I think it's interesting how we all have forgotten about film photography since the rise of digital cameras at the earliest part of this century (only about 12-13 years ago). I took film pictures since I was a boy when my mother gave her old Brownie Camera. At any rate someone recently asked if she should compose her pictures in black and white and use the cameras black and white mode. I typically don't typically shoot in the camera's black and white or monochrome mode because you have a lot more flexibility to control the final look of the image in Photoshop or other image editing programs if you capture color to start off with. But in regards to composition, I don't think it matters if you compose in black and white or color because when I thought about it, what did we do when used film? Even if we were shooting black and white film the image we saw through our view finder was always a color image (unless you're color blind of course) and the same rules of good composition apply regardless.
I do, however, think it is fine to experiment with various effects in the camera, like monochrome mode--one just has to remember that if one only shoots with a special tint or effect (unless your camera automatically saves a regular copy of the image along with it) you can't extract a regular color image out of it later, so when in doubt I'd say do it both ways!
And shoot it in raw, not jpeg, so that you'll have maximum flexibility in the editor.
And of course, using the camera settings/picture controls/monochrome mode, you will have to shoot in jpegs if you want to see the in-camera processing. Unless you have the camera manufacturer's editor. Nikon has Capture NX2, I am not sure about Canon. Do other manufacturers have their own raw converters and a full-function editor?
As you say, fine to explore the camera picture control settings, but I think you will quickly convince yourself that there is next to no flexibility if you rely on those. Fortunately the powerful editors like Photoshop or Lightroom with Camera Raw can do pretty decent job on jpegs, just not as good as you can get with RAW though.
@grizzlysghost@jase_again@tomsde it is good practice to compose in black and white, particularly if you have read The Negative by Ansel Adams and are using the Zone system. Photographers in the past might have used a black and white polaroid or a monochrome filter to assess a scene. This is particularly important in film to assess the shades of grey, and ensure that shadows are properly exposed. Modern digital cameras build on this and using a monochrome setting can allow an assessment of which areas to properly expose in shadows while controlling the highlights.
I recently upgraded my camera to the Canon Powershot SX50 HS partially because it has the ability to capture RAW files--partially for the longer zoom for my wildlife photography. It's about the closest I could get to a DSLR without having to change out lenses all the time. Canon does have it's own RAW processing software, which I've not installed on my PC yet. RAW is not available in certain modes--but the camera can capture RAW and jpeg simultaneously. I'm only just beginning to learn and experiment with RAW.
I love that you brought this up and funny thing is that I have been shooting in mono mode exclusively since Monday (and in JPEG) because I want to limit my flexibility--for the heck of it. @frankhymus at some point, I will start using RAW, but honestly, I haven't had the time to figure out what it will do for me, and I've decided "year two" (if I get there) will be the year of RAW because it seems to be an important step. It's just not the next step for me now. I love that this project has had me setting up little stepping stages as I go along!
I use Lightroom 5, and I find it works well for editing my mono shots, but I'm trying to get the image right in manual first so I don't have to do much.
Here's what I got my first day using mono (I've done three days now):
And this one was totally experimental in mono. I love playing with the various settings (even if admittedly, I don't know what I'm really doing--but getting closer to knowing by trying) :):
Perhaps I don't understand, but shooting in film and then digitally scanning the image for jpeg "internet" distribution, doesn't that defeat the analog benefits?
@tomsde What you are saying is actually very wrong and misleading!
Kodak continues to make film, especially colour negative and black & white. Fuji continues to make colour reversal, colour negative black & white. There are a range of other manufacturers such as Ilford, Adox, Fomopan, Shanghai, lomography, Etc, and Ferrania is set to return to production. AGFA and Rollei are produced by other makers.
Film is not just popular with so-called lomographers, but also in medium and large format the quality exceeds that of digital and is used by many practicing professionals. In the motion picture and television many major movies and TV shows continues to be made with film. Digital does not as you point out have the capacity to capture the light in the same way as film, and it seems to many that much of digital editing is aimed now at seeking to replicate the "happy accidents" and colours of the real thing.
If you want to take decent high quality photos with negatives that will remain unchanged for years, I would be using film.
As Peter said very misleading, Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection January of last year, which does not mean they were bankrupt, and exited that protection 3rd September 2013 and are now a solvent, albeit much smaller, company.
35mm is highly available in high street stores and supermarkets, and so is places that offer processing and developing. Many professional street photographers have made a shift back to film in the last couple of years, and legends such as Bill Cunningham and Steve Mccurry still regularly shoot film.
To say film is a novelty only used by kids is not only patronising, but quite frankly complete bullshit.
First let me apologize for having offending anyone on this forum, I hadn't intended to. Secondly I neither intended to be deprecating or patronizing, what I'd said in my post came from a misunderstanding on my part of the current state of conventional film photography. I must say I very much admire Jerry Uelsmann who still uses only film photography and other people like him. Different people prefer different tools, but it's the artwork (photographic results) that are most important in the end. I am only a amateur who is still learning and still have a lot to learn about photography. I have attempted to delete any erroneous information that you have corrected me on, so I'm hoping that we can put that behind us and move on. The purpose I had in mind in starting this thread was discuss the value of shooting in black and white in camera vs converting later using digital photography and what people's experiences are and what the results they are getting are.
I find it helpful at times to shoot in B&W setting of my camera. OK, I'm on a B&W trip nowadays, but even then, when I'm aiming for color pictures. It might only be a personal preference, but I find that it allows to see the light situation better and helps in composing. I perceive lights and shadows, patterns, lines and geometry better.
I suppose it's the same for other cameras as well, but my Sony NEX allows to use the B&W creative effect with RAW pictures. This means that the preview I see on the camera's display is B&W, but the picture is saved as RAW, so all color information is kept.
RAW files have a little JPEG preview saved in them which is the first what you see when you load them in Lightroom. Then while you see the 'Loading' sign, it reads the real RAW data and shows it when ready. You'll see then the color picture. You might have already realized a sudden small quality change with your color pictures already, this is usually caused by the fact that the camera's JPEG engine optimizes differently than Lightroom.
There are great b & w conversion tools in Photoshop CS6, I'm not completely sold on the "monochrome" mode on my Canon Powershot SX50. I did recently buy a "digital Holga" camera and it has all sorts of different color modes including black and white. I like the black and white images it produces, so I'm will to experiment more. I'm also just experimenting with RAW images. I do like some special modes on some of my cameras, like foliage and vibrant on the Canon and "Happy" on my Panasonic waterproof camera. I try to take multiple exposures though because I can't capture these special color modes in RAW and I might want a copy of the image without the effect applied. I'd love a camera that produces 2 prints keeps the cameras default camera color settings and also the special color mode.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
And of course, using the camera settings/picture controls/monochrome mode, you will have to shoot in jpegs if you want to see the in-camera processing. Unless you have the camera manufacturer's editor. Nikon has Capture NX2, I am not sure about Canon. Do other manufacturers have their own raw converters and a full-function editor?
As you say, fine to explore the camera picture control settings, but I think you will quickly convince yourself that there is next to no flexibility if you rely on those. Fortunately the powerful editors like Photoshop or Lightroom with Camera Raw can do pretty decent job on jpegs, just not as good as you can get with RAW though.
http://365project.org/tags/film-lives
I use Lightroom 5, and I find it works well for editing my mono shots, but I'm trying to get the image right in manual first so I don't have to do much.
Here's what I got my first day using mono (I've done three days now):
Perhaps I don't understand, but shooting in film and then digitally scanning the image for jpeg "internet" distribution, doesn't that defeat the analog benefits?
Kodak continues to make film, especially colour negative and black & white. Fuji continues to make colour reversal, colour negative black & white. There are a range of other manufacturers such as Ilford, Adox, Fomopan, Shanghai, lomography, Etc, and Ferrania is set to return to production. AGFA and Rollei are produced by other makers.
Film is not just popular with so-called lomographers, but also in medium and large format the quality exceeds that of digital and is used by many practicing professionals. In the motion picture and television many major movies and TV shows continues to be made with film. Digital does not as you point out have the capacity to capture the light in the same way as film, and it seems to many that much of digital editing is aimed now at seeking to replicate the "happy accidents" and colours of the real thing.
If you want to take decent high quality photos with negatives that will remain unchanged for years, I would be using film.
@frankhymus @jase_again @grizzlysghost
35mm is highly available in high street stores and supermarkets, and so is places that offer processing and developing. Many professional street photographers have made a shift back to film in the last couple of years, and legends such as Bill Cunningham and Steve Mccurry still regularly shoot film.
To say film is a novelty only used by kids is not only patronising, but quite frankly complete bullshit.
@tomsde @peterdegraaff
I suppose it's the same for other cameras as well, but my Sony NEX allows to use the B&W creative effect with RAW pictures. This means that the preview I see on the camera's display is B&W, but the picture is saved as RAW, so all color information is kept.
RAW files have a little JPEG preview saved in them which is the first what you see when you load them in Lightroom. Then while you see the 'Loading' sign, it reads the real RAW data and shows it when ready. You'll see then the color picture. You might have already realized a sudden small quality change with your color pictures already, this is usually caused by the fact that the camera's JPEG engine optimizes differently than Lightroom.