nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Shoot in B/W only or Colour and convert?

vintagecosmos

Does anyone shoot on a DSLR in Black and White primarily? i.e. you have configured the camera to capture B/W?

I know you can just shoot in colour and then apply a filter but I have been finding shooting straight in B/W more enjoyable. Im not trying to balance colours/exposure/white balance so much, less distractions and im generally more pleased with the results. I guess I find myself framing (in my mind) shots in black and white and thats why it suits.

Any thoughts on this? Or is colour and applying a filter the way to go?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

never tried it, but i can see the appeal.
i'd love one of those leica b&w cameras.

vintagecosmos

I love shooting BW on my F100 and I recently shot a roll of Colour Slide film and just didnt enjoy it at all. I guess Im trying to replicate the old days using modern tech:o

magicbastarder

i find it's easier to pick one body for b&w and one for colour, so it's a tokenistic way of slipping into the colour or b&w mindset.

AnCatDubh

I wouldn't say primarily, but certainly often when shooting just for me - i'll stick the settings to black and white, throw the contrast up a little, bump the ISO, put my favourite lens on, and shoot jpg. Yup, I don't plan on doing much post processing to that setup. I've also been known to put a monochrome tint to them. This can work very nicely too.

So long as you can get a black and white from your dslr that you adore then there's no reason not too - provided that is your intention. Sure you lose the possibility of ever doing anything with the image other than further b/w processing, but meh...., it works for me -- when I want it to.

vintagecosmos

Thanks for the opinions folks. Interesting to have 2 bodies albeit tokenistic.

On the subject of JPG and Raw, I just took 2 shots and put them in Aperture with a little processing. I couldnt really justify shooting RAW when using a monochrome filter. I guess I never really got into post processing images much. I think if I spent that much time on it I wouldnt enjoy it.

ditpaintball

If your shooting digital and shooting RAW, then your shooting colour anyway. When you have the colour information, you have a ton more options for the black and white conversion afterwards.

The same goes for shooting jpeg, if you only shoot in mono jpeg, then your seriously limits your options to tweek the conversion afterwards ( not to mention the ability to adjust exposure properly if needed)

In studio, I shoot RAW and JPEG. I am tethered to an Ipad for image previews for clients. When I know that I am shooting a image destined to be in black and white, I set the picture style to mono. This records the jpeg version of the image in mono, but the colour is still in the raw file.

The ipad only displays the jpeg file, so that is what the client sees and is happy at the time of the shoot. Back at the computer, I have the raw file and can tweak it to get the best out of it.

vintagecosmos

Thanks DITPaintball. The D600 has 2 SD slots, so I might shoot Raw & JPG once I get my battery grip and do like you said. Does it use a whole lot more battery shooting with both?

magicbastarder

ditpaintball wrote: »

if you only shoot in mono jpeg, then your seriously limits your options to tweek the conversion afterwards

maybe that's the attraction, though?

vintagecosmos

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe that's the attraction, though?

Yes I think it is. Thats why I love shooting with my F100 and just scanning it. No PP at all. Keeps it real I guess

the_monkey

Surely if you shoot in RAW it shouldn't matter ?

Ben D Bus

the_monkey wrote: »

Surely if you shoot in RAW it shouldn't matter ?

I find seeing an image in B&W on the camera LCD helps me a lot. I'm not distracted by colours, and contrast stands out much more. I prefer B&W for most of my people/portraits and always set the camera to B&W now.

the_monkey

Ah yeah, I know what you mean, sometimes I do the same but knowing I'm shooting in RAW and have the colour versions if i need them is good too.

Also the settings in the camera can be a good indicator (ie what looks good on the LCD screen) as to what to do in LR/Gimp/PS ...

magicbastarder

the_monkey wrote: »

Also the settings in the camera can be a good indicator (ie what looks good on the LCD screen) as to what to do in LR/Gimp/PS ...

but the aim might not be getting the best photo for doing processing on in LR or whatever. it might be the fun in going out and nabbing a shot as is, in a way which might affect your shooting style in a way which a mindset of 'i can do X with this photo later' does not.

BlastedGlute

I only ever shoot B+W as the preset in my cameras even though im shooting RAW. I have an x100s and i dont think i ever set it to a color profile. I do shoot color film but obviously profiles are not an issue there.

I find shooting in B+W profiles makes me focus on the composition and content and not the colors or anything distracting.
I also never chimp

ditpaintball

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe that's the attraction, though?

Maybe it is.... but your still limiting your self. If you shoot RAW+ Jpeg... then you can always just use the mono jpeg as processed by the camera "as is" and if needed, then you can use the RAW file to tweak it.

The tweaking can be something as simple as setting up pre-sets in lightroom or camera raw and apply them to all your images. You will be able be able to control the contrast in raw files a lot better that in jpegs. At the end of the day, contrast makes or breaks a black and white image so it makes sense to be able to make the most of it

vintagecosmos

Anyone know if battery life is hit much when saving Raw + JPG?

magicbastarder

ditpaintball wrote: »

Maybe it is.... but your still limiting your self.

again, maybe that's the attraction. you're claiming it's a drawback, where it might be a positive for a lot of people.

ilford

I would never let a piece of on camera software decide what my B&W conversion should be. Why limit yourself having the colour information allows a massive amount of flexibility when converting, especially in lightroom

AnCatDubh

ilford wrote: »

I would never let a piece of on camera software decide what my B&W conversion should be.

Why not?

The piece of on camera software is just that - software, the same as stuff that runs on your computer albeit with a different interface and range of capabilities. If you like what the on camera software does (which is the only reason you'd do it or at least there'd be no other reason to use it), then there's no reason why you wouldn't so long as you've decided that this is what you want out of it.

ilford wrote: »

Why limit yourself having the colour information allows a massive amount of flexibility when converting, especially in lightroom

Because you don't want colour. You want to shoot something in particular or for an afternoon, or for ever - void of colour, and you have a camera that gets you to your end goal.

I mean, if you don't like what your camera produces in shooting black and white then your argument is entirely valid (for you). And you should of course persue a lightroom induced transformation. Lightroom is a cool piece of kit.

But perhaps someone doesn't have or doesn't like what lightroom does for you, or picasa, or photoshop, or the gimp.

I know the argument that you are putting forward, and it is valid for you (and lots of others btw), but you may be missing the point that people might actually just like the result they get from on camera b/w and that creatively this is what they wish to achieve lending their attention to composition or lighting, or subject or a rock in the forground as a swan glides by :eek: They also may not have the time, skills, or want to do post processing.

vintagecosmos

Ilford... ironic since they only produce black and white film now

When I shoot film I choose BW film mostly so it doesnt bother me to not have the colour option. Also the D600 produces great results in BW. I think I would fall out of love with shooting if I was to PP anything. Not everything is a gallery print. Its a memory, a moment. The simpler the better.

See an accidental pic below.

And a more planned one

ilford

If that's a persons preference, horses for courses. I spent most of time shooting in film and when I moved to digital I found the option of having both black and white and colour a real bonus. When I initially see or take a picture I think how that image will work in black white or colour so I never really rely on the LCD screen for anything except composition.

If your after a quality black and white image I dont think that allowing the camera to do this for you is a good idea as your losing at lot post processing options and data. But I guess if you dont like post processing ( and a lot of the great film photographers never printed their own work) and prefer the immediate feel of the Black and White on the camera then thats a better option.

vintagecosmos

I guess Im just a sucker for trying to keep things vintage (even with the big DSLR)

magicbastarder

i've always said that if you want to improve your photography, make life hard on yourself. don't give yourself the luxury of convenience, or even choice.