# EOS Bodies: Should I shoot in B&W? or shoot in Color then Convert to B&W?



## revup67 (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm curious as to anyone's thoughts on this. I am sure we all realize the immediate advantage of shooting everything in color, then post processing into B&W but why have Monochrome as a built in option on the EOS camera's? Is there an advantage choosing Monochrome on the EOS Bodies over post processing the color RAW into B&W?

Rev


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 2, 2012)

One obvious advantage would be B&W pics right out of the cam without post processing ;-)


----------



## samueljay (Feb 2, 2012)

I think being able to see how your photos look in B&W as you're taking them is a massive advantage while shooting, plus if you shoot RAW, you're always able to go back to colour once you bring the files into your computer. The only problem I've had with that is that what looks like visually pleasing grain-ish effect on high iso's in b&w translates to awful looking colour shots


----------



## K-amps (Feb 2, 2012)

PP gives you so much more freedom to go low key, high contrast, Sepia, color toning to BW so on and so forth.

As long as you set your camera to RAW +Jpeg, you can do both


----------



## Positron (Feb 2, 2012)

I really like setting it on Monochrome while shooting in RAW for the B&W preview on the screen. When you import the resultant files into Lightroom, their thumbnails appear B&W, but snap back to color the moment you view them (and can of course be made back into B&W with a single click). A lot of times a shot that I'm not a particular fan of in color has some cool compositional elements that really pop and make it a potential keeper in black and white. And of course with RAW, you can change your mind any time.


----------



## vbi (Feb 2, 2012)

Shoot in colour, process in NIK SilverEFX. It allows you to apply monochrome filters (great for bringing out the sky), adjust grain, and select specific film types depending on the look you want to achieve. 

In the good old days of film we would do just that...pick the film that worked best for a specific application. If you choose the in-camera monochrome mode you will have to put up with an average conversion - or effectively the same film type for all your shots.


----------



## revup67 (Feb 2, 2012)

These are all good points in addition though, if shot in color under the same conditions, you can create a recipe and apply to all wanted images for B&W use within DPP via batch process.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 2, 2012)

It depends upon how much you are willing or able to do in post-processing. Conversion from color RAW to black and white shouldn't be a matter of just removing the color. There can be a lot of art and a lot of interactivity in the process. There is so much information hidden in that RAW file that is just begging to come out and if you use in-camera processing you're not getting the most out of your photos. Why be tied to what some engineers at Canon decided black and white should look like?

I suggest taking a look at this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Black-White-Photography-Techniques/dp/0470597755

Good luck.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 2, 2012)

Shoot in RAW and choose later


----------



## JerryBruck (Feb 2, 2012)

briansquibb is correct. It's the colors in your original that store a huge number of the choices for your black and white editing. This should answer your questions:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/bw_workflow_in_lightroom.shtml


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 2, 2012)

Shoot in RAW and then use something like NIK SilverEFX. If you are just using PhotoShop and converting to Monochrome, you are losing a TON of the details. I just did a webinar hosted by NIK with Vincent Versace and was amazed at the differences a piece of software like NIK color effects makes compared to just taking an image and setting the mode to Monochrome (basic just removed Hue and Saturation and throws away more than 1/3rd the detail. 

I will also plead ignorant to whether shooting in B&W makes any difference in respect to what I am talking about, but I am making the assumption that it, like other styles, is just a style that is applied to the JPG, hence similar to the Monochrome conversion and losing detail. 

really had my eyes opened the other day to just how much detail is in a Black and White image, and why some B&W really stand out and why others are dull. Conversion is really not as straight forward as I originally thought


----------



## zim (Feb 2, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Shoot in RAW and then use something like NIK SilverEFX. If you are just using PhotoShop and converting to Monochrome, you are losing a TON of the details. I just did a webinar hosted by NIK with Vincent Versace and was amazed at the differences a piece of software like NIK color effects makes compared to just taking an image and setting the mode to Monochrome (basic just removed Hue and Saturation and throws away more than 1/3rd the detail.
> 
> I will also plead ignorant to whether shooting in B&W makes any difference in respect to what I am talking about, but I am making the assumption that it, like other styles, is just a style that is applied to the JPG, hence similar to the Monochrome conversion and losing detail.
> 
> really had my eyes opened the other day to just how much detail is in a Black and White image, and why some B&W really stand out and why others are dull. Conversion is really not as straight forward as I originally thought



+1 for that info Maui always liked the look of this software but never tried it, must give it a go.


----------



## JR (Feb 2, 2012)

Shoot in RAW because then you have much more flexibility to convert to B&W. The more I try to do Black and White myself I realize how much more complex it is then I thought. It can be much more then a simple conversion. For example, to get a high contrast B&W, I often find the Lightroom B&W conversion quite boring!

I really love using PhotoShop for B&W personally using a gradient mask and sometime applying a unshapr mask to it (not always but for landscape I got good result with it...).

So I guess my point is by shooting in RAW you will be able to find the what conversion works for *you*, and get more satisfaction out of your picture taking 

Jacques


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 2, 2012)

A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 2, 2012)

Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.

And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?


----------



## K-amps (Feb 2, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.



Good tip!! +1 to you.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 2, 2012)

The camera always shoots in color! 

Your question equates to: should I let the camera convert it to B&W with its small and limited processor, or use a raw file to do it on a more powerful computer with better processing.

Take your choice.

Those who think a B&W comes right off the sensor have been misled somewhere along the way.


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 2, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.
> ...


I always use Lightroom rather than Photoshop for RAW conversion, I find it's also more flexible. I only really dabble in B&W. I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods, while I shoot for colour, then think about B&W as an afterthought.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 2, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> scrappydog said:
> 
> 
> > Kernuak said:
> ...



Same here. Sometimes I will be sitting in Lightroom and about to delete a shot when I think let me try it in B&W and voila... it becomes an instant wonder shot ;D. I do hope I can get to the level when I see a shot in B&W, then I will call myself , "Neo".


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 2, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The camera always shoots in color!
> 
> Those who think a B&W comes right off the sensor have been misled somewhere along the way.



And that is the simple truth of it. DPP only replicates the choices you get in the camera, but on your computer screen.

Hence i always shoot in RAW, and all pics get imported into LR - where i can quickly click on the B&W option to see what the potential is. Some i shoot with a deliberate view of pp in B&W - but i tend to know those shots anyway.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 2, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.
> 
> And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?



And what if you decide you want them in Color?

I tried setting my 5D MK II to monochrome and RAW, and held it up to my eye, but the image was still in color. Then I snapped it, and the image appeared in monochrome on the lcd.

Then, I imported the Raw image into lightroom. 

Since the import module shows the small jpeg thumbnail imbedded in the image, it was monnochrome, but when the image was imported and converted, it was color. 

If you shoot Raw + jpg in the monochrome mode, you will get a monochrome jpeg and a color raw, but I do not see a big advantage.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 3, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.
> 
> And if you take hundreds/thousands of photos while on a vacation, how will you remember which ones you wanted in B&W when you get back to your computer?



That's what the voice memo function is for...


----------



## EOBeav (Feb 5, 2012)

revup67 said:


> I'm curious as to anyone's thoughts on this. I am sure we all realize the immediate advantage of shooting everything in color, then post processing into B&W but why have Monochrome as a built in option on the EOS camera's? Is there an advantage choosing Monochrome on the EOS Bodies over post processing the color RAW into B&W?
> 
> Rev



It's a great question. I think the guy at Canon who decided to include the "shoot in monochrome" feature also thought it was a good idea to print directly from the camera. 

Definitely shoot in RAW, then processing your photo in monochrome later. That allows you to push and pull the different color channels to achieve the balance that you want. If you just shoot in monochrome, you'll be stuck with whatever you get.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 6, 2012)

Technically, shooting in colour then converting later would save a lot of trouble - unless you shoot RAW
This is especially true when you consider that you can then go over the various colours and pull out certain details you want before the conversion.

That said, if you were to shoot in B&W, it would definitely force you to consider the composition of the image a lot more - without the colour you're forced to use other things to draw the attention of the viewer - it could be a very useful tool to force the way you think - and if you've shot RAW, convert it back if you need to.
No doubt it won't be B&W through the viewfinder, but when you preview your shot, it will be, and whatever things you think you need to do will be there for you to see.

Personally, I love going B&W once in a while - especially when its darker, and the colours are less pronounced. straight to B&W and up the ISO - the grain can help the shot.


----------



## revup67 (Feb 6, 2012)

> A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.



Yes, this is very true. I've done this technique myself as well as tweak the contrast which also helps.


----------



## EOBeav (Feb 7, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Like a lot of other people have said, it is better to get a preview in real-time of what it looks like in B&W.



No no no no no no no....This is just plain wrong. There are so many monochrome interpolations possible from a given RAW file that it is impossible to know what a conversion will look like from how Canon creates a single b/w image in the camera. Each color channel can be pushed or pulled in a given direction in order to bring out an infinite number of monochrome combinations. Once you learn that concept, you're on your way to creating some monochrome masterpieces. 

Come on people, let's get it right.


----------



## revup67 (Feb 7, 2012)

> I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods,



^^^^^Comment of the Day^^^^^^

I completely get this. Perhaps after having your own dark room for so long and developing only in B&W for many years it causes one to see things in this manner.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 7, 2012)

I was going to post a picture but realised it was monochrome not B&W


----------

