The RAW debate - a step too far?

I'm an idiot. Even if I set a camera (Canon) to shoot monochrome, when I bring up the image in my Adobe raw converter, it comes up as a color image.

Is there a way to shoot in B&W (digital) and only get B&W?

(I'm usually one of those that shoots digital for color and only occasionally uses it for B&W, so I'm probably missing something...like a better understanding of digital B&W).

This is an advantage, believe it or not. RAW is RAW, it contains all information, including RGB information. shooting B+W will give you a preview on camera of what it may look like, and a JPEG which may be bettered by converting the RAW file instead. Processing the RAW files you have absolute creative control. When using a RAW processor, don't just desaturate, that will admittedly get you a monochrome image, but you can do better by using a monochrome conversion technique involving the colour channels. By doing this you can simulate green, yellow, orange, blue and red filters and any custom setting in between. Try it out, it can really do wonders.
 
Yes, well...

Frances used to write for B+W, but lately, they have not been keen on anything she proposed (she shoots only film in B+W, and wet prints it). In a conversation with the editor a few days ago, she was told, "The magazine is doing better than it has ever done. Our readers want digital, and we have to follow our readership."

Cheers,

R.


I'm afraid that's been obvious for a few months, or maybe just over a year, now. B&W has moved from discussion of black and white photography to reviewing digital cameras, how to make digital capture look like process x and nudes - plus the obligatory 'how to take better (your subject here) pictures'.

I'm sure it's doing better financially, but I no longer have any interest in it. To be fair, there's nothing else on the newstands either, apart from the occasional emergence of an interesting issue BJP in WH Smiths.
 
Back
Top Bottom