Which renders better images, set DSLRs to shoot B&W files or shoot RAW and convert liles to B&W images?

[Vicky12]

Have not tried this before, but get interested in shooting black and white photos. As I understand, there are 2 ways for DSLRs to get black and white images: Set the cameras so that they can shoot black and white photos, or shoot RAW and then convert the files into black and white images in Photoshop.
Which one renders better images, please?
Thank you.
Vicky

 

[Ysarex]

Have not tried this before, but get interested in shooting black and white photos. As I understand, there are 2 ways for DSLRs to get black and white images: Set the cameras so that they can shoot black and white photos, or shoot RAW and then convert the files into black and white images in Photoshop.
Which one renders better images, please?
Thank you.
Vicky

Shoot raw and convert the color image to B&W -- no contest.

A consistent issue with B&W that we've dealt with since day 1 is the way color translates to tone. The classic example would be a photo of a red rose. In B&W the red flower petals and green leaves will both become the same shade of grey and the flower disappears into the foliage. With film we used color filters over the lens. You could still do that with a digital camera saving B&W JPEGs, but you only get one filter. Post processing a digital raw file you can address all colors separately and so have much more control.

Here's an example. My neighborhood is ethnically Italian. Everywhere you see the colors of the Italian flag (red, white, green). The bakery has a green awning with a red stripe and the panels under the windows are red, white and green. The photo on your left is how a camera saving a B&W JPEG would take the photo. Red and green become the same shade of grey. The stripe on the awning disappears. In the photo on your right I lightened green and darkened red.

 

[480sparky]

Shoot raw and convert the color image to B&W -- no contest.

+1. Shoot raw and convert in post. It gives you the most options.

 

[cgw]

Most times, those B&W settings produce only jpgs. True of the Ricoh and Fujifilm I shoot. Shoot RAW.

 

[smoke665]

Raw & convert @Ysarex explained the reason above.

 

[dstreetphoto]

Shoot RAW, convert later. Gives you way more freedom, especially if you use software such as Silver Effex Pro.

 

[DanOstergren]

There are so many different end results that you could get depending on how you process a color image into black and white, based on your own preferences and goal. Letting the camera do it only gives you one result and it's determined solely by the way the camera software converts it, giving you no control. I will always prefer to get the results I want by doing the conversion myself.

 

[Tartness9094]

I always shoot in RAW then convert to B/W using software. I use a combination of Photolab 7, Luminar Neo and the software I use for B/W conversion is Photoscape X Pro, which has some amazing B/W filters and it's a very underrated program

 

[Don Fischer]

+1. Shoot raw and convert in post. It gives you the most options.

I like shooting old buildings in B&W. Actually I don't know that my camera will do that, D 7000 Nikon, so I shoot everything on color and change to B&W with the computer. I think old things simply need B&W. This is color converted to B&W.

 

[480sparky]

I like shooting old buildings in B&W. Actually I don't know that my camera will do that, D 7000 Nikon, so I shoot everything on color and change to B&W with the computer. I think old things simply need B&W. This is color converted to B&W.

That's not B&W. Highly desaturated, yes, but not monochrome.

 

[Don Fischer]

That's not B&W. Highly desaturated, yes, but not monochrome.

Could be but it looks B&W to me! Seems to me you are splitting hairs!

 

[480sparky]

Could be but it looks B&W to me! Seems to me you are splitting hairs!

Considering some of the boards are red and the leaves on the trees are green....

 

[smoke665]

Could be but it looks B&W to me! Seems to me you are splitting hairs!

Actually he's not, In a black and white photo, you only have 256 possible shades of grey. They go from the purest white to the darkest possible black. A monochrome image consists of varying shades of any one color whch could or could not be grey. A desaturated image however is one with multiple colors to which white has been added creating less saturated colors.

 

[greybeard]

Actually he's not, In a black and white photo, you only have 256 possible shades of grey. They go from the purest white to the darkest possible black. A monochrome image consists of varying shades of any one color whch could or could not be grey. A desaturated image however is one with multiple colors to which white has been added creating less saturated colors.

In a black and white DIGITAL image there are 256 possible shades of grey. In an analog film to paper image there are infinite shades. I used to shoot panatomic X asa 32 B&W film and develop it in Rodinal to get the best graduation. It required very careful agitation but it did work. (those were the days) I would say that a process that allows for more than 256 shades of graduation would be closer to a film B&W which is what I would call desirable in the first place.

 

[480sparky]

In a black and white DIGITAL image there are 256 possible shades of grey. .....

In an 8-bit JPG, yes. But what about 12- and 14-bit raw files?