RAW or nothing?

[480sparky]

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?

Raw (it's raw, folks, not RAW. It's not an acronym!) will give you the most colors to work with when doing a conversion. Either 4,096 for each channel if you're shooting 12-bit, or 16,384 for 14-bit , as opposed to a measly 256 when you shoot JPEG.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?

If the goal is B&W final images, it's best to light, compose, and shoot FOR BLACK AND WHITE. To me, that means shooting in RAW + JPEG, Large, Fine-Quality JPEG compression mode. If the camera offers it, I like to use a Yellow filter effect, and Sepia Toning effect, with the camera set to Monochrome. (I am specifically referring to the Canon 5D camera, and Canon's "Filter Effects" and image tone options.). This produces B&W images that can be reviewed on the camera's LCD and the lighting or composition adjusted FOR maximum BLACK AND WHITE impact. The in-camera settings I adjust, with sharpness adjusted upward a bit, and the tone curve option set as appropriate. Setting the camera up to capture in RAW + JPEG, Monochrome, with sharpening sewt, and contrast set as-needed for the subject matter at hand, creates an in-camera JPEG file that looks a lot like the final image: it has sharpening boosted a bit, it has the sepia toning I like, a yellow filter effect to help with light-toned objects like clouds, and it allows me to evaluate lighting and the overall "look" of the images based on a B&W LCD screen image...not a color image, which is ENTIRELY different under some circumstances.

This approach is fundamentally different than shooting in all-color, and reviewing in all-color, and mentally winging it. Again....if I really want B&W, I will NOT light it or shoot it as if it were to be seen as full-color. Many people utterly fail to appreciate the reasoning behind this. And, few of them have actually tried this method, let alone gotten good at it.

The upside? THe RAW files are truly RAW, and have full RGB color and full bit depth....but I have ready-to-go SOOC B&W JPEGS, and a decent representation of the scene in B&W, from the get-go. TO me, the difference in B&W and color is the way you LIGHT B&W is VERY different than color....B&W needs MORE shadowing to reveal textures and shapes, which can be conveyed easily by color even under flat or overcast light. B&W benefits from a somewhat more-specular umbrella, so I will shoot with SMALLER umbrellas, or more sparkle-producing umbrellas for B&W, like silver metallized Speedotron Super Silver or other brand of silvered, metallized umbrellas if I want B&W final images.

Motion picture directors/cinematographers/lighting directors/director's of photography, for example, light B&W films very,very differently than they light color. Think of the film noir films of the 1940's and 1950's, and the extreme lighting ratios many of those pictures were built around....then think what that would have looked like in technicolor. Uh....nooooo!!!!!!!

 

[amolitor]

Raw can help with b&w conversions if you're fussy about b&w conversion (and now that we HAVE raw which allows you to be fussy -- every nerd is fussy!). Raw gives you, surprise surprise, more control. You can take the reds from 1 stop down, and the greens from a stop up, tweak their levels individually, and then turn the results into a tonal value. You can also do this with JPEG, but there's less control.

As with everything else raw gives you, it lets you push a lot of the work of "photography" in to post. Rather than selecting a gel filter to shoot through, and a b&w film that responds to specific colors on specific curves, you can do it all in post, and make up combinations of "filters" and "film" that never existed.

Me? I mostly do b&w and I mostly don't sweat it. I may be the only photographer on earth who doesn't give much of a damn about the details of the b&w conversion.

I do shoot raw, but basically because it gives me a good comfortable stop either way of exposure range, so I can be sloppy when I am shooting.

 

[MLeeK]

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?

I rarely convert my black and whites in raw form. I use the color adjustments in photoshop to convert to raw-which is the same thing you'd do in raw.
Theoretically I guess you could get even MORE from the colors by converting in raw and therefore more in changing it to black and white.
I won't say my black and whites are perfect, but I've gotten fairly decent at it. I have black, white and everything in between that includes depth and dimension. I might could get more in raw, but it's not something I have time to experiment with right now. Maybe someday during the down parts of the year. If I get really bored and remember to experiment with it.... Kind of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."

 

[JohnTrav]

I always shoot raw+jpeg. I wouldn't say it's a necessity though. You can still edit jpegs. Raw can be a little easier at times but it's not a deal breaker. If your cards write fast enough and you large enough I would recommend it.

 

[f4780y]

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?

Personally, I wouldn't agree that it is the "only way to get acceptable B&W", but post-processing a raw file to create a B&W result should give you more latitude in the conversion, just as a raw should provide some additional latitude to recover highlights when compared to processing a JPEG. In particular, you may find having full white balance control in post-processing of raw is helpful for some B&W conversions, something you wouldn't get with a JPEG.

Having agonised over raw/JPEG several years ago, and for the last 3 I've been a "raw only" shooter, I still very firmly sit in the camp of folks choosing the workflow which suits them best. Some folks like a workflow which includes significant post-processing (and would usually plump for raw), whilst others trust their in camera JPEG engine and skills to shoot JPEG exclusively and like to post-process as little as possible. I personally don't believe that either one (or anywhere in between) is more correct than the other Sorry if that's a bit non-committal!