B & W with 40 D

tonylong wrote in post #4168221
Since I don't normally (actually, rarely) shoot for or process for B&W or grayscale, I can give no definitive response, and so I shan't, and I will not engage in a "let me have it" debate.

If you want to debate issues such as Depth-Of-Field, I may well have a different response!

With all due respect,

Tony

Fair enough. I don't claim to be an expert, so as much as anything I'm hoping to learn where my thinking is wrong.

I meant my "challenge" to be light-hearted, hoping to encourage people not to hold back for fear of making me seem stupid.

xarqi wrote in post #4168266
Fair enough. I don't claim to be an expert, so as much as anything I'm hoping to learn where my thinking is wrong.

I meant my "challenge" to be light-hearted, hoping to encourage people not to hold back for fear of making me seem stupid.

Heh! I do a lot of that myself!

But sometimes it's fun to bring out the fire-breathers!

Tony

I think you should take a look at the manual pg 62
The image cannot be reverted back to color except for RAW and SRAW imgaes. If you want color JPEG images. When using Mono select b/w will appear in the viewfinder.

Believe me I am not an expert, I'm just playing with the camera and since I found the B/W option is like carrying 2 cameras in one body.

I usually shoot LRAW with the exception on some shots that I am not too interested but wante to capture it anyways.

ione wrote in post #4168306
I think you should take a look at the manual pg 62

Unfortunately, I don't have access to one - might be a PDF online, I guess.

True - the jpegs produced in monochrome mode are B+W. The RAW/sRAW files are colour - never B+W. What you see on the LCD or on opening the RAW in DPP, for example, is the colour data presented as if it had been processed according to the picture style at the time of shooting. The RAW file didn't change, and usually never changes, only the way it is displayed.

Do you mean that the viewfinder displays "B/W" - I guess it could on the 40D - useful to know the picture style setting I guess. I simply can't imagine how what you see through the viewfinder could be monochrome though - it is a view of the image projected on the viewfinder screen by the camera lens, and that will be in colour. On the LCD, you'll see B+W, since what you see there is a processed jpeg, even if you are shooting RAW. That's probably true for LiveView too - don't know. RAW/sRAW is always colour.

I'm no expert either - just trying to find out what's what. It is like having 2 cameras as long as you are talking about jpegs. The RAW file in the same no matter what picture style you select; although information about the style is also stored, as is a jpeg preview (which could even be monochrome), and that can affect the way the colour data is displayed, including doing so in monochrome when the RAW file is opened.

Me too. That means I have full flexibility, including doing a B+W conversion in photoshop using the channel mixer.

On reading this, I get the sense that I'm coming across as a bit arrogant and heavy-handed - sorry about that - it's the limitation of words on a screen. It's all good.

Shooting Monochrome in-camera & RAW is no different than shooting RAW with any other Picture Style and choosing the Monochrome drop-down in DPP.

I have done it a time or two, mainly just to see if BnW works for the scene I'm looking at. 99% of the time I convert in PS.

xarqi wrote in post #4168668
.

The RAW/sRAW files are colour - never B+W. What you see on the LCD or on opening the RAW in DPP, for example, is the colour data presented as if it had been processed according to the picture style at the time of shooting. The RAW file didn't change, and usually never changes, only the way it is displayed.

RAW/sRAW is always colour.

RAW files are not color images. They record only the digitalized intensity of light at each photo-site (pixel), not color data which is only created by demosaicing interpolation at the conversion stage. Since the RAW portrays brightness data it could be called a grey-scale image, but, in fact, since each pixel sees only the portion of the light passed to it by the filter in front of it, it might be called a red-scale image interlaced with a green-scale image interlaced with a blue scale image. However, even though the RAW is mono-toned it would not be suitable as a b/w image without undergoing some of the same processes that are needed to create a color image. First, the sensor is much more sensitive to green than to red or blue. (It would, in fact be most sensitive to the red end of the spectrum except that the anti-IR filter attenuates red transmission also.) That means that the red and blue channels must be multiplied in order to "level the playing ground". Actually, they are at the same time mutiplied a bit more in order to do white balancing if a color image is being created. If it is a b/w that is being made the mutipliers can be manipulated to produce the "filter effects". Second, in order to correct for the linearity of the sensor data, a tone curve must be applied. Obviously, the most important step in creating a color image, the demosaicing which makes each pixel tri-channeled instead of single channeled, is omitted if the output is a b/w.

So, in short, you can either use the RAW data as the input for creating a color image or use it for making a b/w image. Either way you are creating an entirely new file that did not exist before. Many times a RAW has been compared to a raw egg and the jpg, tif or whatever to a cooked egg - scrampled, fried,etc. But the RAW converter never breaks the egg. It analyzes the chemical makeup of the egg and uses that info to synthesize a plate of sunny-side-ups.

xarqi wrote in post #4168189
There are couple of points here that puzzle me (what's new with that ).
I'll state them assertively, and see who shouts at me.

1. B/W RAW - no such thing. All RAW is almost by definition RGGB.
2. Any Picture styles (monochrome, for example) affect only the jpeg file and the RAW preview.
3. There is nothing that can be done with coloured filters to create a B+W jpeg that cannot be done with more flexibility in post-processing a RAW.
4. The channel mixer tool is the best way to produce B+W from RAW.

OK - let me have it!

You're right on with all of your points.

The point of what I was saying is that when I am shooting B&W, I want to take away all of that flexibility. I'll still convert the odd image to B&W from RAW, but when I am shooting purely for B&W I like to make it a bit harder for myself.

Not argueing... Agreeing in a round about way.

Ellie

Your explannation is right on target, but I think is fun playing with it. Like Brad I am starting doing the same shooing w/o any filter then I go at it and use all filters and see the reaction I get. Albeit you don't see through the viewfinder hot the shot is going to look using filters, but at least you can see the image in B&W on the 40 D


Tony

I have a PDF copy of the 40 D Manual, but not sure how I could load it up here. Let me know if I can send it to you directly.

tzalman wrote in post #4168893
RAW files are not color images. They record only the digitalized intensity of light at each photo-site (pixel), not color data which is only created by demosaicing interpolation at the conversion stage. Since the RAW portrays brightness data it could be called a grey-scale image, but, in fact, since each pixel sees only the portion of the light passed to it by the filter in front of it, it might be called a red-scale image interlaced with a green-scale image interlaced with a blue scale image.
[Snip]
It analyzes the chemical makeup of the egg and uses that info to synthesize a plate of sunny-side-ups.

Thanks for that clarification. It was sloppy writing on my part I think. RAW is colour, in the sense that it contains the colour information, recorded as the intensities of the RGGB sensors before demosaicing - but you are right - it is only data - not an image. The same could be said of a jpeg too

Hmmm - I wonder if you could create a data file that when interpreted as a jpeg gives an image of Beethoven, but when interpreted as an MP3 plays the 9th Symphony. That'd be cool.