Again, B&W

[Bill Pierce]

If you look at the pictures posted on the forum, you will see that a great many of them are in black-and-white. There are many ways of converting both raw files and scans of color film to b&w. There are conversions and presets built into processing programs themselves, added presets from outside sources, and self contained conversion programs. Sadly, the somewhat overlooked technique I’m going to outline is only possible with digital files. But that is not the reason it lingers in obscurity. It’s because it uses jpegs - and everyone know that they will be disrespected if word gets out that they shoot jpg instead of raw.

Actually, shooting both raw and a b&w jpg let you have your cake and eat it. Well, you can use the raw file if you decide the image is better in color or the jpg doesn’t produce the b&w results you wanted. Shoot a jpg at the lowest possible contrast, again, the lowest possible contrast, the greatest possible tone range. Then turn it into a full toned image using not only the controls like contrast and exposure, but clarity and dehaze in addition to the commonly used controls. Or drop it into a conversion program like Silver Efex.

When this system was first suggested to me, I was a little doubtful. JPGS? REAL MEN DON’T USE JPGS. But it turns out that the long scaled, low contrast b&w jpg on modern digital cameras is a pretty good starting point for producing a strong image. I have used it with low contrast b&w jpgs from Fuji, Leica and Sony cameras and gotten excellent results. I’m not letting go of my raw files. But (don’t tell anyone), I have added b&w jpgs to the take.

Your thoughts? (and any other weird b&w conversion techniques)

 

[Darthfeeble]

I shoot RAW only but view in BW, love that about the mirrorless cameras. It helps me isolate the content of the picture and thus my composing. I need all the help I can get.

 

[ptpdprinter]

But it turns out that the long scaled, low contrast b&w jpg on modern digital cameras is a pretty good starting point for producing a strong image.

Is it better than a RAW as "a pretty good starting point for producing a strong image"? I would have to rely on your experience. I don't shoot jpgs and the only digital editing programs I have are LR and PS.

I don't view in black and white. I view in color just like I do with my films cameras.

 

[Dogman]

As I've said before, I've been shooting nothing but B&W JPEGs for several months--almost a year. Setting the camera to Mono and knowing you are going to get ONLY a B&W photograph is sorta like shooting film. You're locked into the B&W and you think in B&W and see subjects that way. Shapes and textures and highlights and shadows are tactile. At least all this works for me. I like the idea of starting out with what I'll end up with. When I shot everything Raw, the color files always grabbed my attention first. That's what happens with colors. They become a distraction...at least, again, for me.

And I agree with Bill. Starting with low contrast and building the picture from there helps me to not overdo the processing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My GRD III allows to switch color/bw view on its screen. Handy to make decision on the spot.
It also allows BW JPEG1 and color RAW. I could see if it is interesting in bw on import and get better quality bw from RAW.

Also, I like how BW is implemented in unpopular here Canon EOS systems. It allows to select bw contrast filters and it is close how it is done on bw film. Depending how old EOS is, higher ISO is variable, but more alive BW comes from in-camera JPEG1.

RP with ISO 25600.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Is it better than a RAW as "a pretty good starting point for producing a strong image"?

I wouldn’t say better. It’s different. When you are making your first selects, you are obviously picking pictures that work in black and white. With the cameras I’ve worked with the low contrast jpgs are halfway there compared to the unadjusted raw files converted to mono and that makes it easier to say “This needs darker shadows.” or “Let’s see how this looks if I bump the midrange contrast.” In a sense, you’re starting with an acceptable image and fine tuning it. It works very well for me, surprisingly well. But I think you would have to give it a test run to se if it works for you.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I wouldn't recommend starting with a JPEG. The amount of editing needed to turn a very low contrast image into a good B&W image will cause posterization and other artifacts in the image. This offers no advantage over starting with a RAW file and a lot of disadvantages.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Actually, shooting both raw and a b&w jpg let you have your cake and eat it. ... Shoot a jpg at the lowest possible contrast, again, the lowest possible contrast, the greatest possible tone range. Then turn it into a full toned image using not only the controls like contrast and exposure, but clarity and dehaze in addition to the commonly used controls. Or drop it into a conversion program like Silver Efex. ...

Or you can shoot RAW and convert to B&W using the same technique - as you've shared prior - then create a JPG file after processing. Why would I want to start with an unprocessed JPG file? For me photography begins with taking the picture and ends with processing the RAW file into the image I want.

 

[boojum]

I know as little as anyone. I have shot the RAW (DNG) plus B&W JPG. Too be quite honest if it is a good picture it is a good picture regardless of subtleties of grays. I can enhance an image but I cannot turn it from crap to gold. But I sure wish I could. ;o)

 

[Bill Pierce]

Or you can shoot RAW and convert to B&W using the same technique - as you've shared prior - then create a JPG file after processing. Why would I want to start with an unprocessed JPG file? For me photography begins with taking the picture and ends with processing the RAW file into the image I want.

Bill, remember that you are shooting raw and jpg and have the raw file to fall back on if you want. The Sony I use is the A7R IV. At its base ISO it has dynamic range of just short of 15 stops. Properly exposed you come up with a long scale jpg image with a lot of potential for adjustment. The jpg is not better than the raw file. But you have a long scale b&w image that is very easy to evaluate in terms of the changes it needs to turn it into the picture you want. Can you produce that same long scale, low contrast image from a raw using say the highlight, shadow, white and black sliders in Lightroom. Of course, and that’s often the start point for me when I’m working with raw files. But that low contrast jpg cuts out a lot of the initial work with the raw file and it’s easy to evaluate the changes that need to be made. Digital cameras have come a long way, and it looks to me like the jpgs have too.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... remember that you are shooting raw and jpg and have the raw file to fall back on if you want. ... The jpg is not better than the raw file. But you have a long scale b&w image that is very easy to evaluate in terms of the changes it needs to turn it into the picture you want. ... Digital cameras have come a long way, and it looks to me like the jpgs have too.

Actually, nowadays, I only shoot RAW. I shot RAW + JPG for many years, but I never used the JPG files - NEVER. I have the utmost respect for you, but I'm not buying it. Starting from a flat JPG file is in every way inferior compared to starting with a layered RAW file. So processing my RAW DNG files costs me a few more minutes compared to JPG - so what? Post processing, the only reason I create JPG files is to share on-line - TIF files for printing.

 

[mapgraphs]

Split rails

All my monochrome work starts as eight bit color jpg.