So when I shoot the X-Pro1, I currently shoot black and white, in-camera JPEG with a 1:1 aspect ratio.
I find the results pretty spectacular for portraits, up close with the 35mm F/1.4.
Would I get better results shooting RAW and doing the black and white conversion in Lightroom with a Silver FX Pro?
I figure the later will give more options, but want to hear from black and white shooters what they are using.
Thanks
ET
Welcome to Fuji X Forum!
![]() |
Welcome to the Fuji X Forum, the largest online community of Fujifilm X camera users! Like most forums you must register to post in our community, this is a simple free process that requires minimal information. Become a part of the forum by signing in or creating an account. For your convenience you can sign in using Facebook, Twitter or Google.
|
Guest Message by DevFuse
In-Camera Black and White or RAW + Silver FX?
Started by
EvilTed
, Jun 03 2012 06:31 PM
4 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 03 June 2012 - 06:31 PM
#2
Posted 03 June 2012 - 08:18 PM
NIK Silver FX Pro all the way - the level of control is stunning - you'll get even better B&W from your Fuji this way
#3
Posted 03 June 2012 - 08:52 PM
I shoot jpeg black and white plus RAW. It helps me to stay in black and white thinking mode, and gives me previsualization of all my shots. I can sort through the black and whites to see which are worth spending more time on. Once the non-keepers have been culled, and the starred shots identified, it's into silver efex with the raw.
You can purely shoot raw, relying on the embedded jpeg for black and white on shots you don't wish to tweak, but I found not having the separation of files annoying. Some shots are keepers, but not worthy of further fussing or refinement. During culls I can trash the raw versions of these files to recover space. I was concerned that shooting raw+jpeg would slow me down, but the X100 has made me a much more deliberate, less chimpy photographer, so I've seldom found myself fighting the buffer.
SFXP is a different kind of black and white processing workflow.
I like to think as in-camera or Aperture edits as like using slide film. (Sure you can push things around in Aperture, but you're effectively just rewriting history using a very digital workflow. I tend to just tweak exposure and curves then lift and stamp the adjustments onto the set.)
SFXP on the other hand is very much like a dark room approach. Fine control over every aspect of the exposure, and the use of control points, which to me is much closer to dodging/burning and other darkroom technique than using brushes. I feel it allows me to take a far more artistic approach to development, without breaking out of the realms of photography.
I have spent 20 years of my life using Photoshop for pre-press and production, so I know hundreds of techniques for tweaking an image, yet I avoid this for photography. SXFP allows me to turn my brain off, and trust my instincts and eye. I find it a very natural method for getting the most out of photos. I enjoy the it's ability to produce shots, which may not be technically perfect, but which have feeling.
Here's a shot I did with tons of technical faults. I was actually trying to accentuate them, as I figured some veiling flare would improve the subject. The focus is out, there's pincushion, framing is off, exposure is pushed in all the wrong directions etc. Nobody else may like it, but I do, and without SFXP I don't think I could have achieved what was in my minds eye.
You can purely shoot raw, relying on the embedded jpeg for black and white on shots you don't wish to tweak, but I found not having the separation of files annoying. Some shots are keepers, but not worthy of further fussing or refinement. During culls I can trash the raw versions of these files to recover space. I was concerned that shooting raw+jpeg would slow me down, but the X100 has made me a much more deliberate, less chimpy photographer, so I've seldom found myself fighting the buffer.
SFXP is a different kind of black and white processing workflow.
I like to think as in-camera or Aperture edits as like using slide film. (Sure you can push things around in Aperture, but you're effectively just rewriting history using a very digital workflow. I tend to just tweak exposure and curves then lift and stamp the adjustments onto the set.)
SFXP on the other hand is very much like a dark room approach. Fine control over every aspect of the exposure, and the use of control points, which to me is much closer to dodging/burning and other darkroom technique than using brushes. I feel it allows me to take a far more artistic approach to development, without breaking out of the realms of photography.
I have spent 20 years of my life using Photoshop for pre-press and production, so I know hundreds of techniques for tweaking an image, yet I avoid this for photography. SXFP allows me to turn my brain off, and trust my instincts and eye. I find it a very natural method for getting the most out of photos. I enjoy the it's ability to produce shots, which may not be technically perfect, but which have feeling.
Here's a shot I did with tons of technical faults. I was actually trying to accentuate them, as I figured some veiling flare would improve the subject. The focus is out, there's pincushion, framing is off, exposure is pushed in all the wrong directions etc. Nobody else may like it, but I do, and without SFXP I don't think I could have achieved what was in my minds eye.
Attached Files
#4
Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:45 PM
That's a really deep shot, wow!
#5
Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:23 AM
Pavig,
That's what I was leaning towards - RAW + B+W JPEG and use Silver EFEX on the RAWs.
I just didn't want to spend the cash if it wasn't worth it.
Cheers
ET
Great shot BTW
That's what I was leaning towards - RAW + B+W JPEG and use Silver EFEX on the RAWs.
I just didn't want to spend the cash if it wasn't worth it.
Cheers
ET
Great shot BTW
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

















