View Full Version : Raw Format and B&W - How many bits ?
Ken Lee
22-Jul-2008, 11:36
On my affordable point-and-shoot camera, I can take photos in "black and white". The resulting files are JPG. The "bit-depth" is 8-bit.
On fancy digital cameras that allow you to work in RAW mode, can one capture the image in 16-bit b&w ? (Or 12-bit/14-bit... whatever the camera supports).
...Or have I misunderstood something ?
Donald Miller
22-Jul-2008, 11:47
Ken, On my 5D I shoot raw (16 bit) in Adobe RGB (1998) and convert to bw in PS...this allows a lot more creative input in the conversion process than exposing in bw.
Jiri Vasina
22-Jul-2008, 11:50
Yes, it should be better starting from the RAW file. It depends on the camera, but I'd think it could have at least 10bit of precision.
Ken Lee
22-Jul-2008, 12:09
Ken, On my 5D I shoot raw (16 bit) in Adobe RGB (1998) and convert to bw in PS...this allows a lot more creative input in the conversion process than exposing in bw.
That makes good sense.
At the same time, I find it very interesting to view the camera's screen in b&w, and make my visual choices based on that view.
It's akin to using a good-old b&w "viewing filter" (except that it's really b&w): It helps you before you even take the photo, and as you compose it.
Daniel_Buck
22-Jul-2008, 12:42
for B&W, I think you might as well shoot it in color and convert it to B&W when you convert your RAW file. Why throw out that extra channel information?
Kirk Gittings
22-Jul-2008, 13:33
At the same time, I find it very interesting to view the camera's screen in b&w, and make my visual choices based on that view.
It's akin to using a good-old b&w "viewing filter" (except that it's really b&w): It helps you before you even take the photo, and as you compose it.
I'm surprised that anyone who has been shooting b&w for awhile and with some frequency can't see color as B&W. It quickly becomes second nature IME. I found the viewing filter helpful my first year, but haven't needed it since.
Ken Lee
22-Jul-2008, 13:55
Some of us still just...beginners. :)
Scott Knowles
22-Jul-2008, 16:05
Ken, On my 5D I shoot raw (16 bit) in Adobe RGB (1998) and convert to bw in PS...this allows a lot more creative input in the conversion process than exposing in bw.
Technically it's 14-bit converted to 16-bit output. I don't know of one DSLR yet with true 16-bit color. And while I keep hearing people go on about shooting raw and converting to b&w in PS, which I can't disagree with doing, they overcriticize shooting b&w in the camera and its 8-bit bit grayscale, but I haven't see more than a few straight up comparisons that shooting b&w in the camera is really that bad. It's just that shooting raw and converting is just more. It's the photographers choice but don't underestimated b&w in the camera, it has a high dynamic range over the whole ISO range, and it sure does simplify the workflow if you don't have or want to spend the time with raw files. And some models (5D) comes with built-in filters. Just my opinion.
Eric Rose
22-Jul-2008, 16:38
And this has to do with LF how??
Ken,
On Canon DSLRs, you can pick the "B&W Mode" and set it to record RAW and JPG simultaneously. This will allow you to view it as B&W on the LCD, record B&W JPG and regular RAW which you can then process in the usual way. I'm sure Nikons have similar feature.
The downside to this approach, I think, is that the live histogram and exposure would be biased toward the B&W, but that would be your camera's interpretation of B&W.
Your interpretation may vary and you will certainly get more definition and more flexibility in tonal conversion if you do it yourself from RAW.
Just my $0.02.
Marko
And this has to do with LF how??
Well, for starters, one can stick a DSLR to the back of the LF camera... ;)
Kirk Gittings
22-Jul-2008, 21:37
I looked at moving this thread to the Lounge, but it is potentially applicable to digital capture on VCs. It is a judgement call for sure. We have generally looked at the parameters as 4x5 or larger film or anything that uses VCs including digital backs that can be used on them.
Greg Lockrey
22-Jul-2008, 21:57
Well, for starters, one can stick a DSLR to the back of the LF camera... ;)
Yes, but a panoramic head and Photoshop is way more efficient. ;)
Daniel_Buck
22-Jul-2008, 22:20
On Canon DSLRs, you can pick the "B&W Mode" and set it to record RAW and JPG simultaneously. This will allow you to view it as B&W on the LCD, record B&W JPG and regular RAW which you can then process in the usual way.
ahh, I wasn't aware of this, disregard my comment then :o My camera doesn't have a B&W mode :D
The relevancy to Large Format has to do with the awareness that while we hope film in large format sizes will persist, we will surely see changes in emulsions available. Furthermore, large format, after capture will move more toward negative scans to digital from transparencies and negatives.
So, in the event that scanning becomes the foreseeable step in large format, it makes sense that capturing a color image and photoshopping B&W will become more flexible than B&W capture on film. The flexibility in photoshop for using all the color channels gives one the same control as having to choose the right filters in the field at capture. It seems that having the ability to control color channels to achieve various B&W effects can be a positive move.
I think it's unavoidable to plan for the fact that even large format has to become digital at some phase of the operation. The logical conclusion for those wanting to work with B&W, particularly if emulsions become limited will be to learn the possibilities that are already available in the software we have at hand.
Regarding the original question, Ken, looking at the B&W as a filter in your digital camera provides a very limited view of the possibilities in tonality, contrast and levels of greyscale. Unless you attach filters to the camera, you don't see much in terms of possibility.
Just capture all the color and learn your photoshop and plugins. Compose and capture all the color channels so that you can create B&W images at your total discretion. It seems a waste of time to try to envision the image at capture in B&W.
jetcode
23-Jul-2008, 03:08
Technically it's 14-bit converted to 16-bit output. I don't know of one DSLR yet with true 16-bit color. And while I keep hearing people go on about shooting raw and converting to b&w in PS, which I can't disagree with doing, they overcriticize shooting b&w in the camera and its 8-bit bit grayscale, but I haven't see more than a few straight up comparisons that shooting b&w in the camera is really that bad. It's just that shooting raw and converting is just more. It's the photographers choice but don't underestimated b&w in the camera, it has a high dynamic range over the whole ISO range, and it sure does simplify the workflow if you don't have or want to spend the time with raw files. And some models (5D) comes with built-in filters. Just my opinion.
As I understand it in raw the data is still 14 bits but the output is a gray scale channel rather than rgb channels. There is far more flexibility in post processing a raw color image in photoshop. You can literally select different elements in an image and use any desired b/w filter available to modify specifically the colors in that element. In camera the conversion applies to the entire image.
Scott Knowles
23-Jul-2008, 06:09
As I understand it in raw the data is still 14 bits but the output is a gray scale channel rather than rgb channels. There is far more flexibility in post processing a raw color image in photoshop. You can literally select different elements in an image and use any desired b/w filter available to modify specifically the colors in that element. In camera the conversion applies to the entire image.
From what I've read, this is true, technically raw isn't color but the value of each pixel for it's color, kinda' a 14-bit grayscale which you convert into a color image through post-processing. I don't disagree that shooting raw and converting has far more tools to produce b&w images, I only argue that people seem to criticize shooting b&w in the camera (jpg or raw+jpg) as inferior to producing any worthwhile image, akin to a color film photographer saying the same about shooting b&w film.
I don't have any arguments with people shooting raw and converting to b&w, it's the best way to go, but it's only one way to produce b&w images, b&w film and shooting b&w in the camera is also a way if the photographer chooses. I'm a curmudgeon in that shooting b&w isn't the same as producing b&w images from color. It's only my opinion but it often gets pummelled in forums other than this one.
I shoot b&w in the 5D because I don't want to think about color and only want to see the b&w image through the process, the same as I do with 35mm or 4x5 b&w film. I just get tired hearing how dumb that is when there is so much available in raw and post-processing. I'm not disagreeing, but to me thinking in b&w in the field is different than producing a b&w image in front of the computer. Both work, just differently.
Ok, I'll go have my coffee and pastry now, and finish waking up.
jetcode
23-Jul-2008, 08:48
I don't have any arguments with people shooting raw and converting to b&w, it's the best way to go, but it's only one way to produce b&w images, b&w film and shooting b&w in the camera is also a way if the photographer chooses. I'm a curmudgeon in that shooting b&w isn't the same as producing b&w images from color. It's only my opinion but it often gets pummelled in forums other than this one.
I shoot b&w in the 5D because I don't want to think about color and only want to see the b&w image through the process, the same as I do with 35mm or 4x5 b&w film. I just get tired hearing how dumb that is when there is so much available in raw and post-processing. I'm not disagreeing, but to me thinking in b&w in the field is different than producing a b&w image in front of the computer. Both work, just differently.
Ok, I'll go have my coffee and pastry now, and finish waking up.
It's great to be able to have choices. I'll have to read up on the different output options available for the 5D. I've been working on a b/w interpretation of a portrait featuring a red sweater and it has been very interesting being able to adjust the tone of the sweater using channel mixer settings.
butterflydream
23-Jul-2008, 10:17
Ricoh GR-D and recent Sigma compact digital camera can take RAW format.
It goes well with LF, as an exposure meter. The 28mm angle is rather wide, but it shows histogram on LCD screen which is convenient. You can also take GG and check the focus by zooming the LCD screen.
Ricoh GR-D and recent Sigma compact digital camera can take RAW format.
It goes well with LF, as an exposure meter. The 28mm angle is rather wide, but it shows histogram on LCD screen which is convenient. You can also take GG and check the focus by zooming the LCD screen.
Ditto Canon G9. It can also come in handy for documenting the shoot. Quick takes, angles and such. Much cheaper than Polaroid was. :)
Kirk Gittings
23-Jul-2008, 20:50
About using a DSLR as a light meter. The theoretical basis of proper exposure with a DSLR is generally accepted now to be ETTR (expose to the right, meaning the histogram-this minimizes the signal to noise ratio and as long as you don't clip the highlights in the raw file you can even it out in the raw processor). This is a very different approach theoretically and practically to exposing film. The design of DSLR exposure based on the histogram info is fundamentally different from a film meter approach. I personally don't mix the two. They are different animals.
sanking
23-Jul-2008, 20:58
Kirk,
My thoughts exactly.
If you want to expose film correctly, use an exposure meter.
Marko,
Ditto your comments about the Canon G9. I love this little baby and have some wonderful HDR color prints in size up to 12X18" that would have been impossible to make with a film camera.
Sandy King
About using a DSLR as a light meter. The theoretical basis of proper exposure with a DSLR is generally accepted now to be ETTR (expose to the right, meaning the histogram-this minimizes the signal to noise ratio and as long as you don't clip the highlights in the raw file you can even it out in the raw processor). This is a very different approach theoretically and practically to exposing film. The design of DSLR exposure based on the histogram info is fundamentally different from a film meter approach. I personally don't mix the two. They are different animals.
Robert Budding
7-Aug-2008, 13:42
Some of us still just...beginners. :)
Well, Ken, whatever you're doing, please keep doing it. I really like your images!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.