Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?  (Read 5728 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17380
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2017, 03:33:12 PM »

Andy Pandy, adjusting one's composition based on a B&W image dsplayed in the viewfinder is not to "admit difficulties" on my behalf or any other B&W photographer's. That's just you being your aggressive self, isn't it? What I wrote to Rob was not controversial, and it's sad that yet again you have derailed a thread. Can you not get help?


Well, fwiw, Rob doesn't feel "controverted" - just surprised that some apparently feel a normal camera and viewfinder limits them. If anything, the idea of a snap, for me, always comes before I lift the camera to my face. A screen in b/white would be an unwelcome intrusion into my real-life view of my subject; to make or not make the shot has already been decided. The next step is shape.

I'm willing to admit that this might, just might be because I have been doing it for so long, but I really don't think it boils down to things like the relative tonal contrast between planes, which seems to be the problem I deduce here from the conversation, because the nub of the thing isn't that: it's the sense of the drama, the potential within the scene that attracts my eye, not some technical imperative about relativity of tonality ratios etc. That's stuff for theory classes, not practical photography on the hoof.

If you are a fashion photographer shooting mid-toned frocks against mid-toned backgrounds in black/white you are going to have a problem, but that's not many folks' problem here, is it? The problem is usually content and the why of it. As it is for anyone without an assignment, me included.

Rob

Jeffrey Saldinger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
    • Jeffrey Saldinger
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2017, 05:17:59 PM »

...If I use a camera that produces color by default, I tend to make color photos since that’s what appears in my processing software when I load **RAW files...

With regard to producing color by default, most of my work is in black and white (“shot” in color, of course), although I do take some photos that I assume will stay in color.  Upon importing my images into Lightroom, I use a black and white preset for everything on the card, so their first “reality” to me (on the screen) is black and white.  The images that are intended to “stay” color just get reverted back to the color version.
Logged
Jeffrey
Astoria, New York
www.jeffreysaldinger.com

Jeffrey Saldinger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
    • Jeffrey Saldinger
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2017, 05:39:51 PM »

Slobodan (reply no. 13 above), I enjoyed your primes vs. zooms example, and the article in the link was moving and thought-provoking.  Thanks for your cordial reply.

In mentioning the Ansel Adams quote, I was thinking more about darkroom work than using filters in the field.  The fiddling with sliders and days at the computer seemed analogous to everything Adams did with his knowledge of photographic chemistry, dodging and burning, and masking (not to mention his knowledge of whatever I've left out here).
Logged
Jeffrey
Astoria, New York
www.jeffreysaldinger.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1738
    • Flicker photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2017, 06:04:17 PM »

If you optimally exposed for the
If you optimally exposed for the raw, that JPEG would look pretty awful no?


, that JPEG would look pretty awful no?


Well, you could bracket. But the point is that you could look at black white on the screen yet still have 3 Channel color picture to work with in post-processing.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12691
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2017, 06:13:29 PM »

, that JPEG would look pretty awful no?
Well, you could bracket.
Bracket for the raw and the JPEG so one of each is ideal, yes I suppose you can. Seems a major waste of space (and time) and bracketing in some situations is a very poor process (anything that moves, portraits etc) just to get a B&W on an LCD that for a few, supposedly aids in composition. But it appears we agree that shooting optimally for raw is going to produce one ugly JPEG in many if not most situations.
Quote
But the point is that you could look at black white on the screen yet still have 3 Channel color picture to work with in post-processing.
If you can make out that JPEG which might be 1.5-2X over exposed.

 
Update: Turkey is not raw but not to temp yet.  8)
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2671
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2017, 07:46:08 PM »

But it appears we agree that shooting optimally for raw is going to produce one ugly JPEG in many if not most situations.

IMO in late 2016 an “optimal” RAW has diminished relevance compared to where the state of things was in, say, 2004. I can’t remember the last time I gave a thought to ETTR-ing an exposure. At some point the value of doing so diminished to where I decided it was no longer worth the bother. So I expose for a good looking JPEG, which also gives me a RAW containing plenty o’ data to work with. One less thing to fuss over.

YMMV, which is to say I have zero interest in a “but technically I’m right!” kerfuffle.

-Dave-
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12691
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2017, 07:56:18 PM »

I was trained and continue to strive for optimal exposure for any media and optimized data. Under exposed raws don’t provid that. Newer cameras can’t break the law of physics: the amount of photons that make it to any sensor. That is the effect of exposure!
With respect to Michael and the term ETTR, today, the term should be EO: expose optimally: photography 101.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

DP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2017, 10:27:10 AM »

IMO in late 2016 an “optimal” RAW has diminished relevance compared to where the state of things was in, say, 2004.

And which tools exactly you were using in 2004 to "ETTR" the raw files ? even Gabor Schorr (RIP) did not write his Rawnalyze till couple+ years later
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1738
    • Flicker photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2017, 10:51:18 AM »

Bracket for the raw and the JPEG so one of each is ideal, yes I suppose you can. Seems a major waste of space (and time) and bracketing in some situations is a very poor process (anything that moves, portraits etc) just to get a B&W on an LCD that for a few, supposedly aids in composition. But it appears we agree that shooting optimally for raw is going to produce one ugly JPEG in many if not most situations. If you can make out that JPEG which might be 1.5-2X over exposed.

 
Update: Turkey is not raw but not to temp yet.  8)
For the DR range of most modern cameras, especially if you're capturing RAW in color, I don't see that as a problem.  In any case, if the lighting, content stinks, it won't matter at all.  If the lighting, content is good, it won't matter either. 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12691
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2017, 10:56:25 AM »

For the DR range of most modern cameras, especially if you're capturing RAW in color, I don't see that as a problem.  I
Look a tad harder please! For example, page 4 of this article written by a color scientist:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
A visual may assist is illustrating the DR of modern cameras have a long way to go:

Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1738
    • Flicker photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2017, 12:07:06 PM »

Look a tad harder please! For example, page 4 of this article written by a color scientist:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
A visual may assist is illustrating the DR of modern cameras have a long way to go:


You're assuming seeing what's in the shadows is important. No one really cares except technologists. 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12691
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #51 on: November 24, 2017, 01:24:13 PM »

You're assuming seeing what's in the shadows is important. No one really cares except technologists.
Damn straight and yeah, important. What you can’t capture you can’t control! Or reproduce. And I’ve illustrated that no, our cameras have a long way to go DR wise!
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1775
    • Some of my photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #52 on: November 24, 2017, 04:25:49 PM »

The Monochrome has two advantages:

  • Base ISO is higher because it does not have a colour filter array in front of the sensor
  • It does not interpolate missing colours, so the image will have better fine detail contrast


I think you'll find the second of these is not entirely the case: although the Bayer array requires interpolation of colour, it does not need to interpolate luminance. All 3 colour filters are sensitive to the amount of light, and so you get full resolution. To put it more technically, the Nyquist frequency for L is twice that for Chroma. To see it all spelt out in mathematics and star-cherts, see

http://www.strollswithmydog.com/bayer-cfa-effect-on-sharpness/

or to jump to the point:

Quote
A Bayer CFA raw file contains a full resolution grayscale image L because of the correlation between adjacent color pixels, which our earlier thought experiment ignored.

Of course if you photograph a scene lit entirely in red, pretty much only 1/4 of your cells will see any light and you will lose resolution. About the closest I'm gotten to that is photographing theatrical performances... and even then, there is still lots of light in the green channel at least.

But if you want the toy, go ahead. It's to make you happy, remember?

Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
    • The Last Word
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2017, 05:16:41 PM »

I think you'll find the second of these is not entirely the case: although the Bayer array requires interpolation of colour, it does not need to interpolate luminance. All 3 colour filters are sensitive to the amount of light, and so you get full resolution.

That's somewhat of a distortion of Jack's excellent post. If the chromaticity of the pixel is unknown, you can't calculate the luminance from a single pixel behind a CFA filter. You need R, G, and B to know the luminance, although you can get close with just R and G. (I'm ignoring the non-Lutherness of real cameras here).

The ability to calculate the luminance that Jack was talking about is dependent on the assumption that the chromaticities are slowly changing.

Here's Jack's conclusion: "In conclusion we have seen that the effect of a Bayer CFA on the spatial frequencies and hence the ‘sharpness’ captured by a sensor compared to those from a corresponding monochrome imager can go from nothing to halving the potentially unaliased range based on the chrominance content of the image projected on the sensing plane and the direction in which the spatial frequencies are being stressed."

Jim

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2017, 08:07:08 PM »

You're assuming seeing what's in the shadows is important. No one really cares except technologists.

If you need to set ISO to 800, you lift shadows 3 stops from ISO 100. So, yes, it is important.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1738
    • Flicker photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2017, 01:02:14 AM »

If you need to set ISO to 800, you lift shadows 3 stops from ISO 100. So, yes, it is important.
That's if you're interested to see what's in the shadows.  Most times it's unimportant.  People's eyes focus on the light not the dark. In many cases darker shadows are more aesthetically pleasing as it provides more contrast.  Some how, photography has survived with 5 or 7 stops of film DR against modern camera's 12 or 13 stops.  Certainly we can live with the shadows we can get with 13 stops without ETTR. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10305
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2017, 01:20:52 AM »

... In many cases darker shadows are more aesthetically pleasing as it provides more contrast...

During my visit to the Louvre, I was struck by two things: how large some paintings are and how dark, almost black, shadows are.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17380
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2017, 08:01:34 AM »

It was one - of many - attractions of Kodachrome, that you realised what was important to you and you judged your exposures accordingly.

I have encountered very few, if any, situations where I needed a huge DR; but then, I abandoned weddings at about the third dose of torture: I quit, making a life-changing vow to do nothing but whatever I wanted (more or less) to do.

It was one helluva hard pony to ride, but better get thrown off than stay with the donkeys all my days.

Just one take on life,  but I had to go with it.

Rob

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 735
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2017, 08:26:45 AM »

That's if you're interested to see what's in the shadows.  Most times it's unimportant.  People's eyes focus on the light not the dark. In many cases darker shadows are more aesthetically pleasing as it provides more contrast.  Some how, photography has survived with 5 or 7 stops of film DR against modern camera's 12 or 13 stops.  Certainly we can live with the shadows we can get with 13 stops without ETTR.
Are you saying you don't use ISO 800? Well, others do. And much higher than that, too.

No, you can't get 13 stops of quality linear data in one shot, because your lens limits it to 11 or less.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1738
    • Flicker photos
Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2017, 09:38:44 AM »

Are you saying you don't use ISO 800? Well, others do. And much higher than that, too.

No, you can't get 13 stops of quality linear data in one shot, because your lens limits it to 11 or less.
You missed my point.  I guess I wasn't clear.  Maybe someone else can explain. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up