Shooting Black and White in camera vs converting in post-processing

[Dicky109]

I have never shot BW in camera, reasoning that I'd have more latitude in post, however, after watching a couple of YT videos was wondering if there is any real advantage to in camera. I shoot in jpg + RAW and realize it only affects the jpg file, so would always have the RAW file to convert.
Appreciate your thoughts

 

[Lester Wareham]

I always do the conversion in post, even if I am visualising the image in B&W.

The only advantage I can see with in camera conversion is you can see the result on the monitor.

But if I work in post I can adjust the channel mix to give me the tonal contrast I prefer, where the camera just gives you one rendering.

This is visible light of course.
I do shoot a camera converted IR with a 720 nm low pass filter. That results in a largely B&W image; you can get colour effects in post but you have to work for it.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I have never shot BW in camera, reasoning that I'd have more latitude in post, however, after watching a couple of YT videos was wondering if there is any real advantage to in camera. I shoot in jpg + RAW and realize it only affects the jpg file, so would always have the RAW file to convert.
Appreciate your thoughts

It's been a long time since I recorded a jpg on a camera's card. I'm sure it's never happened on any of the bodies I own now. So no, I've never shot B&W in the camera. But I'd be curious to see any experimentation you'd do with it. Maybe a comparison between a SOOC B&W image and a post-processed B&W image.

What do the videos say about it? What's their rationale for doing it that way?

 

[Dicky109]

It's been a long time since I recorded a jpg on a camera's card. I'm sure it's never happened on any of the bodies I own now. So no, I've never shot B&W in the camera. But I'd be curious to see any experimentation you'd do with it. Maybe a comparison between a SOOC B&W image and a post-processed B&W image.

What do the videos say about it? What's their rationale for doing it that way?

They were not detailed in their analysis, but extolling the virtues of the camera system, so no real rationale for doing so. I will try to get some shots to experiment with and get back. I'm guessing that post will always win out since if you do it in camera, you have to decide on the settings before the image is shot. You really have no idea what you need to do, other than multiple shots at multiple settings so was just wondering if anybody had experience with that use.

 

[paddler4]

I'm with Shipley: I virtually never shoot JPEG.

But even leaving that aside, I can't see any benefit to shooting B&W, and there are lots of disadvantages. Converting in post gives you vastly more flexibility. For example, if you shoot B&W in camera, you can't vary the conversion of different colors, unless you shoot with filters (which I did back in the days I shot B&W film. An example is using a red filter to darken skies, which is trivially easy in post.

Keep in mind that YT, like all social media, isn't curated. Anyone can post anything. So while there is a lot of good information on YT, there is also a lot that is misleading or, in some cases, wrong.

 

[Dicky109]

I'm with Shipley: I virtually never shoot JPEG.

But even leaving that aside, I can't see any benefit to shooting B&W, and there are lots of disadvantages. Converting in post gives you vastly more flexibility. For example, if you shoot B&W in camera, you can't vary the conversion of different colors, unless you shoot with filters (which I did back in the days I shot B&W film. An example is using a red filter to darken skies, which is trivially easy in post.

Keep in mind that YT, like all social media, isn't curated. Anyone can post anything. So while there is a lot of good information on YT, there is also a lot that is misleading or, in some cases, wrong.

I also agree with you and Shipley and have never shot BW in camera, again, wanting the flexibility of post. Was just curious if anyone did shoot that way and were happy with the results.

 

[Lester Wareham]

As soon as I got a camera that supported RAW I stopped shooting JPG.
Never looked back.

 

[paddler4]

As soon as I got a camera that supported RAW I stopped shooting JPG.
Never looked back.

Yup. When I first tried raw years ago, I thought it would be hard, so I shot raw + JPEG. After two weeks or so, I realized I was just deleting the JPEGs. That was the end for me.

However, I do on rare occasions set my camera to the B&W picture style, which with Canons you can do even if you are shooting raw. That gives me an image on the LCD that helps me visualize the scene in B&W (based on a JPEG), but I am saving the full raw file.

 

[pegelli]

As already mentioned putting the camera in B&W mode only affects the jpg's, not the raw.

So as long as you shoot raw (or jpg + raw) you have the full colour channel latitude to tailor the different shades of grey to you liking in the final image (many more than 50 )

The advantage of setting the camera in B&W mode might be that you "see" the world in grey tones, but at some kind of "standard" B&W conversion. This might help you vs. seeing the scene in colour.
However I shot a lot of B&W film (and still do) so seeing the world in greyscale is also a matter of practice.

 

[stevejack]

I agree with pegelli, if you're using a camera with an EVF shooting in black and white lets you see the scene in black and white which can be extremely helpful, especially when there are lots of colours involved.

It takes a lot of practice to recognise when your eye is being fooled by colour contrast rather than luminance contrast. Sometimes a subject will appear to pop out from the background in colour, but once you take the colour away, you're left with a middle-grey flat looking image where the subject melds into their surroundings. Shooting in black and white with an EVF lets you avoid this if you're still getting used to it. This is the advantage to putting the camera into black and white mode - to help you capture the scene as you intend to in-camera.

 

[Skygod44]

How lovely to find another recent thread about B&W
To the OP, please do take a look at this one, for a more focused () discussion about people in B&W.

Thread 'People in Black & White: a discussion'

11 Mar 2025

I'm really enjoying going through the many threads in FoP, post-by-post, being utterly enthralled by the skills represented herein.
And I want to start some talk about photos, styles, techniques, etc...
For the top folks, let me hear your thoughts.
For people new to photography, what's your reaction?

So, this thread is about People in Black & White.
I recommend folks take a look here ->
A really good look.
On a large screen, if possible.

Now, my thoughts:
1) It takes...

• Skygod44
• Replies: 23
• Forum: General Photography Talk

But, my tuppence on the matter is that if you have time, there's nothing wrong with taking the same scene twice (or more!)
Shooting RAW files gives you more latitude in post-processing...
...but that assumes you want/need more latitude.

Unless I'm being paid, I don't really want to download huge RAW files to my PC, just to alter, for example, the dark tones in an image a tiny bit more than I can from a jpg file, using my smartphone.

As long as you get it right in-camera most scenes shouldn't need a ton of editing.

There are caveats of course!
So learn it all. Which is also an enjoyable part of photography.

But even using my humble little micro 4/3 cameras, I can adjust tone curves quickly and easily, expose as if using coloured filters, change overall exposure compensation, alter contrast, etc in-camera.

And when my OM-D E-M5 mk2 dies, and is replaced by an OM3, it even offers graduated filters and ND filters via computational in-camera functions.

All this equals more time shooting, and less time editing...
...which is what I like.

But there's nothing wrong with enjoying editing too.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Skygod44]

There was something nagging at the back of my head about this thread, and I just came across this interesting video about shooting like Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I realised what it was:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

When I shot B&W Tri-X 400 film back in the day, I never cropped, and of course, Black & White film couldn't become colour film.

I think that if you want your photographic technique to improve in genre such as portraits, street & candid - with people in the shot, just to make these definitions clear - then LESS modern gizmos and digital wizardry is best.

To link this directly to the thread:
If you go out deliberately to shoot in B&W, then you could set your camera to a B&W mode, as if you have B&W film in it, and can't chop and change whenever you feel like it.
This makes being creative in B&W more likely.

If it was good enough for Henri Cartier-Bresson, and for the Leica M10 Monochrom nowadays, then it's good enough for me.

I'll caveat this with a cheeky fact;
I go out with at least two, and usually three cameras bodies attached to different lenses...
...so it's a doddle for me to set B&W jpg in one, and full colour RAW in the others!


Anyway, give it go.
You might surprise yourself.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[ShipleyNW]

In my Tri-X days I cropped liberally. Newspapers all had fixed widths. I needed to make prints that were 1, 2, 3 or 4 colums wide (plus gutters bewteen columns.) But the depth dimension of the pictures was completely at my discretion. I was prisoner to no aspect ratio. I've carried that forward to today, whether that be square or skinny or whatever looks best.

The Tri-X crop tool.


Squarish works fine from a 24x36 frame


As does long and skinny.

 

[Skygod44]

In my Tri-X days I cropped liberally. Newspapers all had fixed widths. I needed to make prints that were 1, 2, 3 or 4 colums wide (plus gutters bewteen columns.) But the depth dimension of the pictures was completely at my discretion. I was prisoner to no aspect ratio. I've carried that forward to today, whether that be square or skinny or whatever looks best.

The Tri-X crop tool.
View attachment 150476

Squarish works fine from a 24x36 frame
View attachment 150477

As does long and skinny.
View attachment 150484

Lovely examples, Ken...
...I know nothing about baseball, but in that second image, was he someone famous?

Anyway, back to the thread, and yes of course, negs onto print can be cropped. But I didn't.
My main point was that restricting yourself to B&W and not cropping when there's no external requirement to do so can, imho, improve photographic technique for the OP.

Getting it right in camera, when it's just a hobby, is a fine target.

But(!) if folks love to edit, there's nothing inherently wrong with that either.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[ShipleyNW]

...I know nothing about baseball, but in that second image, was he someone famous?

Funny you should ask.

That's Billy Martin. From 1969-1987 he managed five different Major League Baseball teams, including being hired and fired five different times by the New York Yankees. It was quite the soap opera at the time.

I really like this shot. The Yankees were in Seattle and the kid was part of some pregame ceremony, the kind that happens before every MLB game at every stadium every night. The kind of ceremony that no one ever watches, ever. They get about as much attention as the grounds crew raking the infield.

After the ceremony, Martin walked out of the dugout, picked the kid out of the group, and asked her if she wanted to hit some major league pitching. They spent one minute, maybe two minutes, peppering baseballs all over the park and she was having a blast. I was there setting up to shoot the game and I think I was the only one who noticed it. He and she and me were the only ones who knew it happened.

 

[paddler4]

not cropping when there's no external requirement to do so can, imho, improve photographic technique for the OP.

I really disagree with this.

Suppose I find a scene I want to photograph, and I have both my Canon (3:2 aspect ratio) and my Lumix (4:3 aspect ratio) with me. Should the optimal aspect ratio depend on the camera I use?

My answer would be absolutely not. The aspect ratio in cameras is arbitrary, much of it for historical reasons. There is nothing gained and often quite a bit lost by treating that aspect ratio as more than an arbitrary set of numbers. IMHO, the optimal aspect ratio is determined by the image, unless there is some external constraint. As an example of the latter, I do a lot of candids of kids, and I usually crop those to a 5:4 aspect ratio--which none of my cameras gives me--because the recipients usually want framed 8 x 10 images. For serious images, I let the image decide.

 

[Richard]

Shooting in B&W is throwing information away. The actual raw file is generally in color; in camera B&W is actually an in camera conversion to B&W according to an algorithm you don't have much control over. Doing your own conversion lets you optimize the channel blend. I take this a step further and convert all my images to black and white, where I fine tune the brightness, contrast and sharpening then I put this on top of the color layers in luminosity mode. It's a technique that I picked up years ago from Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis. Besides getting the colors to pop more, it has the advantage that I end up with both color and B&W versions of every image. While I usually know which one I'm going to favor, I have also been surprised at times.

 

[paddler4]

Shooting in B&W is throwing information away. The actual raw file is generally in color; in camera B&W is actually an in camera conversion to B&W according to an algorithm you don't have much control over. Doing your own conversion lets you optimize the channel blend. I take this a step further and convert all my images to black and white, where I fine tune the brightness, contrast and sharpening then I put this on top of the color layers in luminosity mode. It's a technique that I picked up years ago from Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis. Besides getting the colors to pop more, it has the advantage that I end up with both color and B&W versions of every image. While I usually know which one I'm going to favor, I have also been surprised at times.

Very interesting. I've never tried this. What blend mode do you use for the top B&W layer? Overlay?

 

[Richard]

Very interesting. I've never tried this. What blend mode do you use for the top B&W layer? Overlay?

Luminosity. That's what makes the whole thing work. You could try other modes with reduced opacity if you want something more stylized. I generally used Silver Efex Pro to produce the B&W.

 

[paddler4]

Thanks. I'll try it.