Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Black & White => Topic started by: Deardorff on November 22, 2017, 10:30:08 am

Title: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Deardorff on November 22, 2017, 10:30:08 am
Leica has a Monochrome camera. No color information, from what I understand.

I have been told that doing B&W this way gives a higher quality image file for B&W.

Is this correct?

Is there an actual advantage to a fully monochrome sensor? If so, does it react to filtration as film does? So I can actually choose a wratten 23/25/29 and similar rather than rely on nebulous sliders in post processing programs?

Sure would like to see a Fuji X-Pro2M (monochrome) as I sure can't afford the Leica gear.

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jeffrey Saldinger on November 22, 2017, 10:45:28 am
Other respondents will be able to describe the advantages better than I can (and there are some (many?) for some kinds of work), but for me the decisive disadvantage is the loss of individual color channels to work with in Lightroom or Photoshop.

Many if not most of the plusses and minuses will depend on the kind of work one wants to do and the image attributes one considers the most important.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: paulster on November 22, 2017, 01:10:03 pm
I have been told that doing B&W this way gives a higher quality image file for B&W.

Is this correct?
Nearly all colour sensors are Bayer arrays, organised so that you have pixels of red, green, a second green, and blue in 2x2 arrays.  The de-mosaicing algorithm in the raw converter interpolates adjacent blocks to present you with 4 RGB values, but your actual RGB sensor resolution is really 1/4 of the overall number of megapixels for the sensor.

In the case of the monochrome sensors, each 2x2 array can actually produce 4 discrete monochrome pixels, with no need for de-mosaicing or interpolation.

So you have the potential for sharper images because there is no interpolation taking place.

The downside is you can't mix colour channels to simulate the choice of filters (e.g. red, yellow) in post, and have to do this the old-school way with physical filters on the camera.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2017, 02:25:06 pm
Funny thing - only filters I ever used on my lenses were of three sorts: a permanent haze filter to save the front lens element during outdoor work; a polariser for colour transparencies - in specific circumstances; an amber Nikon filter to save colours on rainy days, which seldom convinced me one iota. As for yellow, green etc. with black/white film - never. It never felt necessary.

Today, converting my Nikon raw files to Photoshop-friendly Tiffs, the ability to convert to black/white and try out the equivalent filtration changes possible and see what actually gives, is amazing. And, amazing as that might be, it is almost never particularly useful until the moment it becomes essential. Why would I choose to lose that rare choice?

Relative sharpness? Well, in a tripod-bound world this may make real sense. In my world, it does not.

I would like a mono camera as a gift, but not at the expense of the colour advantages my normal digital cameras give me. And yes, most of my photography today is converted into black and white.

Rob C
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2017, 02:55:27 pm
There is a 34-page thread here, on LuLa, where most of the contribution has come from our member Allen Bourgeois. Check it out.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=72404.0

It seems to me that I am in the minority that understands that less is more. It isn't about sharpness, or Bayer, or filtering, or whatever. It is about deliberately reducing options when someone understands why less is more. The abundance of choice can often be crippling. It is about eliminating one more variable that does not matter so that one can concentrate on the one that matters. It is seeing the world monochromatically, shooting in the moment, and eliminating the endless fiddling with sliders and sitting in front of the computer for days.

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: RobMacKillop on November 22, 2017, 03:01:43 pm
I like your thinking, Slobodan. I knew as soon as Leica brought it out, that I would want one. Unfortunately I can't afford it yet - though I notice the second-hand prices are dropping.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on November 22, 2017, 03:33:53 pm
The monochrom(e) camera I’m waiting for has a built-in EVF that lets me see b&w as I’m framing. I know you can do this with the latest Leica Mono and the clip-on EVF, but IMO it’s kinda awkward in operation.

With b&w film I like to use a mild yellow or orange filter to darken skies a little. The Monochroms have a built-in dip in their response to wavelengths we interpret as cyan/blue that gives a similar effect.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2017, 03:48:50 pm
Shooting BW film or a BW only digital camera eliminates the post shooting worry if the picture looks better in color or BW.  It forces you to concentrate on BW. Shapes, contrast, content, etc. and not get swayed by the opium of color when you're looking for a shot. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 22, 2017, 05:31:48 pm
Shooting BW film or a BW only digital camera eliminates the post shooting worry if the picture looks better in color or BW.  It forces you to concentrate on BW. Shapes, contrast, content, etc. and not get swayed by the opium of color when you're looking for a shot.
Back in the day when I shot lots of B/W film I had one of those filters sold by Zone VI studios that you looked through and it turned everything to B/W.  You could use this to see the highlights, shade tones, etc. which was supposed to help in composition.  Maybe it was good for larger formats than 35mm as I never found it all that useful.  Thanks to Slobodan for posting the original thread; I remember reading it when it was a hot topic of discussion.  I wonder whether the Leica is worth the money since one can still get Silver Efex which does lots of good B/W transpositions of digital images.  I still do a fair amount of B/W work and find that LR/PS along with Silver Efex does virtually everything and it's easy to use.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Ferp on November 22, 2017, 05:58:31 pm
There's also a relatively recent and much shorter thread in this forum:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117449.0

I'd always assumed that the attraction of a Monochrom was increased sharpness due to the absence of de-mosaicing, as that's what's talked about most often.  Which is not that much of an attraction for me, after all how much sharpness do you really need?  Modern cameras and lenses are pretty sharp, to the point where it's not a limitation in making great images. But in that thread someone posted a link to this review:

http://www.ultrasomething.com/2012/12/a-fetishists-guide-to-the-monochrom-part3/

which, although seemingly written by a Leica evangelist, makes a strong case that the attraction of the Monochrom is actually low noise and high levels of shadow detail.  If that's true, then I would be interested, since you can never have too much shadow detail or too little noise.  I still wouldn't be prepared to stump up the money for the body and lenses, but I do see the attraction.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 22, 2017, 06:47:25 pm
I like your thinking, Slobodan.
I absolutely hate to admit it, he's absolutely right!  ;)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: rdonson on November 22, 2017, 07:59:51 pm
I like your thinking, Slobodan.

+++++++++++
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jeffrey Saldinger on November 22, 2017, 08:10:33 pm
There is a 34-page thread here, on LuLa, where most of the contribution has come from our member Allen Bourgeois. Check it out.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=72404.0

It seems to me that I am in the minority that understands that less is more. It isn't about sharpness, or Bayer, or filtering, or whatever. It is about deliberately reducing options when someone understands why less is more. The abundance of choice can often be crippling. It is about eliminating one more variable that does not matter so that one can concentrate on the one that matters. It is seeing the world monochromatically, shooting in the moment, and eliminating the endless fiddling with sliders and sitting in front of the computer for days.


I too value Slobodan's post, but could “...endless fiddling with sliders and sitting in front of the computer for days” be digital's version of Ansel Adams's “The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance"?  (And is not "endless fiddling" unnecessarily disparaging?)

There’s an individual’s own sweet spot that many thoughtfully seek in choosing and using whatever digital tools they wind up with to make their prints, not to mention how much time it takes over however many days of work to feel a file is "done".  I generally agree that less is more, but too much less (depending on what one wants to do) can frustrate an artist’s ability to express himself.  Less for the sake of less feels counterproductive, and a bit more may be just right.

A quote from Robert Browning comes to mind: “The little more, and how much it is; and the little less, and what worlds away.”  I think the idea applies here. (Browning’s context was not digital photography:https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/294443/the-little-more-and-how-much-it-is-the-little-less-and-what-worlds-away.)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2017, 08:58:50 pm
... (And is not "endless fiddling" unnecessarily disparaging?)...

Perhaps, although it was not my intention. I am one of those who belong to that category, sitting in front of the computer and fiddling with sliders for days. But that suits my personality, temperament, and perfectionism. All I was saying is that I understand that there are people with different mentality and different approaches. In other words, I am not a guy suited for Monochrom, but I can see how some people can appreciate it.

Just as I can see why some might prefer primes, and not just because they used to offer better quality (today's zooms are often just as good, if not better), but precisely because they limit their options (in terms of viewing angle) and force them to learn how to see within that view angle. By eliminating the need to decide which angle is best suited for the subject, and wasting time switching back and forth while zooming to determine that, they instead concentrate on the moment and subject matter. Again, "wasting time" is not meant as disparaging, as I am also the guy who has mostly zooms, but simply as a matter of fact that zooming is an extra step. Say you lose just 0.6 seconds while zooming... and it leads to your depression and ultimately death? Impossible and outright silly, right? And yet, just today I came across an article on how 0.6 seconds changed one photographer's life forever (though the story was published first in 2002, and was not because of zooming):

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk/2002/06/30/photographersnapped-oswalds-murder-hair-soon-lost-pulitzer-place-inhistory-rival

As for AA, you are right. If one's approach to photography is similar to AA's then perhaps Monochrom is not for them. Or maybe they can use a few filters like AA did.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 22, 2017, 10:03:32 pm
Hi,

The Monochrome has two advantages:


It will probably have characteristics different from panchromatic film and it will need like yellow, orange and red filters for enhancing clouds like panchromatic film.

Best regards
Erik


Leica has a Monochrome camera. No color information, from what I understand.

I have been told that doing B&W this way gives a higher quality image file for B&W.

Is this correct?

Is there an actual advantage to a fully monochrome sensor? If so, does it react to filtration as film does? So I can actually choose a wratten 23/25/29 and similar rather than rely on nebulous sliders in post processing programs?

Sure would like to see a Fuji X-Pro2M (monochrome) as I sure can't afford the Leica gear.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2017, 10:51:19 pm
Digital BW cameras still look like digital, unlike film.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on November 22, 2017, 11:13:16 pm
Seeing as I made my living being a stickler for tiny details and fine points—which was absolutely necessary for delivering the goods—in my post-work life I strive to let go of all that whenever *practical in favor of more intuitive responses. Limiting my options helps in this. 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. Thus my desire for a good b&w digi-cam, ‘cuz I really like working in b&w when I know it’s the medium I’m using.

I still shoot some b&w film…but digital has made me lazy too. Anyway for me it’s not about b&w digital vs. b&w film. If any electronic camera could produce files that look like Tri-X or HP5+ I’d be thrilled. (For a time anyway, after which I’d likely start thinking about issues of contrivance and gimmickry.) But it’s not gonna happen, nor should it really. Just as digital color has its own look compared with Kodachrome or whatever, so does proper digital b&w. IMO better to embrace rather than fight it, especially if the taking of the photos is your thing (as it is for me) with the results being of lesser (though not devoid of) importance.

-Dave-

*I’m currently in the process of choosing a new car. It will not be quick or impulsive, though in the end it could come down to “this one feels right.”  :)

**This past summer I set up my most-used camera to produce b&w JPEGs, hoping this would push me to process more of the RAWs into finished b&w pics. Nope…did not happen.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 22, 2017, 11:19:21 pm
It seems to me that I am in the minority that understands that less is more. It isn't about sharpness, or Bayer, or filtering, or whatever. It is about deliberately reducing options when someone understands why less is more. The abundance of choice can often be crippling. It is about eliminating one more variable that does not matter so that one can concentrate on the one that matters. It is seeing the world monochromatically, shooting in the moment, and eliminating the endless fiddling with sliders and sitting in front of the computer for days.

What do you think about this, Slobodan?

Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, said in a recent Business Week interview, “I think frugality drives innovation, just like other constraints do.” Replace “innovation” with “creativity” (I’m not sure I can tell you the difference, but “innovation” is not a word that resonates as well with artists) and “frugality” with darn near any constraint, and you have a truth that has been demonstrated over and over to me. It seems that the tighter the box, the greater the unleashed creativity. The opposite is also true: when I don’t set limits for myself, I get lazy and take the easy way out, which, by no coincidence, is the way of most photographs, and my results are just as mundane as the average ones.

We don’t have to get esoteric to see how limits foster creativity. Ultimately photography is about putting a frame around the world; the boundaries of the photographic image are crucial to the result. That’s why photographers hate it when others crop their work; it’s like someone is messing with the soul of the image. Many photographers almost always use the entire image that’s captured by the camera. When using film, some even prove it in the end result by including the edge of the negative.

Why do people do this? Doesn’t the perfect frame for any subject vary widely with the nature of the subject? Maybe it does, but there is a wonderfully clarifying consequence of constraining yourself to a certain image shape. The easy response is to seek out subjects that do well with that shape, but the real magic happens when you find compositions that work within the shape for subjects that don’t seem like they should naturally fit. The shape of the image, which you decided in advance, forces you into a picture that you wouldn’t have otherwise made. Stated more accurately, your own creativity is energized by the challenge of mapping the subject into the predetermined frame, and you come up with an image you wouldn’t have made without the constraint of the frame.

Once you start looking at limits as good things, rather than problems to be gotten around, there are endless opportunities for creatively boxing yourself in. Equipment is a good place to start. I’ve talked about image shapes, but why stop there? Plastic, light-leaky cameras with unsharp, flare-producing lenses; pinhole cameras; big, ungainly, view cameras, old, soft lenses with or without shutters; all will present restrictions that demand, and practically enforce, creativity. Film is another: infrared, big grain, low contrast, long toe; pick your poison. There are an endless variety of quirky print media and alternative processes, each with things they don’t do so well.

If you’ve got photographer’s block, a way to break out of it is to turn the usual equipment/media selection process on its head. Instead of blocking out the subject and style of photograph in your mind and finding the right gear to get the job done, grab a camera you’ve never used before (or at least have never used on the subject at hand) and see where it takes you.

While setting down your Leica or Linhof and picking up a Holga might be called for in severe creativity droughts, such extreme measures are usually unnecessary. Like many photographers, I work in series. I don’t usually define the series in advance; it usually grows out of some other photographic project or something else that’s going on in my life at the time. Once I’m into the series, it slowly becomes clear to me what the focus of the work is. For my best work, that focus is narrow, which means that there are lots of limits. Dealing with those limits forces me to be inventive. There are many other reasons for series work (some of which may be the subject of another post), but I’m convinced that one of the not-so-obvious effects is that narrowing your options spurs creativity.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tony Jay on November 23, 2017, 12:24:22 am
What do you think about this, Slobodan?

Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, said in a recent Business Week interview, “I think frugality drives innovation, just like other constraints do.” Replace “innovation” with “creativity” (I’m not sure I can tell you the difference, but “innovation” is not a word that resonates as well with artists) and “frugality” with darn near any constraint, and you have a truth that has been demonstrated over and over to me. It seems that the tighter the box, the greater the unleashed creativity. The opposite is also true: when I don’t set limits for myself, I get lazy and take the easy way out, which, by no coincidence, is the way of most photographs, and my results are just as mundane as the average ones.

We don’t have to get esoteric to see how limits foster creativity. Ultimately photography is about putting a frame around the world; the boundaries of the photographic image are crucial to the result. That’s why photographers hate it when others crop their work; it’s like someone is messing with the soul of the image. Many photographers almost always use the entire image that’s captured by the camera. When using film, some even prove it in the end result by including the edge of the negative.

Why do people do this? Doesn’t the perfect frame for any subject vary widely with the nature of the subject? Maybe it does, but there is a wonderfully clarifying consequence of constraining yourself to a certain image shape. The easy response is to seek out subjects that do well with that shape, but the real magic happens when you find compositions that work within the shape for subjects that don’t seem like they should naturally fit. The shape of the image, which you decided in advance, forces you into a picture that you wouldn’t have otherwise made. Stated more accurately, your own creativity is energized by the challenge of mapping the subject into the predetermined frame, and you come up with an image you wouldn’t have made without the constraint of the frame.

Once you start looking at limits as good things, rather than problems to be gotten around, there are endless opportunities for creatively boxing yourself in. Equipment is a good place to start. I’ve talked about image shapes, but why stop there? Plastic, light-leaky cameras with unsharp, flare-producing lenses; pinhole cameras; big, ungainly, view cameras, old, soft lenses with or without shutters; all will present restrictions that demand, and practically enforce, creativity. Film is another: infrared, big grain, low contrast, long toe; pick your poison. There are an endless variety of quirky print media and alternative processes, each with things they don’t do so well.

If you’ve got photographer’s block, a way to break out of it is to turn the usual equipment/media selection process on its head. Instead of blocking out the subject and style of photograph in your mind and finding the right gear to get the job done, grab a camera you’ve never used before (or at least have never used on the subject at hand) and see where it takes you.

While setting down your Leica or Linhof and picking up a Holga might be called for in severe creativity droughts, such extreme measures are usually unnecessary. Like many photographers, I work in series. I don’t usually define the series in advance; it usually grows out of some other photographic project or something else that’s going on in my life at the time. Once I’m into the series, it slowly becomes clear to me what the focus of the work is. For my best work, that focus is narrow, which means that there are lots of limits. Dealing with those limits forces me to be inventive. There are many other reasons for series work (some of which may be the subject of another post), but I’m convinced that one of the not-so-obvious effects is that narrowing your options spurs creativity.
Fabulous post Jim!

Great food for thought...

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on November 23, 2017, 09:21:51 am
I just don't understand why, for some, having a camera that produces colour files prevents or impedes their ability to make black/white pictures. Hell, the bloody world is already in colour, what you gonna do about that? Spray it?

To me, this thing is about sounding deep, terribly intelligent and a committed photographer of some kind. It's nonsense! If you want and can afford a 'cron then buy it and enjoy, but that's all it boils down to in reality - your "eye" ain't gonna be one iota better than ever it was. If you lack discipline when seeing your files, that's something else, and cameras can't help you: only you can fix that. You don't buy those answers, you have to understand yourself and fix the guy inside.

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 09:34:02 am
Digital BW cameras still look like digital, unlike film.
What 'look' would that be? Some examples perhaps.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 09:58:10 am
your "eye" ain't gonna be one iota better than ever it was.

But it does change it, at least with mirrorless cameras. After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition. That said, I wouldn't want a camera that only took B&W raw files (or spend as much as people do on the Leica).
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 10:03:48 am
After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition.
For some, if they let it influence them.
I have to wonder what Adams saw viewing his ground glass while composing PRIOR to a crop. Wait, I do know what he saw: color.  :o
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 11:08:58 am
Ansel used coloured lens filters and wrote about choosing between them based on how different tonal relationships influenced his composition. He only wrote x books on the topic.....
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 11:52:42 am
Ansel used coloured lens filters and wrote about choosing between them based on how different tonal relationships influenced his composition. He only wrote x books on the topic.....
More evidence that dismisses your ideas. He absolutely did not see a monochrome**  preview through his view camera. And it didn't appear to cause grief composing. Sorry that causes you issues but don't lay that inability on everyone here!
Have you ever viewed a B&W (say Red) filter on a view camera? Some of us have. Don't make me dig up my Sinar P to show you......
Quote
**After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 12:09:30 pm
Yes, Andrew, I do have 20+ years of using a range of coloured filters on 10x8, MF and 35mm cameras. Whether it's true monochrome as one gets in an EVF, or the near-monochromes seen through a coloured filter, you see the relationship between different tonal areas and that influences how you may compose.

As usual, all you want is an argument. FFS. Go play with yourself....
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 12:40:17 pm
Yes, Andrew, I do have 20+ years of using a range of coloured filters on 10x8, MF and 35mm cameras
That's all?  ;D  Yet you tell us YOU have difficulty composing your images. I have zero reason to doubt your inability to do so and accept that as a fact. That's not a universal problem for all photographers! Not those of us classically trained, those of us that shoot professionally (like national ads and such) in B&W or color on large format on down (for me that includes 8x10 film).
Quote
As usual, all you want is an argument.

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. Your idea about composition and B&W was simply called out as a limitation of your own!
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 01:47:58 pm
Andrew, you're just making an argument. Go away, go have a good play with yourself.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 01:59:28 pm
Andrew, you're just making an argument. Go away, go have a good play with yourself.
No argument; we are in violent agreement about your self admitted difficulties in composing a photograph. We disagree this affects all photographers. Simple as that.
I could suggest you go away and play with composing an image but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears.  :(
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on November 23, 2017, 02:12:21 pm
I can only speak for myself. If I’m using b&w film I know the images will be in monochrome and so I see through the viewfinder accordingly (which is to say, differently). I’ve even put my little GX8 in mono mode and shot JPEG-only in order to put myself in mono mode.  ;)  It works, but the GX8 produces mediocre JPEGs, leaving me with decently seen pics featuring meh tonality and limited adjustment latitude.

Maybe this is evidence of psychological or even emotional deficiency on my part. Whatever…you can think what you like about it, if anything at all. I’m *un-offendable.  :)

-Dave-

*A useful quality to have IMO in this Age of Outrage. Just observe this very thread.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 02:17:42 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?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 02:34:55 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?
Back to your original text: After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition.
Should probably be: After all, I compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what I see might be expected to influence MY composition.
Quote
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?
Controversial no, kind of silly, lumping every photographer into a camp that doesn't affect them all, yes.
Derailed is your term for someone who doesn't suffer your issues composing an image, and stating that fact on a forum?
In terms of your difficulties composing an image in B&W or otherwise, can you not get help?  :o
Like Telecaster, you should only speak for yourself.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on November 23, 2017, 02:35:24 pm
...Can you not get help?
Help is at hand...

But seriously, can't you both move on from this silliness? Do I really have to shut this down?

Chris
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on November 23, 2017, 02:36:57 pm
Back to your original text: After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition.
Should probably be: After all, I compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what I see might be expected to influence MY composition.  Controversial no, kind of silly, lumping every photographer into a camp that doesn't affect them all, yes.
Derailed is your term for someone who doesn't suffer your issues composing an image, and stating that fact on a forum?
In terms of your difficulties composing an image in B&W or otherwise, can you not get help?  :o
Like Telecaster, you should only speak for yourself.

Andrew, go and enjoy some turkey!
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 02:37:48 pm
Help is at hand...

But seriously, can't you both move on from this silliness? Do I really have to shut this down?
Chris


You're right Chris, I'm done. I simply don't like being lumped into a massive group that doesn't necessarily share John's difficulties.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 02:38:08 pm
Andrew, go and enjoy some turkey!
I can't yet: It's raw!  :)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Kevin Raber on November 23, 2017, 02:41:14 pm
 This stops now! Or I will lock this topic and consider banning certain users enough is enough. It’s Thanksgiving for heaven sakes. I’d like to spend time with family than looking at this kind of arguments.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2017, 02:41:54 pm
One could shoot a camera that saves jpeg +raw.   That way you can view the screen in mono  and save bw jpegs and have raw color files to work with as well.  You could then play with the color channels when creating bw or just print color as well.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 23, 2017, 02:47:37 pm
One could shoot a camera that saves jpeg +raw. 
If you optimally exposed for the raw, that JPEG would look pretty awful no?

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: john beardsworth on November 23, 2017, 02:52:11 pm
This stops now! Or I will lock this topic and consider banning certain users enough is enough. It’s Thanksgiving for heaven sakes. I’d like to spend time with family than looking at this kind of arguments.

It is not an argument that I started. So thank you Kevin and Chris for responding to my complaints.

Enjoy your day.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C 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
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jeffrey Saldinger 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.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jeffrey Saldinger 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).
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein 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.

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog 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)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster 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-
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog 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.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: DP 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
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein 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. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog 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:

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein 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. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog 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!
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: GrahamBy 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?

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson 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
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah 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.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein 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. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic 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.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C 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
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah 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.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein 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. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2017, 09:45:12 am
Here's an example.  Do you really need to see more of what's in the shadows?  I could have raised it, but the details there are unimportant and would detract from the main picture.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5528/12199890594_52efac8895_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jA4Crh)
Citicorp Stadium - Queens (https://flic.kr/p/jA4Crh) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 09:48:22 am
I guess I wasn't clear. 
That's one way to explain it.  :o
Meanwhile, some of us are attempting to explain that optimally exposing your image data provides the least noise and greatest DR and that our capture systems are far from able to capture what we see and often what we wish to express.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 09:50:20 am
You missed my point.  I guess I wasn't clear.  Maybe someone else can explain.

No, I didn't miss what you call your point. You said "You're assuming seeing what's in the shadows is important." There is no such thing as absolute shadows, shadows is a relative term. From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows. From the point of view of 1/500 sec everything that happens during a game of basketball is shadows.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 09:51:10 am
Here's an example.  Do you really need to see more of what's in the shadows? 
You want us to comment on something we can't see? Show us both options (one WITH shadow detail), we'll provide you an opinion. Again, you can't render what you can't capture. I'm not suggesting what so ever that shadow detail is necessary in all images. But you have no choice in many situations. Some of us would like that choice.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 09:55:16 am
You missed my point.... 

There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 10:12:30 am
There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.
Or the science (and facts) behind image capture (exposure, DR).  ;D
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: petermfiore on November 25, 2017, 10:12:57 am
There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.

+1

Opinions are other people's ideas...

Peter
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: petermfiore on November 25, 2017, 10:14:43 am
Or the science (and facts) behind image capture (exposure, DR).  ;D

Having science on your side is fact based not always art...most times it's not.

Peter
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 10:33:54 am
There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.
Bravo. You resorted to insults.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 10:56:45 am
Bravo. You resorted to insults.

I think Andrew took is a compliment. Not sure about you, as I do not know you, besides arguing that, when I say it is cold outside at +30 F, you say it is actually quite warm from a North Pole perspective ;)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 11:01:48 am
I think Andrew took is a compliment. Not sure about you, as I do not know you, besides arguing that, when I say it is cold outside at +30 F, you say it is actually quite warm from a North Pole perspective ;)

That's not what I'm saying  ;D

To elaborate, science is one of the forms of art; cameras are designed with the help of science, film is designed with the help of science, knowing how they work involves science. Semantics is the study of meaning, and it is quite showing how the use of the word turned to disparaging.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 11:26:46 am
That's not what I'm saying  ;D...

That is exactly what you were saying:

... From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows. From the point of view of 1/500 sec everything that happens during a game of basketball is shadows.

So, let me rearrange my sentence:

From the point of view of the North Pole, everything that happens in a midwest winter is warm. While you might be semantically correct, we in the midwest still shiver at +40F.

But since you brought up "a dimly lit bar," where "everything is shadows," let me illustrate what photographers call "shadows" in a dimly lit bar: for instance, the area on her chest clearly has shadows within your "shadows." And those "shadows within shadows" is what we photographers are interested in, as they help provide a sense of 3D, even where "everything is shadows."
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 11:35:26 am
That is exactly what you were saying

Alas, but no.

you brought up "a dimly lit bar," where "everything is shadows,"

Again, no. I said "From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows".

When you say "technologists", do you know what the root tekhne means? Art.

Do you know how a digital camera works and what ISO setting in a digital camera is?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 11:53:14 am
... Do you know how a digital camera works and what ISO setting in a digital camera is?

Maybe I don't. I just know how to use it.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 12:01:27 pm
Maybe I don't. I just know how to use it.

You realize that ISO setting doesn't change the sensor sensitivity, and that high ISO noise is a myth, do you?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 12:08:16 pm
Having science on your side is fact based not always art...most times it's not.

Peter

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Søren Kierkegaard
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 12:09:28 pm
You realize that ISO setting doesn't change the sensor sensitivity, and that high ISO noise is a myth, do you?
Why do some of us have to keep stating that scientific fact?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 12:12:22 pm
Why do some of us have to keep stating that scientific fact?

You two give science a bad name ;)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 12:26:34 pm
You two give science a bad name ;)

Seems like you don't see the relevance of knowing what ISO setting is in digital cameras. The relevance is this: what you see as midtone for ISO 800 is shadows for ISO 100. If deep shadows for ISO 100 are clean, so are the midtones for ISO 1600.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 12:36:21 pm
You two give science a bad name ;)
You have again confused fact/science with fiction and the science fiction of others! 😂
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 12:37:26 pm
It would be very helpful if the facts behind the science discussed here can be applied shooting in real world situations as in shooting outdoors under constant changing dynamic range and white balance.

Show me how knowing the technical facts helps make a better photo.

I know one fact about optimal exposure not mentioned here and in Iliah's article on calibrating for such exposure on his site is that a photographer can't anticipate or predict the rate at which the sensor nears full saturation (relying only on jpeg based histograms) in order to prevent blown highlights or worse, flowers that turn into blobs of posterized color even when shot in low DR overcast daylight as in Iliah's flower example.

No one can explain why flowers would clip even in low overcast light since luminance levels of the scene define its color gamut.

It's this unpredictable nature of electrons/photons nearing full saturation on the sensor is what I deem a failure by technologists in their explanations that don't make the facts of science very practical for photographers.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 12:43:22 pm
It would be very helpful if the facts behind the science discussed here can be applied shooting in real world situations as in shooting outdoors under constant changing dynamic range and white balance.

Show me how knowing the technical facts helps make a better photo.

I know one fact about optimal exposure not mentioned here and in Iliah's article on calibrating for such exposure on his site is that a photographer can't anticipate or predict the rate at which the sensor nears full saturation (relying only on jpeg based histograms) in order to prevent blown highlights or worse, flowers that turn into blobs of posterized color even when shot in low DR overcast daylight as in Iliah's flower example.

No one can explain why flowers would clip even in low overcast light since luminance levels of the scene define its color gamut.

It's this unpredictable nature of electrons/photons nearing full saturation on the sensor is what I deem a failure by technologists in their explanations that don't make the facts of science very practical for photographers.
Do you know how to expose an image Tim? It’s somewhat a technical process! An aid in making better better images!
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 12:46:31 pm
Do you know how to expose an image Tim? It’s somewhat a technical process! An aid in making better better images!

I've exposed well enough over 1000 Raws, Andrew. What's your point? You've got something to say that's useful about predicting and gauging the rate of speed when sensors near full saturation?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 12:50:12 pm
a photographer can't anticipate or predict the rate at which the sensor nears full saturation

But a spotmeter can, if you meter from the highlights where you want to keep details.

No one can explain why flowers would clip even in low overcast light

I'm afraid I don't understand.

It's this unpredictable nature of electrons/photons nearing full saturation on the sensor

Sorry, nothing unpredictable here. Not to mention that among recent cameras, only with a few Panasonic models you can come close to full sensor saturation. Clipping point in raw is about 1+ stops below sensor saturation.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 12:53:34 pm
... in Iliah's article on calibrating for such exposure on his site...

Where can one find his site? I generally like to know more about the person behind anonymous Internet posts.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:06:48 pm
But a spotmeter can, if you meter from the highlights where you want to keep details.

That doesn't work all the time outdoors because now the photographer has to squeeze the dynamic range to fit the highlight whose intensity out in the field varies for instance the backs of sunlit white geese who are pruning their feathers. Each 1/3 stop adjust either way with the change of angle of the duck's back in order to preserve feather detail blows out or forces a SUB OPTIMAL EXPOSURE where the results are overly dark or blown feather detail.

I'm afraid I don't understand.

I'm referring to your demo image of the magenta flowers shot in overcast or shaded light in a concrete bird bath fixture you've used to explain optimal exposure. Why should flowers clip in low light? Can you explain how that happens on a sensor when the bird bath and surrounding greenery looks normally exposed.

Sorry, nothing unpredictable here. Not to mention that among recent cameras, only on a few Panasonic models you can come close to full sensor saturation. Clipping point in raw is about 1+ stops below sensor saturation.

You have not proved that and so you don't know that for sure because you refuse to understand my point of the unpredictable nature of light intensity changes shooting outdoors. You have two moving targets you haven't convinced me you know how to calculate effectively for practical use.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:10:05 pm
Where can one find his site? I generally like to know more about the person behind anonymous Internet posts.

Here's the calibration for optimal exposure article... https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

And here's the article showing the magenta flowers that clip even in overcast light... https://www.fastrawviewer.com/raw-histogram-for-culling
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on November 25, 2017, 01:17:09 pm
None of this chest-thumping makes me want to buy a Leica Mono...

Nobody needs thump their chest for me to covet a Leica with all the colour gathering power it can get.

I could make all the black/whites my thumping little heart desires with the latter.

How far ego and the need to show expertise take folks away from the topic... or maybe, for them, that's what photography is all about: thumping.

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 01:20:31 pm
That doesn't work all the time outdoors because now the photographer has to squeeze the dynamic range to fit the highlight whose intensity out in the field varies for instance the backs of sunlit white geese who are pruning their feathers.

Nothing works all the time, Tim. But this one - not for the reason you've stated. Try and see. You will prove it for yourself. Should you have any questions, my e-mail is ib@pochtar.com

Why should ... clip

In raw something is clipped because of the wrong exposure settings. In JPEG fro two additional reasons: because of white balance and hidden exposure correction applied when rendering JPEGs. The article you've read explains that white balance is exposure correction, and that JPEG clipping point is best case half a stop below clipping point in raw. If you are using Canon, try Magic Lantern to see raw histogram. With other cameras you also have some useful options. I simply ignore JPEGs, they are a distraction when I shoot raw.

You have not proved that

That what? That the sensor clipping point and raw clipping point are different, and the difference is close to 1 stop? Oh come on... The tags I deciphered for Panasonic are part of free, documented, and open source ExifTool.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 01:21:36 pm
the article showing the magenta flowers that clip even in overcast light... https://www.fastrawviewer.com/raw-histogram-for-culling

Except they are far from clipping in raw.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:28:07 pm
Except they are far from clipping in raw.

You and I have a different standard for what a flower should look like clipping or no clipping. There's certainly no accounting for taste.

Iliah, if you aren't going to read my full responses to your quoted statemetns and then answer with questions that show you didn't bother to scroll up to read what you're answering to, I'm certainly am not interested in emailing you on this subject.

I know what I'm talking about because I've had to deal with this issue of optimal exposing for Raw and your articles don't address the two moving targets of varying light intensity and how fast the sensor will react to such rates of change.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 01:33:48 pm
You and I have a different standard for what a flower should look like clipping or no clipping.

I'm not discussing tastes, I did nothing to convert that shot. I'm showing underlaying data, to make a point that JPEG can't be trusted when it comes to exposure evaluation; that is can be extremely misleading. It is also presented in sRGB, because web. If the flower is not clipped you can make it look the way you like. It all starts with avoiding clipping and false overexposure indication that leads to severe underexposure.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 01:36:51 pm
I've exposed well enough over 1000 Raws, Andrew.
That many? As a regular reader of yours, how many exposed optimally? Got a raw Histogram to share? FWIW Tim, no trick to under or over expose 1000 raws.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:39:23 pm
I'm not discussing tastes, I did nothing to convert that shot. I'm showing underlaying data, to make a point that JPEG can't be trusted when it comes to exposure evaluation; that is can be extremely misleading. It is also presented in sRGB, because web. If the flower is not clipped you can make it look the way you like. It all starts with avoiding clipping and false overexposure indication that leads to severe underexposure.

And you didn't answer why a magenta flower should look clipped shot under overcast light even shooting Raw where adjusting in post doesn't make it look better. I've encountered this quite a bit to where I have to underexpose just to preserve flower detail far more than what I see in your magenta flower bird bath image.

There's something else going on with sensors that isn't being addressed or solved by camera manufacturers.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:43:18 pm
That many? As a regular reader of yours, how many exposed optimally? Got a raw Histogram to share? FWIW Tim, no trick to under or over expose 1000 raws.

You're not helping.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 01:49:10 pm
And you didn't answer why a magenta flower should look clipped shot under overcast light even shooting Raw where adjusting in post doesn't make it look better.

It isn't clipped, Tim. When you convert, watch for gamut (a lot of what looks in sRGB as clipped is not clipped), and keep in mind that white balance is exposure (better term is brightness, as exposure can't be corrected after it took place) correction, it makes red and blue channels look more saturated and brighter. Camera recorded those flowers in a normal way, without clipping. The rest is up to conversion process. Incidentally, underexposure doesn't address the issue, it only makes it worse.

There's something else going on with sensors that isn't being addressed or solved by camera manufacturers.

Sorry, Tim, it's like saying "there's something else going with film that ...". The issues are not with sensors. They are with workflow.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 01:54:23 pm
It isn't clipped, Tim. When you convert, watch for gamut (a lot of what looks in sRGB as clipped is not clipped), and keep in mind that white balance is exposure (better term is brightness, as exposure can't be corrected after it took place) correction, it makes red and blue channels look more saturated and brighter. Camera recorded those flowers in a normal way, without clipping. The rest is up to conversion process. Incidentally, underexposure doesn't address the issue, it only makes it worse.

The only way to know for sure those flowers aren't clipped is to examine each RGB channel for luminance based detail like say the veins, subtle folds and color detail that isn't just one monochrome version of magenta.

If there's very little luminance and color detail, then it "LOOKS" clipped to me and I toss the image no matter how optimally exposed it is. You don't show this in your demo images including the first yellow flowers which look almost posterized after the Raw adustment.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 01:59:26 pm
Some do not understand how a color gamut that is too small can cause one channel to clip and these are usually the sRGB users confusing that with exposure. So yeah, the technical facts are once again ignored.

Some understand the technical facts behind photography/imaging and can make images too. Some are on the opposite ends of that ability scale.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 02:01:05 pm
The only way to know for sure those flowers aren't clipped is to examine each RGB channel for luminance based detail like say the veins, subtle folds and color detail that isn't just one monochrome version of magenta.
Never seen a raw Histogram?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 02:07:46 pm
The only way to know for sure those flowers aren't clipped is to examine each RGB channel

http://s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/_DSC4210.ARW.4Channels.zip

You don't show this in your demo images including the first yellow flowers which look almost posterized after the Raw adustment.

There was no adjustments applied. All as shot.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 25, 2017, 02:15:48 pm

There was no adjustments applied. All as shot.

I'm talking about the before and after histograms for the yellow and magenta flowers. What did you do to get the after? There's two versions of the same image. What did you do to get the second one?

BTW how do you uninstall FastRawViewer from Mac OS 10.6.8. I just tossed the app from the app folder including preferences (.plist) in my user Library and LlibRaw folder in Application Support. Is there more files to uninstall?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Iliah on November 25, 2017, 02:38:11 pm
I'm talking about the before and after histograms for the yellow and magenta flowers. What did you do to get the after? There's two versions of the same image. What did you do to get the second one?

There is no before and after. One is embedded/external JPEG as the camera recorded it, the other is raw as the camera recorded it.

how do you uninstall FastRawViewer

As any other application, drag to the Trash and empty the Trash.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: petermfiore on November 25, 2017, 05:30:48 pm
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Søren Kierkegaard

Art is not about truth...Art is a designed illusion.

Peter
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 25, 2017, 06:10:03 pm
Art is not about truth...Art is a designed illusion.

Peter
Agreed. Much of this discussion has nothing do do with art.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 06:38:59 pm
What do you think about this, Slobodan?...

I agree  :)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 06:43:42 pm
... 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).

I agree, Jeffrey, and I got what you meant the first time. That is why I said if that's one's approach too, then Monochrom is not for them. I admit that my next sentence was logically incoherent with the former, so I crossed it now in the original post.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 26, 2017, 12:42:52 am
I've just finished experimenting with Epson's ABW mode on my 9800 with a Win 10 system and have the following results.

1. As long as R==G==B, it makes no difference what colorspace the source image is in. For example, if the original image is in ProPhoto RGB, converting it to sRGB or anything else produces exactly the same prints except for extremely subtle stepping in 8 bit mode. Even there, it's a tiny effect as the L* changes at each step are only about 0.4 dE76.  I can't see them but if I photograph the print and bump up the contrast enough the tiny dE steps can be brought out. But selecting dither (see comment #4) eliminates even that.

2. The tone curve is significantly smoother than either driving directly to device RGB or through the highest quality profile in color mode. The reason appears to be use of K, LK, and LKK only inks (absent injecting a color tone) while the color mode will add in the M, LM, Y, C, and LC. even on a neutral tone curve.

3. The a* and b* values over the tone curve are also very smooth and don't exhibit the marked perturbations that occur printing in color mode. Likely cause is same as in #1.

4. Higher effective bit resolution with 8 bit drivers can be had by selecting the option to dither when converting to 8 bits in the Photoshop Settings main dialog. When this is selected gradients in 16 bit tiff files will be rendered smoothly. This happens automatically behind the scene even though the user isn't directly converting to 8 bits.


Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 26, 2017, 11:11:02 am
I've just finished experimenting with Epson's ABW mode on my 9800 with a Win 10 system and have the following results.

1. As long as R==G==B, it makes no difference what colorspace the source image is in. For example, if the original image is in ProPhoto RGB, converting it to sRGB or anything else produces exactly the same prints except for extremely subtle stepping in 8 bit mode. Even there, it's a tiny effect as the L* changes at each step are only about 0.4 dE76.  I can't see them but if I photograph the print and bump up the contrast enough the tiny dE steps can be brought out. But selecting dither (see comment #4) eliminates even that.

2. The tone curve is significantly smoother than either driving directly to device RGB or through the highest quality profile in color mode. The reason appears to be use of K, LK, and LKK only inks (absent injecting a color tone) while the color mode will add in the M, LM, Y, C, and LC. even on a neutral tone curve.

3. The a* and b* values over the tone curve are also very smooth and don't exhibit the marked perturbations that occur printing in color mode. Likely cause is same as in #1.

4. Higher effective bit resolution with 8 bit drivers can be had by selecting the option to dither when converting to 8 bits in the Photoshop Settings main dialog. When this is selected gradients in 16 bit tiff files will be rendered smoothly. This happens automatically behind the scene even though the user isn't directly converting to 8 bits.

Doug, I agree with everything you say, except about the absence of non-K process inks in ABW mode. Unless something has changed since I put 3880 prints under a (literal) microscope, there is some use of those inks in that mode, even with no tint applied.

http://blog.kasson.com/technical/450/

compare to color mode:

http://blog.kasson.com/technical/inkjet-printing-on-epson-part-2/

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 26, 2017, 11:31:33 am
Jim is correct about the use of color inks in the Epson ABW mode.  However, a lot less is used than in the color mode though I don't know if anyone has quantified this.  You also know that this is the case as Epson have a tone wheel that can be used to create sepia prints.  I did some work with Mark at Aardenburg printing out a variety of B/W test patterns using various settings of the tone wheel with my 3880 and Hahnmuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth.  The results are up on the Aardenburg website.  You can also see the difference on the review of the Epson 3800 here:  http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070123
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 26, 2017, 12:39:30 pm
Doug, I agree with everything you say, except about the absence of non-K process inks in ABW mode. Unless something has changed since I put 3880 prints under a (literal) microscope, there is some use of those inks in that mode, even with no tint applied.

http://blog.kasson.com/technical/450/

compare to color mode:

http://blog.kasson.com/technical/inkjet-printing-on-epson-part-2/

Jim

Nice work Jim. Quite different and more precise from what I recall using a 30x inspection-scope. I was specifically looking at the region where the b* anomaly was occurring ( b* from -1 to -3 with L* increasing from 88 to 92) along  R=G=B 240 region. I did not look at abrupt, large changes such as the horizontal/vertical stripes you were investigating.

In color mode the density of MCY was very high while in ABW all I saw were the K's but I didn't investigate other regions, beyond short looks.

I don't have a scope with your resolution let alone camera attachment but I do have a macro lens that I've used to examine patterning. That might work here.

Additional:
I've macro photo'd some patches around RGB=240, greatly increased contrast and boosted saturation even more. In spite of some camera motion which I need to work on , the dots are now quite visible with the Y and LC, LM  easily visible from the boosts. There are colored dots in the ABW patches v color mode though at considerably reduced frequency. Not sure why I didn't see them previously. Perhaps the limits of the 30x scope and yellowish light. More to follow.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 26, 2017, 01:49:44 pm
Jim is correct about the use of color inks in the Epson ABW mode.  However, a lot less is used than in the color mode though I don't know if anyone has quantified this.  You also know that this is the case as Epson have a tone wheel that can be used to create sepia prints.  I did some work with Mark at Aardenburg printing out a variety of B/W test patterns using various settings of the tone wheel with my 3880 and Hahnmuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth.  The results are up on the Aardenburg website.  You can also see the difference on the review of the Epson 3800 here:  http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070123

Thanks Alan,

Looking at the plots, the 3800 appears to have the same breakpoints at low and high L*. The steps are rather large so I can't say precisely but they are certainly consistent. Also, the large shift in b* around L*=90, which is occurring is my main motivation for looking at the ABW mode which does not exhibit this. This large shift isn't fully overcome by the limited resolution of color profile LUTs.

I'm running a set of tests from RGB:224 to 255 in steps of 0.5 in these different modes to get a bit more info in the region of interest. May also take some macro shots to get an idea of what the distribution frequency differences in the inks are.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Deardorff on November 26, 2017, 03:33:54 pm
On seeing color and shooting B&W.

I do have a number of friends with major color blindness who shoot B&W film. Color is a mystery to them and color gradation/balance not something they work with. A monochrome body would work well for them and a Fuji X-Pro2M would be most welcome. (that after I asked five of them)

As for how some of us see the world. With B&W film in the camera my mindset is way different from Chrome film. I look at things differently when shooting B&W. That further parsed if I am shooting for Pt/Pd prints or silver darkroom prints. Tonal relations, contrast, sharpness and light all play a part. I still find it difficult to think in B&W when shooting color. Probably just me but there is a difference. I know my best B&W work is when I am shooting B&W rather than color and converting. I shoot less, have a much higher incidence of keepers and find my 'vision' works a bit better without the mental distraction of "color or B&W".

Still hoping for an X-pro2M so I can take advantage of the Fuji glass, rangefinder style feel and have an experience closer to film as I work.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on November 26, 2017, 03:48:15 pm
On seeing color and shooting B&W.

I do have a number of friends with major color blindness who shoot B&W film. Color is a mystery to them and color gradation/balance not something they work with. A monochrome body would work well for them and a Fuji X-Pro2M would be most welcome. (that after I asked five of them)

As for how some of us see the world. With B&W film in the camera my mindset is way different from Chrome film. I look at things differently when shooting B&W. That further parsed if I am shooting for Pt/Pd prints or silver darkroom prints. Tonal relations, contrast, sharpness and light all play a part. I still find it difficult to think in B&W when shooting color. Probably just me but there is a difference. I know my best B&W work is when I am shooting B&W rather than color and converting. I shoot less, have a much higher incidence of keepers and find my 'vision' works a bit better without the mental distraction of "color or B&W".

Still hoping for an X-pro2M so I can take advantage of the Fuji glass, rangefinder style feel and have an experience closer to film as I work.

Now, if that camera were to be made, would it be priced higher or lower than its colour original? Leica had its own version of that pricing situation.

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 26, 2017, 11:01:49 pm
I've attached macro photos of "neutral" patches having a L* of 87 on Costco Glossy (WP=L* 95). These are 3mm squares magnified. Contrast and saturation have been boosted for easier identification of the dot colors otherwise the dot colors are quite hard to discern. Note that the actual patch colors differ by only just over 2 dE with the predominant shift towards magenta for the one in Color mode. The percentage of LLK dots is quite high in the ABW patch with lower amounts of LC and LM and Y in comparison to the ABW mode patch.

I've also included graphs showing L*, a* and b* for Color and ABW modes for RGB steps from 224 to 255 in steps of .5 as measured with an Isis in M2 (uV Cut) mode.  The tone curves differ between ABW and Color with ABW RGB values of 230 and  Color RGB values of 242 producing L* of 87.

Note how the a*, and especially the b* values remain quite close to those of the paper white in the ABW mode while the a* and especially, b*, vary considerably. Since this occurs over a fairly short range of RGB values ICC profiles can only partially compensate for these perturbations.

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2017, 10:23:31 am
You're not helping.
I'll attempt to help you, like Iliah, by suggesting you study exposure on the actual data: raw. Maybe a few of the 1000 you say you've captured. Hence my question about your awareness or lack thereof, of a raw histogram. Start here:

https://www.rawdigger.com (https://www.rawdigger.com)


There's even a discount for the holidays!
Seems you're a tad confused between clipping, exposure and how/where that gets applied in raw versus JPEG (as evidence by your text: I'm talking about the before and after histograms for the yellow and magenta flowers. What did you do to get the after?).
Get a copy of RawDigger, attempt to use it properly, then you'll have a tool to perhaps understand how to expose your raw data! AND see how vastly different that is from a JPEG Histogram of the same capture!

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 12:44:03 pm
I'm referring to your demo image of the magenta flowers shot in overcast or shaded light in a concrete bird bath fixture you've used to explain optimal exposure. Why should flowers clip in low light? Can you explain how that happens on a sensor when the bird bath and surrounding greenery looks normally exposed.

Even with RAW with no clipping, sRGB, in comparison to say Adobe RGB, is easily clipped on the red channel and to a lesser degree, on the blue channel.  This occurs even though the chromaticities (xy cords) of the red and blue are the same.  It's due to the sRGB green channel being relatively unsaturated. Because of this the highly saturated sRGB red channel, even at 255, has  relatively low luminance because 255 on all channels must produce the white point and the red is much further from the white point than the green. Thus the red channel on sRGB can easily clip and is much more prone to it than Adobe RGB.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2017, 01:13:38 pm
A picture is worth 1000's words (and in the old days, dollars) :o


sRGB from raw (ACR workflow options below image) and Histogram versus ProPhoto RGB and Histogram:
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 27, 2017, 02:11:19 pm
A picture is worth 1000's words (and in the old days, dollars) :o


sRGB from raw (ACR workflow options below image) and Histogram versus ProPhoto RGB and Histogram:

Yeah, I also get data clipping in the histogram when I switch from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB in ACR with some flat swaths of color like intense greens, yellows and oranges that don't have fine detail as in your example image do slightly dull. That's old news.

Again you're not helping, Andrew, by pointing out the obvious and you keep deflecting from my original point about detail not seen in a flower in the Raw sensor data that has to be wrangled with extreme draw down point curves in not only the midrange but also the highlights depending on the color of the flower no matter the overall luminance in the scene.

You can't (at least I can't) calibrate for optimum exposure for that kind of sensor behavior.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2017, 02:13:54 pm
You can't (at least I can't) calibrate for optimum exposure for that kind of sensor behavior.
Begging the question again, have you ever tried viewing a raw Histogram when attempting to expose anything?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 27, 2017, 02:21:36 pm
Even with RAW with no clipping, sRGB, in comparison to say Adobe RGB, is easily clipped on the red channel and to a lesser degree, on the blue channel.  This occurs even though the chromaticities (xy cords) of the red and blue are the same.  It's due to the sRGB green channel being relatively unsaturated. Because of this the highly saturated sRGB red channel, even at 255, has  relatively low luminance because 255 on all channels must produce the white point and the red is much further from the white point than the green. Thus the red channel on sRGB can easily clip and is much more prone to it than Adobe RGB.

That doesn't answer why I'm capturing flower detail that has to be edited to turn flat blobs of color into what I saw at the scene and I just guess at the "optimum" exposure I think will capture that detail.

Most flower images posted online from hobbyist photographers with $3000 and up camera gear don't suffer from sRGB gamut squeezing but just plain lack of ability and/or patience to edit their images by shooting Raw. And even when they do, they have no clue what flowers should look like after post processing.

Why can't camera manufacturers after years of sensor technology improvements fix this behavior capturing intensely colored objects and preserve fine detail?
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 27, 2017, 02:27:10 pm
Begging the question again, have you ever tried viewing a raw Histogram when attempting to expose anything?

Yes, I have with Fast Raw Viewer.

It didn't tell me anything I could use to mitigate against the unpredictable nature of how the sensor captures detail in intensely colored objects no matter the lighting situation out in the field. There was no set it and forget it button that would tell me if the Raw data got blown or preserved due to the inconsistent nature of sensor response to these kind of vibrant colorful scenes.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 03:59:00 pm
Yes, I have with Fast Raw Viewer.

It didn't tell me anything I could use to mitigate against the unpredictable nature of how the sensor captures detail in intensely colored objects no matter the lighting situation out in the field. There was no set it and forget it button that would tell me if the Raw data got blown or preserved due to the inconsistent nature of sensor response to these kind of vibrant colorful scenes.

There is no set and forget it in photography.

Generally, if the RAW sensor values don't clip then they have captured the detail but after that everything depends on your raw converter, camera profile for the converter, and the destination colorspace. Then the main issue is whether you have enough dynamic range.  There are times when clipping the sensor values in RAW are necessary such as when you have light sources or strong specular reflections. For instance taking a picture of a Christmas tree with bright lights. If you don't clip in the RAW the dynamic range required to capture the lights w/o clipping will almost certainly result in insufficient dynamic range.

But the general problem isn't the sensors. Within their range they can capture the entire human visual gamut but monitors and printers have their limits and, when gamut mapping must be done to make things fit, the result can be ugly. That's where the art comes in and the photographer has to select the appropriate camera profile and possibly tweak things in post to produce the most perceptually similar, pleasing, image. There are a lot of choices but no automatic magic.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 27, 2017, 04:43:46 pm
But the general problem isn't the sensors. Within their range they can capture the entire human visual gamut but monitors and printers have their limits and, when gamut mapping must be done to make things fit, the result can be ugly. That's where the art comes in and the photographer has to select the appropriate camera profile and possibly tweak things in post to produce the most perceptually similar, pleasing, image. There are a lot of choices but no automatic magic.

That's not been my experience shooting and successfully processing over 1000 Raws of varying dynamic ranges, some most hobbyists and professionals wouldn't even attempt to keep.

I've seen no limitations in pulling out detail out of vibrant colored flowers on an sRGB gamut display editing Raw. A custom DNG camera profile didn't make much of a difference but did impede in some wide dynamic range images my pulling out detail where AdobeStandard or ACR 4.4 Adobe canned profiles did a better job. And sometimes the custom DNG profiles worked better. Again there's no consistency or predictability that an optimal Raw exposure can assure I didn't clip the data.

The one thing Fast Raw Viewer did show me is that I've nailed the exposure under 10% error of quite a few Raws of white birds on dark water without establishing an optimal exposure.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 05:00:16 pm
Again there's no consistency or predictability that an optimal Raw exposure can assure I didn't clip the data.
Of course.

As long as the RAW file values aren't clipped, and you set the ACR exposure slider to produce the same overall results (push a stop in one, pull in the other), a clipped image will continue to be a clipped image. It has nothing to do with the RAW sensor value gain absent RAW sensor value clipping.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 27, 2017, 05:53:06 pm
But the general problem isn't the sensors. Within their range they can capture the entire human visual gamut but monitors and printers have their limits...

Doug, here are some spectral loci with compromise matrices optimized for the Macbeth CC for a few cameras:

(http://www.kasson.com/ll/arri.png)

(http://www.kasson.com/ll/d700.png)

(http://www.kasson.com/ll/40d.png)

In no case that I've found does the recoverable gamut fill the whole horseshoe. Of course, you could create a Procrustean bed with 3D LUTs.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 06:36:18 pm
In no case that I've found does the recoverable gamut fill the whole horseshoe. Of course, you could create a Procrustean bed with 3D LUTs.

Jim

sRGB is a Procrustean Bed!

Realizable sensors and their CFAs can capture the entire human gamut. Just not accurately since they don't meet LI criteria. The "gamut boundary" derived from any given set of color patches is close to meaningless as there are an infinite number of spectra for any one color inside the Macadam's limit. For emissive sources, it's even more expansive as there are infinite spectra sets for all colors inside the human gamut boundary.  Each of these spectra maps as a sort of smear around the specific chromaticity point a true LI condition would produce. And the location of that smear would vary considerably based on the spectra of the colors the matrix was derived from. It wouldn't take too many sets of 18 colored patches and a neutral to derive, with some specified illuminant, a matrix that exceeds the CIExy chart at any arbitrary point. In fact it might be an interesting extended piece of homework for a class of budding color scientists. See who can come up with the smallest set of 24 spectra that have identical CIELAB values as the Colorchecker, which, when used to generate an optimal matrix for a particular CFA/sensor, completely overlap the CIExy chromaticity chart.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 27, 2017, 07:07:37 pm
sRGB is a Procrustean Bed!

Realizable sensors and their CFAs can capture the entire human gamut. Just not accurately since they don't meet LI criteria. The "gamut boundary" derived from any given set of color patches is close to meaningless as there are an infinite number of spectra for any one color inside the Macadam's limit. For emissive sources, it's even more expansive as there are infinite spectra sets for all colors inside the human gamut boundary.  Each of these spectra maps as a sort of smear around the specific chromaticity point a true LI condition would produce. And the location of that smear would vary considerably based on the spectra of the colors the matrix was derived from. It wouldn't take too many sets of 18 colored patches and a neutral to derive, with some specified illuminant, a matrix that exceeds the CIExy chart at any arbitrary point. In fact it might be an interesting extended piece of homework for a class of budding color scientists. See who can come up with the smallest set of 24 spectra that have identical CIELAB values as the Colorchecker, which, when used to generate an optimal matrix for a particular CFA/sensor, completely overlap the CIExy chromaticity chart.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The spectral locus for each camera was derived from spectral stimuli 5 nm apart. The gamut boundary was not derived for one set of color patches. That was the training set. Looking at the manufacturers compromise matrices, the ones derived are not out of the question. I'm working on other training sets, but I'm not expecting to find compromise matrices that provide accurate color for those sets and completely fill the horseshoe, in the case of the cameras used for the above tests.


Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 07:59:35 pm
Maybe I wasn't clear. The spectral locus for each camera was derived from spectral stimuli 5 nm apart. The gamut boundary was not derived for one set of color patches. That was the training set. Looking at the manufacturers compromise matrices, the ones derived are not out of the question. I'm working on other training sets, but I'm not expecting to find compromise matrices that provide accurate color for those sets and completely fill the horseshoe, in the case of the cameras used for the above tests.


Jim

Jim,

I don't follow. If not from the Colorchecker patches from what did you derive the conversion matrix? I assumed they were derived to minimize some function of dE and then the gamut boundaries are just applying the matrix to the camera curves.

My point was that the Colorchecker, apart from having only 19 patches (the neutrals are effectively redundant), is a limited universe of colors. And even amongst that universe, there are large spectra variations that produce the exact same CIELAB and hence xy chromaticities.

I posit that if one examines other possible spectra for each of the colorchecker patches, without changing their Lab color, that it would be pretty easy to find matrixes that produced a gamut with portions overlapping beyond any arbitrary section of the horseshoe.

Basically, I don't believe the gamut of a camera sensor assy. can be defined by a xy outline of any sort unless the colors and illuminant, from which some sort of "optimal" matrix is generated, are constrained. Of course once any given matrix is generated, the response gamut, using that matrix, is well defined which is what your post shows.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 27, 2017, 08:45:29 pm
Jim,

I don't follow. If not from the Colorchecker patches from what did you derive the conversion matrix? I assumed they were derived to minimize some function of dE and then the gamut boundaries are just applying the matrix to the camera curves.

My point was that the Colorchecker, apart from having only 19 patches (the neutrals are effectively redundant), is a limited universe of colors. And even amongst that universe, there are large spectra variations that produce the exact same CIELAB and hence xy chromaticities.

I posit that if one examines other possible spectra for each of the colorchecker patches, without changing their Lab color, that it would be pretty easy to find matrixes that produced a gamut with portions overlapping beyond any arbitrary section of the horseshoe.

Basically, I don't believe the gamut of a camera sensor assy. can be defined by a xy outline of any sort unless the colors and illuminant, from which some sort of "optimal" matrix is generated, are constrained. Of course once any given matrix is generated, the response gamut, using that matrix, is well defined which is what your post shows.

While I think there's discussion to be had about what you're saying about metameric training sets, I think the thrust of what I was saying is captured in your last sentence. Once a compromise matrix is chosen, that matrix, taken together with the sensor/CFA response curves, can limit the colors that you can get to with physical stimuli.

I used to think this was of only academic interest, but my CFA simulation work has made me question this.

More to come, if I can get some time. The a7RIII is about to ship, and I haven't finished testing the D850.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 27, 2017, 09:24:53 pm
Has any color scientist produced a photograph of a real scene from a digital sensor that fills the entire spectral locus of human vision?

If so, I'ld like to see it and it better have real objects, not those rainbow looking squares or some Dark Side Of The Moon prism effect.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Doug Gray on November 27, 2017, 09:50:15 pm
While I think there's discussion to be had about what you're saying about metameric training sets, I think the thrust of what I was saying is captured in your last sentence. Once a compromise matrix is chosen, that matrix, taken together with the sensor/CFA response curves, can limit the colors that you can get to with physical stimuli.
I agree. That is exactly so once any given matrix is chosen. Another way to look at is that using a single wavelength (or two for the base) and spanning the hue curve some hues will have saturations that are expanded beyond the CIEXY gamut while others will be compressed within it. And there will be hue shifts from the actual along the way.  Using a multiplicity of wavelengths I would expect a different set of expansions/contractions/shifts.

My model of this is not so much a gamut limit as a distortion and, for the multiplicity of wavelengths, a further distortion and spreading of otherwise metameric colors.

It would be interesting to see how much variation occurs when matrixes are chosen based on various sets of real world colors. I would expect they would cohere more closely than using "colors" generated from arbitrary passbands but not as closely as those from the Colorchecker patches.

Quote
I used to think this was of only academic interest, but my CFA simulation work has made me question this.

More to come, if I can get some time. The a7RIII is about to ship, and I haven't finished testing the D850.

Jim

Sounds quite interesting Jim. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Doug
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Alan Klein on November 28, 2017, 12:35:16 am
Has any color scientist produced a photograph of a real scene from a digital sensor that fills the entire spectral locus of human vision?

If so, I'ld like to see it and it better have real objects, not those rainbow looking squares or some Dark Side Of The Moon prism effect.
I've thought about that Tim.  We don't see the entire spectral range either.  Not at the same time.  The eye jumps around in the scene from the light areas to the dark.  Our eye's irises adjust like the aperture on a camera to allow more or less light in as we focus on each of the scene's elements. Then our brain like an HDR program does some algorithm to create an image that is different than any of the individual snapshots our eyes focused on and our brain captured.  It combines all the snaps to make the scene show important content and satisfying details and lighting. A lot of the data is intuited by the brain and never really existed as seen by our eyes.  Even then, the brain does not give equal billing to each of snaps, favoring the lighted areas over the shadow and dark areas. 

It's why when you look at a shot that captured so much range, it looks so drab and we have to add contrast and other changes to make it attractive to our brains aesthetic.  If a camera capture the entire range of what our eyes see over many "shots", we still would have to edit it to make it appear the way our brain sees.  The sensor's range is the least of the issue.  Otherwise, all those slides with limited ranges of 5 stops we use to take beautiful pictures with would not have worked. 

So we humans still have something to say about it. 
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: tom b on November 28, 2017, 01:46:47 am
On a slightly different note…

I've got a "B&W" painting on my bedroom wall. It's acrylic, which is a bugger to paint with so I added warm and cool paints to adjust the tones. It still looks B&W. So what!

In Photoshop you can do the same thing.

Check it out. (https://helpx.adobe.com/au/photoshop/using/color-monochrome-adjustments-using-channels.html)

Also Photoshop/Image/Adjustments/Black & White is also worth a look (and is fun to play with).

Cheers,


Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on November 28, 2017, 08:22:32 am
Indeed, Tom, and one of the reason's I'd stay with a camera offering all the colours it can.

It's difficult to imagine a situation where more is less when speaking about a single camera; it's gospel with images, but hardly with equipment. But envy (mine) aside, it's one of the things that the new Leica company does very well: sow and encourage the growth of dreams, which, frankly, does no harm at all, and for some, produces the perfect tool as well. It would be divine to be able to pick one up now and again (a rangefinder camera) and just go out and enjoy the differences.

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 28, 2017, 10:48:51 am
Has any color scientist produced a photograph of a real scene from a digital sensor that fills the entire spectral locus of human vision?


Not possible for reflected light, even if the sensor is the eye. Even the gamut of real surface colors has no illuminant that will reach everywhere in the horseshoe.

Even with spectral self-luminous sources, it would be very hard to set up in one shot.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 28, 2017, 10:52:24 am

It would be interesting to see how much variation occurs when matrixes are chosen based on various sets of real world colors. I would expect they would cohere more closely than using "colors" generated from arbitrary passbands but not as closely as those from the Colorchecker patches.

Sounds quite interesting Jim. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.



I am working with the JPL set of natural spectra, but it's got about 5000 samples, and I need to figure out a way to subset it.

I also have Roy Berns' paint-based set.

And thank you for a discussion that I also found stimulating.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on November 28, 2017, 11:30:22 am
Not possible for reflected light, even if the sensor is the eye. Even the gamut of real surface colors has no illuminant that will reach everywhere in the horseshoe.
And the horseshoe is a theoretical construct.


In the case of the Yxy chromaticity diagram the Spectrum Locus is the path from purple, around the outer edge clockwise, to red (lower left to right corner). Not only does it not contain all the colors visible to humans, it doesn't contain all the hues. The mixing of these hues between purple and red doesn't appear.

Beyond the locus of spectrally pure colors
Mark D. Fairchild*
Munsell Color Science Laboratory, RIT, Rochester, NY, USA 14623-5604

The spectrum locus of a CIE chromaticity diagram defines the boundary within which all physically realizable color stimuli must fall. While that is a physical and mathematical reality that cannot be violated, it is possible to create colors that appear as if they were produced by physically impossible stimuli. This can be accomplished through careful control of the viewing conditions and states of adaptation.

The CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram is widely recognized by the horseshoe shape of the spectrum locus. This locus of spectrally pure colors is simply defined by the standard color matching functions, the computation of chromaticity coordinates, and the fundamental limitation of monochromatic stimuli that have energy at a single wavelength and no energy at any other visible wavelength.1 More commonly, the spectrum locus is referred to as defining the boundary of the gamut of all physically possible colors. This, however, is an error. The spectrum locus does define the gamut boundary for physically possible stimuli, but it does not limit the color appearance of stimuli. Specification of color appearance requires more information about the stimulus and adaptation state of the observer2 and it is entirely feasible that a stimulus in one viewing condition might appear to be produced by a stimulus from beyond the locus of spectrally pure colors in some other reference viewing condition.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 28, 2017, 11:46:30 am
In the case of the Yxy chromaticity diagram the Spectrum Locus is the path from purple, around the outer edge clockwise, to red (lower left to right corner). Not only does it not contain all the colors visible to humans, it doesn't contain all the hues. The mixing of these hues between purple and red doesn't appear.

True enough. When the people I know talk about "the horseshoe", they include the straight line linking the points at the spectral positions that close the perimeter so that the area is maximized, so that when you say a triplet is within the horseshoe, you are including all triplets that can be constructed by mixing spectral colors.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on November 28, 2017, 12:21:49 pm
The spectrum locus does define the gamut boundary for physically possible stimuli, but it does not limit the color appearance of stimuli. Specification of color appearance requires more information about the stimulus and adaptation state of the observer2 and it is entirely feasible that a stimulus in one viewing condition might appear to be produced by a stimulus from beyond the locus of spectrally pure colors in some other reference viewing condition. [/i]

That is undeniable.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: patjoja on December 15, 2017, 03:07:47 am
Leica has a Monochrome camera. No color information, from what I understand.

I have been told that doing B&W this way gives a higher quality image file for B&W.

Is this correct?

Is there an actual advantage to a fully monochrome sensor? If so, does it react to filtration as film does? So I can actually choose a wratten 23/25/29 and similar rather than rely on nebulous sliders in post processing programs?

Sure would like to see a Fuji X-Pro2M (monochrome) as I sure can't afford the Leica gear.

Astrophotographers have been using monochrome sensors plus filters for quite some time.  The reason is increased resolution and sensitivity compared to a bayer matrix.  I'm not sure I would do it myself for daytime photography though given the costs and excellent quality of cameras these days.  They are certainly a niche camera, but YMMV.

Patrick
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on December 15, 2017, 02:21:56 pm
Astrophotographers have been using monochrome sensors plus filters for quite some time.  The reason is increased resolution and sensitivity compared to a bayer matrix.

And also to allow narrowing the captured wavelength spectrum and have that apply equally to each photosite.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 15, 2017, 04:04:11 pm
Wonder if the color mixing function to combine all three monochrome captures for each RGB is just as robust and precise.

Precisely capturing what is there is one thing, making it look right according to human perception is another.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: BJL on December 15, 2017, 05:23:21 pm
It seems to me that I am in the minority that understands that less is more. It isn't about sharpness, or Bayer, or filtering, or whatever. It is about deliberately reducing options when someone understands why less is more. The abundance of choice can often be crippling.
I am certainly one who does not share your rather hipsterish preference—which you elevate to a claim of superior understanding—for avoiding some small decisions by locking oneself into one big decision, at substantial expense. For one thing, auto white balance with raw files as backup is almost always enough to avoid decision stress, and for another, if I feel the occasional need to relieve myself of worrying about color fine-tuning, in place of deciding "I'll take the monochrome camera only today", I can decide to put my EM-5 in monochrome mode until the color-ennui passes—and by the way, with monochrome preview in the EVF. But more often, I would just dismiss color-angst entirely while photographing, and then batch convert to monochrome, while having the easy option of retrieving color from the raw files later if I ever decide that for some of those images, more is in fact more.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2017, 02:58:29 pm
I am certainly one who does not share your rather hipsterish preference—which you elevate to a claim of superior understanding...

Nothing to elevate... being in a minority doesn't not equate to being superior. It is just a different view, different understanding. But if you want some academic research into how abundance of choice can be crippling, I can provide that too.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: BJL on December 16, 2017, 03:12:26 pm
Nothing to elevate... being in a minority doesn't not equate to being superior. It is just a different view, different understanding. But if you want some academic research into how abundance of choice can be crippling, I can provide that too.
Apologies for my inferior (or just "different") understanding then: I took the words "I am in the minority that understands that less is more" to mean that your minority understands something that the rest of us do not.

What I do understand is that indeed, in some cases, an excess of choice can hamper decision making — but I do not see that this has any relevance to the current situation of cameras that are/are not capable of recording color information.  The only difference in the decision making is "do I carry the monochrome body today?" vs "do I use the monochrome setting today?" or "do I batch convert to monochrome today?".


(I forget off-hand the name for the fallacy of arguing from something being true "in general" or "often" or "in many cases" to the conclusion that it holds in a particular case!)
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2017, 03:46:42 pm
... The only difference in the decision making is "do I carry the monochrome body today?" vs "do I use the monochrome setting today?" or "do I batch convert to monochrome today?"...

Ah, but you see, for those who might prefer the Monochrom, there is no decision making of the sort needed whatsoever. One less choice to make getting out of the door. The only relevant decision to make is what to shoot, not with what.

And just to be clear, and if you missed my earlier posts, I do not include myself in the above category. I am just trying to understand those who do.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on December 16, 2017, 04:22:58 pm
Ah, but you see, for those who might prefer the Monochrom, there is no decision making of the sort needed whatsoever. One less choice to make getting out of the door. The only relevant decision to make is what to shoot, not with what.

You do have to decide what filter to use, and if you should use one at all. For some subjects, this is not a trivial decision.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on December 16, 2017, 11:53:52 pm
You do have to decide what filter to use, and if you should use one at all. For some subjects, this is not a trivial decision.

This one, of course. Recommended for general use with "good over-all colour sensitivity" b&w film in The Contax Way, c. 1962.  :)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: BJL on December 17, 2017, 12:01:40 pm
Ah, but you see, for those who might prefer the Monochrom, there is no decision making of the sort needed whatsoever. One less choice to make getting out of the door.
I agree that this freedom from choice (http://www.metrolyrics.com/freedom-of-choice-lyrics-devo.html) is true once someone makes the decision that all their digital photography will be colorless. I was about to retort that this only applies to a tiny fraction of digital camera users, but on second thought, it might indeed be true of a substantial proportion of those who choose to do their digital photography with a Leica.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2017, 03:43:39 pm
Thing is, perhaps if having one of each type of Leica isn't a financial problem, you can have the best of both worlds? And you can even use the same lenses!

Considering I've been using an iPad camera these past couple of day, I think photography can become far too intellectualised unless it's for earning one's crust. The single, really positive aspect of that device as camera, is the viewfinder. So generous and close to what you think you may be getting. But the ergonomics are truly dreadful! I kept switching on the video just by tuning the thing from horizontal to vertical. And banging the screen to make the exposure really is madness. At least a little button on the side, please!

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on December 17, 2017, 03:47:37 pm

Considering I've been using an iPad camera these past couple of day, I think photography can become far too intellectualised unless it's for earning one's crust.

You might want to pick up some accessories for your iPad:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sloof-lirpa-ipad-accessories/

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: ripgriffith on December 17, 2017, 04:33:44 pm
Back to your original text: After all, you compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what you see might be expected to influence your composition.
Should probably be: After all, I compose with a B&W image in the electronic viewfinder, so what I see might be expected to influence MY composition.  Controversial no, kind of silly, lumping every photographer into a camp that doesn't affect them all, yes.
Derailed is your term for someone who doesn't suffer your issues composing an image, and stating that fact on a forum?
In terms of your difficulties composing an image in B&W or otherwise, can you not get help?  :o
Like Telecaster, you should only speak for yourself.
Would the two of you just STFU!
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: digitaldog on December 17, 2017, 04:47:28 pm
Would the two of you just STFU!
Speaking ONLY for myself, not a chance.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2017, 02:25:04 pm
You might want to pick up some accessories for your iPad:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sloof-lirpa-ipad-accessories/

Jim

Huh! The moment I tried to place my order for the full complement of goodies, up came the dreaded announcement that all available stock had been pre-sold and that the manufacturing complex had been closed for redevelopment as a fast-foods emporium at the very trail car park where the company's original inspiration had materialised.

All these multinationals end up with similar psychologies, even the little ones.

:-(

Rob
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on December 18, 2017, 03:36:45 pm
Huh! The moment I tried to place my order for the full complement of goodies, up came the dreaded announcement that all available stock had been pre-sold and that the manufacturing complex had been closed for redevelopment as a fast-foods emporium at the very trail car park where the company's original inspiration had materialised.

All these multinationals end up with similar psychologies, even the little ones.

:-(

Rob

+1
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: patjoja on January 06, 2018, 03:05:38 am
Leica has a Monochrome camera. No color information, from what I understand.

I have been told that doing B&W this way gives a higher quality image file for B&W.

Is this correct?

Is there an actual advantage to a fully monochrome sensor? If so, does it react to filtration as film does? So I can actually choose a wratten 23/25/29 and similar rather than rely on nebulous sliders in post processing programs?

Sure would like to see a Fuji X-Pro2M (monochrome) as I sure can't afford the Leica gear.

Sorry, I have not read all the posts in this lengthy thread, so forgive me if this point has been made.

When the Leica Monochrom first came out in 2012 it was competing with color cameras with similar MP resolutions and a Bayer matrix...advantage Leica.  In 2017-2018,  with cameras like the Sony A7rIII and it's 42 MP resolution, it would seem Leica is losing that advantage, especially considering the cost.  Just my opinion.

I think this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_Monochrom) is an interesting read for a little context.

Patrick
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: patjoja on January 06, 2018, 10:34:42 am
Sorry, I have not read all the posts in this lengthy thread, so forgive me if this point has been made.

When the Leica Monochrom first came out in 2012 it was competing with color cameras with similar MP resolutions and a Bayer matrix...advantage Leica.  In 2017-2018,  with cameras like the Sony A7rIII and it's 42 MP resolution, it would seem Leica is losing that advantage, especially considering the cost.  Just my opinion.

I think this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_Monochrom) is an interesting read for a little context.

Patrick

As a further note, the Leica Monochrom uses the Kodak KAF-18500 sensor.  With it's larger pixel size, I would think the Monochrom would make a pretty decent astro camera  (albiet a very expensive one).  I'm guessing though that most dedicated astro devices are using different CCD sensors nowadays...many companies are favoring Sony's sensors.  For example, QSI is introducing Sony sensors because of their high quantum efficiency and extremely low noise.

Patrick
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2018, 10:53:49 am
... I think this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_Monochrom) is an interesting read for a little context.

From that link (bold mine):

Quote
Leica claim that the camera delivers 100% sharper images than monochrome images derived from a camera with a color sensor (of comparable megapixels).

Any comments from experts on that one? Sounds like an exaggeration to me.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Paul Roark on January 06, 2018, 11:30:56 am
See http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-1292559/review/4


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Jim Kasson on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 am
From that link (bold mine):

Any comments from experts on that one? Sounds like an exaggeration to me.

I suspect that they are just calculating resolution assuming that a Bayer CFA camera would need four pixels to produce one RGB pixel. I think it is actually true, in the special case of subjects that are narrow-wavelength enough so that there is virtually no response in the green or red sensor sites, or the the green or blue ones. In that case, assuming response from a monochromatic sensor to those subjects, four times the number of photosites would be involved in the mono camera, and thus the resolution would be twice as good (the pitch would be half).

Note that slanted edge testing won't detect this increase in resolution, since it only depends on photosite aperture, not pitch.

I'm guessing that the marketing folks didn't run that phrasing by the engineers before they published it.

Jim
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Telecaster on January 06, 2018, 03:36:46 pm
In my recent experience resolution gains with the Monochrom (CCD sensor version) are minor compared to its Bayer'd counterpart. But my interest in the camera had nothing to do with that. I was looking at tonal differences. Even there I found I can get close enough with my M9 that I no longer have much interest in the mono version. The Monochrom does deliver a look, though, in the way different films do. If you like that look it's one less thing to fuss over. And you can do things like use a deep red filter to clarify a hazy sky without effectively blacking out a chunk of your photosites.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: GrahamBy on January 06, 2018, 04:39:28 pm
"100% better"

Any comments from experts on that one? Sounds like an exaggeration to me.

Reminds me of a seminar on some bioinformatic method where at the end the speaker put up a two-column bar-chart. The columns were "my method" and "your method" and the vertical scale was "goodness"....

He at least knew he was taking the piss.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: patjoja on January 06, 2018, 05:57:58 pm
In my recent experience resolution gains with the Monochrom (CCD sensor version) are minor compared to its Bayer'd counterpart. But my interest in the camera had nothing to do with that. I was looking at tonal differences. Even there I found I can get close enough with my M9 that I no longer have much interest in the mono version. The Monochrom does deliver a look, though, in the way different films do. If you like that look it's one less thing to fuss over. And you can do things like use a deep red filter to clarify a hazy sky without effectively blacking out a chunk of your photosites.

-Dave-

Regarding the tonality issue, in Gregory Simpson's article about the Monochrom ("Fetishes" part 2), he shows that he was able to get nearly equivalent tonality between a Lightroom adjusted M9 and the Monochrom.  So, it sounds like you've had a similar experience.

Personally, I enjoy the post processing part of photography, so shooting in color and converting makes sense for me, and I think I'm fairly convinced at present there is not much reason to invest in shooting in monochrome...other than perhaps for the fun of it.  Nothing wrong with that.

Patrick

Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: xpatUSA on January 12, 2018, 05:47:55 pm
Some here might be able to have it all ways for under a grand (USD), if they are up to the challenge.

Buy a Sigma SD1 Merrill DSLR and, say, a Sigma 17-50mm constant f/2.8 zoom.

Point here being that the camera comes with an easily removable/replaceable (with a thumbnail) UV/IR blocking filter.

In place: you get color with no color-aliasing.

Removed: you ger full spectrum (panchromatic?) sensitivity on each layer of the Foveon sensor. Usually the top layer is best but the Sigma proprietary converter has a 3-channel raw data mixer to let you play with that. And the world becomes your oyster as to lens-mounted optical filters. The Hoya 720nm, for example, is popular for shooting NIR. Or I can plunk a Schott BG38 on the lens and capture a wider range of wavelengths than possible with the removable sharp-cutoff dichroic filter.

No need for anyone to tell me how bad or slow Sigma cameras are; I've been shooting them in good light for 10+ years.
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: DavidPalermo on November 10, 2018, 06:40:20 pm
In case anyone is interested I did a test with a Leica Monochrom and my Nikon D610 awhile back. I really thought I'd be blow away by the Leica but I wasn't at all. You can see the results of my test here along with the RAW files from both cameras if you want to play with them.

http://www.davidpalermophotography.com/MonoTest4
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2018, 06:48:48 am
In my recent experience resolution gains with the Monochrom (CCD sensor version) are minor compared to its Bayer'd counterpart. But my interest in the camera had nothing to do with that. I was looking at tonal differences. Even there I found I can get close enough with my M9 that I no longer have much interest in the mono version. The Monochrom does deliver a look, though, in the way different films do. If you like that look it's one less thing to fuss over. And you can do things like use a deep red filter to clarify a hazy sky without effectively blacking out a chunk of your photosites.

The benefits of shooting without a Bayer CFA are in most cases significantly outweighed by the benefits of tonal control that a trichromatic image offers. Having the color channels, in addition, allows addressing residual lens aberrations like CA (which also affects resolution).

Independent tests, like David's, show that only in very specific situations, a Non-Bayer CFA sensor can provide visibly improved micro-detail. Subjects that are sensitive to aliasing can benefit most, but a good Raw converter algorithm goes a long way in reducing the differences.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Monochrome camera vs converting from color?
Post by: BrianVS on December 27, 2018, 04:22:58 pm
I've had my M Monochrom for over 6 years now, and the M9 for almost 8 years. If you enjoy shooting with a camera, and want to keep post-processing to a minimum- the M Monochrom is much more fun to shoot with than post-processing a photo from the M9. Use the M Monochrom with a color contrast filters means evaluating the scene and making a decision before taking the photo rather than putting it up on a screen.

As far as technical quality: monochrome conversions done to emulate the use of a Yellow Filter will keep most of the sensor resolution. Once you emulate Orange and Red filters- you are losing most of the recorded image.  I did some comparisons years ago between the M9 and M Monochrom with deeper filters, artifacts were present in the converted image. I also did some tests using a Yellow filter with the M9 and writing a custom raw processor to produce a Monochrome DNG file from the M9 DNG file for some interesting results. I also wrote a custom raw processor for the M Monochrom to apply a Gamma curve and convert to 16-bits per sample, rather than 14-bits.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/adding-a-gamma-curve-to-a-digital-image-thinking-out-loud-and-experiments.38778/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157653270743238

The amount of shadow detail that can be pulled out of the M Monochrom DNG file is amazing. I ended up resetting the DNG value for Black-Level in the created file. It's a batch program, reads in the original DNG file and creates new ones- "lossless". I've done my share of writing image processing code, starting in 1979.