Luna
Well-known
I "no balls" this
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
If your desire is to do really sophisticated work with your B&W pictures, I must admit, this feature is indispensible. It's much more versatile than using filters on your lenses with black and white film. While I started this thread to make a case for the immediacy of the monochrome jpeg, if you're going to shoot RAW, this is a great option.
Leicaliker
Member
I find this thread really interesting...
I am on my second digital M camera. Why? Bought an M8 a couple of years ago, loved using it but got hung up about digital processing... didn't get it and frankly didn't have the patience to learn, I just want to take photos. Being in the UK I went back to film and carried on as before. After all, what's the point of having an expensive digital camera if you don't manipulate the RAW image?
Having recently moved to Dubai I realise that film is going to be difficult so have bit the bullet and bought a used M8.2. I have popped it into B&W Jpeg and am really enjoying what I see. To be frank in the "film world" I used to have my negs processed and contacted, pick my faves to have hand printed for the album and then just enjoyed looking at them with my wife... where we've been, things we've done, a diary of our life together.
it's odd but while I appreciate quality prints I never get hung up about whether a bit of dogging or burning would have made a better image when I look through my B&W photographs, so why do I feel so "inadequate" as a Jpeg shooter? Not sure but would welcome your comments/observations.
Anyhow, for now I'm going to enjoy B&W jpeg and make sure that a capture lots of images with my new toy.
I am on my second digital M camera. Why? Bought an M8 a couple of years ago, loved using it but got hung up about digital processing... didn't get it and frankly didn't have the patience to learn, I just want to take photos. Being in the UK I went back to film and carried on as before. After all, what's the point of having an expensive digital camera if you don't manipulate the RAW image?
Having recently moved to Dubai I realise that film is going to be difficult so have bit the bullet and bought a used M8.2. I have popped it into B&W Jpeg and am really enjoying what I see. To be frank in the "film world" I used to have my negs processed and contacted, pick my faves to have hand printed for the album and then just enjoyed looking at them with my wife... where we've been, things we've done, a diary of our life together.
it's odd but while I appreciate quality prints I never get hung up about whether a bit of dogging or burning would have made a better image when I look through my B&W photographs, so why do I feel so "inadequate" as a Jpeg shooter? Not sure but would welcome your comments/observations.
Anyhow, for now I'm going to enjoy B&W jpeg and make sure that a capture lots of images with my new toy
.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
More versatile, yes. But using filters over the lens, in-camera, provides for better exposure of the prominent color channel being passed by the filter, reducing noise levels.
For instance, if you take a normally-exposed color daylight image, convert to B/W in post, then use channel mixer and keep only the red, you'll end up with an image that's under-exposed; so you end up boosting shadow noise to get full tonal range from that one channel.
Another downside of filtering on the lens is flare and/or other artifacts from the filter.
~Joe
ampguy
Veteran
It's a good thread
It's a good thread
I've also made the mistake of going back to film from digital, only to realize that what I liked about film was all the random scratches and smudges and old fashioned look, which can be a fine reason.
However, now that the E-PL1 and Fuji P&S have film emulation, I'm not sure this is a good reason for film anymore.
It's a good thread
I've also made the mistake of going back to film from digital, only to realize that what I liked about film was all the random scratches and smudges and old fashioned look, which can be a fine reason.
However, now that the E-PL1 and Fuji P&S have film emulation, I'm not sure this is a good reason for film anymore.
I find this thread really interesting...
I am on my second digital M camera. Why? Bought an M8 a couple of years ago, loved using it but got hung up about digital processing... didn't get it and frankly didn't have the patience to learn, I just want to take photos. Being in the UK I went back to film and carried on as before. After all, what's the point of having an expensive digital camera if you don't manipulate the RAW image?
Having recently moved to Dubai I realise that film is going to be difficult so have bit the bullet and bought a used M8.2. I have popped it into B&W Jpeg and am really enjoying what I see. To be frank in the "film world" I used to have my negs processed and contacted, pick my faves to have hand printed for the album and then just enjoyed looking at them with my wife... where we've been, things we've done, a diary of our life together.
it's odd but while I appreciate quality prints I never get hung up about whether a bit of dogging or burning would have made a better image when I look through my B&W photographs, so why do I feel so "inadequate" as a Jpeg shooter? Not sure but would welcome your comments/observations.
Anyhow, for now I'm going to enjoy B&W jpeg and make sure that a capture lots of images with my new toy
_mark__
Well-known
Digital sensors still render like digital sensors, even the very latest. The fact that cameras and plugins are now trying to emulate what were the perceived faults of film seems weird to me. There are so many compelling reasons for both film and digital its daft! Jpeg is good for a few things.
F it... I love digital and I started with film. I actually prefer its look these days. I must be crazy.
ampguy
Veteran
I don't see that you got an answer to this... Here's the info my graphics editing program reports for one randomly chosen in-camera B&W JPEG from my M8 - Seems to be desaturated RGB -
Size: 3936x2624 pixel (10.3 megapixel)
Resolution: 300.0x300.0ppi
Colors: 16.7 mill. colors (RGB, 32 bit)
Memory: 39.4 Mb
File Format: JPEG/JFIF
File Length: 2.4 Mb
Compression: 1:16
ferider
Veteran
Thanks a lot, Doug. Interesting. When you look at the RGB, are the 3 channel histograms the same ? Also, what's the fourth channel for, in case you know ? Also, 1:16 compression sounds like a lot. Are there ways to change this setting ?
ampguy
Veteran
This explains why I get ultra-realistic b/w images from the M8. With film, I count about 5-7 steps of greyscale.
ampguy
Veteran
sRGB or aRGB
sRGB or aRGB
Hi Doug, which color space was used for below, and do you recall if fine or regular mode?
Here's addl. metadata for my image, i use fine mode only, and srgb only:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/705482304_VZqpY-L.jpg
sRGB or aRGB
Hi Doug, which color space was used for below, and do you recall if fine or regular mode?
Here's addl. metadata for my image, i use fine mode only, and srgb only:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/705482304_VZqpY-L.jpg
ederek
Well-known
charjohncarter - thankyou for your comment. I do try and use those options. Haven't done too much with layers in PS yet, other than read about the technique.
Frankly, I'm still learning what a "good" image and processing looks like - I am getting a feel for what post-processing I personally like, be it a "realistic" look or the desaturated style of cmogi and others.
mabelsound said:
The immediacy is exactly what I'm after for the B&W jpegs. If I look at the screen, I want to only see B&W and not be distracted by color right now.
Also, if I am with friends and they want a copy of the images "right away" - I can always throw the card in a reader I carry in my kit and let them copy the B&W jpegs. That's a good personal test for getting it "right" in the jpeg - letting the images 'go' w/out editing.
I've just started capturing JPEG in-camera w/ the M9. Over time hopefully will have some comparisons to offer.
Will see how much the dual DNG + JPEG capture hurts as far as frame rates, but I really shouldn't be "overshooting" like that
This may be of interest. Took 3 street shots from a week ago. For each shot, I show the raw DNG output without editing, edited in Silver Efex Pro - with TriX grain addition (and the action seems to add contrast with that film type as well), and finally a B&W version that is my best conversion in Lightroom (slider, etc.).
The 3 shots, with 3 versions each, are here:
http://ederek.smugmug.com/Photography/Shared/201006-RFF/12595192_2AHCd#904678708_jvy3h
Here is one of the 3 images, cropped at 1:1 to show the difference between original, silver Efex Pro TriX grain, and finally the Lightroom B&W without grain and film style applied:
Part of Original cropped at 1:1 (hmm, maybe didn't select a tiny enough portion of image to get a true 1:1, but it's close)
Edited in Silver Efex Pro, TriX film style applied
Edited in Lightroom, sliders and such (would expect this looks the most like the in-camera jpeg)
Last edited:
Well, I see only three channels, and they all look the same. I opened a different file, one with strong red/white/blue colors in distinct areas. The known red area looks the same in all three channels, same with the blue. The histograms look the same too. Each channel is 256 greys. Adobe RGB (1998)
This particular file has 1:24 compression. All the files have the same Memory requirement when opened, but the File Length and Compression (one computed from the other) vary among the files according to their subject matter. The only choices are JPEG Fine or JPEG Basic, and I chose Fine.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Very cool, thanks Doug.
(Every so often I do toy with idea of getting one ....)
(Every so often I do toy with idea of getting one ....)
ampguy
Veteran
hehe
hehe
You should Roland, but don't sell your film stuff, I would expect you to revert to it several times, before reassuring yourself that it is superior
hehe
You should Roland, but don't sell your film stuff, I would expect you to revert to it several times, before reassuring yourself that it is superior
ederek
Well-known
I took a few snaps at a friends' Mojito party last Saturday. Shared a set of images using the out of camera B&W JPEGs from the M9. It was a quick editing process - 1) download from card; 2) flag the keepers; 3) share (using Lightroom plugin that makes it sooo easy).
I'm liking the process and the idea of trying to get it right with composition and exposure right out of camera. There's always the DNG raw to fall back on if an image is worthwhile, but this is working well, especially for informal snaps with friends and family.I'm especially liking the B&W view on the screen after each shot.
toast - sante - prost - cheers - salut
I'm liking the process and the idea of trying to get it right with composition and exposure right out of camera. There's always the DNG raw to fall back on if an image is worthwhile, but this is working well, especially for informal snaps with friends and family.I'm especially liking the B&W view on the screen after each shot.
toast - sante - prost - cheers - salut
Stuart John
Well-known
Even if you convert a color image to B&W using the chanel mixer after the conversion all the channels histograms will look the same. It is not really possible to know how the camera will mix the channels. Some camera may simply desatured other may may blend the channels a bit differnently. Some camera let you choose the filter color so you can shoot B&W jpegs that would look like someone had used say an orange, yellow, red or green filter.
bigeye
Well-known
I use a PS filter that makes RAW images look like they're jpg.
ederek
Well-known
mabelsound - How are you enjoying in-camera jpegs after a few months have passed?
I admit most of the time the in-camera jpeg is just fine. Noticed I was consistently adding a bit more contrast in post to the jpegs, so changed that setting for the in-camera jpeg and they're even nicer.
hmm, highlights are totally blown in both the example images I posted above. Oh well, the sacrifices we make with digital!
Here's one where digital and the RAW file helped bring out the yellow lettering (maybe a filter on a camera would have worked as well, but I don't know enough to select right one with 3 different colors in the sign).
Original:
In-Camera B&W:
Processed RAW:
With the B&W converted RAW, could have also highlighted the word "NOT" more by increasing the mix of the Red Channel (as is the case w/ the in-camera jpeg). Also, the highlights in the trees are not blown as badly in the RAW processed file (I'm also getting better at exposing for the highlights w/ digital these days), PLUS there is more shadow detail.
Granted, this type of scenario doesn't happen too often...
I admit most of the time the in-camera jpeg is just fine. Noticed I was consistently adding a bit more contrast in post to the jpegs, so changed that setting for the in-camera jpeg and they're even nicer.
hmm, highlights are totally blown in both the example images I posted above. Oh well, the sacrifices we make with digital!
Here's one where digital and the RAW file helped bring out the yellow lettering (maybe a filter on a camera would have worked as well, but I don't know enough to select right one with 3 different colors in the sign).
Original:
In-Camera B&W:
Processed RAW:
With the B&W converted RAW, could have also highlighted the word "NOT" more by increasing the mix of the Red Channel (as is the case w/ the in-camera jpeg). Also, the highlights in the trees are not blown as badly in the RAW processed file (I'm also getting better at exposing for the highlights w/ digital these days), PLUS there is more shadow detail.
Granted, this type of scenario doesn't happen too often...