A recent topic, B&W: Camera vs Post Processing, 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.
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
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?)






