Color Photo's converted to B&W vs B&W

[Kent Hilburn]

This maybe a stupid question, but I was wondering about B&W photos.  Assuming no filters would be used, is there any difference in quality when shooting in B&W mode (monochrome) vs shooting it in color and converting it to B&W in PS when creating B&W photos?   Would there ever be in reason to do one way over the other?  Again, no filters.  I have a Canon 40D.

[Nill Toulme]

Yes there's a difference, although in either case the image is basically first made in color and then converted to B&W.  B&W mode on your camera just does it for you before it creates the jpg.  If you shoot in RAW + jpg, you'll have both the full color info in the RAW file, and an instant B&W in the jpg.

The thing is, there are many different ways to convert to B&W.  The way your camera does it is just one of those ways.  It might suit you fine for any given image (and in fact I think it does a very nice job), but it's nice to have the flexibility to do it yourself, to suit the image and the effect you're trying to create — not to mention the additional flexibility of having the color version as well.






Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Kent Hilburn]

Yes there's a difference, although in either case the image is basically first made in color and then converted to B&W.  B&W mode on your camera just does it for you before it creates the jpg.  If you shoot in RAW + jpg, you'll have both the full color info in the RAW file, and an instant B&W in the jpg.

The thing is, there are many different ways to convert to B&W.  The way your camera does it is just one of those ways.  It might suit you fine for any given image (and in fact I think it does a very nice job), but it's nice to have the flexibility to do it yourself, to suit the image and the effect you're trying to create — not to mention the additional flexibility of having the color version as well.




Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the reply.  I'm looking at the two pictures.  Can you explain which one is which?  The second one looks a little darker and the bench is a little sharper.

[Nill Toulme]

They're just sort of random examples of how you can take the same color shot and produce very different B&W results using different approaches.  I don't remember how I did these... it's probably something as simple as applying a green filter to one and a red filter to the other, or something like that, in PS's B&W processing module.  Note that her face, hair, gloves, shorts, and socks are more or less the same tones in both, but in one her jersey is light and the background dark, in the other the jersey is dark and the background relatively light.  They look like they could have been taken on different days or in different places, but of course they're the exact same shot.

And I have no idea whatsoever how an in-camera-processed B&W jpg would compare to these.  It would probably be yet another result entirely.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[wolfnowl]

As Nill said, there's no way your camera can compete with using Photoshop or Lightroom for producing B&W images.  If you shoot RAW and want an idea of what the B&W can be 'in camera' so to speak, then by all means shoot RAW+JPG but I would never use just the camera's interpretation.  YMMV.

Mike.

[DarkPenguin]

No need to bother with JPG.  If you just shoot in RAW you'll see the B+W conversion on the camera's LCD.  If you want that conversion later on just use the software that came with the camera to do the conversion.  It will honor the B+W settings.

[Nill Toulme]

You can also extract the B&W jpg, if you care to, from the RAW file itself, using BreezeBrowser Pro.  (Strangely, there's no way to do that using Canon's own software.)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[KeithR]

Thanks for the reply.  I'm looking at the two pictures.  Can you explain which one is which?  The second one looks a little darker and the bench is a little sharper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Didn't you notice the grass and the jersey are VERY different. This is the power that Photoshop can give you. The ability to alter tones after the fact and have more creative and experimentation freedom.

[Kent Hilburn]

Thanks everyone.  I realize PS can really make a difference with photos.   I probably didn't ask the question right.  Let me restate.  Monochrome setting with the camera vs PS conversion to B&W with nothing else done.   Just taking a color photo and clicking a button or dragging a bar to make it B&W in PS.  Would there be in difference in quality?  Maybe it doesn't work that way.  I'm a rookie.

[DarkPenguin]

Provided the conversions were done the same way, no.

[KeithR]

Thanks everyone.  I realize PS can really make a difference with photos.   I probably didn't ask the question right.  Let me restate.  Monochrome setting with the camera vs PS conversion to B&W with nothing else done.   Just taking a color photo and clicking a button or dragging a bar to make it B&W in PS.  Would there be in difference in quality?  Maybe it doesn't work that way.  I'm a rookie.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would check your camera's manual. Nikon's B&W in camera conversion is jpeg only, and therefore 8 bit. Shooting raw you deal with 12/14-16 bit and have more info to work with(less banding, smoother tone gradations). I would much rather shoot raw and have the option in LR/PS to decide whether it would work better in color or B&W.

[Kent Hilburn]

Thanks again.  I'll check.