Shooting in B&W or converting File

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy, Jamie Roberts has made some profiles available for shooting without the IR filter, but the problem is clearly more difficult than in b/w.

 

The dreaded purple-black is only the tip of the iceberg; I believe you get color shifts throughout the image and not in just the blacks.

 

It is nice to know that the IR contribution to the b/w image in the M8 is so small. No wonder Sean can always shoot without the filter.

[Jack_Flesher]

Jack, do you submit that tonalities are more subtle in colour pictures shot without filter as well? As far as I can see if they are in B&W then they must be in colour as well, after all whats coming off the sensor is just brightness values, subsequently interpreted into brightness and colour to make up the raw file (such is my understanding anyway).

On the other hand, as the IR contamination of colour files is pretty random, or at least very situational, doesnt that also make the filter/no filter difference in B&W also pretty random/situational??

 

Indeed they are, but it appears to be random and more subtle since the colors often end up being "close" to one-another. The one area where it tends to be most visible --- and at times unfortunate --- is on skin-tones. Here, people with very fair skin tend to show more red blotchiness than say those with more olive or darker complexions which can corrupt a color image, at least IMO.

 

Cheers,

[gesper]

I always keep the filter on so I have the option of color or B&W. Plus that way I don't have to think about it.

[guywalder]

Indeed they are, but it appears to be random and more subtle since the colors often end up being "close" to one-another. The one area where it tends to be most visible --- and at times unfortunate --- is on skin-tones. Here, people with very fair skin tend to show more red blotchiness than say those with more olive or darker complexions which can corrupt a color image, at least IMO.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack, presumably what shows up as blotchiness in colour is smooth tone in B&W?

but dont the heavily IR tainted blacks show up as mid grey in an 'unfiltered' file converted to B&W rather than the vivid purple of the colour file?

 

Bill, are you saying that the IR contribution on a B&W file is not significant, ie you and Jack have different opinions?

 

I must say, personally I think I'll leave the filters on, I only decide colour or B&W after the fact, and as you may have noticed, I tend to push the files around quite a bit in converting, so may well loose any additional subtle tones.

Interesting discussion though!

[wparsonsgisnet]

Guy, I was affirming Woody's comment in #15, above, that the IR contribution is way down in intensity, and Jack F's comment in #16, that the cover glass filters out some as well.

 

I had wondered about the (blurring) effect of oof ir in the image, and understand from these two postings that it is small. Hence my comment about Sean's success at and enthusiasm for unfiltered b/w images with the M8.

[Jack_Flesher]

Jack, presumably what shows up as blotchiness in colour is smooth tone in B&W?

Yes, because it is usually very close in hue to the surrounding color.

 

but dont the heavily IR tainted blacks show up as mid grey in an 'unfiltered' file converted to B&W rather than the vivid purple of the colour file?

Not really. If you look at the coat of the little boy, his lapels turned purple in the color shot, but they look acceptable dark gray to me.

 

I must say, personally I think I'll leave the filters on, I only decide colour or B&W after the fact, and as you may have noticed, I tend to push the files around quite a bit in converting, so may well loose any additional subtle tones.

Interesting discussion though!

Not likely you'll lose tones --- the whole point is you start with more to begin with if you leave the filters off

[intex]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have shot all the pictures on a recnt trip in jpg, and would like to print some shots in B&W.

I hgave found a reputable lab, which I can send the digital files to.

My question is:

1. Can I convert to B&W (Greyscale) in Adobe Lightroom with good results , then upload the file to0 the lab.

2. I imagine I should just do the cropping in Lightroom as well, before I upload the file.

3. Should I save the file as jpg???

 

Thanks

[JumpStart]

I have shot all the pictures on a recnt trip in jpg, and would like to print some shots in B&W.

I hgave found a reputable lab, which I can send the digital files to.

My question is:

1. Can I convert to B&W (Greyscale) in Adobe Lightroom with good results , then upload the file to0 the lab.

2. I imagine I should just do the cropping in Lightroom as well, before I upload the file.

3. Should I save the file as jpg???

 

Thanks

 

Lightroom will convert, I tried that today and liked it, but I preferred the look in PS3. I don't know how to crop in Lightroom, I do it in PS3

 

DBK

[guywalder]

Yes, because it is usually very close in hue to the surrounding color.

 

Not really. If you look at the coat of the little boy, his lapels turned purple in the color shot, but they look acceptable dark gray to me.

 

Not likely you'll lose tones --- the whole point is you start with more to begin with if you leave the filters off

 

hmm, the more I think about this, the less I understand!

surely the point is you start with Different, not with More? On the basis, that is, that all thats coming off the sensor is brightness values. OK in a few cases your dark shadows might be IR rich so they come out a bit brighter, making the DR look better, but on skin tones? The skin tones in your example are within the overall DR of the scene.

So I can see that 'unfiltered IR' can lift some mid tones, but I still dont understand how it could/can produce better/smoother tones?

Are you sure its the filter and not the lens??

[Jack_Flesher]

hmm, the more I think about this, the less I understand!

surely the point is you start with Different, not with More? On the basis, that is, that all thats coming off the sensor is brightness values. OK in a few cases your dark shadows might be IR rich so they come out a bit brighter, making the DR look better, but on skin tones? The skin tones in your example are within the overall DR of the scene.

So I can see that 'unfiltered IR' can lift some mid tones, but I still dont understand how it could/can produce better/smoother tones?

Are you sure its the filter and not the lens??

 

 

I'll try one more time Simply stated, you are increasing the occurance of total tonal transition areas available for the sensor to record, which in practice translates into tonal gradations that more closely mimic those of traditional B&W film emulsions. Visible light stops at 750nm for most humans. Let's assume the bare M8 sensor is letting up to 800nm IR through. The IR cut filter you place over the lens, cuts that off at 720nm. So, with the filter you are getting fewer total wavelengths of light exciting the sensor. While the sensor can only record a certain total range of tonal values, it can record additional tonality occuring inside specific areas of that overall range. So by adding the extra wavelenghts you increse the total number of tonal transition areas for the sensor to record, and hence gain on total tonal-transition areas in the image, but still within the given total dynamic range recordable. I believe it is these additional recorded tones that gives the unfiltered M8 B&W conversions a look similar to conventional B&W film. Hope that helps clarify.

 

Cheers,