Black and white digital photography

[steve kessel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being essentially a novice to the subject, I'm wondering how people approach taking black and white digital photos in comparison with film. Loading a black and white film into a camera is a "statement of intent" and I imagine, not having done it except as a child, one attempts to visualize the picture in the way it may come out, as a series of half tones. With a digital camera, particularly one with RAW files, there is not necessarily the same "no way back" commitment and the choice can be delayed into post processing.

 

Having just started to experiment with b&w with my D-Lux 2, I've hit upon the method of setting the colour mode to b&w which gives a b&w rendering in the monitor and shooting in RAW. This give a b&w jpeg as a perhaps crude reference and a colour RAW file to process. Is this a lazy way to go about things? Should I be "working harder" to train my eye to visualise in b&w without this aid?

[richam]

Steve, I think you're going about it right as long as you know before tripping the shutter that you are "shooting b&w." Good b&w is almost always a function of good planning and deliberate intent (as is good color, for that matter). In b&w shooting you are paying attention to tones and shades, using dark and light areas creatively, arranging b&w shapes in the image, etc. OTOH, if you're "shooting color," you're looking for creative ways to compose and combine color elements. But ignoring prior planning and intent, capturing everything in color, and then deciding after the fact to convert to b&w is going about it backwards. Ready...fire....aim. You'll get some good shots, but not as many or as good as planning beforehand.

 

Consider some of the classic b&w movies -- The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, Double Indemnity (b&w cinematography oscar nomination), The Third Man (b&w cinematography oscar winner), The Big Sleep, The Hustler (b&w cinematography oscar winner). If they had a parallel color camera operating on all the shots, the color shots would have been junk. It seems Hollywood has unfortunately given up on b&w due to supply and demand economics. Consider the 2001 movie, Training Day. Although a good movie, They spent a lot of time "fighting color" as Orson Welles put it. Imagine how much better it could have been in b&w. But I digress...

 

Capturing in RAW gives you some after the fact adjustments, such as exposure, which may be very helpful in optimizing the image. You have much more control than starting with a jpeg. Your b&w/RAW setup is what I use on my Digilux 2 when I am "shooting b&w."

 

My occasional complaints about digital b&w are (1) the very deep depth of field and (2) Lack of grain. The former may be solved in digital by a full frame or near full frame sensor, and the latter from software. That's one of the reasons I'm considering the M8. I've tried software grain solutions, but never got a grain effect that I liked. So, I'm still using Tri-X and Scala (as a negative) in Rodinal when I want shallow DOF and/or grainy looks.

[meremonkey]

My occasional complaints about digital b&w are (1) the very deep depth of field and (2) Lack of grain. The former may be solved in digital by a full frame or near full frame sensor, and the latter from software. That's one of the reasons I'm considering the M8. I've tried software grain solutions, but never got a grain effect that I liked. So, I'm still using Tri-X and Scala (as a negative) in Rodinal when I want shallow DOF and/or grainy looks.

 

For grain I set my Digilux 2 to 400 ISO.

[rivi1969]

Hello Steve,

 

I love to work with BW files and my process is quite simple. With my D2 I only shoot raw at iso 100, even at that iso without any noise reduction filter the grain is noticeable and pleasant to my eyes. I work the file in Adobe Lightroom first taking care of squeezing as much detail as possible in shadows without burning the highlights. Then I save my file and re-open it in Photoshop, convert to black and white and make 2 layers: 1 to be adjusted for shadow detail, the other one for highlights. Then I merge both layers using from each one only what I need and voilá...

 

You can check some of my BW pics at Zenfolio | Ricardo Villagran photography

[Guest malland]

My occasional complaints about digital b&w are (1) the very deep depth of field and (2) Lack of grain. The former may be solved in digital by a full frame or near full frame sensor, and the latter from software. That's one of the reasons I'm considering the M8. I've tried software grain solutions, but never got a grain effect that I liked. So, I'm still using Tri-X and Scala (as a negative) in Rodinal when I want shallow DOF and/or grainy looks.

The grain factor is the reason that I've stuck to small-sensor cameras (the Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3) rather than getting an M8, with which I would have to shoot at ISO1250 or 2500 to get a grain effect — I don't like to put in grain artificially because, although I do a lot of post-processing, I like to work more "directly" with regard to grain. The huge DOF of small-sensor cameras doesn't bother me.

 

At the url below you can see a "slideshow" of 112 B&W pictures, my "Bangkok Series", of which 48 were taken with the Leica M6 and the rest with the GR-D and D-Lux 3. Granted that they're only small jpegs, but I think they nevetheless show the qulaity of B&W that you can get with small-sensor digital cameras:

 

 

Incidentally, this series is in four "chapters", but without any chapter titles.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[steve kessel]

Thanks for the responses guys. Mike, I'll look forward to those classic b&w movies with your point of view in mind. Ricardo, you have a very individual style which I appreciate. Mitch, I've looked at your b&w's a good many times since joining this forum. You're setting a very high standard for the GR-D and D-Lux 3. Advice from all much appreciated.

 

Best wishes.

 

Steve.