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

[revup67]

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

 

[Michael_pfh]

One obvious advantage would be B&W pics right out of the cam without post processing ;-)

 

[samueljay]

I think being able to see how your photos look in B&W as you're taking them is a massive advantage while shooting, plus if you shoot RAW, you're always able to go back to colour once you bring the files into your computer. The only problem I've had with that is that what looks like visually pleasing grain-ish effect on high iso's in b&w translates to awful looking colour shots

 

[K-amps]

PP gives you so much more freedom to go low key, high contrast, Sepia, color toning to BW so on and so forth.

As long as you set your camera to RAW +Jpeg, you can do both

 

[Positron]

I really like setting it on Monochrome while shooting in RAW for the B&W preview on the screen. When you import the resultant files into Lightroom, their thumbnails appear B&W, but snap back to color the moment you view them (and can of course be made back into B&W with a single click). A lot of times a shot that I'm not a particular fan of in color has some cool compositional elements that really pop and make it a potential keeper in black and white. And of course with RAW, you can change your mind any time.

 

[vbi]

Shoot in colour, process in NIK SilverEFX. It allows you to apply monochrome filters (great for bringing out the sky), adjust grain, and select specific film types depending on the look you want to achieve.

In the good old days of film we would do just that...pick the film that worked best for a specific application. If you choose the in-camera monochrome mode you will have to put up with an average conversion - or effectively the same film type for all your shots.

 

[revup67]

These are all good points in addition though, if shot in color under the same conditions, you can create a recipe and apply to all wanted images for B&W use within DPP via batch process.

 

[smirkypants]

It depends upon how much you are willing or able to do in post-processing. Conversion from color RAW to black and white shouldn't be a matter of just removing the color. There can be a lot of art and a lot of interactivity in the process. There is so much information hidden in that RAW file that is just begging to come out and if you use in-camera processing you're not getting the most out of your photos. Why be tied to what some engineers at Canon decided black and white should look like?

I suggest taking a look at this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Black-White-Photography-Techniques/dp/0470597755

Good luck.

 

[briansquibb]

Shoot in RAW and choose later

 

[JerryBruck]

briansquibb is correct. It's the colors in your original that store a huge number of the choices for your black and white editing. This should answer your questions:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/bw_workflow_in_lightroom.shtml

 

[Maui5150]

Shoot in RAW and then use something like NIK SilverEFX. If you are just using PhotoShop and converting to Monochrome, you are losing a TON of the details. I just did a webinar hosted by NIK with Vincent Versace and was amazed at the differences a piece of software like NIK color effects makes compared to just taking an image and setting the mode to Monochrome (basic just removed Hue and Saturation and throws away more than 1/3rd the detail.

I will also plead ignorant to whether shooting in B&W makes any difference in respect to what I am talking about, but I am making the assumption that it, like other styles, is just a style that is applied to the JPG, hence similar to the Monochrome conversion and losing detail.

really had my eyes opened the other day to just how much detail is in a Black and White image, and why some B&W really stand out and why others are dull. Conversion is really not as straight forward as I originally thought

 

[zim]

Shoot in RAW and then use something like NIK SilverEFX. If you are just using PhotoShop and converting to Monochrome, you are losing a TON of the details. I just did a webinar hosted by NIK with Vincent Versace and was amazed at the differences a piece of software like NIK color effects makes compared to just taking an image and setting the mode to Monochrome (basic just removed Hue and Saturation and throws away more than 1/3rd the detail.

I will also plead ignorant to whether shooting in B&W makes any difference in respect to what I am talking about, but I am making the assumption that it, like other styles, is just a style that is applied to the JPG, hence similar to the Monochrome conversion and losing detail.

really had my eyes opened the other day to just how much detail is in a Black and White image, and why some B&W really stand out and why others are dull. Conversion is really not as straight forward as I originally thought

+1 for that info Maui always liked the look of this software but never tried it, must give it a go.

 

[JR]

Shoot in RAW because then you have much more flexibility to convert to B&W. The more I try to do Black and White myself I realize how much more complex it is then I thought. It can be much more then a simple conversion. For example, to get a high contrast B&W, I often find the Lightroom B&W conversion quite boring!

I really love using PhotoShop for B&W personally using a gradient mask and sometime applying a unshapr mask to it (not always but for landscape I got good result with it...).

So I guess my point is by shooting in RAW you will be able to find the what conversion works for you, and get more satisfaction out of your picture taking

Jacques

 

[Kernuak]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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 ;D. 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.