[ramseybuckeye]

The answer to your question depends on how you, personally, view your experience of photography and your goals.

Some photographers want the most megapixels, most dynamic range, sharpest lenses, best tripod, colorchecker shots for WB, best software, top-notch-color-calibrated monitors, the fastest PC, etc. Their goal is to make the most perfectly sharp, perfectly colored, perfectly retouched images possible. For them, full color, full resolution, and full RAW data is the only way to go.

Other photographers feel that the essence of the great image doesn't depend on 14 bits DR, maximal megapixels, or 100 lp/mm lenses. If anything, there's a personally pleasing challenge in learning to produce great images within a set of strict limitations. It's the "here's what's possible with almost nothing" philosophy. For example, my photography teacher thought color photography was for amateurs -- the natural pop of color made it too easy to get a decent shot. In contrast, getting a great B&W image was a challenge in mastering composition, lighting, exposure, etc. Immersion in B&W JPG would help lead to that kind of mastery and a different kind of personal satisfaction.

Obviously, RAW+JPG seems like the best of both worlds. You get a B&W JPG for the pleasure of mastery and the full RAW file just in case you want to do more. It's a nice solution to the dilemma especially if one can't recreate the scene to reshoot in color later. On the other hand, the purist in the B&W mastery camp would say that the RAW is a slippery-slope crutch. Knowing that the RAW exists might make one just a bit lazy about perfecting the SOOC B&W image. "I'll fix it in Photoshop" does not seem to be in the spirit of learning the B&W JPG medium.

Anyway, what is photography for you? Is it mostly about the final photographic product or is it about the personal process of mastery?

I think more people fit somewhere between the two groups, I know I do. I want good results and want to have fun getting there. Sometimes I get the good results, and I almost always have fun.

[officiousbystander]

I've shot using the L Monochrome filter on Lumix cameras and Hi-Contrast B&W on the GR. But I've never used Pentax effects filters. I wonder if it's because I'm more of a purist when shooting Pentax.

[Michail_P]

I was also surprised by the sooc jpeg, when I forgot to switch to RAW. A great level of detail, so pleasing color and texture. I admit that I had been underestimating the jpeg quality but the K-70 offers a lot. I shoot RAW+ when playing with BW , just in case. It’s fun, more “relaxing” (or maybe I worry too much about color) and it’s useful to exercise the BW “eye”, it helps with my film photography.
The Leica monochrome mentioned above isn’t something of my taste. I wouldn’t invest. Although, it seems to treat noise better , with its dedicated bw sensor. But again, only if I had money to spend.
I think it’s amusing to play with jpeg and the in-camera filters, from time to time. It is a creativity booster.

[garywakeling]

I spent last month playing with the K-01 loaded up with the 40mm limited and Mono Raw+Jpg, same sensor as the K5 and I found it was pretty impressive IQ too
Single in November 2020 SMC PENTAX_DA 1:2.8 40mm Limited | Flickr
Worth a try for sure

[noelpolar]

I have a user setting for B&W on one of my K1's..... mostly just use my K 50/1.2 or 85/1.8 and go play Leica M10 monochrome wannabe... but still tend to play with the raws in more detail b&w wise if an interesting shot.

And... I don't fit anywhere.... unless of course there is a "I don't fit anywhere place"..... then there may be a place..... but nah... not likely.

[Paul the Sunman]

I get in trouble with my wife if I present her with a B&W image (or any other "unreal" representation). She always wants to see the "real" image before processing.

[Jonathan Mac]

I have one of my K-3's user modes set to a B&W setup I quite like, though for some reason it defaults to a high ISO and only lets the ISO be changed in full stops. I always shoot RAW even if I expect the JPEG to be sufficient.

[Cerebum]

My wife hates B&W too lol. I tend to shoot jpeg for two reasons, 1) fun & ii) practice for getting my exposure right in camera

[sergeremy]

I've been shooting raw only for some years now, and I've never fully explored what my cameras can do with straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, nor indeed in-camera raw-to-JPEG development. Just today, though - for no other reason than curiosity - I started messing around with my old K-5's JPEG colour settings... which led to me playing with B&W... and after trying various adjustments, taking various test shots and reviewing them on my PC, I must say I'm rather impressed...

... which got me to thinking, maybe I'll configure one of my K-5's "USER" mode slots for B&W JPEG and spend a week, or even a month, just shooting that and aiming to get each shot close to perfect in-camera. I could, of course, shoot raw + JPEG - but whilst that would make me feel easier about having the raw files to work with if necessary, it seems at odds with the experiment. Yet perhaps that's what I should do... I really don't know. It's a bit of a leap of faith for me, shooting B&W JPEG only

So, I'm wondering - do any of you good folks ever shoot just B&W JPEG? If so, what are your experiences? If not, would you... or would you insist on raw + JPEG, just in case?

As long as you're having fun along the way, BigMackCam, go for it. I did raw+ for a little while - didn't find the jpg's satisfying (the camera processor never really did what I would have done, and it was easier for me to work on the raw rather than trying to 'fix' the jpg). They were, however, interesting, and opened me up to some possibilities I wouldn't previously have pursued.

[texandrews]

I would never shoot B+W jpgs...unless there was a way to do raw+jpg and have the jpgs be B+W---maybe this feature exists? And the only reason I'd do that is if I could dial in the B+W "look", and then I'd use it as a quick reference for the raws, so I could see which ones translated well to B+W.

What I'd rather have is the capability to have B+W raw output, selectable. But in reality, I'm just fine with raw processing and doing B+W conversions.....

[UncleVanya]

I would never shoot B+W jpgs...unless there was a way to do raw+jpg and have the jpgs be B+W---maybe this feature exists?

That’s exactly how it works.

[pentaxus]

U1 on my cameras is Black and White jpg. U2 is Black and White IR simulator which I find looks a lot like the old Konica750 film shot with a red 29.

[Michail_P]

That’s exactly how it works.

Yes indeed. If you shoot raw+ , you can get the jpeg to be bw or any other “filter”. The Raw is always Raw.
If you like in-camera processing, you may play with the image after the shot. Again, you are safe, you have the raw.

[Cerebum]

I would never shoot B+W jpgs...unless there was a way to do raw+jpg and have the jpgs be B+W---maybe this feature exists? And the only reason I'd do that is if I could dial in the B+W "look", and then I'd use it as a quick reference for the raws, so I could see which ones translated well to B+W.

What I'd rather have is the capability to have B+W raw output, selectable. But in reality, I'm just fine with raw processing and doing B+W conversions.....

All the image settings, colour, mono, clarity, they only apply themselves to jpegs. So, you can select mono and the image will be saved and displayed as a mono jpeg (the image on the back screen is a jpeg render). Raw files are always saved as full colour. So, you can select RAW+, set mono as your colour pallette and you will see how the image looks in Mono whilst still having the full colour raw to fiddle with

---------- Post added 12-18-20 at 11:10 AM ----------

Here are a couple of sooc jpegs using my KP, an auto Yashinon 5.5cm f1.8 and Pentax jpeg "recipes", one is a higher contrast mono, the other is classic chrome-ish

[BigMackCam]

Thanks to everyone who responded thus far. I really appreciate your views and input

By way of further explanation, and to address one of the more common points raised in the responses, I have been shooting only raw for five or six years now, and for most of my day-to-day photography I wouldn't want to use anything else. I'm not intending to shoot B&W JPEG only in the long term... that's not even a consideration.

My interest in conducting this little experiment lies primarily, I think, in the discipline it'll require... greater awareness of light and shadow with respect to composition of B&W images; the need for accurate exposure to avoid losing important shadow or highlight detail (and deciding when and where I'm happy to compromise one or the other); restricting myself to in-camera results rather than post-processing... essentially, working within unfamiliar limitations and outside my comfort zone. I love the flexibility of raw files, but at times I think I allow myself to become complacent or lazy, given the latitude for correction in post Working with restrictions isn't new to me... I do it frequently, choosing my older cameras and lenses instead of my K-3 and DA Limited glass, for instance; but this would be an entirely different set of restrictions than I've shot with before.

I'm not so concerned about achieving optimum image quality, nor even the nicest possible B&W "look". Of course, I'd intend to set the camera up as best I can for appealing output to suit a range of uses (this, in itself, would be an interesting challenge), and would allow myself the flexibility to choose different filter colours in the settings appropriate to given scenarios... much as any B&W film photographer would choose an appropriate filter in the field. I don't mind that I could achieve much more nuanced tones if shooting raw and converting to B&W in post. This isn't about getting "ideal" B&W photos, I think, but working with whatever I've got available in-camera, free of post-processing "responsibilities"... for a while, at least.

If I carry through with this (and I'm not completely decided yet), I think I must choose JPEG only rather than raw + JPEG. There's a chance I'd regret it, but that in itself would be a valid outcome from the experiment. If I shoot raw+, I have a feeling I'd be tempted to try processing the raws to see how much better (or at least "different") they would be.

Thanks again for your feedback. If I go ahead with this (and I suspect I will), I'll endeavour to update you