Best Black and White setting?

B

BrianBrook

Active member
Hi all,
I didn't want to post until I got my camera but I've been lurking and reading in here for months so thanks for all the real-world info-anyway I'm a big fan of Black and White films like "Citizen Kane", "Eraserhead", and Film Noir in general so my question is what settings as far as contrast, iso, sharpness or basically anything in creative movie mode can help me achieve rich definition black and white, I have a moody character piece I'm writing for a summer shoot!
Thanks in advance, Brian
 
Unless I'm shooting black and white film, I generally like to just desaturated the image in post. But the dynamic black and white setting with the contrast boosted will give you the most contrasted picture. Also you could play around with shooting at higher ISO and without noise reduction to actually add in noise to make it more grainy like some black and white film.
 
I just shoot with the normal flat image (standard smooth or nostalgic with contrast -2) and then B&W and contrast the crap out of it in post.
 
given the right occasion, i like to shoot b&w with very high contrast settings and very high ISO – as PhilJackson said, this adds some 'grain' to the image, and if the light conditions are right you can achieve the gritty, bleached out look of, say, 70s horror movies or some 16mm experimental film.
 
Thanks, that is EXACTLY the look I'm going for-will post test shots when I'm satisfied with achieving that look!
 
BrianBrook said:
Hi all,
I didn't want to post until I got my camera but I've been lurking and reading in here for months so thanks for all the real-world info-anyway I'm a big fan of Black and White films like "Citizen Kane", "Eraserhead", and Film Noir in general so my question is what settings as far as contrast, iso, sharpness or basically anything in creative movie mode can help me achieve rich definition black and white, I have a moody character piece I'm writing for a summer shoot!
Thanks in advance, Brian
Click to expand...


I use the principle of get as much 'data' from the original shoot as possible, then in post, muck with it.

So, since the cameras don't really 'add' anything by selecting the on camera B&W setting, as in it's not like all of a sudden one has 12 bits of luminance, raw mode... doing the processing in post makes the most sense.

For 'film grain' effects, again, the post processing filters/plugins, would be better and allow you to change your mind... which if you shoot B&W, high ISO, etc. there is no going back...

In the olden days, perhaps one had to make such choices at the camera... these days... one of the features of 'digital' is the fact that you can have choices... that's why digital should never be seen as a time/budget saver... but an options creator...
 
I plan on shooting "Color" and adding Black and white in post with Vegas 9 but I don't really want to do more than that so the setting when shooting are important as I'm new to ISO and want to learn were I should be in principal photography, as most location will be in the mid-July heat of L.A. I need ND filter to avoid overexposure but I'm still a little confused about how much latitude the GH-1 is capable of in-camera-lot's of test shooting will hopefully solve my learning curve-Thanks to all!
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I use the principle of get as much 'data' from the original shoot as possible, then in post, muck with it.

So, since the cameras don't really 'add' anything by selecting the on camera B&W setting, as in it's not like all of a sudden one has 12 bits of luminance, raw mode... doing the processing in post makes the most sense.

For 'film grain' effects, again, the post processing filters/plugins, would be better and allow you to change your mind... which if you shoot B&W, high ISO, etc. there is no going back...

In the olden days, perhaps one had to make such choices at the camera... these days... one of the features of 'digital' is the fact that you can have choices... that's why digital should never be seen as a time/budget saver... but an options creator...
Click to expand...

Sure you can do the majority of your affects in post, but there is still an art of actually using the camera to make a great image. Also not everyone might not want to/have all the extra plug-ins etc to do this in post.

I've been in a mood lately that I try and get the image in my GH1 as similar to the look I want in post. There is a time and place for color grading/image manipulation in post but if I can do without that I shall.
 
Just my opinion,

However I prefer to shoot in B&W straight out; if that's what was planned in pre-production.
It's a matter of "commitment." If you believe the project was meant to be B&W, then you shouldn't give yourself an out, to always switch to color. Then you never clearly thought through your vision that the project was truly meant to be seen as B&W and no other way.

When we would film with 35mm; if it was a B&W project, then we committed to it. The lighting - the way we craft the contrasts, were entirely different.

When shooting 35mm still photography too. I had friends load color and take it out in the lab, however where's the commitment. I guess it's human nature, to fear the risk that commitment forces on us. People like to have the color, just encase their idea of how the project looked in B&W didn't pan out. However, shooting in color means deep in the back of your mind, you were doubting yourself already, and in a way, expecting failure, before you have even shot.

However, by forcing yourself to commit to B&W original; your apt to make it work ,and do things on a production approach that will better the production. Your minds eye will think in B&W, when that is all you have.

Just my personal artistic principles of application, of the tool set. That just how I've philosophically felt about this topic, forever.



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://SumeriusChronicles.com/
http://TheOrbisTerrarum.com/
 
I do really appreciate the artistic sensibility that B&W procures, it is true that no form factor is gained by making this commitment though as I could possibly have a distributor only interested in Color and that would leave me no leverage, my project is personal but I'm open to all the possibilities especially when the stakes of actual monetary value are on the line, nevertheless look what's happen with Colorization in the last few decades, there are some audience that won't even consider watching B&W OR reading subtitles!
 
PhilJackson said:
Sure you can do the majority of your affects in post, but there is still an art of actually using the camera to make a great image. Also not everyone might not want to/have all the extra plug-ins etc to do this in post.

I've been in a mood lately that I try and get the image in my GH1 as similar to the look I want in post. There is a time and place for color grading/image manipulation in post but if I can do without that I shall.
Click to expand...

Truth be known, I almost never did still shoots with anything in color... well... except when I got drafted into the Wife's wedding business... but anything 'important' to me was shot on real(tm) silver based B&W film, processed, and printed with me hovering over trays of ugly chemicals...

So, yes, I'm well aware of the aesthetics of B&W from real(tm) silver.

But since going digital, I have tended to almost always... like in, can't think of an occasion where I would shoot with the camera's B&W mode, but rather use PS (for stills) or AE(for video) to do this sort of processing.

The Wife tried the pseudo-B&W C-41 processed film, but it never really gave a good result... to our B&W addicted minds...

Now if Barry or someone tells me that when the GH-1 is in B&W mode, the bit-rate is more able to keep up with motion, or have more spatial detail, or bit depth increased per pixel, because now the 'color' information has been dropped... I'll think about it...

Speaking of post processing, and getting out there... I've been meaning to use some of the NIK filters for still work, using the 'movie' capabilities of Photoshop...
 
PappasArts said:
When shooting 35mm still photography too. I had friends load color and take it out in the lab, however where's the commitment.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a very distinct difference between 'digital color vs. B&W' choice, and 'film color vs. B&W'.

In Color film, the process results in a negative that has the 'dyes' stabilized, and after a period of time, they will fade. Whereas the B&W neg or print, is silver based, and it's image stability is much longer, perhaps 'infinitely' longer for any reasonable definition of 'infinite'... than the color neg/image.

The only 'true' way to archive color is to create 3 separation negs in B&W using sharp filters.

Of course not everyone has a 40 deg F, 50% humidity vault for their storage... but given half a chance the B&W has superior archival properties.

But even in the 'fresh' print, the 'blacks' of B&W have more depth to them than the corresponding color print.

Then there's RC B&W prints... but I digress...

For the short film that I have had in a couple of fests (not a DVX fest...), I started out with it will be B&W, shot with the HMC150 'color' mode, but then used AE to 'convert' to B&W, then edited the resulting shots.

There was, and for any similar project, never a question that the result would be anything but B&W...

In fact, I've often mused to only produce B&W output, while I can't afford a fancy high priced camera...

But as it is, I don't see a significant reason not to shoot 'in color' during the shoot.

As for 'seeing' the scene in monochromatic form... that's what the Wratten 90 filter is useful for...

(Ok, note for the pedantic... yes, taking 'color' film/digital image and producing a 'B&W' image really is producing a 'monochrome' image... as a real(tm) B&W image is the
result of silver processing, and residual silver in the print...)
 
Last edited:
For me, It's a commitment approach. I don't like the option; well if it doesn't work in B&W, we'll make it color then. The B&W decision should not be so fly by night.

It's made because you feel it will drive the story; and in any other way would hurt the story. Nothing else....


Just like if well known B&W films, were in color. How many films that were shot B&W would be horrid if it were color. The reason for this: I believe in my opinion , it comes down to when your making the film. Your thinking in that BW form, not color. There is NO fall back. I like the NO fall back approach. This forces you to do it right, or be damned.

The other reason ( Now this doesn't apply to indies as much) however if you shoot a color master and though you intended it for B&W, and some executive decides it's going out color, when you never lit for it and photographed it for that way. Holy Christ, your work is going to be misrepresented.


There is no right or wrong way on this topic. This is just my opinion....


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://SumeriusChronicles.com/
http://TheOrbisTerrarum.com/
 
While it's true that shooting color then desaturating in post is easy, the GH1's Dynamic B&W setting is really extraordinary. It's very difficult to replicate that setting in post. I think this is because it's not as simple as desaturating. I thin k the GH1 is changing the luminance values of certain colors, much like using color filters over the lens when shooting B&W 35mm film. So if you decide to shoot color then make it black & white later, you may want to experiment with "Channel Mixer" or some such filters in your NLE, and not just the saturation slider.
 
Pappas Arts,

While I agree with your stance, that an artist should be assertive in their approach, if the plan is to potentially make money with a project, it's a fact that some markets will flat out reject anything shot in black-and-white. Even "The Man Who Wasn't There" by the Coen Bros. was shot on color stock and then printed in B&W because certain countries in Europe demanded a color version for TV. Roger Deakins, the cinematographer, didn't seem to mind having to do this. Apparently, however, after the movie was released, those European countries ended up accepting the B&W version.
If it's just a short film, or if you're just making something for yourself, sure. But if you're using other people's money to finance your film, it's good form not to completely sabotage a source of revenue.
I can't believe I'm writing this because I hate anything that compromises artistic integrity.
I recently shot a feature in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In order to sell it to an American distributor, I had to make a 4:3 pan-and-scan version. If I didn't, there was no sale and nobody would get paid. What am I going to say? No? Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and let it go.
 
Another example is the 1994 film "Ed Wood" by Tim Burton, he had to fight tooth and nail to shoot in B&W and Disney only balked based on his reputation, unfortunately it never really found it's audience so it was another nail in modern B&W's reputation for box office doom, I didn't realize that the GH-1's B&W function in camera was any different than just desaturating in post so it's back to the drawing board........
 
Brian, I'm not 100% sure GH1's B&W mode is different than just desaturating. I just THINK it is but haven't tested. I guess you could perform a simple test. Shoot the same thing in color, then in the different B&W modes. Desaturate the color shot in your NLE and see if it looks different, or see if you can easily get what you want in post.

Regarding "Ed Wood", I was the projectionist at the theater when it was released. The B&W print was very weird and had a waxy build-up that would gunk up the film gate. After every showing I had to clean off the projector's film gate with a toothbrush. Also, on opening night, the Disney goons were there to make sure we spliced the reels together using clear tape and not the standard yellow tape. Apparently, Tim Burton hates yellow splicing tape! Okay fine, but that made finding the reel changes nearly impossible when we had to break the film down and ship it back!
 
dvbrother said:
While it's true that shooting color then desaturating in post is easy, the GH1's Dynamic B&W setting is really extraordinary. It's very difficult to replicate that setting in post. I think this is because it's not as simple as desaturating. I thin k the GH1 is changing the luminance values of certain colors, much like using color filters over the lens when shooting B&W 35mm film. So if you decide to shoot color then make it black & white later, you may want to experiment with "Channel Mixer" or some such filters in your NLE, and not just the saturation slider.
Click to expand...

Yes, Channel Mixer is the way to get 'B&W' in post. Simple 'desat+contrast' is not 'B&W'. Real(tm) Black and White films had specific color responses. Before time began, silver was 'naturally' only responsive to blue and ultraviolet. "panchromatic" film overcame this difficulty, giving better 'grey' tones to such human features as 'red/pink' lips, and rather than rendering them as 'black' or 'dark grey', render them lighter grey, at least for caucasian skin tones.

With Channel Mixer one can weight R, G, and B such that these aproximate various B&W film stocks, ranging from old fashioned blue sensitive, to some what 'infraredish'. (That and a bit of blur+grain...).

However, in the digital devices, their 'better' response is in the reds... So, sometimes one can not really match the silver based B&W film's response...

the GH1's Dynamic B&W setting is really extraordinary.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a more technical description of what it does... since as usual the manual is pretty scanty on details as to what 'B&W Dynamic -- B&W with increased contrast...' may mean...
 
dvbrother said:
Pappas Arts,

While I agree with your stance, that an artist should be assertive in their approach, if the plan is to potentially make money with a project, it's a fact that some markets will flat out reject anything shot in black-and-white. Even "The Man Who Wasn't There" by the Coen Bros. was shot on color stock and then printed in B&W because certain countries in Europe demanded a color version for TV. Roger Deakins, the cinematographer, didn't seem to mind having to do this. Apparently, however, after the movie was released, those European countries ended up accepting the B&W version.
If it's just a short film, or if you're just making something for yourself, sure. But if you're using other people's money to finance your film, it's good form not to completely sabotage a source of revenue.
I can't believe I'm writing this because I hate anything that compromises artistic integrity.
I recently shot a feature in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In order to sell it to an American distributor, I had to make a 4:3 pan-and-scan version. If I didn't, there was no sale and nobody would get paid. What am I going to say? No? Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and let it go.
Click to expand...


Very true, that financiers are very negative to the use of B&W. It's funny; B&W in photography is highly regarded. However when it goes to narrative films it's treated as sin...



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://SumeriusChronicles.com/
http://TheOrbisTerrarum.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top