EOS Bodies: Should I shoot in B&W? or shoot in Color then Convert to B&W?

[Caps18]

Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.

And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?

[K-amps]

A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

Good tip!! +1 to you. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The camera always shoots in color! 

Your question equates to:  should I let the camera convert it to B&W with its small and limited processor, or use a raw file to do it on a more powerful computer with better processing.

Take your choice.

Those who think a B&W comes right off the sensor have been misled somewhere along the way.

[scrappydog]

Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

I do this too.  I don't have B&W specialty programs (e.g., Nik SilverEfx).  I tried doing this in both Photoshop and Adobe RAW and found Adobe RAW to be much easier to use.  For some reason, Photoshop is extraordinarily laggy.

[Kernuak]

Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

I do this too.  I don't have B&W specialty programs (e.g., Nik SilverEfx).  I tried doing this in both Photoshop and Adobe RAW and found Adobe RAW to be much easier to use.  For some reason, Photoshop is extraordinarily laggy.

I always use Lightroom rather than Photoshop for RAW conversion, I find it's also more flexible. I only really dabble in B&W. I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods, while I shoot for colour, then think about B&W as an afterthought.

[K-amps]

Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

I do this too.  I don't have B&W specialty programs (e.g., Nik SilverEfx).  I tried doing this in both Photoshop and Adobe RAW and found Adobe RAW to be much easier to use.  For some reason, Photoshop is extraordinarily laggy.

I always use Lightroom rather than Photoshop for RAW conversion, I find it's also more flexible. I only really dabble in B&W. I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods, while I shoot for colour, then think about B&W as an afterthought.

Same here. Sometimes I will be sitting in Lightroom and about to delete a shot when I think let me try it in B&W and voila... it becomes an instant wonder shot  .  I do hope I can get to the level when I see a shot in B&W, then I will call myself , "Neo".

[Picsfor]

The camera always shoots in color! 

Those who think a B&W comes right off the sensor have been misled somewhere along the way.

And that is the simple truth of it. DPP only replicates the choices you get in the camera, but on your computer screen.

Hence i always shoot in RAW, and all pics get imported into LR - where i can quickly click on the B&W option to see what the potential is. Some i shoot with a deliberate view of pp in B&W - but i tend to know those shots anyway.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.

And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?

And what if you decide you want them in Color?

I tried setting my 5D MK II to monochrome and RAW, and held it up to my eye, but the image was still in color.  Then I snapped it, and the image appeared in monochrome on the lcd.

Then, I imported the Raw image into lightroom. 

Since the import module shows the small jpeg thumbnail imbedded in the image, it was monnochrome, but when the image was imported and converted, it was color. 

If you shoot Raw + jpg in the monochrome mode, you will get a monochrome jpeg and a color raw, but I do not see a big advantage.

[Michael_pfh]

Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.

And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?

That's what the voice memo function is for...

[EOBeav]

I'm curious as to anyone's thoughts on this.  I am sure we all realize the immediate advantage of shooting everything in color, then post processing into B&W but why have Monochrome as a built in option on the EOS camera's?  Is there an advantage choosing Monochrome on the EOS Bodies over post processing the color RAW into B&W?

Rev

It's a great question. I think the guy at Canon who decided to include the "shoot in monochrome" feature also thought it was a good idea to print directly from the camera.

Definitely shoot in RAW, then processing your photo in monochrome later. That allows you to push and pull the different color channels to achieve the balance that you want. If you just shoot in monochrome, you'll be stuck with whatever you get.

[D.Sim]

Technically, shooting in colour then converting later would save a lot of trouble - unless you shoot RAW
This is especially true when you consider that you can then go over the various colours and pull out certain details you want before the conversion.

That said, if you were to shoot in B&W, it would definitely force you to consider the composition of the image a lot more - without the colour you're forced to use other things to draw the attention of the viewer - it could be a very useful tool to force the way you think - and if you've shot RAW, convert it back if you need to.
No doubt it won't be B&W through the viewfinder, but when you preview your shot, it will be, and whatever things you think you need to do will be there for you to see.

Personally, I love going B&W once in a while - especially when its darker, and the colours are less pronounced. straight to B&W and up the ISO - the grain can help the shot.

[revup67]

A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

Yes, this is very true.  I've done this technique myself as well as tweak the contrast which also helps.

[EOBeav]

Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.

No no no no no no no....This is just plain wrong. There are so many monochrome interpolations possible from a given RAW file that it is impossible to know what a conversion will look like from how Canon creates a single b/w image in the camera. Each color channel can be pushed or pulled in a given direction in order to bring out an infinite number of monochrome combinations. Once you learn that concept, you're on your way to creating some monochrome masterpieces. 

Come on people, let's get it right.

[revup67]

I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods,

^^^^^Comment of the Day^^^^^^

I completely get this.  Perhaps after having your own dark room for so long and developing only in B&W for many years it causes one to see things in this manner.

[briansquibb]

I was going to post a picture but realised it was monochrome not B&W