B&W: Camera vs Post Processing

[photofinish]

Ok, you guys, since my 20D can soot B&W, is it better for me to let the camera shoot in b&w, or should I shoot color and follow the many great tutorials here on post processing b&w? Or maybe it just doesn't matter?

My goal is to get the best, multi-dimensioned-looking print I can get.

[DReb-MO]

Why not just try both yourself and see what is "best" to your eye. How much time could that take? Less then waiting for opinions here, I bet.

[Paperotti]

Post processing certainly gives you more flexibility.

The main point is that by taking a colour picture and subsequently using a channel mixer (Photoshop) you can choose the relative amounts of red, green and blue that go into your final BW image.
For instance you can elect to use only the red channel for converting to BW and throw away green and blue (as for the reasons for doing so, I expect you will find them in the tutorials you wrote about.)
Note that this will not result in a black-and-red picture: the channel mixer first controls colour channels to your will, then goes BW.

If you take the picture with your camera set in BW mode, the only way to get these effects is by putting a coloured filter in front of your lens, but then again: you put on the filter, take the picture, see the result, and if you don't like it maybe you can try another colour. In postproduction you have three sliders and a preview checkbox set. And you can even change your mind: you re-open the original file and do things all over again.

Hope this helps.

[aam1234]

Thanks Paperotti for the help. While I don't have the 20D I was very interested about that question (went to the shop to buy it but they didn't have it then).

Thanks again for the help.

[Scottes]

If you're lazy, or just don't want the bother of processing to B&W then use the in-camera method.

But as Paperotti said, post processing gives the most flexibility AND you still have a color version.


I am kinda curious if the camera improves anything, like dynamic range or something. I kinda doubt it, but I'm curious. I may have to play with this on Saturday, though I can't "think" in black and white so I'm not sure what I'll get. :)

[Vegas Poboy]

I agree with Scottes, I recently had to do an assignment in B&W. So I shot it in B&W RAW and to me it's better converting in PS.

[dhbailey]

I'm confused about the B&W RAW -- I thought that I had read that the 20D RAW files were always in color, even if you shoot in B&W. I thought I read that if you save in jpg only, the file is permanently B&W but if you saved in RAW it stayed color. I just checked my 20D's manual and the only remark in it about this is that if shooting B&W and saving only as jpg, there is no way to convert it to color using any computer software.

[Vegas Poboy]

I'm confused about the B&W RAW -- I thought that I had read that the 20D RAW files were always in color, even if you shoot in B&W. I thought I read that if you save in jpg only, the file is permanently B&W but if you saved in RAW it stayed color. I just checked my 20D's manual and the only remark in it about this is that if shooting B&W and saving only as jpg, there is no way to convert it to color using any computer software.

From what I've experienced yes the RAW file was in color we was trying different modes out and to what kind of effects photos would have with the 20D. The assignment was white edge glass & black edge glass, the only color around was some color cast from the Tungsten light. The Jpeg file was in B&W with no color cast the RAW file had some color to it. We also added red soda to one of the glasses and again the RAW file had some color to not as much as would thought but it was there. The jpeg was true B&W. Overall it will work for the average eye but I do prefer using PS channels to convert.

Hopefully I explains my prior post :D

[Paperotti]

BW and Raw together... hmm 8) ... that's interesting...

From my experience with my G3 I understand it this way:
the camera saves all the original (raw) information (thus retaining colour) plus a separate thumbnail file in jpeg format for previewing on the LCD.
While the thumbnail is immediately processed with the filter and WB you chose to apply, the raw file is only tagged with information about your choice, so that any raw-processing software can subsequently apply it.
But: by then you can just strip away those tags (any such software can do it,) keep all the colour information, and do the conversion to BW in PS, as said before.

This way you have both the flexibility of postprocessing and a BW preview on your LCD :) ...

[photofinish]

As usual, you guys are great! :D My take away is that if I need something quick, B&W jpg will work ok. But, if I want something more creative, I'll use some of the many great tutorials here for the post processing.

One other question I did have, though, is what is the story with duotones, tritones, and quadratones? Are these only printing related? I just have an epson 785epx. I guess I have to use a lab. :cry:

[Scottes]

You can fake that stuff easy enough Jerry. A google on "photoshop duotones" will show tutorials and stuff I'm sure. The results may not be good enough for a purist, but will please almost everyone else.