PDA

View Full Version : A Comparison: Color, 20D B&W, Processed B&W


Scottes
6th of November 2004 (Sat), 17:03
A recent topic, B&W: Camera vs Post Processing (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47069), talked about comparing the 20D's Black & White mode to a processed B&W. I gave it a shot, just to see.

Since I've never ever ever "thought" in B&W before this was a stretch for me.

Here's the 20D's B&W mode image, from Large Fine JPG. Very little was done to this, with the thought being that B&W mode would be used if one was in a rush. This image got Level'd because it looked a bit underexposed, and a small amount of Curves was done.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/IronWorks_54177.jpg


This is the processed image. It was taken in RAW and converted in PS CS. It was a straight convert - I didn't change anything from the defaults. Strangely, even though this image had the exact same settings as the B&W, exposure looked correct.

Once converted I pulled the full gamut of processing. Some Shadows & Highlights, Levels, and Curves. I then proceeded to convert to B&W using this (http://www.adobe.com/tips/phs8colorbw/main.html) tutorial on Adobe's site, done by Russell Brown. This was not an extensive conversion since, as I said, I don't think in B&W. I moved sliders around, and got *some* idea of what I was doing after a couple minutes. I then proceeded to muck with the Hue & Saturation of the Blues to bring out the sky, and tried mucking with the Greens to change the grass. (The grass didn't change much.) I got it to a decent point, and then played for a bit without improvement so I called it Done.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/IronWorks_54176bw.jpg


Personally, I think that the sky alone was worth the extra effort of processing to B&W. I think the trees in the background look a little better in the processed version, but could still use some improvement. I think the wood in the processed version looks a little better but not by much. I'd still do a processed version if I ever did this again.

But I'd really like to see a comparsion done by someone who knows what they're doing, and using an image more appropriate to B&W. The B&W of this version doesn't do much for me.


For the curious, here's a fully processed color version which was used to create the second image. I like the color version a lot better - but I'm just not a B&W kind of guy. (Yet?)

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/IronWorks_54176.jpg

drisley
6th of November 2004 (Sat), 18:47
Very nice. Yes the sky is nicer in the second image.
However, I wonder what result you could have got using one of the 20D's b&w filters?

PacAce
6th of November 2004 (Sat), 21:16
And just for comparison purposes, here's the image shot with a Red filter (simulated by just using the Red channel of the color picture above).

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/IronWorks_54176_R1.jpg

timmyquest
6th of November 2004 (Sat), 21:24
Ya know to be honest with you the B&W photos from the 20D that i have sen are fantastic.

However, now that i have learned how to have so much control over my B&W's thorugh PS. I dont think that i'd ever use it.

That said, again...canon did a nice job here with this.

DeeplyDigital
7th of November 2004 (Sun), 08:51
The home spun BW images are definitely better.

A quick example

camera bw small jpeg
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/camerabw.jpg

homemade bw on the quick (from raw)
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/julbw.jpg

a different version
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/julbw2.jpg

original
http://www.celticviews.com/deeplydigital/raw.jpg

Sometimes I know what I am doing. Can't see well enough today though..

J.
-