File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /b/. What is the secret to getting great looking black and whites in digital? I'm afraid this will probably just turn into a shit storm between people who shoot in color and then black and white it in photoshop vs people who shoot black and white in camera, but more what I am wondering is, what are the best situations for black and white, any tips for making them look extra special. In short... How do I shot b&w?

lol...
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5700 S700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:10 02:58:36Exposure Time4 secF-Numberf/13.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/13.5Brightness1.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length10.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width983Image Height737RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>shit storm between people who shoot in color and then black and white it in photoshop vs people who shoot black and white in camera

I'm sure everyone here agrees in-camera color settings are useless since we should be shooting in RAW anyway.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
...there is no real reason to shoot BW on camera, in fact that's a terrible idea because then it uses the camera's on board BW converter instead of the one on your computer which often would give better results.
>> Anonymous
Lets say you were shooting with a bridge camera and could not shoot RAW... Like me... : /
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>221031
Then you still should do it in photoshop or whatever you use.

Also slightly overexpose, making the top 1/3 of your histogram have the majority of the image and then bring down the mid tones via levels. This works best in overcast light. There's tricks but it is situational to each depending on the light.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>221030
eh, when I shoot black and white I usually shoot it in-camera even though I'm shooting raw. It's useful as a preview, sort of.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>221033
note that I DO convert it myself after I get it onto the computer, though.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Lightroom has very nice presets for B/W. As cheap as it sounds, it just works. Most of my latest B/W photos has been converted that way, with almost nothing else done to them.
eku approves Lightroom's presets! (When is 2.0 final coming out?)

And best situation for B/W, IMO, is when color adds nothing to the photo, or distracts the viewer.
>> Anonymous
lightroom is win
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>221052
people will rage against you when you use that logic for your conversion

it's really annoying
>> wowser
>>221027
lightroom is good i agree. but alienskin exposure 2 is the way to go. they have presets for ALL kinds of film brands and speeds with film grain and without the grain. thats probably your best bet if you want the best loooking B&W images!
>> Anonymous
>>221063
The presets are rather meh but I like the full control it gives me.
>> Anonymous
>>221052

so basically, you know to change your photos to b/w, when you know you fucked up, taking a color photograph.

with that logic, i'm sure your b/w photos come out great, everytime!
>> Anonymous
>>221108
That's not what he said.

If color would not help the photograph, or if it would in fact detract from it by distracting the viewer from the content, he puts it in black and white.

It could be a downright masterpiece in both color and black and white, but if color doesn't add to it, he puts it in black and white.

L2/reading comprehension. Also, I thought this is pretty much what everyone did: if it's better in color, color. If it's better in black and white, black and white. If it's equal, default to whichever way one prefers.
>> Anonymous
>>221136
lol no

you need to learn what colors do what, in order to shoot proper b/w. if you know your b/w conversions, you should be able to read a scene, based on its color tones, and tell what it will look like, after conversion.

a scene that looks great in color, doesn't mean it's going to look good in b/w at all... a scene where color doesn't seem to help a photograph, may look better in b/w.. but, you're still just trying to make up for how you don't know what the fuck you're doing.
>> Anonymous
I do a ton a burning/dodging in the form of local tonal adjustments with curves and levels with my b&w digital files. You basically have to emulate what you would do in the dark room with photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>221138
I fully agree, 100%, and always shoot with one or the other in mind, and a specific conversion or white balance, saturation, etc. in mind. Someone shouldn't be shooting black and white if they don't know how to map the tones in their head, and someone shouldn't be shooting color if they don't know that and don't know at least the very basics of color theory.

But how is that contrary to

> if it's better in color, color. If it's better in black and white, black and white. If it's equal, default to whichever way one prefers.

That call can be made on the scene, while shooting. That's what I do. Like Sage, I even adjust my camera settings to help visualize it.

Sometimes when you get back to the computer, it turns out the opposite. Rarely, but it happens. Keep it the way you called it there or just go for what turns out best?
>> Anonymous
Look at the colour response of B+W films, traditional silver emulsions are less sensitive to greens (turn them down in ps) and more sensitive to reds (turn them up)
>> oldpost
     File :-(, x)
I'm new with b/w pictures, too. At this point I'd say it's all trial and error, along with the whole... contrast, saturation business, of course.
When looking at a color scene, don't look at the colors, but the lightness or darkness of the colors. That will help you determine whether it will be a worthy b/w picture or not. Contrast is very important! Dark on dark = no go! (most of the time, yknow)

pic: brown, dead flowers on a dirty blue glass table, but who would ever know?
>> Anonymous
>>221165
Problem is if I took that picture EVERYONE would know because my camera has no capablities for shallow DOF. I have to take pictures with completely blank backgrounds or else it gets too cluttered by the still kinda in focus background. :/
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
I've come up with a few development styles for B&W that I like in Lightroom. I've saved those, and use them as a jumping off point for most B&W.

I start by bumping the black point up to like 10-20, at least. Depends on the exposure, but I almost always like to have nice rich blacks (there are always exceptions. If this doesn't pop the contrast enough (it usually does), I bump Contrast up until I'm happy. Then I play with recovery if anything is too blown out, and finish off with a quick bit of levels work to finesse the rest of the tones.

Most 95% of it comes from that initial black point push.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Oh, the most important bit is about shooting with nice light in the first place. Can't fake that in photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>221758
Indian Carlton o_o
>> Anonymous
>>221742
Okay? So? Work with that or get a new camera, either way quit bitching and take some good photographs. Incorporate the stuff in the background into your composition. If you don't want to do that, get yourself a sub-$100 film SLR with a 50mm and some rolls of cheap B&W film (Arista is the cheapest, I'm pretty sure, and it's just rebadged Fomapan) and go to town.

I'm guessing you're>>221031. Bridge cameras are perfectly fine photographic tools; there is nothing in them that should inhibit you from taking good photographs. I use one, for a variety of reasons, for most of my work. Just go do it.

What bridge camera do you have that doesn't do raw? An SxIS?

>>221758
This is exactly what I do, except in ACR and then Photoshop, for both color and black and white work. The blacks slider is some great magic.

I'll also adjust local tones with dodging and burning quite often, though, just little touch-ups. I'm a perfectionist and unlike Heavyweather I don't have an editor on my back to have them ready by a certain time.

A nice trick to improve bokeh in black and white:

1. New layer, soft light, fill with soft light neutral color. (Don't know why, but doing this improves the look of any dodging or burning one does.)
2. Pull up the burn tool, set it to highlights, and 100%.
3. Burn everything that's out of focus.
4. Adjust opacity to taste.

Gives the bokeh this nice richness to it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is what my lightroom preset does to your picture. Personally, I love how lightroom works for converting to black and white.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5700 S700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:07:11 23:14:51Exposure Time4 secF-Numberf/14.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/14.0Brightness1.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length10.70 mmRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>221777
You are right I was both of those posts. The bridge I have that does not shoot raw is the fujifilm S700.

Also I do have a coupla film cameras. I've got a Nikon EM with a 50/1.8, and a Pentacon Praktica MTL3 with a 50/1.8 and a 135/2.8. I've also got some Superia 400 X-tra, and some Velvia 50. I just find film a lot harder to work with because so many of my shots are just terrible right now. I would like to shoot film a long side the digital and ironically I think my film equipment is better than my digital, the fact that I have a limited amount of frames is daunting. That and there's no where around here I've found yet that develops slide film... : (
>> Anonymous
>>221782
Also I forgot in my previous post your light room preset really adds a ton of character to the bricks.
>> Anonymous
>>221807
Sorry, I won't. Just play around and make things yourself. I'd recommend shooting film. Give your EM some TriX or whatever B/W film you prefer.
>> Anonymous
>>221815
You wont what?
>> Anonymous
>>221819
Post my preset?
>> Anonymous
>>221822
I was just complimenting it. I don't even have Lightroom.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
     File :-(, x)
<-- The secret.
>> Anonymous
>>221825
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/121390140.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcifilm-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcif
ilm%3Bci35mm-print-film

Is this the same film, maybe just in a different box? It's the closest thing I can find at Ritz. There's one pretty near my house. Also does anyone know off hand if they process slide film?
>> Anonymous
>>221027

did none of you faggots notice this:

>Hey /b/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>221831
I sure didn't and I'm the op >_<... Sorry.

Also the film I meant in this one:
>>221830
Is the one I have pictured here:
<----

I figured that would be easier than making you guys follow the link.
>> Anonymous
>>221830
It's the same film, but probably the old formula. Doesn't matter much.

>>221824
Ah, I'm sorry. I misread your post. English isn't my native language, and it's very late over here. I'm too tired.
>> Anonymous
>>221835
Note also that packaging differs between USA, USA-R, and gray-market versions of Kodak films. I'd be surprised if there was still old-formula Tri-X floating around in any retail places. It'd be long expired by now.
>> Anonymous
Should I still get it even if it is an old formula? Also which of the two cameras I mentioned would you guys suggest I go with? I have a bit more versatility with the lenses on the Praktica but the Nikon's Aperture Priority mode is nice for just walking around and shooting instead of the Praktica's near full manual. I also wonder if the Nikon glass might be better than the two I've got. One of the lenses for the Praktica, the 50mm is made by Pentacon, but the 135mm is made by Hanimar.
>> Anonymous
>>221990
In the strange, unlikely event that it is still the old formula, still buy it*. When they changed formula, the look really didn't change at all, which I have to give them credit for. In practical terms, it was mostly a change in development times.

As for your cameras, either is fine. Go with the one you're more comfortable with.
*note that buying film locally usually means paying 2x or more the price as if you order it in from B&H, etc. If budget is an issue (I know it is for me), also check out short-dated or expired film on eBay. I recently scored 40 rolls of Neopan 1600 for $80, so good shit can be found.
>> Anonymous
>>221998
Ok, another question. Will places like Walgreens develop Tri-X 400? I notice it's not listed as a C-41 film.

Thanks for mentioning B&H and ebay by the way, I had not thought to look on either and yes the budget is a big issue for me. I'm in college and have very little money to spend on a hobby... : /

Also I did find that film on B&H and they seem pretty reasonable. 17.10 for three rolls shipped.

On a completely tangential point, B&H appears to have a Sony A100 with 18-70 lens for 369$ used. Is this really low? That's about the lowest I've ever seen a DSLR that wasn't a Pentax *ist. Would that maybe be a good thing to keep an eye out for as a starter?
>> Anonymous
>>222009
Walgreens won't do Tri-X. If you want to shoot b&w and have it developed some place like that for convenience, get either some Ilfor XP2 or the Kodak equivalent (name is blanking on me at the moment). These are C-41 process monochrome films that produce some really nice negs.

If you're going to order film, I'd wait until you can order in 10-20 rolls. It sounds like a pain and expensive, but it's worth it in the long run, especially if you're also paying for developing on top of the cost of film.

Which school do you go to? Most colleges will still have darkrooms somewhere on campus, and if there is at your school it'd be worth your time (and money) to find them and learn how to develop yourself. It's pretty easy.

And I have no idea bout the Sony dslr thing.
>> Anonymous
>>222011
I go to Bradley University. It's a private school in the middle of Illinois. I have been meaning to send an e-mail to the art department about that and seeing if they had any services like that available for students. Either a darkroom or maybe developing services at a discount. I'm worried though they will just say "Not for you" or call my uncultured or something... I'm an Electrical Engineering major... lol
>> Anonymous
About the camera, I'd say go with the Nikon. The Praktica is quite the bit of scrap metal. A lot of people I know tried using one because they're so damn cheap, and a lot have brokn. The 50mm Pentacon lens has okay-ish quality, the 135mm is bad quality.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>222009
The A100 is the older sony dSLR (their first one) but is still a decent bit of kit. Performs almost as well as a D80 and costs a bunch less. Since its used you'll wana check that its in decent condition but otherwise looks ok.

One good thing is that even though sony never produced a film SLR, minolta (who sony bought) did, so you'll have loads of choice choosing from their range all of which use the same lenses as the new sonys.
>> Anonymous
>>222052
So it looks like it may be between the A100 and the Pentax *ist DS for my first DSLR.

Also the A100 is really like the D80?
>> Anonymous
>>222009

The a100 is godly. It's a half step above both the Nikon d40 and the Canon whateverthefuckitis. Steer clear of the a200, it's like an a100 only more crippled.

Also, yes, that is a really good price. keep your eye out though.
>> Anonymous
>>222618


In short, Minolta started making the a mount YEARS before digital was even on the radar. Hence, 99% of the lenses will work on film cameras and the future a900 full frame camera. The a100 is in no way crippled by any kind of manufacturing cheapness (coughd40) or any material deficiency (coughcanon).

For about a year the entire Sony DSLR lineup and the whole 20 year back catalog of minolta a mount lenses were riding on the sony designed and sony produced a100.

In short, it's a decent little camera. And yes, it's comparable to the d80.
>> Anonymous
>>222632
And then there was pentax, with a back catalog of 33 years and lenses made by dozens of other manufacturers, and a great dSLR with none of the shit Canon, Nikon, or Sony has. If you include M42 lenses, you have an almost infinite back catalog, including some of the best lenses ever made.

I also still do not understand why Olympus won't make a Full Frame OM mount dSLR.. OM lenses are very good, and cheap OM lenses were made with the same quality as the expensive ones, but were just not as fast..
>> Anonymous
>>222636
>>222632


inb4 lens pissing contest.
>> Anonymous
>>221034
good for you dumbass
>> Anonymous
>>222636
If Olympus made a full frame, manual focus, full-coverage viewfinder digital OM, and began producing or I could get a hold of the 40/2 I would buy one overnight.
>> Anonymous
If the A100 is so great why would it sell for so cheap? I just got 140$ for craft fair work. I'd love to but I dont know if I'll be able to justify buying a DSLR out of the blue : p.
>> Anonymous
So *ist series Vs A100. Which is the better starter camera? I don't have lenses for either so thats not a problem. Well it's a problem for me but not for you guys offering a suggestion for which path to take...
>> Anonymous
*ist definately. Don't listen to Butterfag here 99-100% of what he said is totally untrue Sony DSLRS blow.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>223485
why are you resurecting a thread to troll, badly?
>> Anonymous
>>223486
I didnt want this newb to be led astray by your Sony faggotry.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>223498
Cool thing.

I like this trolling by making up shit that was never said style. Its fresh.
>> Anonymous
So... back to the camera choices. Any input either way? I didn't realize that the A100 is body only and the Pentax *ist would most likely come with a lens. Are there any cheap starter lenses I should be looking at to throw in with the A100 when comparing to other kits?
>> Anonymous
>>223545
Well I'd like to point out that there are a boatload of cheap Minolta lenses on places like eBay. Especially if you are willing to manual focus on your DSLR, you can get some really nice lenses for 20$ or less. I'm afraid I know nothing about Pentax pricing though so. I guess they could be similar but I doubt it.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>223862
Manual focus Minolta lenses do not mount on Sony DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>223867
Is that true? That's actually really disappointing. I saw a lot of cool manual Minolta lenses on Ebay. Are there Sony MF lenses or do Alphas essentially only shoot auto?
>> Anonymous
>>223949

The Minolta AF/Sony Alpha mount is an autofocus mount, like the EF mount. All lenses, except some specialty ones, for it are autofocus lenses.

However, you still can manually focus them if you want.
>> Anonymous
>>223954
Is it something like how Nikons have the motor in lense and so a lot of them are MF only on the D40 D60? I'm guessing because the D40/D60 do not have an Autofocus motor on the body. Whereas this Sony Alpha does have the motor on body so all lenses that mount will auto focus? I'm sorta grasping at straws at how this works though. Sorry if I'm wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>223954

nope

olympus is the closest to canon, no mechanical link between lens and camera

sonys are still screw driven
>> Anonymous
>>223958
It's still a mount designed explicity for autofocus, as is the four-thirds mount, as opposed to the K and F mounts that were designed for manual focus and adapted later

>>223957

I'm not sure what you're getting at. With a few special exceptions, ever lens for the mount is an autofocus lens. AFAIK, neither Sony nor Minolta ever made an Alpha mount body where they would not autofocus.
>> Anonymous
>>223957
Here.

What I meant was, I always see people say not to get the D40 / D60 as starter cameras because they will only autofocus on the kit lense and very expensive Nikon lenses. I am guessing perhaps since the lenses themselves have the motor in them as opposed to the camera body having the autofocus motor. What I was just clarifying was that the Sony has the motor in body and that is why they are all autofocus lenses?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Just throwing this in here too. I was looking through some pictures I took a ways back and I actually took this one to sell the bike on Craigslist and it ended up coming out very nice. This is probably one of the better pictures I've ever taken with this camera. Any thoughts about it? Is it a good canidate for B&W?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5700 S700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:15 17:29:52Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/13.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/13.5Brightness6.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.50 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1167Image Height876RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>224073
Not really, but then it just isn't that much of an interesting picture.
>> Anonymous
>>224076
Ah alright I was afraid of that. : / Thanks.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>223976
the D40/60 are starter cameras that show Nikon is moving away from in body motors completly. While the majority of us /p/ dont really like it, in body AF is pretty old tech and in lens focusing is pretty much better all round. The problem is that we're using gear thats been around for ages, so for us its shitty to want to limit yourself to a narrow selection of glass. If nikon succeed in taking their entire range lens focus only then i expect to see everyone else follow.

Basically if you're planning on just getting a dSLR and the kit lens and dont want to get anything more for that for some time, the D40/60 is just as good as the equivilents from everyone else (where applicable, sony dont have one tbh).

The Dynax mount (NOT ALPHA) is older than EOS from canon, there are a massive number of lenses avalible for it from minolta's prime time, new lenses are slim on the ground due to their fuckup into digital and subsequent takeover by sony.
>> Anonymous
>>224097the D40/60 are starter cameras that show Nikon is moving away from in body motors completly.

no

it just shows the absolute low end has no motors because nikon doesn't think people buying those care about other lenses than AF-S

the new top end models all still have motors and nikon isn't about to update 6 primes with AF-S
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>224129
Im not sure tbh, if/when the D80 gets replaced and it doesnt have a focus motor, im right. If it does, im wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>224136

it's just not going to happen

the d80 isn't for your mom/dad/sister/emokid

if they take the motor out, they have to (eventually) update 12 primes

8 of which are general use (between 24 and 85)

nikon does not have the resources to be fucking around like that, nikon isn't sony, or even canon, they don't have limitless money
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>224148
Hmm, you're probably right but id rather sit and see what happens since it doesnt affect me.

also sage (because this is what sage IS FOR)
>> Anonymous
I'm still wondering why people even like B&W pics.
>> Anonymous
>>224170

because you don't have to worry about colors in your picture?

that and instantart
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>224148
It would be about damn time that they put motors into their primes.
When I use my 50mm lens on my film body it's noisy as fuck and slow. I tried the 30mm sigma and it was pretty damn fast but dead silent.
Besides, Canon uses motor lenses, don't they?
>> Anonymous
>>224204
I was pretty sure Canon used body motors
>> Anonymous
inb4 lol wikipedia

>> The EF lens mount allows all the Canon EF lenses to be used on any of the Canon EOS line of cameras made by Canon Inc. Unlike the EF's breech-lock predecessor, the FD mount, the EF mount uses a bayonet-style mount. EF stands for "Electro-Focus": automatic focusing on EF lenses is handled by a dedicated electric motor built into the lens. All communication between camera and lens takes place through electrical contacts; there are no mechanical levers or plungers.

>> When the EF mount was introduced in 1987, it had the largest mount diameter (54 mm internal) among all 35 mm SLR cameras, allowing large aperture lenses to be designed for the EOS system.
Unlike the standard autofocus lens mounting technology of the time, which used a motor in the camera body to drive the mechanics of the focus helicoid in the lens by using a transfer gear, the EF series used a motor inside the lens itself for focusing. This allowed for autofocusing lenses which did not require mechanical contacts in the mount mechanism, only electrical ones to supply power and instructions to the lens motor. The motors were designed for the particular lens they were installed in.

every EF lens ever made has a motor

except the obvious ones like ts and mpe
>> Anonymous
>>224217

on a related note, what _does_ MP-E stand for anyway

it's not listed anywhere

macro photo electrofocus?
>> Anonymous
>>224220
I've always wondered this too.

>>224220
I don't think you have it right though as all the ones I've seen were manual focus. It may perhaps mean Exclusively? As far as I know a MP-E lens is only for shooting macro shots. It cannot be used for anything else.
>> Anonymous
>>224434
I've searched all fucking over and I cant find it either. This is rediculous. How can they designate a lens as something and not explain what it means?