How do you shoot B&W?

[ALT1MATE]

Shoot in monochrome or color with PP? I've heard of ppl shooting in color first so that they can adjust the RGB levels after they convert to grayscale.

What's the verdict here? I want to shoot portraits and architecture in B&W and basically "see" and compose in B&W. If I shoot in monochrome will I be missing out?

[20droger]

Shoot in raw and do your conversions in post-processing. That way, you maintain control instead of passing it to the camera's internal programming.

[DrPablo]

Shoot in color and then convert. There are a lot of methods for doing so. Converting to grayscale is not a good method.

Here is a tutorial of mine. You may need to register for the forum to see it, but it's free and it's pretty comprehensive.

http://www.lightcafe.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=332

[Tee Why]

FWIW, I shoot in RAW in neutral picture style and then convert to b/w in DPP.

[yogestee]

I shoot in colour then convert into mono using the channel mixer in Photoshop..

[Colorblinded]

If you shoot in RAW but set the camera to B&W you get a B&W image on the back but the RAW file still has full color information and you can always reprocess it in to a B&W any way you want from that. That way you can still see the scene in B&W if that helps you when the review image pops up, I know it helps some people.

[Persephone]

I use a P&S, so I just switch to that mode whenever i feel like it. Much longer before I thought the scene mode "copy" and black and white were the same thing, only to realize later that they were not.

[Karl C]

Another vote for RAW in color, then convert to B&W using a multitude of different methods.

Two things to remember:

1. Never, ever shoot B&W in-camera. Shooting color maximizes what the sensor records which will help during the conversion proceess.

2. I'll echo what the Doc said - don't use the Grayscale tool in PS. Use the Channel Mixer tool or install Virtual Photographer (free PS plug-in) or Nik Color Efex software (starts at $60).

Personally speaking, I have more fun shooting subjects that I visualize B&W and will convert in PP.

Good luck and have fun!

[DrPablo]

One additional comment -- if you're playing it simple, and you have a choice between either "Convert to Grayscale" versus "Desaturate", PLEASE use "Convert to Grayscale" instead. In the tutorial I link I mention the reason why. But briefly the desaturate tool discards all color information and does a pure conversion to luminosity. The conversion to grayscale will actually weight the conversion in a way that grossly reflects the wavelength responsiveness in B&W film and in our eyes, so it will look better.

That said, the channel mixer is probably the easiest and best if you want a simple tool that gets the job done.

[kevin_c]

"How do you shoot B&W?"

With a roll of Ilford FP4 or Delta 400 usually... ;)


If you insist on doing it with digital (:)), do your conversion in post-processing. If you use Photoshop there are a few pretty good plugins and actions that do a good job. A straight greyscale or desaturate rarely looks any good in my experience.

[Wilt]

All the replies have dealt primarily with the technical capture and conversion. Let me dwell for a moment on the CREATIVE side of the capture...when you shoot a photo, it is very important to mentally visualize the end result. I find that SEEING & THINKING in B&W is quite different than seeing and think in Color, so that your photos will compositionally and tonally turn out better if you visualize the end result! Do not simply look at a color scene and shoot it, then convert it from color to b&w...as you will probably not create as captivating an image if you only see in color (and not see in B&W) and convert in PP.

[Karl C]

^Learning the Zone System would help with visualizing in B&W. Although, the Zone is not something mastered quickly.

[rdenney]

All the replies have dealt primarily with the technical capture and conversion. Let me dwell for a moment on the CREATIVE side of the capture...when you shoot a photo, it is very important to mentally visualize the end result. I find that SEEING & THINKING in B&W is quite different than seeing and think in Color, so that your photos will compositionally and tonally turn out better if you visualize the end result! Do not simply look at a color scene and shoot it, then covert it to color...as you will probably not create as captivating an image if you only see in color and convert in PP.

This is a great point.

The purpose of filtering in B&W was to control contrast, and also to control the impact of the image. Ansel Adams gave us a stunning example of this with his 1927 image of the Half-Dome in Yosemite.

He explained that he'd made an image using the conventional yellow filter, which would darken the sky. But then, as he looked at the scene, he realized a gray rocks against a gray sky would not convey the stunning contrast of the blackish rocks with a white rim of snow against the brilliant blue sky. So, he made another image with a deep red filter. This caused the sky to go nearly black, the snow to remain very bright, and the sunlit portions of the black rocks to become much brighter. In the end, he visualized an image with a dark sky and bright highlights on the rocks to convey the crispness and emotional power of the scene. A color image would necessarily reverse those values.

http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/posters/15440104.jpg

(In another Adams example, he made a photo of a wrought-iron and wood cross on a grave marker at one of the churches on the high road between Santa Fe and Taos. It's in his Southwest book. Some years ago (but decades after he was there), I made a color photo of the same grave marker, in similar light. His image showed a brightly highlighted cross against a dark sky. Mine showed the dark wrought iron and weathered wood against a bright blue sky. Though his image looked realistic, the use of black and white had allowed him to reverse the tonal values in a completely unrealistic way.)

The question is, when do you do those visualizations? Yes, those with ultimate skill do them in the field. But we can cheat. By making the image in color, we can apply the filtration after the fact, and experiment with different options. I do so using the Channel Mixer, as others have recommended.

It's all a matter of filtering to change the tonal relationships of the scene to something you want. Using the camera in B&W mode, or just converting an RGB image to monochrome, is like using no filter. It may match your visualization, but if it doesn't, there's nothing you can do about it.

In color, this image was a flat monochromatic green. But I applied the equivalent of a yellow-green filter in the Channel Mixer, which allowed the skylit green details to become highlights, while the shaded green elements to stay lower on the zonal scale. It's not that great an image, but the conversion to B&W kept it from being a complete waste of film.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aspens_bw_lores.jpg

Rick "admitting that this is a scan of color negative film" Denney

[Karl C]

In color, this image was a flat monochromatic green. But I applied the equivalent of a yellow-green filter in the Channel Mixer, which allowed the skylit green details to become highlights, while the shaded green elements to stay lower on the zonal scale. It's not that great an image, but the conversion to B&W kept it from being a complete waste of film.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aspens_bw_lores.jpg

Rick "admitting that this is a scan of color negative film" Denney

What type color film?

[rdenney]

What type color film?

Fuji Reala, in 120 roll film, using a Kiev 60 camera with a Hartblei 45mm wide-angle shift lens.

In the earlier days of scanning, negative film was a better choice. The scanners had a limited range of densities they could scan, and negative film crams a wider range of scene values into a narrower range of negative density. Slide film, because it is intended to be viewed directly, takes a narrow range of scene values and spreads them into a wider range of densities. Those earlier scanners could not capture the whole density range of slides. I think I scanned this negative on a cheapie flatbed Acer scanner (which I still use for large-format stuff). I'm back to using Velvia for film work, though, because my Nikon medium-format film scanner has enough range to capture it reasonably well.

Rick "who scanned this negative seven years ago" Denney