Jump to content

In-Camera B/W?


fursan

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

anyvbody use the M8 B/W shooting mode. ?

 

if not why not? of course, we all are aware of the usual raw color and subsequent conversions to b/w via the various PS or LR or other sw functions.

 

if most don't use in-camera b/w, why do you think M8 has that functionality?

 

curious, as i seem to like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
anyvbody use the M8 B/W shooting mode. ?

 

I actually use it all the time, but with DNG/Jpeg. I like getting the BW previews when I am shooting bw and sometimes the Jpeg are better than my raw files (well, rarely). It is also a psychological thing, if I am shooting and want B/W, I don't want to see it in color first.

 

I for one am glad that the M8 has a B/W mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried it out recently as an experiment. I always shoot raw, but decided to brave the B&W Jpeg. Shot with a CV Nokton 50. OK, but had to do some PP to get them where I wanted. If you were short on card space (500+ Jpegs versus 187 raw on a 2gb card) it would be OK.

 

p1012456928-3.jpg

 

p648253614-3.jpg

 

p892710876-3.jpg

 

Gid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you in Berlin?

 

.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

all those nonesense talks about b/w digital.........??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

b/w = film...............

film film film film

film

 

film

 

 

film

 

b/w = film

 

b/w

 

 

if u dont use film.............

 

CALL it MONOCHROM what ever.......... dont f***ing call it B/W ..........

 

Meditations July 2007

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bw mode is satisfactory, however you do throw away a lot of information. Better to shoot RAW and use one of the many methods of bw conversion available.

Hi John,

It would be good to have you elaborate on the info that you throw away and whether you can see it in the print and, of course, what size print. I do digital monochrome (happy Vic?) every which way depending on my mood and I think that there are some trade offs. PP conversion gives channel flexibilty for color to grayscale tone control, but high ISO in-camera JPEG gives a better noise rendition (IMO).

I think shooting in-camera monochrome is fun and a bit scary, like shooting a roll of B&W film and having to use the same developer on the whole roll.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

all those nonesense talks about b/w digital

 

if u dont use film.............

 

CALL it MONOCHROM what ever.......... dont (Bleep)call it B/W ..........

 

Nice monochrome samples Vic. Once you scan B/W film, you have digital monochrome, too. There may come a day when the gap between film & digital monochrome narrows, but the differences in print quality (rendition) between digital and silver may remain, just lik the differences between silver and platinum/paladium prints.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice monochrome samples Vic. Once you scan B/W film, you have digital monochrome, too. There may come a day when the gap between film & digital monochrome narrows, but the differences in print quality (rendition) between digital and silver may remain, just lik the differences between silver and platinum/paladium prints.

Bob

what you'll find now are that the top Platinum/paladium printers have moved to digital negatives. They find the results easier to control, and frankly, superior to what they were getting with film negatives

Link to post
Share on other sites

all those nonesense talks about b/w digital.........??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

....

 

 

Vic, why post this stuff? You knew what you were going to get when you saw the thread title.

 

I like your photographs and like to continue seeing them here but everytime you post like this I just want to add you to the ignore list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you'll find now are that the top Platinum/paladium printers have moved to digital negatives. They find the results easier to control, and frankly, superior to what they were getting with film negatives

Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. I have read some articles on this approach, but didn't realize it had moved along that far. I have a friend that was trying this approach for silver prints, because he has a few clients that wouldn't put money into digital prints. I need to check in with him to see what happened.

So, Vic, whip out a few platinum prints from your M8 and get back to us on the subject of B/W....;)

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. I have read some articles on this approach, but didn't realize it had moved along that far. I have a friend that was trying this approach for silver prints, because he has a few clients that wouldn't put money into digital prints. I need to check in with him to see what happened.

So, Vic, whip out a few platinum prints from your M8 and get back to us on the subject of B/W....;)

Bob

 

almost all of my print output is platinum. George Tice, Dick Arentz, Sandy King, Cy DeCosse, Kerik Kouklis, are all using digital negatives for their work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to shoot B&W in camera, but shoot jpeg + Raw. This allows me to use the jpegs on site, if I want, to preview. I tend not to chimp, but will review, as this evening, to check epxosure, etc. Later, the jpegs are used for proofing, previewing, making contact sheets, etc., and then the selected frames are converted either in RawDeveloper or CS3. I prefer the results from Raw files, as do most others, but in a pinch, or if you run short of card space, jpegs will be usable.

 

For comparison, the following two shots were shot on the same evening, both with 75mm Summilux, about f2. The first is a converted raw file, although this was converted to jpeg for the web. Converted in Camera Raw with no sharpening in conversion or PS, iso was 1250. The second shot of the bass player was shot the same evening with HP5+, pushed in T-max developer [not my favorite, but I had some fresh] to iso 1600, and scanned on a Flextight scanner.

 

Convenience, flexibility, decent [if not perfect] results, the opportunity to preview and where necessary, reshoot, all favor digital for me.

 

On the other hand, Dan Burkholder's platinum prints from digital negs [in turn made, I believe, by scanning 4x5] are pretty impressive when seen in person. But then, he is dealing with very different kinds of subject matter.

 

NS

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

On the other hand, Dan Burkholder's platinum prints from digital negs [in turn made, I believe, by scanning 4x5] are pretty impressive when seen in person. But then, he is dealing with very different kinds of subject matter.

 

NS

 

Dan starts out with digital files. shoots Canon.. but that doesn't reduce how impressive they are!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...