B/W w M8 better in camera or on computer conversion?

[jothiratnam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, Anybody have any ideas on whether it is better (i.e. yields a more film-like result) to take black and white photos directly (by setting the camera to b/w), or to take them in colour and subsequently convert them to b/w on the computer. Having asked around, opinions seem to differ, sometimes virulently, on the subject. Thanks.

[stunsworth]

Personally I should raw and then use the Alien Skin Exposure plugin to convert to b&w in Photoshop.

[jaapv]

Without doubt the computer - provided one does a proper conversion, not a lame desaturation. There are a host of possibilities, most of us have their own Photoshop recipe, the conversion in Elements 5 is pretty good, there is Alien Skin, there are plenty of plug-ins, C1 profiles, what have you. To replace this by a one-size-fits-all Jpeg conversion in the camera is not the route to quality.

[sm23221]

I do both. For a "Tri-X" look I shoot JPEGS at ISO 2500 and let the camera do the work. For more critical work and tonalities I convert in PS. If you shoot in RAW and then convert, you will always have the color option available too.

[ken_tanaka]

Hi, Anybody have any ideas on whether it is better (i.e. yields a more film-like result) to take black and white photos directly (by setting the camera to b/w), or to take them in colour and subsequently convert them to b/w on the computer. Having asked around, opinions seem to differ, sometimes virulently, on the subject. Thanks.

 

Your question leads to no answer. The in-camera processor can produce only one result for a given image. Processing the image in the computer can lead to a nearly infinite variety of results, each non-destructive to the original image.

 

So your question is one of preferences and skill rather than optimum results.

[sharookh]

I recently posted an image called "Karl" in the people section. B/W straight out of the camera. I would be interested to have your reaction.

Regards

Sharookh

[jeffascough]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Definately better using Photoshop. Without any shadow of a doubt.

 

Black and white has always been about interpretation. Give ten photographers a neg and ask them to print it. You will get ten different prints. Give ten photographers a digital file and ask them to convert to b/w and print that and you will also get ten different prints.

 

The printer/photographer will often base their conversion/printing on the aesthetic and tonal range of the image in front of them. You simply can't get a camera to do that.

 

What you can get a camera to do is give you a starting point, and yes a basic conversion to mono can be an attractive proposition, but in my experience the conversion needs more work to bring it up to a reasonable level than converting a colour image and then tweaking in photoshop.

 

Personally I like to start off with a low contrast, full toned colour original. This is what gives me a decent starting point for getting a great b/w image. Holding the tones in the image is essential, and the best way of doing this *for me* is to shoot RAW and convert the image to my 'negative' stage with C1. Then I work on the negatives in Photoshop.

 

Furthermore, different lighting situations require different b/w conversion techniques, which again the camera can't provide.

 

Jeff

[jothiratnam]

Hi, thanks to everyone for the advice. Happy shooting.