Shooting directly in BW vs shooting with colours.
Pros and cons
>>2871437
There is no pro. Now delete the thread.
>>2871439
The might be some. Sometimes you don't know what could come good in BW because sometimes you can't see if some colours would blend together once in BW so this give you new chances of composition.
It would also be more relaxing and give you more time to think on the composition rather then looking at the colours and maybe wondering what colours could ruin your shot
>>2871445
bullshit. even my oly e500 which is 10 yrs old saves the color information in the raw picture but displays bw in the regarding mode. you cant even enforce that the color is not saved, because it is so stupid that developers wouldn't even enable an option for it.
other thing is a bw sensor, which might have pros due to no need for debayering etc. but this also questionable.
thread is redundant.
>>2871451
You didn't understand my question but this way I discovered something even cooler.
So, if I set my panny in BW mode (film mode) it will only display the image in BW on the screen but it'll still save the photo with colours? Am I right?
Sorry if my question wasn't clear
>>2871454
at least in raw it should save the color anyways. .. maybe the jpeg will be bw since wysiwyg logic.
>>2871460
OK I'll try
My best BWs all started life as oversaturated HDResque monstrosities
Black and white as an afterthought is less exciting, rewarding and successful than shooting with black and white in mind.
For this reason, if you are using a mirrorless camera, shoot RAW and consider using a black and white picture style.
The flexibility of hsing hue-based conversions will be preserved (you are still saving a color image) but you will be able to visualize the scene in mono, which is helpful for "seeing"
>>2871437
>PROs
B&W is cheaper, easier to develop, potentially sharper, tends to have better latitude in exposure, can be printed directly, and has better tonality, which can then be tweaked with filters, development, etc, and is archivally stable.
>CONs
It's not colour and never will be.
Basic bitches (nat geo) won't like it.
What you see is not what you will get. You will need to compose with form, luminosity, and the spectral sensitivity of your particular emulsion in mind.
>>2871842
>I'm not a filmfag
kek
what are you even asking about b&w for then, you fucking casual?
>>2871846
There is no 'option to shoot b&w'.
You're always shooting colour.
Anything else is a post-processing choice.
"Post" as in worked out after the point of capture, using the colour information the camera saved.
Your question, reframed, is the equivalent of saying "I quite like rib fillet, and I think that's what I feel like for dinner tonight. I'm going to slaughter a beast now, what are the pros and cons just taking the rib fillet and throwing the rest of the beast in the trash vs dressing the whole carcass and getting cuts of rump, sirloin, ribs, blade, shank, brisket, tail and offal as well?"
>except the analogy doesn't stand up because shooting digital is more akin to slaughtering goat or crocodile or some other trash meat
>ree get out
