B&W imports from Q2 into LR

[clasami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My import settings in LR are set to "Camera Settings". When I import B&W images from my Q2 to LR, it respects the crop but turns a B&W image into a color image. There is an "Embedded" B&W profile that I could apply - but the result looks different from the OOC image.

How do you manage your B&W imports?

[dpitt]

Do you shoot in DNG format with your Q2 set to DNG + JPEG and JPEG set to B&W?

In that case the DNG gets a B&W preview OOC, but that is replaced by any PP software as soon as it loads the raw image. By definition RAW files contain all info including colors. This allows you to convert it to B&W with your own preferences in LR.

If you really want the exact B&W results from the Q2 then you need to use the JPEG file.

[clasami]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb dpitt:

Do you shoot in DNG format with your Q2 set to DNG + JPEG and JPEG set to B&W?

In that case the DNG gets a B&W preview OOC, but that is replaced by any PP software as soon as it loads the raw image. By definition RAW files contain all info including colors. This allows you to convert it to B&W with your own preferences in LR.

If you really want the exact B&W results from the Q2 then you need to use the JPEG file.

Wonder if there are profiles or presets available that come close to the in-camera B&W. Whatever that "Embedded B&W" profile is that LR shows - it is not the same as the OOC JPEG.

[jaapv]

Much better to convert the DNG than to use the camera presets. The camera lacks the processing power to do really good B&W. 

[clasami]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Much better to convert the DNG than to use the camera presets. The camera lacks the processing power to do really good B&W. 

Can you expand on that or provide a link? Why would it be so hard for the camera to return a good B&W?

[jaapv]

Because the CPU of a camera and internal memory of a camera is quite limited compared to a computer. It can only run  a limited standard recipe created to  the taste of some programmer. In converting and postprocessing a DNG you have the full range of tools that your postprocessing programs provide resulting in considerably better results (provided one knows what one is doing!) That goes for colour images as well, maybe even more so. OOC jpgs can be nice (especially with other brands than Leica) but will never reach the level that an expert photographer will achieve on a DNG. 

[clasami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Minute schrieb jaapv:

Because the CPU of a camera and internal memory of a camera is quite limited compared to a computer. It can only run  a limited standard recipe created to  the taste of some programmer. In converting and postprocessing a DNG you have the full range of tools that your postprocessing programs provide resulting in considerably better results ( provided one knows what one is doing! ) 

Sure, a camera is no Pixel 8 Pro. But; I happen to like what those programmers chose for B&W - which is why I would like to use that as a starting point. Anyhow, there are a great number of B&W presets in LR and some are as good as the camera B&W profile. But it is still interesting that what Lightroom calls "embedded" profile doens't match the OOC JPEG.

[jaapv]

Even if you use the jpg as a starting point. More than half the data that the camera has gathered have already been lost so it is very hard to postprocess compared to a DNG. If you like the jpg, use as-is or use it as an example, but there is not much that you can do with it any more without losing quality. Of course it looks different on LR. The algorithms are different from the camera ones. I never use presets. I prefer my own creativity. 

[newtoleica]

Good B&W as opposed to passable B&W requires quite a lot of work beyond just converting to mono. You can do this in LR but the Silver Effects pro plug in will give a better result with some images.

- correct tones globally - possibly using a film emulation tone/colour curve

- add any colour filter effects

- add micro contrast 

- adjust black point

- local adjustments (like darkroom printing) photoshop layers or SE

- add film grain emulation

[jaapv]

Matter of taste. I prefer these operations in Photoshop. Having said that, Leica did bundle Silver Efex with the M9M. 

[ianforber]

I have occasionally used the camera jpeg rather than processing the DNG image. I tried but couldn’t get a look I was happy with and the jpeg was better. 
 

That said, I use DNG and Silver FX for most of my b&w. 

[clasami]

vor 1 Minute schrieb newtoleica:

Good B&W as opposed to passable B&W requires quite a lot of work beyond just converting to mono. You can do this in LR but the Silver Effects pro plug in will give a better result with some images.

- correct tones globally - possibly using a film emulation tone/colour curve

- add any colour filter effects

- add micro contrast 

- adjust black point

- local adjustments (like darkroom printing) photoshop layers or SE

- add film grain emulation

Almost forgot about Silver Effects 😮 Will give that a try. Used to have the Q2 Mono but sold it because the Q2 is more versataile.

[Anakronox]

Why don’t you make your own preset for LR?  Edit a few raws to get as close to the mono jpg as possible, then average those settings.  Turn around and put them into a preset.  One click after import and done. 

[clasami]

vor 54 Minuten schrieb Anakronox:

Why don’t you make your own preset for LR?  Edit a few raws to get as close to the mono jpg as possible, then average those settings.  Turn around and put them into a preset.  One click after import and done. 

Sure, my own or one of the many presets that come with LR. But I was interested in the Q2 OOC look. Seems there is no way other than using JPEG (which I won't).

[dpitt]

Why stick to only one B&W look?
That sounds to me like always using only one type of B&W film in a film camera.

In C1P, I use a standard 'hard' contrast style and a soft contrast style to quickly test my DNG conversion to B&W. Then I work from that to tweak it to my liking.
Sometimes I shoot DNG + JPEG with B&W JPEG and use the JPEG for culling the best shots. Then I start over from the original DNG to tweak the most out of it.
In rare occasions the JPEG OOC is as good as it gets. Most of the time I like the tweaked DNG conversion better.

[clasami]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb dpitt:

Why stick to only one B&W look?
That sounds to me like always using only one type of B&W film in a film camera.

In C1P, I use a standard 'hard' contrast style and a soft contrast style to quickly test my DNG conversion to B&W. Then I work from that to tweak it to my liking.
Sometimes I shoot DNG + JPEG with B&W JPEG and use the JPEG for culling the best shots. Then I start over from the original DNG to tweak the most out of it.
In rare occasions the JPEG OOC is as good as it gets. Most of the time I like the tweaked DNG conversion better.

Well, I work from a starting point to my liking - and I like the look of the OOC B&W as starting point. But the "embbeded" profile in LR doesn't match that look perfectly. Not a big issue.

Edited January 4, 2024 by clasami

[dpitt]

Technically we can not look at a RAW file (DNG or other extensions with other brands). Any software that shows or manipulates DNG files will calculate a JPEG before showing it to you. Even your camera will do so before showing it on the backscreen. The camera embeds a JPEG as shot with the settings of your camera at the time of shooting in the original DNG file.

When LR opens the DNG it will probably use the embedded JPEG first to show you the preview of your file. Then it starts doing its own processing of the DNG and makes its own preview in the background. That is why you might see the DNG file in B&W at first and then it turns to color automatically. Each program will do so in its own way because every software has its own IP protected way of doing so.

Capture One Pro will do it similar but different. It has a culling window that is intended to quickly pick your best shots, even before importing them into C1P. I found that it will not change the DNG files to color in that window. Only after importing, it will convert all DNG previews to color, unless you process them in C1P to B&W. The whole purpose of RAW files is to start from the most basic camera data possible, so that every change you make can be calculated with the maximum precision and in effect, each PP software will only store the exact steps you used to alter the DNG file. Each time you reposition a slider it will re-calculate the whole image from scratch. This is a very complex process (programmatically) because even the order in which you do the changes will slightly affect the end result. As a software engineer, I can relate 🙂.

When you are finished editing, the final step should be to export all your results to a set of files in full resolution. High quality JPG files in full resolution will do and can serve as an archive. TIFF files will be better if you intend to ever tweak the files again.

LR gets some basic info that is embedded in the RAW file about each specific camera, and it will sometimes develop extra camera profiles to refine the results. But because there is not a 'one and only' way of doing things every PP software, or even every future version of LR will get different results. Most PP software will keep compatibility with older processing engines as they are called. But this compatibility is usually broken the moment you start editing these files again, then it is first converted to the new engine and processed accordingly.
This poses major issues if you want to convert catalogs from LR to C1P for example. They can not even export/import exact crops and that looks like one of the most simple things to do.
So when I refused to go into the subscription program of LR and moved to a 'perpetual' version of C1P, I exported all my files to JPG in LR, to have at least that. And when I want to print things or use old files in any other way, I often go back to the original DNG and start over in C1P.

From now on, I make sure that I keep a simple file archive with all my finished results and with all my original DNG files outside of any PP program. Photo memories last for a lifetime and software does not last for even a fraction of that. Before you know it your PP could change or be incompatible with your new computer or new OS and then you are stuck. When you stay with Adobe this will probably not happen very soon, but nothing lasts for ever.
In software, 10 years is like for ever.... 🤔 Most of the installers i bought 10 or more years ago can not even run on my current Mac OS.

 

[thighslapper]

18 hours ago, clasami said:

Sure, a camera is no Pixel 8 Pro. But; I happen to like what those programmers chose for B&W - which is why I would like to use that as a starting point. Anyhow, there are a great number of B&W presets in LR and some are as good as the camera B&W profile. But it is still interesting that what Lightroom calls "embedded" profile doens't match the OOC JPEG.

You can create and save your own B&W reset/profile in LR and apply it to everything on import if you want. Just a matter of some basic work to emulate Leica OOC jpg's. 

As no 'one size fits all' when it comes to processing I use Silver Efex after some basic adjustments ..... I have approx 200 presets (*) that I just scroll through till I find one that suits and take it from there. 

(*) hoovered up from the web over the last 10+ yrs..... 

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by thighslapper

[clasami]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb thighslapper:

You can create and save your own B&W profile in LR and apply it to everything on import if you want. Just a matter of some basic work to emulate Leica OOC jpg's. 

As no 'one size fits all' when it comes to processing I use Silver Efex after some basic adjustments ..... I have approx 200 presets (*) that I just scroll through till I find one that suits and take it from there. 

(*) hoovered up from the web over the last 10+ yrs..... 

 

I know all that. Was hoping for someone to point me to a profile or preset that matches the OOC profile. But there seems not to be anything like that out there.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q