spent more time than I care to think about sitting in a blind, or up a tree. Animals aren't nearly as unpredictable as you think. They are either meandering, or sitting still, or on the move. There is usually a tell before they get moving. A flick of an ear, a lift of the head to look around, or a crouch when prey is spotted. Even then the need to just "spray and pray", as you are so proud to do, is nonexistent. That's the point of anticipating action. Why do you need 400 pictures of a bear climbing up and down a tree? That's just a waste. What are you going to do with those 400 images? Frame 400 images of a bear climbing a tree up on the wall? Make a book "Cub Climbs Tree"? You seem to insist that you somehow "need" all of these images. I don't think so.
I bought a 600mm lens thinking I'd like to get into birding and wildlife. You know what I figured out? It bored me to death. While I enjoy getting out in the wild and hanging around with wild animals all day, the images just bore me. Most wildlife photographs are just "pictures of things". Images made to show that you were there and actually saw the animal. Boring. The best wildlife images are ones that use light and atmosphere to create a mood, but those are quite rare. Do you need 400 images to prove that you saw a cub climb a tree? No? Didn't think so. If you really feel like you need to savor every second, just record a video. Most cameras can do that nowadays. It sounds to me like you'd be better served with a camcorder anyhow.

Here's a fun one. This meercat climbed a log and looked around. Then he got down, climbed a rock and looked around. Mostly, he stood and looked around, so you know what I did? I took a picture of him looking around. Not 400 pictures, not even 40. I think I might have taken less than half a dozen total, shot one at a time.
Is That You Bob? by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a seagull coming in for a landing. Manually focused, shot one shot at a time. I may have taken a grand total of three images of this bird.
Gull Landing by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a cardinal foraging. Did I take 1,000 photos of it? No. Why would I? I think I may have taken 4, maybe 5 pictures of it. What would I do with 100 images of a foraging cardinal that all look almost identical?
Foraging Cardinal by tltichy, on Flickr

Think about sports. I could go to a motorcycle race and only shoot about 700 images, all day, of at least 100 different competitors. One shot at a time. Even then I usually don't publish them because once you've done it once, it gets boring and repetitive.
Charging Past by tltichy, on Flickr
What would I do with even 10 shots of this guy coming by me? Really? One is enough.

Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds. Where did you hunt again?

Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera. Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for. Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that. Mr. Disney

 

[weepete]

 

[astroNikon]

Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds. Where did you hunt again?

Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera. Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for. Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that. Mr. Disney

a D7100 is not a high speed camera

a D4S or Canon 7dmII is more like high speed

but .. who cares as you're actually talking about shutter speed, depth of field, AF focusing mode and positioning to the subject.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Does not really matter to me, because we are only speaking about perhaps .05 percent of total shots, and perhaps .01 percent if you take the tens of thousands of photos that I might take in an active week into account.

Quit spraying and praying. Lean to see and compose the shot. Action? It's called "anticipating the shot". Learn to anticipate the "peak action" of a movement rather than just holding down the shutter button and praying you'll get something. Unless you're shooting a full wedding or NFL game every day there is no reason on earth for 10,000 shots a week. None. At that rate you'll wear the shutter of a pro SLR out in a matter of months.

If you really are working in the tech field you should know that certain specialties require B&W monitors and they are still in production. Granted I doubt you could afford a medical grade Eizo 25mp B&W monitor, but they are out there and being manufactured currently.

Jpegs superior to raw? That's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read today. Despite cameras being "digital" that doesn't mean that being "computer literate" translates to being "photography literate". So step back and listen to the people here who know what they are talking about. Derrel is right, your primary obstacle at the moment is yourself. You want to be able to see "thousands" of images at a time in B&W in the off chance that you may have captured something that will look better as a black and white image. That just smacks of desperation to me. It is the epitome of "spray and pray", and something you should be actively seeking to avoid. If it's too time consuming to have to sift through thousands of images, don't take thousands of images. Shoot with intent, not abandon.

Autumn Splendor
Auslese's

Animals do no pose for shots, the joy is in capturing the moments.

Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.

PS. 6 shots per second, times 1 hour is 21,600 photos, Nikon designed this quite on purpose for people who shoot nature in motion.

Kids don't pose for shots either, neither do racers, or dancers, or birds in flight. My 1Dx takes 14 shots per second and yet I still don't come home with 10,ooo shots in a week. Why, because I can anticipate when to shoot.

I don't feel the need to convert every shot to B&W just to see if it might work. Why? Because I've learned to see and evaluate the tones and contrast in a scene. Tonal contrast is what makes good B&W images. If you're just hoping that an image will magically look better when converted to B&W then you've already got a problem. The image should stand on it's own, color or B&W. You should be able to evaluate an image based on it's composition and tones.

13654658605_22c643324e_o

I watched this black bear cub climb this tree, and I watched it's mother return and tell it to come down and leave, because they were being watched. There are 400 shots in this line, I have them all. I missed the bear shots in your link, are you hiding them for some reason?

I spent a lot of time hunting growing up. I've spent more time than I care to think about sitting in a blind, or up a tree. Animals aren't nearly as unpredictable as you think. They are either meandering, or sitting still, or on the move. There is usually a tell before they get moving. A flick of an ear, a lift of the head to look around, or a crouch when prey is spotted. Even then the need to just "spray and pray", as you are so proud to do, is nonexistent. That's the point of anticipating action. Why do you need 400 pictures of a bear climbing up and down a tree? That's just a waste. What are you going to do with those 400 images? Frame 400 images of a bear climbing a tree up on the wall? Make a book "Cub Climbs Tree"? You seem to insist that you somehow "need" all of these images. I don't think so.
I bought a 600mm lens thinking I'd like to get into birding and wildlife. You know what I figured out? It bored me to death. While I enjoy getting out in the wild and hanging around with wild animals all day, the images just bore me. Most wildlife photographs are just "pictures of things". Images made to show that you were there and actually saw the animal. Boring. The best wildlife images are ones that use light and atmosphere to create a mood, but those are quite rare. Do you need 400 images to prove that you saw a cub climb a tree? No? Didn't think so. If you really feel like you need to savor every second, just record a video. Most cameras can do that nowadays. It sounds to me like you'd be better served with a camcorder anyhow.

Here's a fun one. This meercat climbed a log and looked around. Then he got down, climbed a rock and looked around. Mostly, he stood and looked around, so you know what I did? I took a picture of him looking around. Not 400 pictures, not even 40. I think I might have taken less than half a dozen total, shot one at a time.
Is That You Bob? by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a seagull coming in for a landing. Manually focused, shot one shot at a time. I may have taken a grand total of three images of this bird.
Gull Landing by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a cardinal foraging. Did I take 1,000 photos of it? No. Why would I? I think I may have taken 4, maybe 5 pictures of it. What would I do with 100 images of a foraging cardinal that all look almost identical?
Foraging Cardinal by tltichy, on Flickr

Think about sports. I could go to a motorcycle race and only shoot about 700 images, all day, of at least 100 different competitors. One shot at a time. Even then I usually don't publish them because once you've done it once, it gets boring and repetitive.
Charging Past by tltichy, on Flickr
What would I do with even 10 shots of this guy coming by me? Really? One is enough.

Birds of a Feather

Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds. Where did you hunt again?

Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera. Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for. Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that. Mr. Disney

I know what high speed was made for; capturing peak action, not 800 photos of a bear shitting in the woods. I use it as it was intended, those fleeting moments when everything is coming together, not to make a flip book of a dog walking.

 

[wezza13]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the OP is on some sort of a wind-up.

Asks for help and then refuses to take any.

 

[astroNikon]

Time to close this thread too me thinks ....

 

[Auslese]

Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?

The fact of the mater is that if you "just remove the color" from a color computer monitor, CRT or otherwise, then you'll simply have -black- and not white. Like TV's, computer monitors use what's called additive color...the 3 primary colors, red, green and blue (in other terms "RGB") combine to create "white" when they're at their full intensity. This is the opposite of subtractive color, such as you find with paints, inks and pigments where the combination of colors creates black (actually a dark, muddy brown). In similar terms, "color" and "black & white" are 2 very different things. For someone who seems to think he knows so much about computers, it's rather funny you didn't know that.

Bye the way there are no junkyards with CRT black and white monitors, because color was already in place when CRT computer monitors were invented.

You seem to be over-looking the fact that monochrome CRT's were in fact popular with computers (particularly "terminals") LONG before color monitors became common place. The reason for this is that in the old days of computers you had this thing called "DOS" or Disk Operating System and in the earliest days of computers, it was all command line operations. Sure there were some early color systems like Commodore/Amiga, however with early PC's (such as the IBM XT) which were originally intended for business applications, the concept of color graphics wasn't really a priority. After all, who really needs color for word processing or spread sheets? In other words, the technology for color monitors was certainly available, however the computer industry was slow to follow until Windows came around and started to go head to head with Apple.

Likewise as tirediron said, yea...you can still find old monochrome monitors around at thrift stores and such, usually for dirt cheap (although I'm aware of your paranoia regarding "used equipment). In fact I suspect that if you checked with some place that handles "e-scrap", you would in fact find that yea, there ARE junkyards that have CRT's and such

Then I would need to replace my 500 dollar video card to incorporate a vga plug

In fact, NO, if you did in fact have some desire to run an older monitor, you do NOT need to replace your "$500 video card" (wow, must be nice to have soooooo much bread to blow on toys). If you are in fact using a workstation video card and you have some genuine desire to use an older monitor, you can pick up a "display port to VGA adapter" for $40 or less (saw one listed for $15). Again, really surprised that someone who considers himself such a guru wouldn't know this.

I do not have a six core i7-3930 processor to run obsolete garbage, that someone threw away 25 years ago.

So dude...what's with your irrational fear of obsolescence? Were you just limited to worn out hand-me-downs as a kid or something?

I have to say this in all earnestness...I run a home built i5 based system (I used to be a hardware tech as well) and the truth is that I'm still running XP64. Not only do I run Photoshop CS 5.5, I'm able to do 3D modeling with Maya (2013), I do my audio recording with Sonar 4 (and Reason 4 for my midi work), I do my video editing in Premiere CS4, etc., etc., and ya know what? It works just fine. I guess I could be wrong here, but you really strike me as a person who's really A LOT more concerned about having the newest, fastest, coolest, bestest toys on the block rather than someone who's actually concerned about the work he creates with such tools.

I doubt your capable of really understanding this, however regarding your views about gear that's "obsolete", consider this old axiom; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And "RAW is actually inferior"....???????? Wow. That has to singularly be one of the most ignorant comments regarding digital imaging I've seen in a while. Here's a thought, try setting your camera to save both, then run both thru Adobe Camera RAW to see which has more adjustment latitude....it's NOT gonna be the jpeg.

In any case, the simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of ways to create black & white images on computers today and we've already seen some very good suggestions (without the specific need for a b&w monitor). I don't do much b&w these days at all, however I will indulge should a specific image warrant it, so yea, Photoshop alone is more than capable of producing very good b&w representations and by creating batches or even actions, this can be done to multiple images very quickly. While I don't use Lightroom personally, I suspect it's equally capable of doing such tasks with tremendous efficiency. The problem is that none of the options presented seem to lend themselves to the way YOU think they should be. As Derrel said, the problem isn't with your camera or your computer/software, it's simply your attitude.

I have no doubt that you'll come up with all kinds of excuses here, just as you have with other suggestions people have tried to make in this thread. Should be rather amusing.....I'll make sure I have some popcorn ready .

3 million words or less please, seriously if you want to be read you need to keep it short.

 

[Auslese]

Quit spraying and praying. Lean to see and compose the shot. Action? It's called "anticipating the shot". Learn to anticipate the "peak action" of a movement rather than just holding down the shutter button and praying you'll get something. Unless you're shooting a full wedding or NFL game every day there is no reason on earth for 10,000 shots a week. None. At that rate you'll wear the shutter of a pro SLR out in a matter of months.

If you really are working in the tech field you should know that certain specialties require B&W monitors and they are still in production. Granted I doubt you could afford a medical grade Eizo 25mp B&W monitor, but they are out there and being manufactured currently.

Jpegs superior to raw? That's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read today. Despite cameras being "digital" that doesn't mean that being "computer literate" translates to being "photography literate". So step back and listen to the people here who know what they are talking about. Derrel is right, your primary obstacle at the moment is yourself. You want to be able to see "thousands" of images at a time in B&W in the off chance that you may have captured something that will look better as a black and white image. That just smacks of desperation to me. It is the epitome of "spray and pray", and something you should be actively seeking to avoid. If it's too time consuming to have to sift through thousands of images, don't take thousands of images. Shoot with intent, not abandon.

Animals do no pose for shots, the joy is in capturing the moments.

Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.

PS. 6 shots per second, times 1 hour is 21,600 photos, Nikon designed this quite on purpose for people who shoot nature in motion.

Kids don't pose for shots either, neither do racers, or dancers, or birds in flight. My 1Dx takes 14 shots per second and yet I still don't come home with 10,ooo shots in a week. Why, because I can anticipate when to shoot.

I don't feel the need to convert every shot to B&W just to see if it might work. Why? Because I've learned to see and evaluate the tones and contrast in a scene. Tonal contrast is what makes good B&W images. If you're just hoping that an image will magically look better when converted to B&W then you've already got a problem. The image should stand on it's own, color or B&W. You should be able to evaluate an image based on it's composition and tones.

I watched this black bear cub climb this tree, and I watched it's mother return and tell it to come down and leave, because they were being watched. There are 400 shots in this line, I have them all. I missed the bear shots in your link, are you hiding them for some reason?

I spent a lot of time hunting growing up. I've spent more time than I care to think about sitting in a blind, or up a tree. Animals aren't nearly as unpredictable as you think. They are either meandering, or sitting still, or on the move. There is usually a tell before they get moving. A flick of an ear, a lift of the head to look around, or a crouch when prey is spotted. Even then the need to just "spray and pray", as you are so proud to do, is nonexistent. That's the point of anticipating action. Why do you need 400 pictures of a bear climbing up and down a tree? That's just a waste. What are you going to do with those 400 images? Frame 400 images of a bear climbing a tree up on the wall? Make a book "Cub Climbs Tree"? You seem to insist that you somehow "need" all of these images. I don't think so.
I bought a 600mm lens thinking I'd like to get into birding and wildlife. You know what I figured out? It bored me to death. While I enjoy getting out in the wild and hanging around with wild animals all day, the images just bore me. Most wildlife photographs are just "pictures of things". Images made to show that you were there and actually saw the animal. Boring. The best wildlife images are ones that use light and atmosphere to create a mood, but those are quite rare. Do you need 400 images to prove that you saw a cub climb a tree? No? Didn't think so. If you really feel like you need to savor every second, just record a video. Most cameras can do that nowadays. It sounds to me like you'd be better served with a camcorder anyhow.

Here's a fun one. This meercat climbed a log and looked around. Then he got down, climbed a rock and looked around. Mostly, he stood and looked around, so you know what I did? I took a picture of him looking around. Not 400 pictures, not even 40. I think I might have taken less than half a dozen total, shot one at a time.
Is That You Bob? by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a seagull coming in for a landing. Manually focused, shot one shot at a time. I may have taken a grand total of three images of this bird.
Gull Landing by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a cardinal foraging. Did I take 1,000 photos of it? No. Why would I? I think I may have taken 4, maybe 5 pictures of it. What would I do with 100 images of a foraging cardinal that all look almost identical?
Foraging Cardinal by tltichy, on Flickr

Think about sports. I could go to a motorcycle race and only shoot about 700 images, all day, of at least 100 different competitors. One shot at a time. Even then I usually don't publish them because once you've done it once, it gets boring and repetitive.
Charging Past by tltichy, on Flickr
What would I do with even 10 shots of this guy coming by me? Really? One is enough.

Birds of a Feather

Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds. Where did you hunt again?

Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera. Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for. Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that. Mr. Disney

I know what high speed was made for; capturing peak action, not 800 photos of a bear shitting in the woods. I use it as it was intended, those fleeting moments when everything is coming together, not to make a flip book of a dog walking.

You posted an NO ACTION shot of an animal sitting still and used this as proof that high speed photography is not needed. This just makes no sense, now if the animal was dodging an eagle, and you took just one shot and it came out that way all would be impressed, but no one would believe you either. Then I do not take photos of Indiana Jones at the kiddie park that is full of adults either. This is an action shot, 24 birds and one dog, with nothing touching the ground

 

[Auslese]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the OP is on some sort of a wind-up.

Asks for help and then refuses to take any.

Might seem that way, but my camera would not shoot BW at all, I was actually asking for help in this matter. Once I saw the BW, and knew why the camera was malfunctioning, the entire situation changed. However the help that I was offered would have cost hundreds of dollars at least, and I said that no money would need to be spent, and I was correct. The other help offered was to shoot in two formats, one of which is bloated and proprietary to the camera maker, who does not make software in the first place, same thing with Cannon, they have their own bloated software, and the accepted JPEG as well.