deepwhite
Well-known
Last night we were recording drums in my friend's studio. While they were preparing and tuning, I took a few shots.
First I found that the colors in the room didn't match with each other. They just wouldn't look good in the pictures. Therefore, for the first time with my R-D1s, I set the color to B/W. Also for the first time, I set the ISO to 1600, since I thought it shouldn't be a problem in B/W.
Also, I decided to add a yellow filter to make it look "cleaner".
Then I found that the space wass to narrow for a 53mm (35 on R-D1s), so I switched from the Summicron 35/2 IV to the Super-Angulon 21/3.4. Since there was no metering with the SA21/3.4, I took a few shots, found a right value and stuck to it all night.
The following are a few shots from last night:
Not trusting myself enough, I shot with RAW + JPG so that if I'm not satisfied with the JPG version, I could always go back to RAW and restart.
Yet I found that my original setting was luckily the best for the scene. I tried different filters and settings and the results were just not as good as the JPG versions.
I also found out that, the B/W shots I took last night look great with lower contrast. I don't understand why, but if I boost the contrast in the Epson RAW, the flavor of the photos were just gone. I used to love high contrast photos, but with my own shots I suddenly found out the beauty of low contrast shots. The mid-tones are simply enjoyable. (Please correct me if I'm using the wrong word.)
I will definitely set my R-D1s to ISO1600 whenever I want to shoot in B/W. Also, time to buy some B/W films!
First I found that the colors in the room didn't match with each other. They just wouldn't look good in the pictures. Therefore, for the first time with my R-D1s, I set the color to B/W. Also for the first time, I set the ISO to 1600, since I thought it shouldn't be a problem in B/W.
Also, I decided to add a yellow filter to make it look "cleaner".
Then I found that the space wass to narrow for a 53mm (35 on R-D1s), so I switched from the Summicron 35/2 IV to the Super-Angulon 21/3.4. Since there was no metering with the SA21/3.4, I took a few shots, found a right value and stuck to it all night.
The following are a few shots from last night:
Not trusting myself enough, I shot with RAW + JPG so that if I'm not satisfied with the JPG version, I could always go back to RAW and restart.
Yet I found that my original setting was luckily the best for the scene. I tried different filters and settings and the results were just not as good as the JPG versions.
I also found out that, the B/W shots I took last night look great with lower contrast. I don't understand why, but if I boost the contrast in the Epson RAW, the flavor of the photos were just gone. I used to love high contrast photos, but with my own shots I suddenly found out the beauty of low contrast shots. The mid-tones are simply enjoyable. (Please correct me if I'm using the wrong word.)
I will definitely set my R-D1s to ISO1600 whenever I want to shoot in B/W. Also, time to buy some B/W films!
Mattikk
Well-known
Looking really good!
I enjoy the tones, they couldn't be better. Also the noise looks really good.
I enjoy the tones, they couldn't be better. Also the noise looks really good.
deepwhite
Well-known
What a coincidence! I just checked out your first b/w roll post too. I loved you work so much that I just browsed through your other photos.
You're great. Really. As much as I prefer lower contrast in B/W, your high contrast shots are striking and the high contrast just suits your theme perfectly. Also you've got great color shots.
Please keep posting your photos. I really look forward to them.
tomasis
Well-known
nice photos. I found SA delivers really medium contrast. If I wanted to get high contrast like Cron, it become very tough. No matter contrast adjustment But it is great for digital sensor for outside and bright conditions.
But it is great for digital sensor for outside and bright conditions.Mattikk
Well-known
Oh cool! Thank you so much. I will update my blog several times a week, but I'm not going to post about it here everytime. I just liked to show some of my first bw film shots.
I mostly shoot digital though because film and developing is so expensive. I'm going to get a negative -> digital sort of scanner though that my sister has. I don't really know how it works yet.
Bill58
Native Texan
NOW..... I wish I had one. Thanks for sharing w/ us.
EtoileFinder
Established
It is not the first time that I saw great result for BW on jpeg. I think I will give it a try.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Deepwhite:
Outstanding.....Lovely sense of Tonality
Cheers to your keen EYE & SA21 !!
best- H
Outstanding.....Lovely sense of Tonality
Cheers to your keen EYE & SA21 !!
best- H
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
the SA looks quite Tame in the Studio Shots..... beautiful though
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Beautiful images.
I go back and forth between liking high contrast and low contrast...that being said I think you made the right decision with these. Those midtones are meaty and rich and the images are absolutely glowing, a real pleasure to look at.
I go back and forth between liking high contrast and low contrast...that being said I think you made the right decision with these. Those midtones are meaty and rich and the images are absolutely glowing, a real pleasure to look at.
Last edited:
nanthor
Well-known
Hi, very nice pics! The 21mm worked well in those tight surroundings. Question about the comment that the SA21 doesn't meter, I don't understand this, why doesn't it? Thanks, Bob.
deepwhite
Well-known
Thanks for all the nice feedbacks.
Bob, the rear element of the SA21 is very long. It sticks deeply into the camera body, so deep that I can't mount it on my Bessa R2A! It fits the R-D1s, but the rear element blocks the path needed for the light, causing the camera unable to meter.
Then that's the beauty of digital cameras. (Well, for inexperienced people like us who are not human metering machine yet...) You take a few shots and find a value you want, and then just shoot away.
Bob, the rear element of the SA21 is very long. It sticks deeply into the camera body, so deep that I can't mount it on my Bessa R2A! It fits the R-D1s, but the rear element blocks the path needed for the light, causing the camera unable to meter.
Then that's the beauty of digital cameras. (Well, for inexperienced people like us who are not human metering machine yet...) You take a few shots and find a value you want, and then just shoot away.
cam
the need for speed
nice first shots, deepwhite! i am still lusting after the SA, sigh...
Epson does very beautiful b/w, though i usually prefer to to process the RAW myself. the one exception is when i'm shooting 1600 in low low light. i've found the in-camera JPEGs to be beautiful, almost painterly and can add an ethereal quality better than i usually can.
boring shot (apologies aforehand), but i was testing the limits of the camera (and my focusing abilities) in extremely low light. shot handheld at 1600, wide open w/a pre-asph 35 Lux. i was focusing on the bushes and/or their shadows i think. (i was a wee bit tipsy.)
second shot with a little better focus. 1600. wide open (50 Lux this time). in-camera JPEG with a little curve tweaking.
Epson does very beautiful b/w, though i usually prefer to to process the RAW myself. the one exception is when i'm shooting 1600 in low low light. i've found the in-camera JPEGs to be beautiful, almost painterly and can add an ethereal quality better than i usually can.
boring shot (apologies aforehand), but i was testing the limits of the camera (and my focusing abilities) in extremely low light. shot handheld at 1600, wide open w/a pre-asph 35 Lux. i was focusing on the bushes and/or their shadows i think. (i was a wee bit tipsy.)
second shot with a little better focus. 1600. wide open (50 Lux this time). in-camera JPEG with a little curve tweaking.
Attachments
Last edited:
yanidel
Well-known
cam
the need for speed
You got me confused here
generally, yes. but in actuality, no. all cameras have their own processing of JPEGs that will usually use some sharpening, noise reduction, etc. some are more destructive than others (read: smear). Epson comes a lot closer than many other companies in their JPEG processing to keeping true with the RAW file but it's still a matter of close but no cigar. the difference is most evident at 1600.
i guess it's a matter of how anal you are (i am very) as to whether you notice the differences.
yanidel
Well-known
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Cam
that garden shot looks abit weird to me / ill exposed
But i like the idea / framing & tonality with the Girl pix
best- .....
that garden shot looks abit weird to me / ill exposed
But i like the idea / framing & tonality with the Girl pix
best- .....
Last edited:
cam
the need for speed
i shoot both, but truly only use RAW (i like seeing b/w on screen). a 1600 JPEG is the only one that i'll occasionally use. there *is* a difference -- RAW is better. i'm just impressed that Epson seems to do a better job with JPEG than most (except, perhaps, the original GRD).
Cam
that garden shot looks abit weird to me / ill exposed
But i like the idea / framing & tonality with the Girl pix
best- .....
the garden shot was near pitch black -- i was thrilled to get anything
both of these were just ones i grabbed, not necessarily the best of the bunch... test shots are the correct term.yanidel
Well-known
by the way, what color space did you use ?
Gid
Well-known
You don't need to shoot Raw + Jpeg to see B&W on screen. Just set the camera to monochrome and quality to Raw. You then get B&W on the screen and if you use the Epson converter you get B&W on your monitor - that is a complete B&W workflow, but, with the option of colour should you want it.