Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-08-2013, 05:43 AM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
foto guy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vernon, Connecticut
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 276
I think lens choice has some influence on the final shot. B&W shots with digital or film Limited lenses often look "too good". The older K-mount or M42 lenses have a much better B&W look to my eye.

09-08-2013, 05:45 AM   #47
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,057
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
An old k20 file taken in BW mode as a test shot.
I love this treatment- beautiful picture and clearly more than just a test shot. I agree with post processing to get images where you want them - I was trying to limit this thread to incamera conversions as the shutter is pressed. No retro application of conversion or art filters.

Truly a nice shot. Care to share your pp workflow. ISO1600 would need some strong noise filtering would it not?
09-08-2013, 05:53 AM - 2 Likes   #48
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
I love B&W and make a lot of them, but I still hold the view that it's better to take a colour image and convert in Photoshop. The B&W adjustment layer needs the colour information, then you can adjust any colour to be any tone. And you still have the colour version if you want it down the line, not every subject lends itself to B&W. A few of examples, the last one is from a Pentax Q.

[
]

[
]

[
]

If you were to remove the Bayer Layer and the AA filter from your sensor (not a cheap option, but could resurrect an unused camera) you would have a dedicated B&W camera with higher resolution, super high detail. The Leica M9 is available as a B&W camera, now your talking B&W photography. LOL

Any camera is just an image recording device, exposing for the maximum data gives you the widest options, but you have to master post processing to some extent to realize them, one option I use a lot is a B&W version.

If you shoot in Raw or Raw + Jpeg you will still have the colour image in the Raw file, altering settings in camera just alters the Jpeg output. You can alter much more by converting a colour Raw file to B&W in post processing.

Chris
09-08-2013, 06:18 AM   #49
Veteran Member
Kobayashi.K's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 324
QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
I love this treatment- beautiful picture and clearly more than just a test shot. I agree with post processing to get images where you want them - I was trying to limit this thread to incamera conversions as the shutter is pressed. No retro application of conversion or art filters.
...
Perhaps you should add this to your thread-starter. Not posting post-processed images is difficult because it is common practice.

09-08-2013, 07:57 AM   #50
Veteran Member
Kobayashi.K's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 324
QuoteOriginally posted by foto guy Quote
I think lens choice has some influence on the final shot. B&W shots with digital or film Limited lenses often look "too good". The older K-mount or M42 lenses have a much better B&W look to my eye.
Due to the character of this thread some people are forcedly trying to mimic 'authentic' film features like grain, which in my view is a misplaced form of Romanticism. As a former film-shooter I can say that in the film era most wanted to get images with as less grain as possible, just as digital shooters are avoiding noise now.
So, while I sympathize with the idea of setting up a digital camera for black and white, and even to avoid post-processing (which is already disputable) a legal application is definitely to get an image with a high IQ.

Last edited by Kobayashi.K; 09-08-2013 at 09:18 AM. Reason: Typo.
09-08-2013, 11:53 AM   #51
Site Supporter
Eric Auer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 861
Dont get me wrong, But I fail to see the point of a "B&W" camera.

Personally I much, much prefer to work off a Full color Raw file.

As much as I like to read TOP, In this case I think Ctein got a little Fuzzy....

As far as "Thinking in B&W"....Well...If you Think as a photographer, You should be covered in all formats.

As a young hobbyist I progressed thru a lot of Medium Format Film on old Bellow Folders and never did I find the Film making any difference as to how I saw a subject.

The only thing that mattered was the speed of the Film. Not if it was B&W or Color.

But Hey, We all see things differently
09-08-2013, 07:43 PM - 1 Like   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
Truly a nice shot. Care to share your pp
workflow. ISO1600 would need some strong noise filtering would it not?
Don't get me started on PP...

... suffice to say when it comes to photography in general and PP in
particular I'm very philosophical about It. The most important part of
PP is at the beginning. I bring down the file to my monitor and spend a
lot of time just looking at it. What does it need? Where are the
technical limits? What do I want to do with it? Where is the latent
image lying under the surface? That sort of thing. I have no hangup
about literal visual accuracy - I am a photographer not a copy machine.

So far as this file was concerned being BW tone was everything while at
the same time having to do something about the muddy shadows. I clipped
off the bottom end because there was nothing there anyway but noise.

So far as noise was concerned I did no sharpening. I use a program
called Noiseware for NR. It allows me to select different parts of
the tonal spectrum and apply different amounts of NR to it. It also
allows increasing or decreasing contrast a bit so I increased contrast
just to give it some pop instead of sharpening.

Then I used the "Shadows/Highlights" tool in PS. A very powerful but
subtle tool perfect for BW work.

Finally I downsized using bi-cubic for smooth tone gradients.

That's about it - necessarily brief but you get the idea. I'm pretty
much a seat of the pants processor so it's hard to remember exactly what
I did and in what order.

Last edited by wildman; 09-08-2013 at 08:29 PM.
09-08-2013, 10:15 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Corto-PA Quote
Dont get me wrong, But I fail to see the point of a "B&W" camera. Personally I much, much prefer to work off a Full color Raw file. As much as I like to read TOP, In this case I think Ctein got a little Fuzzy.... As far as "Thinking in B&W"....Well...If you Think as a photographer, You should be covered in all formats. As a young hobbyist I progressed thru a lot of Medium Format Film on old Bellow Folders and never did I find the Film making any difference as to how I saw a subject. The only thing that mattered was the speed of the Film. Not if it was B&W or Color. But Hey, We all see things differently
It may not have affected how you saw things, but it does affect how a medium records the data. In both digital and film systems, there are technical differences between systems that record color information and systems that don't. As mentioned earlier in this thread, a b&w digital sensor results in substantially higher resolution, due to the lack of a bayer filter / process.

Color films and traditional b&w films are simply very different, and should yield different results when shot side-by side (which I have never done, personally). The differences might not be significant to you, but they are certainly real, and important to some people.

09-09-2013, 03:28 AM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,057
Original Poster
Injinoo Boat Ramp - view about 25ft from my workplace.



Used some of the ideas mentioned above - no sharpening but a bit of shadow/highlight work in CS5.

I still like the idea that when the photographer is looking to take a B&W image he/she will look for a different set of elements. By committing to the format then the photographer actively looks for those elements and will ignore issues of hue, colour wheel and palette. Rather he/she then is pre-visualising in B&W rather than reviewing a range of colour images and evaluating them for B&W potential after the fact. This latter process is possibly excluding potential images, that with colour shooting in mind, may be missed. Just my thoughts...YMMV
09-09-2013, 03:31 AM   #55
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,057
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
That's about it - necessarily brief but you get the idea. I'm pretty
much a seat of the pants processor so it's hard to remember exactly what
I did and in what order.
Thanks Wildman - appreciate your ideas - truly do like your seat of the pants approach!.
09-09-2013, 05:01 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
foto guy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vernon, Connecticut
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 276
QuoteOriginally posted by Kobayashi.K Quote
Due to the character of this thread some people are forcedly trying to mimic 'authentic' film features like grain, which in my view is a misplaced form of Romanticism. As a former film-shooter I can say that in the film era most wanted to get images with as less grain as possible, just as digital shooters are avoiding noise now.
So, while I sympathize with the idea of setting up a digital camera for black and white, and even to avoid post-processing (which is already disputable) a legal application is definitely to get an image with a high IQ.
Absolutely!
Though I admit to being a hopeless romantic, with no regrets.
09-09-2013, 06:00 AM - 1 Like   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,613
I decided to give it a go after reading this thread, here's the result, K-5 with FA31,SOOC. I save the setting as one of my user presets, and I have to say, it's a lot of fun!


09-09-2013, 07:07 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
We are all using the term "BW" as if it is well understood by everyone else what we mean by BW in the photographic sense.
Perhaps we should start at square one and define what we understand the term "BW" means to us.

I'll kick it off:
For me the term BW is essentially a negative term. That is a BW image is defined by what it is not.
So for me, to make my point, I could logically define a "BW" image as simply a color image that lacks all chroma information.

I'll leave at that.

Anyone else want to play?

Last edited by wildman; 09-09-2013 at 09:01 AM.
09-09-2013, 07:08 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by elpolodiablo Quote
here's the result, K-5 with FA31,SOOC.
Well done.
09-09-2013, 03:39 PM   #60
Veteran Member
Kobayashi.K's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 324
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
We are all using the term "BW" as if it is well understood by everyone else what we mean by BW in the photographic sense.
Perhaps we should start at square one and define what we understand the term "BW" means to us.

I'll kick it off:
For me the term BW is essentially a negative term. That is a BW image is defined by what it is not.
So for me, to make my point, I could logically define a "BW" image as simply a color image that lacks all chroma information.

I'll leave at that.

Anyone else want to play?
You only need an exact definition of BW for technical reasons (PP), but this thread has quite another character. So, I think we can stick with our intuitive approach.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, camera, cameras, color, dslr, filter, focus, format, images, k20, mode, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not a new lens, but almost as sweet... Edgar_in_Indy General Talk 19 10-15-2012 11:05 PM
theory: a ff camera is coming, but not as a dslr zosxavius Photographic Industry and Professionals 28 07-16-2012 03:11 PM
Macro First serious attempts (but not as good as Rense shots)! Iris Post Your Photos! 18 05-08-2010 10:14 AM
Question about Raynox options but not as a macro... brecklundin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-31-2010 12:15 AM
Look the same, but they're not. Tom Lusk Post Your Photos! 9 12-13-2007 04:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top