B&W JPEGs: more than good enough.

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I am gradually losing my reluctance to shoot monochrome JPEGs on the M8 and, more recently, the E-P2. All the way up to 1600, E-P2 monochrome JPEGs look, to me, fantastic, right out of the camera. I like the all monochrome workflow, and Lightroom's new grain emulator (which I am not using here--these are just adjusted for exposure and contrast) adds a little flavor.

These are wide open with the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens, adapted to the E-P2...all at ISO1600...

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Oh, I understand, I have been a RAW shooter for years. But there is something bracing about making a commitment at the shutter release...just telling yourself that this will be enough. A kind of intentional limitation, like a sonnet.

Maybe we can save a picture by shooting RAW. But maybe, possibly, with all options gone, we would choose to transform the picture in another way. That is, sometimes limitations lead to innovations.

Not that the above are innovative pictures! But it felt good, walking around the house for twenty minutes and committing things irrevocably to the SD card.

 

[charjohncarter]

Sorry I don't agree, but I never in the last five years have tried digital camera B&W. When I was on that difficult quest, I started with out of the camera B&W. As you could imagine they were horrible. I switched to RAW and used the channel mixer sliders. That was a little better. After that I added a few other 'tricks' to help my digital camera B&Ws. Most ended looking like HDR even with RAW. I finally chucked it in and said digital cameras are for sports photographers, PS nerds, guys/pros that know PS nerds, tech people that just have to have the next thing, and in my case taking pictures of the family events. Since then I do B&W the old way and I am happy.

 

[Steve M.]

Yeah, charjohncarter pretty much nailed it. Digital and B&W don't really belong together. Not too bad for portraits, where the lack of detail and smoothing over can be kind to us old fossils w/ "character", but otherwise......

If the goal is just to put something on the web it might be OK too I guess.

 

[kermaier]

If you haven't tried B&W from a digital camera in the last 5 years you haven't tried the M8, M8.2, M9, D3 or D700. Much has changed in the world of digital imaging in the last 5 years.

Not to mention the Epson R-D1 and the Canon 5D. It seems like half the portfolios shown in LensWork over the last couple years have been done with a 5D.

And here are a couple of my favorites with an R-D1:

Canon 50/1.2 LTM, ISO 400

Summicron 50/2 Rigid, ISO 1600

::Ari

 

[gavinlg]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/1-in-8-million/index.html


All done with an original 5d, in camera JPEG.
I love his photo essays, and I have to say, I've been shooting in camera jpegs with my 5d recently, and they're seriously very good. even at iso1600 or 3200 they're fine.

I seriously doubt anyone could honestly tell me those pics in that NYT 1 in 8 million series could be better if shot in raw.

 

[mathomas]

I am gradually losing my reluctance to shoot monochrome JPEGs on the M8 and, more recently, the E-P2. All the way up to 1600, E-P2 monochrome JPEGs look, to me, fantastic, right out of the camera. I like the all monochrome workflow, and Lightroom's new grain emulator (which I am not using here--these are just adjusted for exposure and contrast) adds a little flavor.

These are wide open with the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens, adapted to the E-P2...all at ISO1600...

I too found myself (very) pleasantly surprised at the nice B&W JPEGs that the M8 can produce. However, I hated the slowness of RAW+JPEG, so now just shoot RAW and do the occasional B&W conversion. I also had a bothersome feeling of inauthenticity about digital B&W (esp when using Silver Efex Pro), and so bought an M2 with which to shoot "real" B&W (film).

(I know, the "inauthenticity" thing is pretty silly. Just think of it as an excuse for buying a nice old camera.)

 

[charjohncarter]

When I read or hear of others stating absolutes I'm reminded that the only rule is there are no rules.

But if you are happy does it really matter what anyone else is doing?

I certainly hope you do not feel I was talking in absolutes, I just tried it and didn't like it. And as I said I am happy (now), and it doesn't matter what anyone else does. If my personal opinion isn't welcome here, then I will stop contributing. BUT it is my personal opinion, and I don't expect anyone else to except it as theirs. As you say no rules etc.

 

[pachuco]

Yeah, charjohncarter pretty much nailed it. Digital and B&W don't really belong together. Not too bad for portraits, where the lack of detail and smoothing over can be kind to us old fossils w/ "character", but otherwise......

If the goal is just to put something on the web it might be OK too I guess.

😕 I hate it when I can't tell if someone is making a joke or not...

 

[pachuco]

You mean they couldn't be better than the plastic highlights and blocked up shadows?

I have twisted and turned black and white digital every which way but Tuesday and it just does not compare to the raw physical beauty of film. A sensor sees light differently than film does. No amount of wishing can make this simple fact different.

This is an old and tired argument. There is no substitution for film in black and white. If digital was so much better, why are so many people trying to make it look like film? Amateurs want to believe they can shoot digital and get the same results, but it is only possible in degrees. You can't make a steak with chicken.

Don't tell Sebastiao Salgado...

 

[Luna]

I certainly hope you do not feel I was talking in absolutes

but I never in the last five years have tried digital camera B&W

Is the above statement not absolute? Never is such a strong word. But I feel the same way as you.
I drove a car once when I was a kid and crashed because I couldn't reach the brake and see over the dash at the same time. I since have never driven a car. Cars are the worse. This is just my opinion. But I'm never wrong.

But there is always a niche for something in photography. Digital B&W fills a niche that some people enjoy. Plus, shooting RAW and using a powerful post program, I'm sure one can achieve a close film like look to their image. Granted this is RFF (or APUG) so yea, rather then pissing into the wind, I'll just finish with...
Digital isn't film.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.

I use film regularly. I love film. We all love film. YAY FILM! It is so super terrific. Can this be a given from now until eternity?

 

[Keith]

I never realised digital was crap for monochrome because it's totally unsuitsble ... wow I learn something every day here!

Aside from lacking grain (obviously) the files from my D700 that I've convered to black and white have impressed me. That said I still prefer the look of film but the modern sensors are getting there in regard to dynamic range and being able to control highlights better IMO!

Digital doesn't need grain and I don't understand why people add it ... the noise that the sensor of the D700 produces at high ISO's is not unpleasant.

 

[Keith]

It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.

I use film regularly. I love film. We all love film. YAY FILM! It is so super terrific. Can this be a given from now until eternity?

Totally agree with your comments ... I love film also but it's good to take your head out of your date occasionally and pay a little heed to what else is out there! :angel:

 

[januaryman]

It would be really awesome if, maybe just once, a thread didn't turn into a film-is-better-than-digital rant. If one more person tells me that digital can never equal film, I am going to start taking macros of my balls with a digital P&S and posting them in every thread, I swear I will.

mabelsound, I want you to put down that digital P&S and step away from it very slowly. I want you to do that for me now. Nobody needs to get hurt here. We all just want this to end so we can just go home and maybe have a cold beer.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

mabelsound, I want you to put down that digital P&S and step away from it very slowly. I want you to do that for me now. Nobody needs to get hurt here. We all just want this to end so we can just go home and maybe have a cold beer.

*removes camera from pants*

Well...if you insist.

By the way, your sig line is relevant to this discussion. Who is this loser Winogrand? Is he a sales rep for Panasonic or something?

 

[januaryman]

*removes camera from pants*

Well...if you insist.

[breathes sigh of relief] Nothing to see here, folks.. let's move along.

By the way, your sig line is relevant to this discussion. Who is this loser Winogrand? Is he a sales rep for Panasonic or something?

Winogrand? He was some obsessive/compulsive guy who shot so many film rolls he didn't know what to do, rather like the woman who lived in a shoe... And you should see how beat up his cameras were... obviously not a professional. Anyway, he's dead, so he's not relevant.

and thank you for your cooperation.

 

[gavinlg]

You mean they couldn't be better than the plastic highlights and blocked up shadows?

I have twisted and turned black and white digital every which way but Tuesday and it just does not compare to the raw physical beauty of film. A sensor sees light differently than film does. No amount of wishing can make this simple fact different.

This is an old and tired argument. There is no substitution for film in black and white. If digital was so much better, why are so many people trying to make it look like film? Amateurs want to believe they can shoot digital and get the same results, but it is only possible in degrees. You can't make a steak with chicken.

I disagree with you, I think the look of the files in that project is fantastic and suits exactly the subject material. It is after all photojournalism, and it's all about the subject. I have to add that some of the shoots look better than the others, some are not so hot.

I'm a big raw fan - it's pretty much all I shoot, but at some point with journalistic style stuff I started to care less about 'blocked up shadows and plastic highlights' and care more about what I was actually shooting, and using the light present. I find it much easier to control BW output from my 5d than my film cams. Both have their uses though, and their advantages/disadvantages for sure.

I was more specifically talking about raw files vs OOC jpeg b&w's in my original post though.

 

[ferider]

Screens don't show more than 8 bit per color. Also, in 800x600 or 1000x700 computer images, the JPG compression loss will not be visible. The M8 and M9 have deeper dynamic range though. If you are happy with JPG, it either means (a) you don't print, or (b) your exposures are always spot on 🙂

Just saying.

Roland.

 

[Rob-F]

I wonder what the discussion would be like if monochrome film only gave us yellow and blue instead of black and white...

Well, then it wouldn't be monochrome. We'd have to call it bichrome. 😛