[slab288]

Hi guys,

I think this is the correct place for this one, if not appologies in advance and please feel free to move it.

Anyways, been searching and searching and can't find anything on pictures in Black & White, seen some black & white pictures but nothing about "How To"........or maybe you can't eh LOL!

I assume this can be done on/in the camera.........I was expecting to get our camera last evening but that didn't happen so just trawling for info before we start tomorrow.

Cheers
slab288

[hcc]

In plain words, a dSLR takes colour pictures. You need to apply a filter to get a B&W shot.

On the K-7, you can PP the file in-camera to apply a B-W filter. However most Pentaxians woud prefer to PP the photograph on computer. For example, using PDCU.

Hope that the comments will help.:ugh:

[RioRico]

There are various ways to shoot B&W, depending somewhat on whether you shoot RAW or JPG, and whether you will do any post-processing (PP).

1- RAW: Just shoot. During RAW development, set the output to B&W; maybe apply a filter.
2- RAW: Set the camera to shoot B&W. The settings carry into RAW development as defaults.
3- JPG: Just shoot. During PP, convert the colour images to B&W, with any effects you desire.
4- JPG: Set the camera to shoot B&W. Select the desired filter and any other effects desired.

Setting the camera to shoot B&W: I'm not sure how it's done on your Kr. On my K20D, I push the Fn button, then push OK for Custom Image, then use the controller to select Monochrome and my desired filter, contrast, sharpness, etc.

Of the methods above, I prefer #2. I'll set the camera to B&W. The RAW file will contain all colour data but my B&W settings carry into RAW development as the starting point for further tweaks. I may generate a number of JPGs from the RAW file, each with different filters or colour settings. I prefer this route, rather than just converting to B&W in RAW development or PP, because I can chimp (review) the B&W image to see if it's close to my expectations.

[slab288]

Thanks for that guys.

I think most of it on the K-R will be done in PP (trying to get the hang of all the abreviations LOL!!) with the odd tweek I come accross on the camera, can't see anything in the owners manual that relates to B&W although with 355pages I could have missed it.

slab288

[RioRico]

I think most of it on the K-R will be done in PP (trying to get the hang of all the abreviations LOL!!) with the odd tweek I come accross on the camera, can't see anything in the owners manual that relates to B&W although with 355pages I could have missed it.

Again, I have no Kr, but in my K20D manual, this info is damn hard to find. There's no index entry for Monochrome. There IS an entry for B&W, but it's about in-camera PP. The necessary entry is Custom Image, and its functioning isn't very well-documented.

For instance, the K20D manual says (but doesn't show) that I can select Custom Image processing from amongst Image Tone options: Bright, Natural, Portrait, Landscape, Vibrant, and Monochrome. In each option, I can change levels of Saturation, Hue, (Monochrome) Filter Effect, Toning, Contrast, and Sharpness. But there's nothing on what changing Hue does, nor what the (Monochrome) Filter Effects are nor why they work. Advanced photographic knowledge seems to be assumed.

Your Kr has more options and settings. Your K2 manual *may* be better written; I haven't seen it. But some of this info seems to be hidden in plain sight, and some is just missing. I haven't seen the Magic Lantern guides either; maybe they present this stuff better, I dunno. But ya gotta dig, dig, dig.

[baro-nite]

Converting color images to b/w is a fascinating area and I recommend looking at your options for doing this in PP to gain some understanding of the different effects possible. Plain desaturation works but is only one way to do it, and often not the most interesting. Channel mixer allows you to adjust the relative intensity of R, G, and B gives you great control over tonal balance; this is available in some (most?) RAW developers as well as Photoshop, GIMP, and the like.

[RioRico]

Channel mixer allows you to adjust the relative intensity of R, G, and B gives you great control over tonal balance;

Is this how digital B&W filters, either in-camera or in PP, simulate the effects of physical-optical filters, by channel mixing? I would see that as a very imperfect simulation. For instance, Violet isn't just a colour resulting from a certain mixing of Blue and Red. Violet is a narrow band of EMF frequencies, distinct from other colours-frequencies, and a Violet-pass filter blocks those other colours, including Red.

So while we may say that digital filtering replaces most optical filtering, that really isn't true. Thus implementing a digital Violet filter would require using only the Blue channel, and suppressing most of the longer Blue wavelengths. Can our warez do this? Maybe I should gargle for DIGITAL CAMERA FILTER to see how they work. But I digress.

ObTopic: Any conversion of colours to B&W requires some familiarity with filters. A little searching will uncover many references to filters and B&W conversion. What fun!

[baro-nite]

Is this how digital B&W filters, either in-camera or in PP, simulate the effects of physical-optical filters, by channel mixing?

I don't know, but that's what I would expect. As you say, very imperfect and there is a world of other options to be had from optical filters. The beauty of shooting straight color is that you can decide later whether or not to convert to b/w, but if you know you want b/w to start with optical filters give you yet more control. I say that theoretically; I've considered adding colored filters to my kit but haven't got there yet.

Any conversion of colours to B&W requires some familiarity with filters.

I know I have lots to learn!

What fun!

+1

[RioRico]

While gargling, I came across an old Ken Rockwell page [ How To Use Filters ] with an appropriate couple paragraphs:

The more you learn about photography the more you'll also learn that artificial filters and manipulation are required to make a natural looking image. Ansel Adams realized that human perception and the photographic processes are quite different. Therefore one needs to use a lot of filtration, manipulation and burning and dodging to compensate for the human eye and brain's image processing to create an image on paper that looks natural... This is why most snapshots don't look like the original scene. Artificial processes and image manipulation are needed to make a photograph look natural.

Armchair photographers like to play a stupid game that prohibits anything creative and requires they just play forensic photographers blindly Xeroxing nature without filters. I only judge people on the final image, not the process. Sadly these folks get images that are both dull and unnatural.

(The emphasis is Ken's, not added by me.)

EDIT: And I'm still gargling for DIGITAL CAMERA FILTER and not finding technical data, just help on usage. Oh bother.

[slab288]

Exccelent guys this has turned into a very useful thread.........for us anyways.........thanks.

While I'm here, we still haven't received our camera yet........looks like it will be Monday now but we're looking for UV filters to protect the lens, am I correct in thinking that both lenses (18-55mm & 50-200mm with the kit) are 49mm and accept a 52mm threaded filters?

And thanks again to all
slab288

PS we're also going with a Transcend 16gb Class 10 card with a Class 4 as back up......just incase!

[Just1MoreDave]

Exccelent guys this has turned into a very useful thread.........for us anyways.........thanks.

While I'm here, we still haven't received our camera yet........looks like it will be Monday now but we're looking for UV filters to protect the lens, am I correct in thinking that both lenses (18-55mm & 50-200mm with the kit) are 49mm and accept a 52mm threaded filters?

And thanks again to all
slab288

They both use 52mm threaded filters. The subject of UV filters sometimes becomes an exchange of strongly held opinions.

If you are not short of space on the memory card, you might try setting the camera to Monochrome (starts on page 213 of the manual) and also shooting in the file format RAW+ (page 195). That will record a black and white JPG image converted by the camera, and also a file with no processing that you can process yourself. It will also show you a black and white preview image based on the camera's conversion.

[slab288]

Thanks for that Dave that's much appreciated.........now if only I had the owners manual here...........my daughter went away with it earlier today.

slab288

[mysticcowboy]

One disadvantage of shooting jpegs as black and white shows up where there are smooth tonal gradients. Jpegs support 256 levels. Raw files are shot in 12 or 14 bits and can be worked on as 16 bit images. At 16 bits that's 65536 levels. It was a shot with street lamps in the fog that made me a consistent raw shooter. Any print I made from the jpeg over 8x10 showed obvious banding.

[RioRico]

One disadvantage of shooting jpegs as black and white shows up where there are smooth tonal gradients.

And it's not just B&W work. Know that JPGs contain much less data than RAWs and thus can never show as much detail nor range. I used to shoot JPG only (and still do with non-RAW cams); I've been RAW-only on my K20D for a couple years now and I wouldn't go back. (Like a 12-step confession?)

I'll arbitrarily blather about how use of each format compares:

Shooting JPG is good if:

* the camera can generate nothing else
* you know exactly what settings and light to use
* you're in a real hurry and must produce something NOW
* you're shooting web thumbnails and decorations
* you aren't really bothered by image quality
* you're a hipster running a Holga PP app

Shooting RAW is good if:

* you intend to display large images
* you want the picture to look its best
* you want to explore various process styles
* you want to outsmart Pentax software engineers
* you ever hope to a staff togger for National Geographic

Too bad the camera won't generate animated GIFs, eh?

[baro-nite]

Shooting RAW is good if:

* you intend to display large images
* you want the picture to look its best
* you want to explore various process styles
* you want to outsmart Pentax software engineers
* you ever hope to a staff togger for National Geographic

Another reason: even if you aren't interested in fussing with RAW development now, your future self might be. Keeping the RAW files gives you the option of revisiting these images when you have the time/knowledge/inclination to experiment with RAW development and get the most out of your shots. Keep only JPEGs and you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life. Here's looking at you, kid.