Quote:
Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios
In film, sure. In Digital? No so much. Digital "monotone" or "monochromatic" images straight from a camera lack contrast and are not true black and white: theyre GREYSCALE. There's a very big difference between "no saturation" and "black and white".
By shooting in colour and editing the black and white, you can get the best of both worlds: A colour picure if you want it, and a proper black and white.
If youre shooting film, that's an entirely different matter. Black and White film is beautiful. I'd recommend that over any editing. Much of your comment reports strictly to film, and is thus difficult to apply to digital.
|
You can get a LOT closer to a true film "look" by using the same filters you would use for film, and shooting in monotone. Trust me on this one. You will only recieve a dull, flat, neutral image if you don't apply digital filtration during the conversion as well. Heck, you can only schieve a flat, neutral image without glass filters when you're shooting film.
So...give me a real good reason why color conversions are "better" than shooting monotone. The "greyscale" you get in camera is the same "geryscale" you get when you directly desaturate a RAW image. You're right in that much. However, it only remains flat and neutral if you don't use the glass and digital filters that are
deigned to increase contrast and dynamics.
The reality is...if you take a
proper exposure in monotone, using all of the monotone techniques that have been available since the late 1800's, you will get as good or better results in the final image. This much is not a debateable issue. It is a fact.
Yes...it is easier to fool around in photoshop with presets and digital filters until it looks right. Certainly, it appear to be the popular way to do it these days. But it isn't the "best" way. The "best" way, in my humble opinion, is to get it as close to right in the camera as possible. This means shooting in monotone, using digital and glass filtration for contrast, and utilizing the Zone System and EV Compensation to control your dynamic range and tonality.
Ultimately, the less processing you go through from shutter release to published image, the higher quality your image will be. So why dilly around with so much extemporaneous processing to correct bad exposures when taking a proper exposure in monotone not only saves a TON of computer work, but ultimately provides at least as good, and typically a better final image?
And before we get into it much further, let me point out to you that the current "trend" is very rarely the best option. Easiest does not equate to best, and most popular does not equate to most accurate. Just because it is easier for "the masses" to produce acceptable B&W images through color conversions, does NOT mean it is the best
dedicated method to producing the highest quality B&W images.
It is a fallacy that converting is "always better", because frankly, I defy you to look through my B&W portfolio and tell me with 100% accuracy which are conversions adn which are monotone captures. And you can choose to look through digitally or come see it in print. I guarantee you cannot tell me which is which without looking at the EXIF files. And truth be told, if converting from color was "always better", you should be able to se the difference. You can't. I can't. No one can.
So again...how is it better? Sure...if you mess up your exposures it is easier to correct a RAW file than a monotone jpg. Sure, if you don't have access or an understanding of using contrast filters for B&W exposures, I can understand. Absolutely, 8if you don't know what to look for in shooting a monotone scene, and you are trying to make a poor color picture into an acceptable B&W...you can get away with converting.
But if B&W is your goal, and you know how
properly expose the scene, and you understand the concept of tonality, dynamics, zones, and how to apply them digitally...you don't need ANY of the benefits of converting. You don't need to push or pull a RAW file, because you exposed properly. You don';t need to apply digital contrast filters in a never-ending variety of combinations, because you have exposed for a specific contrast and dynamic range. NONE of the benefits of converting from color are even remotely necessary if you start with a proper B&W exposure.
So...why is it better? I'll grant you it is easier, but...better? Nah...
Ansd before it starts an argument, I am not saying that color conversion shouldn't be used, nor am I saying that shooting in monotone is "always better". You made the statement in your first reply to "never shoot in monotone", and I call that bunk. There is no legitimate reason to NOT shoot in monotone, unless you don't know how to properly expose IN monotone. Both methods, monotone capture and color conversion, can and will prdocue outstanding results in the hands of a competant and knowledgeable B&W afficianado. Both will produce equally pleasing contrast, dynamics, tonality, zones, and quality of print. If done properly, there is little, if any difference.
So...why make the claim that you should "never shoot in monotone"? This is an absolute fallacy, and a blatantly wrong statement. Don't take my word for it. Read the February 2010 article on B&W photography by Adam Baker in Outdoor Photography. He spends more time discussing the benefits of a proper monotone capture than he does color conversion. And he states that both produce high quality images.
Use whatever method you deem fit for your own work. But to say that capturing in monotone is somehow a lesser quality capture is just bad information. Period.