Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

B&W JPEGs: more than good enough.
Old 06-14-2010   #1
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
B&W JPEGs: more than good enough.

I am gradually losing my reluctance to shoot monochrome JPEGs on the M8 and, more recently, the E-P2. All the way up to 1600, E-P2 monochrome JPEGs look, to me, fantastic, right out of the camera. I like the all monochrome workflow, and Lightroom's new grain emulator (which I am not using here--these are just adjusted for exposure and contrast) adds a little flavor.

These are wide open with the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens, adapted to the E-P2...all at ISO1600...







  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #2
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Oh, I understand, I have been a RAW shooter for years. But there is something bracing about making a commitment at the shutter release...just telling yourself that this will be enough. A kind of intentional limitation, like a sonnet.

Maybe we can save a picture by shooting RAW. But maybe, possibly, with all options gone, we would choose to transform the picture in another way. That is, sometimes limitations lead to innovations.

Not that the above are innovative pictures! But it felt good, walking around the house for twenty minutes and committing things irrevocably to the SD card.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #3
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Sorry I don't agree, but I never in the last five years have tried digital camera B&W. When I was on that difficult quest, I started with out of the camera B&W. As you could imagine they were horrible. I switched to RAW and used the channel mixer sliders. That was a little better. After that I added a few other 'tricks' to help my digital camera B&Ws. Most ended looking like HDR even with RAW. I finally chucked it in and said digital cameras are for sports photographers, PS nerds, guys/pros that know PS nerds, tech people that just have to have the next thing, and in my case taking pictures of the family events. Since then I do B&W the old way and I am happy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #4
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
Yeah, charjohncarter pretty much nailed it. Digital and B&W don't really belong together. Not too bad for portraits, where the lack of detail and smoothing over can be kind to us old fossils w/ "character", but otherwise......

If the goal is just to put something on the web it might be OK too I guess.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #5
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSU View Post
If you haven't tried B&W from a digital camera in the last 5 years you haven't tried the M8, M8.2, M9, D3 or D700. Much has changed in the world of digital imaging in the last 5 years.
Not to mention the Epson R-D1 and the Canon 5D. It seems like half the portfolios shown in LensWork over the last couple years have been done with a 5D.

And here are a couple of my favorites with an R-D1:


Canon 50/1.2 LTM, ISO 400


Summicron 50/2 Rigid, ISO 1600

::Ari
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #6
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,072
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ion/index.html


All done with an original 5d, in camera JPEG.
I love his photo essays, and I have to say, I've been shooting in camera jpegs with my 5d recently, and they're seriously very good. even at iso1600 or 3200 they're fine.

I seriously doubt anyone could honestly tell me those pics in that NYT 1 in 8 million series could be better if shot in raw.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #7
mathomas
Registered User
 
mathomas's Avatar
 
mathomas is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
I am gradually losing my reluctance to shoot monochrome JPEGs on the M8 and, more recently, the E-P2. All the way up to 1600, E-P2 monochrome JPEGs look, to me, fantastic, right out of the camera. I like the all monochrome workflow, and Lightroom's new grain emulator (which I am not using here--these are just adjusted for exposure and contrast) adds a little flavor.

These are wide open with the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens, adapted to the E-P2...all at ISO1600...
I too found myself (very) pleasantly surprised at the nice B&W JPEGs that the M8 can produce. However, I hated the slowness of RAW+JPEG, so now just shoot RAW and do the occasional B&W conversion. I also had a bothersome feeling of inauthenticity about digital B&W (esp when using Silver Efex Pro), and so bought an M2 with which to shoot "real" B&W (film).

(I know, the "inauthenticity" thing is pretty silly. Just think of it as an excuse for buying a nice old camera.)

Last edited by mathomas : 06-15-2010 at 04:47. Reason: fix grammar
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #8
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSU View Post
When I read or hear of others stating absolutes I'm reminded that the only rule is there are no rules.

But if you are happy does it really matter what anyone else is doing?
I certainly hope you do not feel I was talking in absolutes, I just tried it and didn't like it. And as I said I am happy (now), and it doesn't matter what anyone else does. If my personal opinion isn't welcome here, then I will stop contributing. BUT it is my personal opinion, and I don't expect anyone else to except it as theirs. As you say no rules etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #9
pachuco
El ****
 
pachuco's Avatar
 
pachuco is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Yeah, charjohncarter pretty much nailed it. Digital and B&W don't really belong together. Not too bad for portraits, where the lack of detail and smoothing over can be kind to us old fossils w/ "character", but otherwise......

If the goal is just to put something on the web it might be OK too I guess.
I hate it when I can't tell if someone is making a joke or not...
__________________
Now an ordained Dudeist Priest

Website: www.jcdphotographer.com


flickr



  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2010   #10
pachuco
El ****
 
pachuco's Avatar
 
pachuco is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjames View Post
You mean they couldn't be better than the plastic highlights and blocked up shadows?

I have twisted and turned black and white digital every which way but Tuesday and it just does not compare to the raw physical beauty of film. A sensor sees light differently than film does. No amount of wishing can make this simple fact different.

This is an old and tired argument. There is no substitution for film in black and white. If digital was so much better, why are so many people trying to make it look like film? Amateurs want to believe they can shoot digital and get the same results, but it is only possible in degrees. You can't make a steak with chicken.
Don't tell Sebastiao Salgado...
__________________
Now an ordained Dudeist Priest

Website: www.jcdphotographer.com


flickr



  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #11
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.

I use film regularly. I love film. We all love film. YAY FILM! It is so super terrific. Can this be a given from now until eternity?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #12
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,596
I never realised digital was crap for monochrome because it's totally unsuitsble ... wow I learn something every day here!

Aside from lacking grain (obviously) the files from my D700 that I've convered to black and white have impressed me. That said I still prefer the look of film but the modern sensors are getting there in regard to dynamic range and being able to control highlights better IMO!

Digital doesn't need grain and I don't understand why people add it ... the noise that the sensor of the D700 produces at high ISO's is not unpleasant.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #13
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.

I use film regularly. I love film. We all love film. YAY FILM! It is so super terrific. Can this be a given from now until eternity?


Totally agree with your comments ... I love film also but it's good to take your head out of your date occasionally and pay a little heed to what else is out there!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #14
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
 
januaryman's Avatar
 
januaryman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.
mabelsound, I want you to put down that digital P&S and step away from it very slowly. I want you to do that for me now. Nobody needs to get hurt here. We all just want this to end so we can just go home and maybe have a cold beer.
__________________
Jim

"There is no special way a photograph should look."
- Garry Winogrand

Flickr - PhotographicIntrigue - NAPP Portfolio


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #15
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by januaryman View Post
mabelsound, I want you to put down that digital P&S and step away from it very slowly. I want you to do that for me now. Nobody needs to get hurt here. We all just want this to end so we can just go home and maybe have a cold beer.
*removes camera from pants*

Well...if you insist.

By the way, your sig line is relevant to this discussion. Who is this loser Winogrand? Is he a sales rep for Panasonic or something?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #16
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
 
januaryman's Avatar
 
januaryman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
*removes camera from pants*

Well...if you insist.
[breathes sigh of relief] Nothing to see here, folks.. let's move along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
By the way, your sig line is relevant to this discussion. Who is this loser Winogrand? Is he a sales rep for Panasonic or something?
Winogrand? He was some obsessive/compulsive guy who shot so many film rolls he didn't know what to do, rather like the woman who lived in a shoe... And you should see how beat up his cameras were... obviously not a professional. Anyway, he's dead, so he's not relevant.

and thank you for your cooperation.
__________________
Jim

"There is no special way a photograph should look."
- Garry Winogrand

Flickr - PhotographicIntrigue - NAPP Portfolio


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #17
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjames View Post
You mean they couldn't be better than the plastic highlights and blocked up shadows?

I have twisted and turned black and white digital every which way but Tuesday and it just does not compare to the raw physical beauty of film. A sensor sees light differently than film does. No amount of wishing can make this simple fact different.

This is an old and tired argument. There is no substitution for film in black and white. If digital was so much better, why are so many people trying to make it look like film? Amateurs want to believe they can shoot digital and get the same results, but it is only possible in degrees. You can't make a steak with chicken.
I disagree with you, I think the look of the files in that project is fantastic and suits exactly the subject material. It is after all photojournalism, and it's all about the subject. I have to add that some of the shoots look better than the others, some are not so hot.

I'm a big raw fan - it's pretty much all I shoot, but at some point with journalistic style stuff I started to care less about 'blocked up shadows and plastic highlights' and care more about what I was actually shooting, and using the light present. I find it much easier to control BW output from my 5d than my film cams. Both have their uses though, and their advantages/disadvantages for sure.

I was more specifically talking about raw files vs OOC jpeg b&w's in my original post though.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #18
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Screens don't show more than 8 bit per color. Also, in 800x600 or 1000x700 computer images, the JPG compression loss will not be visible. The M8 and M9 have deeper dynamic range though. If you are happy with JPG, it either means (a) you don't print, or (b) your exposures are always spot on

Just saying.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #19
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is online now
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofdanang View Post
I wonder what the discussion would be like if monochrome film only gave us yellow and blue instead of black and white...
Well, then it wouldn't be monochrome. We'd have to call it bichrome.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #20
Todd.Hanz
Registered User
 
Todd.Hanz's Avatar
 
Todd.Hanz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 54
Posts: 4,184
Nice BW tones.
BW jpegs straight out of the Canon s90 aint to shabby either:





Todd
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #21
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Screens don't show more than 8 bit per color. Also, in 800x600 or 1000x700 computer images, the JPG compression loss will not be visible. The M8 and M9 have deeper dynamic range though. If you are happy with JPG, it either means (a) you don't print, or (b) your exposures are always spot on

Just saying.

Roland.
Feh. I print B&W all the time, both from jpg and RAW, and I have to say, most of the time I just don't give a rat's ass about dynamic range or clipped highlights or whatever. It's like saying Robert Johnson sucks because he wasn't recorded at 24 bits. There are a million ways to make a good picture, and maximizing resolution and dynamic range is only one of them. Another one is relaxing, not worrying about all that crap for a change, and working with what you've got. I find this liberating sometimes.

Maybe my favorite picture I took this year was wildly overexposed, with all the highlights blown to kingdom come. I realized my mistake and immediately took another picture with the correct exposure, but this one is better--and in part it's better PRECISELY because of the information lost by the poor exposure.



Here's a great drawing by Rembrandt...it's in monochrome with very little bit depth.



My point is just that, if you can't do something interesting with more limited options, then you're not an artist. I'm not saying that you SHOULD ALWAYS limit yourself, or that limiting yourself is INHERENTLY SUPERIOR to keeping your options open. But denouncing the out-of-camera jpg is silliness. To some photographers, at some times, getting to say, "This is what I've got--what can I make of it?" is, at the very least, a highly useful exercise.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #22
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Back when I was very much struggling to convert digital color to B&W I ran across this photographer. He still is the only one that I think has a complete handle on B&W conversions (that is my opinion, so I'm not talking in absolutes). He doesn't have it available now (for free) but then he had a PDF file that was 5-6 pages and included, if I remember correctly, 20 layers. His process was very complicated, and probably still is, but he gets results. I found it to be too much time in front of the computer. Again, my opinion is that many contemporary photographers could benefit from his work. But that is just it, it is a lot of work. I hope you enjoy looking though his website:

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/sto...iteMastery.php
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #23
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Found the PDF link for B&W conversions by JPC:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdf...2it_bwconv.pdf
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #24
wblanchard
Registered User
 
wblanchard's Avatar
 
wblanchard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 432
I've printed out 13 x 19 size D-Lux 4 Jpeg images shot in dynamic b/w mode at iso 400. Fine art images, matted and framed for some customers. Nothing but good feedback and they look amazing for a 10MP camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #25
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Feh. I print B&W all the time, both from jpg and RAW, and I have to say, most of the time I just don't give a rat's ass about dynamic range or clipped highlights or whatever. It's like saying Robert Johnson sucks because he wasn't recorded at 24 bits. There are a million ways to make a good picture, and maximizing resolution and dynamic range is only one of them. Another one is relaxing, not worrying about all that crap for a change, and working with what you've got. I find this liberating sometimes.

Maybe my favorite picture I took this year was wildly overexposed, with all the highlights blown to kingdom come. I realized my mistake and immediately took another picture with the correct exposure, but this one is better--and in part it's better PRECISELY because of the information lost by the poor exposure.

:

Here's a great drawing by Rembrandt...it's in monochrome with very little bit depth.

:

My point is just that, if you can't do something interesting with more limited options, then you're not an artist. I'm not saying that you SHOULD ALWAYS limit yourself, or that limiting yourself is INHERENTLY SUPERIOR to keeping your options open. But denouncing the out-of-camera jpg is silliness. To some photographers, at some times, getting to say, "This is what I've got--what can I make of it?" is, at the very least, a highly useful exercise.
I agree with all you say. I am just opposing (1) the title of the thread, implying that JPGs are more than good enough generally, for example for people who do not seek the limitations you are exploring, and (2) the demonstration via online pictures as in your first post, that show nothing since computer screens are 8 bit limited, anyways.

I don't shoot digital. But my scanning flow is very dependent on as many bit/pixel as I can get, and I can imaging digital shooters needing this too, depending on the application. And if only, because exposure is a stop off, sometimes.

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 06-15-2010 at 07:16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #26
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSU View Post

I will disagree, which is my opinion.
That is certainly your right, and I'm glad you are not talking in absolutes. If you assume that I'm a Luddite, I do have 4 digital cameras and a complete, at least for my needs, inventory of editing programs and plug-ins which I use on a daily basis. But I have to say I don't enjoy the digital work flow very much so I try to limit my time spent in front of the computer. If I had a PS nerd at my disposal then I might be happy to shot digital exclusively or if I were a sports photographers, PS nerds, tech person that just have to have the next thing, etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #27
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
B&W jpgs work great indoors! It's a pain (impossible in some cases) to color balance for those CFL bulbs.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #28
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,020
Maybe I'm missing something here, but any of my p&s, or M8 put in b/w JPG mode can take photos as well as anything I've ever seen printed.

Exposed properly, a b/w JPG, can already out-resolve the eye. I've also done 2400/4800 scans to greyscale comparisons, and can see no difference, no matter how deep you magnify.

What the film folks here might be saying, is that they haven't yet seen grain or random smudges that you get from film, but that can be done too...

What you can't get from film, is grainless ISO 1600, which I can get from digital.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #29
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiquark View Post
B&W jpgs work great indoors! It's a pain (impossible in some cases) to color balance for those CFL bulbs.
Artificial lighting is one place I will always use RAW, actually, if I'm shooting in color. Lightroom does really nice auto WB for RAW files, especially the new version.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #30
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
JPG is not equal JPG.

Depending on how a JPG is created, it can have been compressed with information loss or without. If you decide less information is OK, you can still decide how much to loose. Clearly, your setup will determine the final quality. No idea what the setup in M8 & M9 are, but without talking about the details, any statement on JPG quality is meaningless.

Then there is 8 bits per pixel/color in JPG vs. more, like 16 bits in TIF.

When properly exposed, 8 bits are good enough. But who does always expose perfectly ?

Last edited by ferider : 06-15-2010 at 07:44.
  Reply With Quote

right
Old 06-15-2010   #31
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,020
right

The M8 doesn't have variable JPG settings, it's set internally on "good enough"

You still get 16 million colors or shades with 8-bit, regardless of the lossiness.

TIFFs can be 8-bit as well, and lossy as well, depends on settings.

On all of my scans, I have the JPG slider on 0 which is highest quality, least loss, biggest files, for Epson Scan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
JPG is not equal JPG.

Depending on how a JPG is created, it can have been compressed with information loss or without. If you decide less information is OK, you can still decide how much to loose. Clearly, your setup will determine the final quality. No idea what the setup in M8 & M9 are, but without talking about the details, any statement on JPG quality is meaningless.

Then there is 8 bits per pixel/color in JPG vs. more, like 16 bits in TIF.

When properly exposed, 8 bits are good enough. But who does always expose perfectly ?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #32
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Correct on the TIFF compression, but I thought it was loss-less only (LZW).

With the M8/M9 in B+W mode, out of the JPG files, do you get 256 or 16 Million grey shades, Ted ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #33
ElectroWNED
Registered User
 
ElectroWNED is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 487
can't say I see the difference between a $50 point and shoot and a $10,000 point and shoot...
  Reply With Quote

rev 5
Old 06-15-2010   #34
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,020
rev 5

TIFF rev 5 incorporated optional lzw encoding, but that encoding has nothing to do with lossless. The early TIFF specs allowed the use of embedding JPGs. The LZW is to minimize file size space, at the expense of compatibility and proc utilization.

btw, DNGs are a type of TIFF, as Adobe long ago acquired Aldus, one of the early TIF spec parters, along with MS.

Not sure about the M8 # of shades in B/W, but it's "enough" information.

Any more, and it would just be wasting file space.

When your're watching the news, do you care if your TV or stereo speaker can handle 40khz or 100khz? Neither you, nor I can hear sound that high.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Correct on the TIFF compression, but I thought it was loss-less only (LZW).

With the M8/M9 in B+W mode, out of the JPG files, do you get 256 or 16 Million grey shades, Ted ?
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #35
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Feh. I print B&W all the time, both from jpg and RAW, and I have to say, most of the time I just don't give a rat's ass about dynamic range or clipped highlights or whatever. It's like saying Robert Johnson sucks because he wasn't recorded at 24 bits. There are a million ways to make a good picture, and maximizing resolution and dynamic range is only one of them. Another one is relaxing, not worrying about all that crap for a change, and working with what you've got. I find this liberating sometimes.
Completely agree. The only difference is that I choose the darkroom workflow to produce prints.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #36
Michael Da Re
Registered User
 
Michael Da Re is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 240
Mabelsound, Do you notice a difference in the quality of your B/W .jpgs when you use your Canon lens as opposed to the EP-2's standard lens? I use my Zuiko 50 /f1.8 on my E500 almost exclusively for this reason. Although I shoot raw and b/w jpg I usually use the jpg to work with and put my raw files on a separate drive as digital negative of sorts. I too love the quality of the b/w images I get.
_6046426.jpg

Oly E500 Zuiko 50/f1.8 AP 1/200 iso 1250
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2010   #37
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Da Re View Post
Mabelsound, Do you notice a difference in the quality of your B/W .jpgs when you use your Canon lens as opposed to the EP-2's standard lens? I use my Zuiko 50 /f1.8 on my E500 almost exclusively for this reason. Although I shoot raw and b/w jpg I usually use the jpg to work with and put my raw files on a separate drive as digital negative of sorts. I too love the quality of the b/w images I get.
Attachment 79428

Oly E500 Zuiko 50/f1.8 AP 1/200 iso 1250
Not qualitative differences necessarily, but differences in character. The standard lens for me on the E-P2 is the Panasonic 20/1.7, which is up to par with some of my best rangefinder lenses!

Nice pic
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2010   #38
ederek
Registered User
 
ederek's Avatar
 
ederek is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 472
Thanks for this thread. Have been wanting to work in B&W more on the digital side for a while now but needed to figure out options.

Set M9 to capture both a compressed DNG (18.3 MB each), and a B&W Basic JPEG (about 2.7 MB each). Tried the fine JPEG which are about 3.8 MB each, but looking closely couldn't see a visible difference. Also tried both sRGB and aRGB and didn't see a visible difference in the JPEGs there either. Now images are always shown in B&W on the camera screen. Good.

Set lightroom to treat multiple copies separately on import, so there is both the B&W JPEG and the color DNG shown in the collection. Would like to figure out how to separate (such as importing to different directories) so only the B&W are visible, but this is ok for now.

This will also provide a database of in-camera B&W JPEGs produced by the M9 to compare to any B&W conversions I may choose to do from the DNG file using Lightroom, Silver Efex Pro, or Photoshop.

I've also been using the M9 for sketches and taking some duplicate shots w/ the M4/TriX with same exposure. Hope to do more of this, but it's limited in use, especially if trying to capture people or a "moment" in the frame.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2010   #39
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ederek View Post
Thanks for this thread. Have been wanting to work in B&W more on the digital side for a while now but needed to figure out options.

Set M9 to capture both a compressed DNG (18.3 MB each), and a B&W Basic JPEG (about 2.7 MB each). Tried the fine JPEG which are about 3.8 MB each, but looking closely couldn't see a visible difference. Also tried both sRGB and aRGB and didn't see a visible difference in the JPEGs there either. Now images are always shown in B&W on the camera screen. Good.

Set lightroom to treat multiple copies separately on import, so there is both the B&W JPEG and the color DNG shown in the collection. Would like to figure out how to separate (such as importing to different directories) so only the B&W are visible, but this is ok for now.

This will also provide a database of in-camera B&W JPEGs produced by the M9 to compare to any B&W conversions I may choose to do from the DNG file using Lightroom, Silver Efex Pro, or Photoshop.

I've also been using the M9 for sketches and taking some duplicate shots w/ the M4/TriX with same exposure. Hope to do more of this, but it's limited in use, especially if trying to capture people or a "moment" in the frame.
You should also explore the channel mixer option for 'treating' your color RAW files. Plus, the new Lightroom has besides a channel mixer some sliders to rise 'emphasis' in shadows, mid-tones, or highlights. These are very helpful. Add to that the ability to change a very linear H-D curve of digital captures with the curves function. Also, you can do some cutting and pasting and using the opacity slider in PS or PSE. You will be surprised how much better your B&W conversions will be. It is work but for something important you should probably at the very least try (to learn these functions) to maximize your final product.

Last edited by charjohncarter : 06-16-2010 at 16:27.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2010   #40
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
You should also explore the channel mixer option for 'treating' your color RAW files.
If your desire is to do really sophisticated work with your B&W pictures, I must admit, this feature is indispensible. It's much more versatile than using filters on your lenses with black and white film. While I started this thread to make a case for the immediacy of the monochrome jpeg, if you're going to shoot RAW, this is a great option.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.