# D7100 Question, can I have this camera shoot every photo in color and BW



## Auslese (Oct 24, 2015)

I believe my previous camera D80 did this, but I never tried it. Now I am seeing the beauty and interest of black and white.  The d7100 lets you edit an individual image to BW, but seeing every image in this format would allow for picking those where it is appropriate.......  Thanks..


----------



## jaomul (Oct 24, 2015)

Yes, but you have to select jpeg and raw. The jpeg will be b+w, the raw will retain all its properties but need to be converted to a jpeg in appropriate software


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Yes, but you have to select jpeg and raw. The jpeg will be b+w, the raw will retain all its properties but need to be converted to a jpeg in appropriate software


Tried that, and the jpeg is still color, is there another setting that has to be changed.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 25, 2015)

Yes. Go into picture style and change to b and w


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Yes. Go into picture style and change to b and w


And picture style is located where?  Just looked at every menu?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 25, 2015)

Not sure as d7200 menu slightly different. Maybe it's called picture control. Should be in index of manual, but is def one of the menu settings


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

I would never let a camera create a b&w.  Never.

Reason is, the algorithm used to convert the image was created by someone on the other side of the planet, who had NO IDEA what my needs are.  

I'd suggest you shoot in RAW + JPEG, and set the camera to shoot black & white.  Use the b&w jpeg to 'proof' the image in-camera, but create the final image by editing the .NEF file.  It will have all the color data available to you and will open up _every possibility conceivable_ to create the monochrome image you want.  

There's a myriad ways to convert to b&w..... why limit yourself to just one?  And one that's really a one-size-fits-all bandaid?


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I would never let a camera create a b&w.  Never.
> 
> Reason is, the algorithm used to convert the image was created by someone on the other side of the planet, who had NO IDEA what my needs are.
> 
> ...


Sure converting to BW is easy, but doing it to every photo post processing is impossible as I take tens of thousands of photos.  If I could view all of them instantly in BW, then I could see reality in a totally different and forgotten way and I could choose the shots that were better in BW without taking the days needed to convert them.  The camera should be able to do this and I am told that it can, but no one seems to be able to confirm how to do it.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 25, 2015)

It's been explained above how to do it.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I would never let a camera create a b&w.  Never.
> ...


Is there any software that would allow me to view color photos instantly in BW?  This would allow me to choose the best images and then use my editor to create the BW image in post processing.  Note I need to be able to view thousands of images in as little time as possible, so changing color settings in each image is not possible or timely.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

jaomul said:


> It's been explained above how to do it.


No it was not, and the owners manual does not list this as an option. I build and program computers, so I am not illiterate.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Sure converting to BW is easy, but doing it to every photo post processing is impossible as I take tens of thousands of photos.  If I could view all of them instantly in BW, then I could see reality in a totally different and forgotten way and I could choose the shots that were better in BW without taking the days needed to convert them.  The camera should be able to do this and I am told that it can, but no one seems to be able to confirm how to do it.



That's exactly what you are doing..... _you view the JPEGs as b&w_ because you set the camera to shoot b&w so_ that's what they are_.  If you need to edit them in any other way, you edit one .NEF in whatever editor you use, then batch process the rest.

2 minutes in post, then apply the one edit to the rest of the day's shoot.  Bam, done!


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 25, 2015)

Lightroom has B&W presets for the initial import.
I've never used them, but it looks like you can import and convert to B&W automatically during import.

If not, setting one B&W and then syncing all the rest to that first one is simple and fast.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Sure converting to BW is easy, but doing it to every photo post processing is impossible as I take tens of thousands of photos.  If I could view all of them instantly in BW, then I could see reality in a totally different and forgotten way and I could choose the shots that were better in BW without taking the days needed to convert them.  The camera should be able to do this and I am told that it can, but no one seems to be able to confirm how to do it.
> ...


Forget it the entire idea is a bust, why, because my cards image count goes from 1300 images to 400 at my settings, which would mean that I need a new card, and also another backup drive to store the images as I keep them all.  Now I want to view the color images in BW in a viewer or switch my monitors settings to BW, which would serve the same purpose for me, and it is cheaper all the way around.  So that is a new question, is there  viewer that would allow me to quickly scan all color images as BW, so I could choose the ones that I want to convert in an editor in post processing.  Sorry to be difficult, but saving to two formats means trillions and trillions of more bites to store, for no reason.  JPEG is easier and better, though I know some disagree.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Then try this über-simple solution:

Shoot in full-color JPEG, then batch process them to b&w in post.  View the b&w in _any_ viewer or editor.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Lightroom has B&W presets for the initial import.
> I've never used them, but it looks like you can import and convert to B&W automatically during import.
> 
> If not, setting one B&W and then syncing all the rest to that first one is simple and fast.


I do not want to import and save as BW, that means twice the work and drive storage, I just want to view and select the best, to do post editing on where the conversion will happen as dark or light as I see fit.


480sparky said:


> Then try this über-simple solution:
> 
> Shoot in full-color JPEG, then batch process them to b&w in post.  View the b&w in _any_ viewer or editor.


That means storing them as BW even if only temporarily, it's a grand waste of time.  When I sit down with my new shots, I view them and choose them ASAP, then take my time in editing.  I actually might be able to change my monitor to BW and see the images as BW even if color, but that isn't jumping out either.  Simpler is better, and will result in me having more time to do real editing.  This should be easy but I am sure that there is a $1,000 photoshop plugin to do the task.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

If B&W is so important, then just shoot in b&w JPEG.  Problem solved.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

So let me understand your work flow....

You want to shoot in color, but in post you want to see what an image looks like in b&w, right?  One at a time, or are you wanting to magically see ALL the images in black & white?


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> So let me understand your work flow....
> 
> You want to shoot in color, but in post you want to see what an image looks like in b&w, right?  One at a time, or are you wanting to magically see ALL the images in black & white?


I want to see all of the images in BW, not converted to BW just have the color removed for viewing. Then choose the color photos that I have chosen and convert them to BW or sepia, for artistic value.  The reason for this is a color photo may not seem nice, but as BW it becomes mysteriously magical.  I should be able to alter my monitor to achieve this, but it seems that BW is dead in some circles and is only alive in some areas of photography.  Having the camera save two images has become dumb in my mind as only .01 percent will be used.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> If B&W is so important, then just shoot in b&w JPEG.  Problem solved.


Nah, BW is only important in some photos, besides if I am shooting in BW Murphy predicts an alien landing or Bigfoot asking me for directions.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

First off, learn to 'see' in b&w.  Spending hours in front of a monitor clicking on image after image in the hopes that an image will suddenly jump out and and be an award-winner is a *huge *waste of time.  So you should only be working with images that you know beforehand have a chance of becoming monochrome masterpieces.  I rarely 'see' a black and white for the first time in post.... 99.99% of mine are 'seen' before I even pick up the camera.

Ansel Adams rarely shot color.  Look how well his b&w shots came out.  I doubt he spent much time in the darkroom trying to salvage an image... he did all that legwork out in the field.  If the scene wasn't worthy of clicking a shutter, he moved on. He knew full well what his finished image was going to look like before he grabbed a tripod.

Another thing is to learn to cull your tens of thousands of shots down to what you want to edit.  No need to edit _everything_.... just what is worthy of editing needs to be dealt with.  This is easily done by star rating your images during initial ingestion.  Then you can set your editor to only show you the 1+ star-rated images.

Now that you're down to a managable number, Nikkon's NX-D will easily compare two images side by side.  Just open the folder, select the image, then click on the "Side by Side" icon (red arrow).  Change one image to monochrome (green arrow).


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> First off, learn to 'see' in b&w.  Spending hours in front of a monitor clicking on image after image in the hopes that an image will suddenly jump out and and be an award-winner is a *huge *waste of time.  So you should only be working with images that you know beforehand have a chance of becoming monochrome masterpieces.  I rarely 'see' a black and white for the first time in post.... 99.99% of mine are 'seen' before I even pick up the camera.
> 
> Another thing is to learn to cull your tens of thousands of shots down to what you want to edit.  No need to edit _everything_.... just what is worthy of editing needs to be dealt with.  This is easily done by star rating your images during initial ingestion.  Then you can set your editor to only show you the 1+ star-rated images.
> 
> Now that you're down to a managable number, Nikkon's NX-D will easily compare two images side by side.  Just open the folder, select the image, then click on the "Side by Side" icon (red arrow).  Change one image to monochrome (green arrow).



I do not edit everything, but I do need to view everything, because after I zoom on many shots I see things that were not seen at the scene or at distance, such at this shot taken at 50 yards that just showed a blurry dog in the grass 
So things that are not seen at the scene are recorded and of value that you need to discover in post processing, just as the perfect photo that you know you took sometimes just plain stinks.  I have Nikon View NX2 can I view in BW with this?  One reason that I want to do this is because I am taking graveyard shots at the moment.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> I do not edit everything, but I do need to view everything, because after I zoom on many shots I see things that were not seen at the scene or at distance, such at this shot taken at 50 yards that just showed a blurry dog in the grass DSC_6858b
> 
> So things that are not seen at the scene are recorded and of value that you need to discover in post processing, just as the perfect photo that you know you took sometimes just plain stinks.



Learn not to Spray and Pray.  It wastes time and memory space.  Get selective in your shooting.  And be more aware of _everything_ that's in the frame.  If there's something in the image that kills a color image, it pretty much kills a b&w conversion as well.




Auslese said:


> I have Nikon View NX2 can I view in BW with this?  One reason that I want to do this is because I am taking graveyard shots at the moment.



No.  NX-D is free on Nikons' website, though.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> If B&W is so important, then just shoot in b&w JPEG.  Problem solved.


Ok, that is a thought, how do I set the 7100 to jpeg BW, should be easy right?


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > I do not edit everything, but I do need to view everything, because after I zoom on many shots I see things that were not seen at the scene or at distance, such at this shot taken at 50 yards that just showed a blurry dog in the grass DSC_6858b
> ...


This came out of say 500 shots, that can not be selected ever, as this is happening at over 20 mph minimum  Big Brook  A second not preserved is a second lost to eternity.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Page 105 of the manual.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Page 105 of the manual.





480sparky said:


> Page 105 of the manual.


Perhaps but then I lose color, and will not be able to tell the color of an aliens blood. Seriously if I shot everything in BW I would just have the opposite problem, but converting to color though possible would be stupid and inferior.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Oct 25, 2015)

Shoot Raw


----------



## dcbear78 (Oct 25, 2015)

Here's your solution... But I can already tell you won't like it.... 

1. Shoot in raw
2. Buy bigger memory cards. Memory is too cheap these days to have that as a concern. 
3. Select b&w as you just discovered how to do it in the above post. The raw file will still be in colour, but the preview on the back of the camera will be b&w. 
4. Import photos to Lightroom, applying your chosen b&w setting. 
4. You can cull images in LR easily. 
5. Further develop b&w's as desired. 
7. Any you want back in colour can be changed back as raw edits are non destructive.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Page 105 of the manual.


I looked at page 105, and found out why this does not work on my camera, which is that I use the U1 setting that I have created, which incorporates the cameras sport setting, which does not allow for BW.

Again the easiest way to do this is to kill color in my monitor, but even my video card does not support this.  This is making me grumpy, because this should be simple.


dcbear78 said:


> Here's your solution... But I can already tell you won't like it....
> 
> 1. Shoot in raw
> 2. Buy bigger memory cards. Memory is too cheap these days to have that as a concern.
> ...


Too complicated and expensive,
1 buy new cards 100 to 200 dollars
2 buy lightroom, 150 with shipping
3 buy new storage drive for double shot taking, 200 or so

None of this makes sense as all I need to do is see my photos in BW so as to choose them.  The fact that this is not easy is doofy.  

Raw is also a waste of time, just my opinion, less is more, the camera incorporates JPEG for a reason, and simpler is often better, I know some disagree, but the JPEG is already an image that can be changed in near any way.  Double formats is double problems, and I will buy a black and white monitor before I add another 5 terabite drive to hold a few hundred BW photos that I must store as JPEGS and RAW. 

None of the expenses above will add picture quality, there is a free way to do what I want, as it really is simple.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2015)

The main adjustment you need to make is to your attitude and working methods...

If you cannot figure out how to see your images in Black and White, you need to become more familiar with how your software works.

Good luck with that black and white monitor thing.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 25, 2015)

You really are hard to please aren't you?

The only option that occurs to me that hasn't already been mentioned is to buy a second monitor.  Head down to the Salvation Army or similar local thrift store, and chances are, for <$20 you can find an old CRT monochrome monitor or television set.  Set your video card to a dual-eye configuration and you're done.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

tirediron said:


> You really are hard to please aren't you?
> 
> The only option that occurs to me that hasn't already been mentioned is to buy a second monitor.  Head down to the Salvation Army or similar local thrift store, and chances are, for <$20 you can find an old CRT monochrome monitor or television set.  Set your video card to a dual-eye configuration and you're done.


Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color? 

Bye the way there are no junkyards with CRT black and white monitors, because color was already in place when CRT computer monitors were invented.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The main adjustment you need to make is to your attitude and working methods...
> 
> If you cannot figure out how to see your images in Black and White, you need to become more familiar with how your software works.
> 
> Good luck with that black and white monitor thing.


Nice post, but you can't figure it out either, I build and program computers....Part of the problem is that Nikon is demanding that people use their bloated image format, but at least they do allow people to shoot in JPEG and Raw because Raw is actually inferior.  Ever think of that?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?


  I don't know. I'm a photographer, not a monitor-designer.



Auslese said:


> Bye the way there are no junkyards with CRT black and white monitors, because color was already in place when CRT computer monitors were invented.


 Really?  Huh...  I guess what I thought where monochrome displays I was using in the early 90s were just... what?  My bad eyes?  The last time I was in my local Salvation Army they had a nice 12-14" (I didn't pay a lot of attention) B&W desktop television set.  Granted they're not terribly common any more, but they're around.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?
> ...


Then I would need to replace my 500 dollar video card to incorporate a vga plug, which means I am going backwards, which is dumb, as is the idea. I do not have a six core i7-3930 processor to run obsolete garbage, that someone threw away 25 years ago.  I threw away 8 CRT's and all were color.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The main adjustment you need to make is to your attitude and working methods...
> ...



You've provided me with a fine morning laugh. I look forward to your dissertation on the inferiority of the raw capture format. What journal is publishing that?

Dude...you want Black and White rendering of your images...Jeebus...set B&W as the import profile in LR, and have the previews made as B&W images....oh, wait, you're too cheap to spring for Lightroom....oh well. Your specific density must be close to that of granite...

You do (?????) realize that undesired images CAN be thrown away and deleted, right? Or do you just like to whine about storage and memory cards and the price of software? Again--your most-needed adjustment is an attitude adjustment. Followed by working methods adjustment that conforms to roughly the 2005 era. Because, YES, it is dead fricking simple to shoot each image in Black and White and full color. But it DOES require a few button-clicks before the shooting day starts. You have been told how to do it, but apparently it does not jibe with your fantasy world concepts. Maybe you need to *ask a Unicorn how to accomplish* this monumental task?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 25, 2015)

Okay... so a'splain me this Lucy - this thread has gone to three pages, with detailed information by some very skilled and experienced photographers. For whatever reason, none of those options are suitable.  At some point you need to realize that you can't always do what you want the way you want.  It really is that simple.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Okay... so a'splain me this Lucy - this thread has gone to three pages, with detailed information by some very skilled and experienced photographers. For whatever reason, none of those options are suitable.  At some point you need to realize that you can't always do what you want the way you want.  It really is that simple.


You are the first person to say that, and it makes sense.  I will invent it then, and pay nothing, the problem is that mainstream product lines are 100 percent dedicated to the best color possible, and I am looking backwards.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All JPEG, dissertation ended.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

You seem to have champagne taste and a beer budget.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> .......  I will invent it then, and pay nothing, .....



How utterly naive.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > .......  I will invent it then, and pay nothing, .....
> ...


Not at all, people pay for computer apps every day, without even looking at the free app page first. This is the naïve thing, but not everyone will ever invent something.  By invent I really mean find another way that is simpler using off the shelf parts and software so to speak.  Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him?  Look it up.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I do not want to shoot in BW, I want to shoot in full color and merely view in BW, thus the equation has nothing to do with the camera.  Can you grasp this?


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.

A good bw image depends on the contrast of tones of white, grey and black.
The absolute worst way to get a good bw image is to take a good color image and take the color out by desaturation.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.
> 
> A good bw image depends on the contrast of tones of white, grey and black.
> The absolute worst way to get a good bw image is to take a good color image and take the color out by desaturation.
> ...


Does not really matter to me, because we are only speaking about perhaps .05 percent of total shots, and perhaps .01 percent if you take the tens of thousands of photos that I might take in an active week into account.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.
> ...



I understand completely.
You are much smarter than me because I would just go out and buy Lightroom, then use LR to convert those thousands of pictures en masse so I could review and cull them.

You really are wasting your time here.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> ..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him?  Look it up.



Ever hear of Thomas Edison?  The guy who invented the light bulb?

Well, truth be told, he DIDN'T invent the light bulb.  Fact is, there were dozens of patents that were already filed.  Tom didn't invent the light bulb.

But look how long it took him to make one that worked, and how much it cost him.


Do you honestly think you're going to invent something 'at no cost'?  You seriously are totally naive about it.


You come here for help, and you've been given a dozen options.  Yet you refuse them all claiming poverty and a desire to be lazy to accomplish your goal.

I'm done here.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > One of the reasons you (OP) will never be happy is because you think that a good BW image is a good color image with all the colors removed - and that is totally not true.
> ...


Quit spraying and praying.  Lean to see and compose the shot.  Action?  It's called "anticipating the shot".  Learn to anticipate the "peak action" of a movement rather than just holding down the shutter button and praying you'll get something.    Unless you're shooting a full wedding or NFL game every day there is no reason on earth for 10,000 shots a week.  None.  At that rate you'll wear the shutter of a pro SLR out in a matter of months. 

If you really are working in the tech field you should know that certain specialties require B&W monitors and they are still in production.  Granted I doubt you could afford a medical grade Eizo 25mp B&W monitor, but they are out there and being manufactured currently. 

Jpegs superior to raw? That's gotta be one of the funniest things I've read today.  Despite cameras being "digital" that doesn't mean that being "computer literate" translates to being "photography literate".    So step back and listen to the people here who know what they are talking about.  Derrel is right, your primary obstacle at the moment is yourself.   You want to be able to see "thousands" of images at a time in B&W in the off chance that you may have captured something that will look better as a black and white image.   That just smacks of desperation to me.   It is the epitome of "spray and pray", and something you should be actively seeking to avoid.    If it's too time consuming to have to sift through thousands of images, don't take thousands of images.  Shoot with intent, not abandon.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Why would I want to convert hundreds of thousands of pictures to BW, and store them, just to keep a few.  It's a waste of time, space and money.  If I can just view all of the photos once I can pick the few to convert one at a time, or as a batch if that is easier.  We are speaking about a few out of 1000 shots per day sometimes, and sometimes far more.  And I already have elements, and am very happy.   Autumn Splendor


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...




Animals do no pose for shots, the joy is in capturing the moments.

Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.

PS. 6 shots per second, times 1 hour is 21,600 photos, Nikon designed this quite on purpose for people who shoot nature in motion.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2015)

You need to move to a Canon 1DX....it can shoot twice as fast, so your photos would be twice as good. Definitely, look into the Canon 1DX.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Auslese said:
> ...


Kids don't pose for shots either, neither do racers, or dancers, or birds in flight.  My 1Dx takes 14 shots per second and yet I still don't come home with 10,ooo shots in a week.   Why, because I can anticipate when to shoot.

  I don't feel the need to convert every shot to B&W just to see if it might work.  Why?  Because I've learned to see and evaluate the tones and contrast in a scene.   Tonal contrast is what makes good B&W images.  If you're just hoping that an image will magically look better when converted to B&W then you've already got a problem.  The image should stand on it's own, color or B&W.   You should be able to evaluate an image based on it's composition and tones.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Bye the way my camera was designed to take 6 shots per second on purpose, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for.



_Bye the way Lightroom  was designed on purpose _to convert thousands of images to BW_, something that you do not seem to understand the reason for._
Then you can view all of them and discard the ones you don't want.

But since you know everything, there's nothing here for you.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > ..........Did you hear the story about the guy who invented the computer mouse, and how IBM laughed at him?  Look it up.
> ...



Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Auslese said:
> ...


Did you read the part of his post where he said Edison _didn't_ invent the light bulb?


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...




I watched this black bear cub climb this tree, and I watched it's mother return and tell it to come down and leave, because they were being watched.  There are 400 shots in this line, I have them all.  I missed the bear shots in your link, are you hiding them for some reason?


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Actually Thomas Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, that was not a bulb, nor could it be marketed because the filament was exposed and would have been quite shocking.



I'm going to have to write to these people The UnMuseum - Who Invented the Lightbulb?  who have an entirely different opinion and tell them that they are wrong.

You must be really enjoyable to be around since, no matter what the issue, it seems you will have an answer.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 25, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Yes I read it and he was wrong as Edison did invent the light bulb, Sir Humphry Davy invented the electric light.  So he was quite wrong.  This is kind of like saying that Columbus discovered America when there were Indians and Vikings here first. Yet Columbus is credited because he marked the route and others followed.  Who Invented the Light Bulb?


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

Actually from the link you gave.

"In 1874, Canadian inventors Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans filed a patent for an electric lamp with different-sized carbon rods held between electrodes in a glass cylinder filled with nitrogen. The pair tried, unsuccessfully, to commercialize their lamps but eventually sold their patent to Edison in 1879."

Edison's lab created the first successfully  marketable electric bulb.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Auslese said:
> ...


I spent a lot of time hunting growing up.  I've spent more time than I care to think about sitting in a blind, or up a tree.  Animals aren't nearly as unpredictable as you think.  They are either meandering, or sitting still, or on the move.  There is usually a tell before they get moving.   A flick of an ear, a lift of the head to look around, or a crouch when prey is spotted.   Even then the need to just "spray and pray", as you are so proud to do, is nonexistent.   That's the point of anticipating action.  Why do you need 400 pictures of a bear climbing up and down a tree?   That's just a waste.   What are you going to do with those 400 images?  Frame 400 images of a bear climbing a tree up on the wall?  Make a book "Cub Climbs Tree"?  You seem to insist that you somehow "need" all of these images.  I don't think so.    
  I bought a 600mm lens thinking I'd like to get into birding and wildlife.  You know what I figured out?  It bored me to death.   While I enjoy getting out in the wild and hanging around with wild animals all day, the images just bore me.  Most wildlife photographs are just "pictures of things".   Images made to show that you were there and actually saw the animal.  Boring.  The best wildlife images are ones that use light and atmosphere to create a mood, but those are quite rare.    Do you need 400 images to prove that you saw a cub climb a tree? No?  Didn't think so.  If you really feel like you need to savor every second, just record a video.  Most cameras can do that nowadays.   It sounds to me like you'd be better served with a camcorder anyhow. 

Here's a fun one.  This meercat climbed a log and looked around.  Then he got down, climbed a rock and looked around.  Mostly, he stood and looked around, so you know what I did?  I took a picture of him looking around.   Not 400 pictures, not even 40.  I think I might have taken less than half a dozen total, shot one at a time.  



Is That You Bob? by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a seagull coming in for a landing.  Manually focused, shot one shot at a time.   I may have taken a grand total of three images of this bird. 



Gull Landing by tltichy, on Flickr

Here's a cardinal foraging.  Did I take 1,000 photos of it? No.  Why would I?  I think I may have taken 4, maybe 5 pictures of it.  What would I do with 100 images of a foraging cardinal that all look almost identical?



Foraging Cardinal by tltichy, on Flickr

Think about sports.   I could go to a motorcycle race and only shoot about 700 images, all day, of at least 100 different competitors.  One shot at a time. Even then I usually don't publish them because once you've done it once, it gets boring and repetitive.   



Charging Past by tltichy, on Flickr
What would I do with even 10 shots of this guy coming by me?  Really?  One is enough.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 25, 2015)

Actually I think I've had my fill of the OP and will unfollow this thread and ignore him in perpetuity.

Surely my loss.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:
			
		

> Why would I want to convert hundreds of thousands of pictures to BW, and store them, just to keep a few.  It's a waste of time, space and money.



Who said anything about *keeping and storing* all the images? Are you missing the most fundamental concept here, of getting rid of unwanted Lightroom conversions? You can do a batch convert on IMPORT, and it might take a few minutes for Lightroom to make the preview images, but that would be a very simple thing to do. There is however no need to store and keep unwanted images.

Since you have Photoshop Elements, and do not own Lightroom, you likely are unaware of how Lightroom 1) creates previews 2)leaving the raw files un-edited and 3) allows you to make "exported" files of whatever size you want to make, in either color, or B&W and 4) allows rapid, easy batch conversion of files to different types of processing settings.

The idea that you own _Photoshop Elements_ and yet are shooting like a machine gunner just doesn't make much sense. Lightroom is well,well worth the cost.

Do you feed that cheap, bargain basement dog food you can buy at discount stores? it is all ANY dog needs, I can assure you. Plenty good.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 25, 2015)

Oh

My

Gosh   

The answer is simple.  By a film camera and use B&W film.


or
use Lightroom, after all, you're still taking all those photos and somehow have to sort them out either before or after you import them from the SD card.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> I want to see all of the images in BW, not converted to BW just have the color removed for viewing.


Simple -- monochrome monitor.

(Now I am done.)


----------



## Jim Walczak (Oct 25, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?



The fact of the mater is that if you "just remove the color" from a color computer monitor, CRT or otherwise, then you'll simply have -black- and not white.  Like TV's, computer monitors use what's called _additive color_...the 3 primary colors, red, green and blue (in other terms "RGB") combine to create "white" when they're at their full intensity.  This is the opposite of _subtractive color, _such as you find with paints, inks and pigments where the combination of colors creates black (actually a dark, muddy brown).  In similar terms, "color" and "black & white" are 2 very different things.  For someone who seems to think he knows so much about computers, it's rather funny you didn't know that.



> Bye the way there are no junkyards with CRT black and white monitors, because color was already in place when CRT computer monitors were invented.



You seem to be over-looking the fact that monochrome CRT's were in fact popular with computers (particularly "terminals") LONG before color monitors became common place.  The reason for this is that in the old days of computers you had this thing called "DOS" or Disk Operating System and in the earliest days of computers, it was all command line operations.  Sure there were some early color systems like Commodore/Amiga, however with early PC's (such as the IBM XT) which were originally intended for business applications, the concept of color graphics wasn't really a priority.  After all, who really needs color for word processing or spread sheets?  In other words, the technology for color monitors was certainly available, however the computer industry was slow to follow until Windows came around and started to go head to head with Apple.

Likewise as tirediron said, yea...you can still find old monochrome monitors around at thrift stores and such, usually for dirt cheap (although I'm aware of your paranoia regarding "used equipment).  In fact I suspect that if you checked with some place that handles "e-scrap", you would in fact find that yea, there ARE junkyards that have CRT's and such 



> Then I would need to replace my 500 dollar video card to incorporate a vga plug



In fact, NO, if you did in fact have some desire to run an older monitor, you do NOT need to replace your "$500 video card" (wow, must be nice to have soooooo much bread to blow on toys).  If you are in fact using a workstation video card and you have some genuine desire to use an older monitor, you can pick up a "display port to VGA adapter" for $40 or less (saw one listed for $15).  Again, really surprised that someone who considers himself such a guru wouldn't know this.



> I do not have a six core i7-3930 processor to run obsolete garbage, that someone threw away 25 years ago.



So dude...what's with your irrational fear of obsolescence? Were you just limited to worn out hand-me-downs as a kid or something? 

I have to say this in all earnestness...I run a home built i5 based system (I used to be a hardware tech as well) and the truth is that I'm still running XP64.  Not only do I run Photoshop CS 5.5, I'm able to do 3D modeling with Maya (2013), I do my audio recording with Sonar 4 (and Reason 4 for my midi work), I do my video editing in Premiere CS4, etc., etc., and ya know what?  It works just fine.  I guess I could be wrong here, but you really strike me as a person who's really A LOT more concerned about having the newest, fastest, coolest, bestest toys on the block rather than someone who's actually concerned about the work he creates with such tools.

I doubt your capable of really understanding this, however regarding your views about gear that's "obsolete", consider this old axiom; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And "RAW is actually inferior"....????????  Wow.  That has to singularly be one of the most ignorant comments regarding digital imaging I've seen in a while.  Here's a thought, try setting your camera to save both, then run both thru Adobe Camera RAW to see which has more adjustment latitude....it's NOT gonna be the jpeg.

In any case, the simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of ways to create black & white images on computers today and we've already seen some very good suggestions (without the specific need for a b&w monitor).  I don't do much b&w these days at all, however I will indulge should a specific image warrant it, so yea, Photoshop alone is more than capable of producing very good b&w representations and by creating batches or even actions, this can be done to multiple images very quickly.  While I don't use Lightroom personally, I suspect it's equally capable of doing such tasks with tremendous efficiency.  The problem is that none of the options presented seem to lend themselves to the way YOU think they should be.  As Derrel said, the problem isn't with your camera or your computer/software, it's simply your attitude.

I have no doubt that you'll come up with all kinds of excuses here, just as you have with other suggestions people have tried to make in this thread.  Should be rather amusing.....I'll make sure I have some popcorn ready .


----------



## Auslese (Oct 26, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...




Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds.  Where did you hunt again?

Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera.  Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for.  Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that.  Mr. Disney


----------



## weepete (Oct 26, 2015)




----------



## astroNikon (Oct 26, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Still no bears, no cougars, no big whitetail, no elk, just people on motorcycles and a couple of birds.  Where did you hunt again?
> 
> Again, I did not design high speed cameras, I bought one, from your argument you should have bought a point and shoot pocket camera.  Your point is senseless, there is a time for single shots and a time for high speed, you are saying that the camera was designed wrong. Perhaps you just do not understand what it is used for.  Many of my shots have two characters in tandem running, getting both of them in focus and at good body angles is what high speed is for, all you shoot are single topics, that's rather boring, now go get a coyote chasing that meerkat and lets see that.  Mr. Disney



a D7100 is not a high speed camera

a D4S or Canon 7dmII  is more like high speed

but .. who cares as you're actually talking about shutter speed, depth of field, AF focusing mode and positioning to the subject.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 26, 2015)

Auslese said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Auslese said:
> ...


I know what high speed was made for; capturing peak action, not 800 photos of a bear shitting in the woods.  I use it as it was intended, those fleeting moments when everything is coming together, not to make a flip book of a dog walking.


----------



## wezza13 (Oct 26, 2015)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the OP is on some sort of a wind-up.

Asks for help and then refuses to take any.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 26, 2015)

Time to close this thread too me thinks ....


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't a new monitor display black and white? It's easy, just remove the color?
> ...



3 million words or less please, seriously if you want to be read you need to keep it short.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


 
You posted an NO ACTION shot of an animal sitting still and used this as proof that high speed photography is not needed.  This just makes no sense, now if the animal was dodging an eagle, and you took just one shot and it came out that way all would be impressed, but no one would believe you either.  Then I do not take photos of Indiana Jones at the kiddie park that is full of adults either.  This is an action shot, 24 birds and one dog, with nothing touching the ground


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

wezza13 said:


> If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the OP is on some sort of a wind-up.
> 
> Asks for help and then refuses to take any.


Might seem that way, but my camera would not shoot BW at all, I was actually asking for help in this matter.  Once I saw the BW, and knew why the camera was malfunctioning, the entire situation changed.  However the help that I was offered would have cost hundreds of dollars at least, and I said that no money would need to be spent, and I was correct.  The other help offered was to shoot in two formats, one of which is bloated and proprietary to the camera maker, who does not make software in the first place, same thing with Cannon, they have their own bloated software, and the accepted JPEG as well.


----------



## dcbear78 (Oct 27, 2015)

Raw is one format not two. It is both b&w and colour. Exactly what you are looking for.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2015)

wezza13 said:
			
		

> If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the OP is on some sort of a wind-up.
> 
> Asks for help and then refuses to take any.



.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Oct 27, 2015)

Auslese said:


> 3 million words or less please, seriously if you want to be read you need to keep it short.



I'm sorry you also have an apparently limited/short attention span.  Not my fault however...and I certainly didn't see anything in the forums specifically stating that posts must be limited to a specific maximum number of characters for the literacy challenged.  Seems to me that most people actually interested in learning (as apposed to the gadget obsessed with ADHD who can't read past a 125 character text or tweet), generally appreciate detail oriented posts.  In my world as an artist (photographer, graphics designer, musician, etc),* details are a GOOD thing*...it's a genuine shame that people such as yourself feel details should be discarded based on your own short comings.  


Short enough for you to understand?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 27, 2015)

Auslese said:


> 3 million words or less please, seriously if you want to be read you need to keep it short.


Someone takes the time and effort to write such a detailed and thoughtful post and that's the way you respond?  How old are you?


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > 3 million words or less please, seriously if you want to be read you need to keep it short.
> ...


50, and again I do not need to be lectured to.  Just because I am new here does not mean I am new to photography or computers, as I said I build and program computers and will never be the top poster of the month because I have both a job and outside activities. One of which is my joy of photography, the fact is that I solved a problem that actually did not need for me to change either my file type, or buy any new hardware or software.  As for the poster, his time was spent lecturing me, not trying to help anyone, this from a guy who just paid 600 dollars for an obsolete used 16mp camera, when a new warranted 24mp camera is under 800 dollars.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 27, 2015)

OP, As everyone here seems less clever and able you should go to a different forum, one where your brilliance would be more appreciated


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2015)

Auslese said:
			
		

> ...I solved a problem that actually did not need for me to change either my file type, or buy any new hardware or software.



In other words, *you decided to RTFM*, in order to figure out how to work your camera's scene mode dial! WOW!

LMFAO at your lack of skill with something as complex as *the noob-wheel control* on your D7100.

We are, all of us, trembling and breathless,held in utter awe of your *impressive troll skills*!

You were soundly called out for moving the goalposts two days ago, after being unable to figure out how to work your camera.

Yesterday, and today, you're here with egg on your face, but chest-pounding about *what a flippin' genius you are*. 

You get a gold star and as a bonus, the teacher will let you vacuum out the blackboard erasers after school!


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 27, 2015)

Auslese why did you even sign up to this forum if you're simply going to ask for advise then ridicule people and tell them they are wrong when in fact the exact opposite is true.

You want proof that you don't need to take 40 plus shots to capture one fleeting moment?  I'll warn you that this is a longer post so I know that there's a chance that you won't read it.

I have a Nikon D7000 which can also shoot at 6fps and I almost NEVER use it.  I anticipate my high point of the action and then fire a burst of 3-5 frames at most.  Sports photographers in the film days didn't have 6 plus fps camera's.  Most camera's with motor drives didn't get more than 3-4 fps.  Instead they knew the sport they where shooting and new the shots that they wanted. They then set themselves up to have the best chance of capturing that moment in just a few frames rather than burning a whole roll of film in 4-5 seconds.

Here's a shot I did at an airshow earlier this year.  







I was using a 300mm lens with a teleconverter to make it a 420mm lens.  This image is not cropped and is just as it came out of the camera minus lighting and contrast edits.  The aircraft was moving at approximately 450mph and on top of that was turning in towards the show line.  I anticipated what the pilot was going to do, and set myself up to fire a short burst to get the shot I wanted.  I ended up with only 4 frames total, and everyone of them was more or less the same.  I selected what I considered the best of the 4 based on sharpness, composition, etc (again they where all very close) and deleted the rest.  In the course of that day I talked with many photographers who believed (just like you) that because they had the capability of shooting at 6 fps that they could just buy a ton of memory cards, and just shoot shoot shoot, hoping they got that one great shot.

I shoot occasionally with a gentleman who shoots most of the local small marathons around here.  He and I had a little disagreement after the first 5k I did with him because he came away with over 1500 shots for 125 runners and I came away with only a few hundred frames.  He specified that he wanted three good frames getting progressively tighter as the runners closed in on us at the start/finish line.  So I set myself up and shot accordingly.  Again I only shot approximately 5 frames of each runner (using single release on the shutter).  He informed me that he wanted me to shoot more frames per runner as they way I was doing it left room to miss a shot which is complete BS.  I told him unless he was willing to replace my camera/shutter when it died then I was going to continue to do things the way I was as that worked for me.  He apparently saw my side as he has called me for other shoots.

He uses the D7100 currently and has to replace both his and his wife's camera's every 6 months or so as they completely destroy the shutter mechanisms in them within that time shooting like they do.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

jaomul said:


> OP, As everyone here seems less clever and able you should go to a different forum, one where your brilliance would be more appreciated


Who would seriously take camera advise from someone that just spent 600 dollars on a used obsolete camera, when a new one with one third more megapixels is under 200 dollars more, and who says that megapixels do not matter?  Spreading wrong information like that does not help anyone, it is just wrong.  Buying A Used Digital SLR? Wait! 3 Things To Look Out For


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

Mr.Photo said:


> Auslese why did you even sign up to this forum if you're simply going to ask for advise then ridicule people and tell them they are wrong when in fact the exact opposite is true.
> 
> You want proof that you don't need to take 40 plus shots to capture one fleeting moment?  I'll warn you that this is a longer post so I know that there's a chance that you won't read it.
> 
> ...


The 7000 is however used, which means that some other person does not want it for some reason.  You took care of your camera, but again your images would be clearer with a 24mp camera.  This is just a fact that can not be disputed.  Though some will try to bait an argument.  Buying A Used Digital SLR? Wait! 3 Things To Look Out For  The Nikon 7100 new is currently a steal because of the 7200's introduction.  I might buy a second body myself.  What stops me? 36mp cameras that make the 7100 a toy and the 7000 silly.


----------



## weepete (Oct 27, 2015)

Thanks man, I needed a good laugh today.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 27, 2015)

Auslese said:


> The 7000 is however used, which means that some other person does not want it for some reason.  You took care of your camera, but again your images would be clearer with a 24mp camera.  This is just a fact that can not be disputed.  Though some will try to bait an argument.  Buying A Used Digital SLR? Wait! 3 Things To Look Out For  The Nikon 7100 new is currently a steal because of the 7200's introduction.  I might buy a second body myself.  What stops me? 36mp cameras that make the 7100 a toy and the 7000 silly.



I assumed that you might bring up the whole megapixel thing again as you attempted to do so to me in another thread where as you also where told otherwise.  It's apparent that you know all and all the long time shooters apparently know nothing.  You sound to me like a teenage troll who knows how to surf the web and believes everything he reads with no insight to the fact that one persons fact is another persons opinion trying to be passed off as fact.


----------



## Auslese (Oct 27, 2015)

Mr.Photo said:


> Auslese said:
> 
> 
> > The 7000 is however used, which means that some other person does not want it for some reason.  You took care of your camera, but again your images would be clearer with a 24mp camera.  This is just a fact that can not be disputed.  Though some will try to bait an argument.  Buying A Used Digital SLR? Wait! 3 Things To Look Out For  The Nikon 7100 new is currently a steal because of the 7200's introduction.  I might buy a second body myself.  What stops me? 36mp cameras that make the 7100 a toy and the 7000 silly.
> ...


 
Wrong, you do not offer any info, but I will.  16mp vs 36mp The Bigger Reason Why Megapixels Matter for Photo Enthusiasts | Instruction and workshops for photo enthusiasts 

So can you see the difference?  Just be honest.  http://www.luminescentphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Photoshop001.jpg


----------



## tirediron (Oct 27, 2015)

Okay, I think eight pages is enough for all of us.  Everyone go out and take a picture.


----------

