 Amy L. Carroll |
Black and White: In-Camera Vs. Processing Later I recently purchased a Nikon D70S, and while I'm generally happy and still learning all the features of the camera, I found that it doesn't shoot black and white, which is something I enjoyed tremendously with my point-and-shoot Fuji. So my question: Is there much difference with shooting a picture in black and white or processing it later with software into a black and white picture? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
There have been several threads here on this topic, and the general consensus is that if you always shoot in color, you have the option of using the image in color or B&W. If you shoot in B&W, you are limiting your possibilities. The only argument that can be made for shooting B&W in-camera is if you typically print direct from the camera, with no image processing on the computer. In my opinion, anyone who prints direct from the camera is better off with a high-end compact digital like a Panasonic Lumix or a Canon S2IS.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David King |
Some cameras produce their direct B&W images without first interpolating color results from the bayer filtering. Simply, that means there is a bit more detail in file because each pixel was taken as it was shot. The Nikon prosumer 5700 and 8700 were such cameras. In those, there can be good reasons for shooting directly in B&W. However, most simply drop the chroma channel after interpolation, and so nothing is gained by shooting that way except you have lost the advantage of a better processor in your computer than is in the camera body. So for cameras like the Canon 20D there is no point in shooting directly in B&W except for the built-in interpolation that attempts to re-create the effects of contrast filtering. You can do the same if you use the color channels when converting to B&W and have much more flexibility. David www.ndavidking.com
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
I can't answer your specific question as to whether there's a difference in shooting a digital camera in B&W or converting it in software. I can say I've come up with a little formula in Photoshop that I like. I convert my images to greyscale. I tweak them slightly with curves then add a duotone. I like the range of tones I get when editing them this way better than any plugin or method I've tried.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Fritz Geil |
Yes, there very definitely is a difference between shooting B/W in camera vs. in Photoshop. Each digital camera has its own algorhythm for converting the color data it receives on the ccd or cmos sensor. In most cameras, this is not adjustable, so you cannot change the relative strength of tonalities like you can by switching to different B/W films. It is far better to get the color data in camera, then to "process" it in Photoshop, using the channel mixer with greyscale selected for the output; alternatively, you can apply the photo filter adjustment layer to get the tonalities right, then convert to greyscale. Either way, you have far more control than simply shooting B/W in camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chuck Sanchez |
I shoot a 10D and have better results processing on my computer. I convert to grayscale and adjust the levels. I also make use of the dodge and burn tools among other things. Chuck www.printedbig.com
|
|
|
|
||
|
Allen Morrell |
I have to agree with Fritz. There are several ways of converting your color shots into B&W using Photoshop. You can change it to LAB Mode then to grayscale, use the Channel Mixer or even process it using Calculations - each has its own dramatic differences. I used to shoot just B&W in the camera and have kicked myself a few times because the shot I thought would look great in B&W looked better in color. Unfortunately, I would realize it when it was too late. A great learning experience though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Warren |
I am planning a purchase of a DSLR in the near future, but I still say the best quality B&W images come from Tmax, Tri-X or Ilford, not a CCD OR CMOS chip. If digital is as good as people say, why would all this post-processing be needed?
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Steve, It's a good thing that film requires no post-processing because that would suck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chuck Sanchez |
If you ever worked in a darkroom you are used to post-processing. Burning and dodging are all post processing tasks good photographers do in the darkroom. Post-processing your digital images are exactly the same thing. The only difference is you are doing it in Photoshop or some other program. It's diffulcult to get exactly what you want each time you hit the shutter, but post processing allows you to push the effect of your image further than the raw photo. Chuck
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I think that's the point Jerry was making.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chuck Sanchez |
Whoosh, that went right over my head. My head is in outer space today. Chuck
|
|
|
|
||
|
Teresa Mayer |
My camera has the b&w shooting mode and I tried it for one day! The images I took I really wish I had in color. Also, when you shoot it in color you have the control to do infinate amount of options when you want to b&w/greyscale/desaturate it. I am partial to selective coloring techniques. This way I have that option as well! To me, the b&w mode is a waste on the camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||