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

[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.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

I understand completely.
You are much smarter than me because I would just go out and buy Lightroom, then use LR to convert those thousands of pictures en masse so I could review and cull them.

You really are wasting your time here.

 

[480sparky]

..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him? Look it up.

Ever hear of Thomas Edison? The guy who invented the light bulb?

Well, truth be told, he DIDN'T invent the light bulb. Fact is, there were dozens of patents that were already filed. Tom didn't invent the light bulb.

But look how long it took him to make one that worked, and how much it cost him.


Do you honestly think you're going to invent something 'at no cost'? You seriously are totally naive about it.


You come here for help, and you've been given a dozen options. Yet you refuse them all claiming poverty and a desire to be lazy to accomplish your goal.

I'm done here.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I understand completely.
You are much smarter than me because I would just go out and buy Lightroom, then use LR to convert those thousands of pictures en masse so I could review and cull them.

You really are wasting your time here.

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. If I can just view all of the photos once I can pick the few to convert one at a time, or as a batch if that is easier. We are speaking about a few out of 1000 shots per day sometimes, and sometimes far more. And I already have elements, and am very happy. Autumn Splendor

 

[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.

 

[Derrel]

You need to move to a Canon 1DX....it can shoot twice as fast, so your photos would be twice as good. Definitely, look into the Canon 1DX.

 

[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.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

Bye the way Lightroom was designed on purpose to convert thousands of images to BW, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.
Then you can view all of them and discard the ones you don't want.

But since you know everything, there's nothing here for you.

 

[Auslese]

..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him? Look it up.

Ever hear of Thomas Edison? The guy who invented the light bulb?

Well, truth be told, he DIDN'T invent the light bulb. Fact is, there were dozens of patents that were already filed. Tom didn't invent the light bulb.

But look how long it took him to make one that worked, and how much it cost him.


Do you honestly think you're going to invent something 'at no cost'? You seriously are totally naive about it.


You come here for help, and you've been given a dozen options. Yet you refuse them all claiming poverty and a desire to be lazy to accomplish your goal.

I'm done here.

Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.

 

[Scatterbrained]

..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him? Look it up.

Ever hear of Thomas Edison? The guy who invented the light bulb?

Well, truth be told, he DIDN'T invent the light bulb. Fact is, there were dozens of patents that were already filed. Tom didn't invent the light bulb.

But look how long it took him to make one that worked, and how much it cost him.


Do you honestly think you're going to invent something 'at no cost'? You seriously are totally naive about it.


You come here for help, and you've been given a dozen options. Yet you refuse them all claiming poverty and a desire to be lazy to accomplish your goal.

I'm done here.

Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.

Did you read the part of his post where he said Edison didn't invent the light bulb?

 

[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?

 

[The_Traveler]

Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.

I'm going to have to write to these people The UnMuseum - Who Invented the Lightbulb? who have an entirely different opinion and tell them that they are wrong.

You must be really enjoyable to be around since, no matter what the issue, it seems you will have an answer.

 

[Auslese]

..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him? Look it up.

Ever hear of Thomas Edison? The guy who invented the light bulb?

Well, truth be told, he DIDN'T invent the light bulb. Fact is, there were dozens of patents that were already filed. Tom didn't invent the light bulb.

But look how long it took him to make one that worked, and how much it cost him.


Do you honestly think you're going to invent something 'at no cost'? You seriously are totally naive about it.


You come here for help, and you've been given a dozen options. Yet you refuse them all claiming poverty and a desire to be lazy to accomplish your goal.

I'm done here.

Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.

Did you read the part of his post where he said Edison didn't invent the light bulb?

Yes I read it and he was wrong as Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphry Davy invented the electric light. So he was quite wrong. This is kind of like saying that Columbus discovered America when there were Indians and Vikings here first. Yet Columbus is credited because he marked the route and others followed. Who Invented the Light Bulb?

 

[The_Traveler]

Actually from the link you gave.

"In 1874, Canadian inventors Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans filed a patent for an electric lamp with different-sized carbon rods held between electrodes in a glass cylinder filled with nitrogen. The pair tried, unsuccessfully, to commercialize their lamps but eventually sold their patent to Edison in 1879."

Edison's lab created the first successfully marketable electric bulb.