Moonset, Zabriskie Point, Death Valley, CA

[John Hamilton]

There are a lot of plugins out there for converting to black-and-white, but I prefer the good old fashioned RAW method, adjusting each color channel's luminance value. Of course, it helps to have a great subject to shoot.


Moonset at Zabriskie Point, Death Valley by johnchamilton, on Flickr

[R. Doug]

That is some beautiful raw post-processing there, John.  Rather than play around with individual channels, though, my EOS 5D allows me to either internally simulate green, yellow, orange, and red filters, or I can do it later in post processing using Canon's Digital Photo Pro software.  Yellow gives you a slightly darker sky; orange and red progressively even more.  Gives similar results with a lot less manipulation.  Have you checked to see if your camera has the same capability?

[John Hamilton]

Hi Doug, thanks for the kind comment.  A lot of modern cameras will let you apply b&w filters, but you really shouldn't lock yourself into that when you're in the field.  You never can tell when a crazy photo editor (like me) might want it done a slightly different way. Plus you should never judge the photo based on what you're seeing on that tiny little LDC on the back of your camera.

I always shoot RAW, with the exception of fast-moving sports (so the camera doesn't have to shove so much data into the CF card). Once in RAW, you have SO much more control over the b&w conversion. It's not everyone's cup of tea (hence the market for PS plugins), but I'm doing a lot of stuff under the hood that plugins can't hold a candle to.  If you want to learn more, hop over to my Flickr pages. I often give little tutorials about my photos, especially my landscape work.  (This particular shot was for a book on Death Valley National Park, part of a 12-book series for my publisher.  I drove all over America for several months shooting--a dream assignment.)

Thanks again. I enjoy your work here on KB!

[Jessy]

Ooh, that's beautiful! I haven't tried converting any photos to black & white, but that might be fun to experiment with.

[John Hamilton]

Ooh, that's beautiful! I haven't tried converting any photos to black & white, but that might be fun to experiment with.

Thanks, Jessica!  There are many, many ways to convert to b&w.  The one thing you DON'T want to do is simply convert to greyscale in your image editor. You'll get a muddy image with little contrast or tonal range. If you're shooting landscapes in RAW and image editing in Photoshop, drop me a line.  The steps you take to do the b&w conversion are simple, and fun.  Don't let the tech-talk scare you away. If you're shooting jpg's, you can still produce beautiful black-and-whites, even by simply converting to greyscale and then tweaking your contrast levels.  Creating pleasing duotones or quadtones is simple, too. (I used a sepia wash on the Death Valley shot.) Or you can use plugins.  A lot of my colleagues swear by Nik's Silver Efex Pro.  Whatever method you use, have fun with it!

Here's a photo I took after an early-morning thunderstorm in Grand Teton National Park. Lots of tones to play with in this one.


Moulton Barn Vertical by johnchamilton, on Flickr

[R. Doug]

A lot of modern cameras will let you apply b&w filters, but you really shouldn't lock yourself into that when you're in the field.  You never can tell when a crazy photo editor (like me) might want it done a slightly different way. Plus you should never judge the photo based on what you're seeing on that tiny little LDC on the back of your camera.

Agreed, but then again that's the great thing about using raw for B&W images.  Even if you choose the wrong filtering effect, you can undo it later and try something different in post-processing.  The filter effect is appended to the raw file, but the actual individual pixel data still remains untouched.  All filtering does for you is give you an idea how the photograph will look if not post-processed.  Indeed, you can even recover the original color data if you change your mind about B&W for a particular photo.

On the few occasions where I shoot in raw, I always try to get the camera settings right for minimal post-processing later.  Indeed, I've developed my own custom picture style for my EOS 5D that renders colors far more accurately than do any of the picture styles Canon incorporates into their cameras.  That same custom picture style also gives me just the right amount of saturation, sharpness, and contrast for most situations.  But if I want to, say, enhance the greens of a landscape later on, I can still switch to Canon's Landscape picture style in post-processing because shooting in raw allows for that.  It's a snap, but it's also still great to be able to convert a raw to JPEG with minimal post-processing.

But, then again, I only shoot in raw when I feel I have a real winning shot on my hands that I might want to tweak later.  Otherwise, I just shoot in JPEG which, as with color slide film of old, requires that you get the camera settings right the first time because there's not a whole lot you can do later to salvage a badly exposed or balanced shot.

Besides, I hate spending too much time in post-processing.  But that's just me.  I know many who really love that stuff, I'm just not one of them.

[R. Doug]

By the way, the Grand Teton barn shot is absolutely stunning, and the contrast levels you used are visually perfect in every way.  Indeed, the sky looks as if you used a red filter, yet the grasses in the foreground look as if they were the result of a green filter.  That's something that only could have been done in post-processing, as stacking color filters doesn't work in true B&W photography.

Just positively love the result.

[John Hamilton]

Hey Doug, yep, always try to get it right in-camera first, or at least capture a good histogram with full tonality. 

Thanks for the kind comment about Moulton Barn.  I was a darkroom rat for many years at the beginning of my photojournalism career, so I appreciate your analogy.