The reason you are seeing them in color is that the camera captures in color, not black and white.

Besides, you want to do the conversion to black and white in Photoshop where you have more control.

Quote:
As the E-300 has a B&W setting in the menu, I thought I would try shooting black & white in digital (still RAW). I took lots of shots, played around with all the settings, and was pleased with my work. Until, that is, I transfered them onto my Mac via the CF card. When I displayed the photos they were converted to colour right in front of my eyes!

Is this unique to the E-300 or does this happen on all digital SLRs?

With all cameras, RAW is not an image file, but rather a data file. It is a container for the raw digital data generated by the sensor, letting you move it to an application so you can fine tune it before opening it.

If you shoot a JPEG - which is an image file format - the camera does the processing, removing the colour information from the same raw data, which it then discards. Most of the camera settings are applied AFTER the exposure is made. With RAW, none of the camera settings are applied, other than shutter, aperture and ISO which are applied during the exposure.

Quote:
Is there a way of keeping the file date/image black & white? if so, HOW?

When adjusting parameters in your RAW loader, it is the same as if the camera were processing it, but under your control. Just as the camera would with a JPEG, you can reduce the saturation setting to the minimum and colour should vanish.

Better yet, open it in in your image processing program as a colour picture and then you will have a variety of options in how it is converted, giving you total control. When you save it, save it in whatever image format you wish - JPEG, TIFF, PNG - whatever, and it will remain B&W.

NEVER save over a RAW file! It is the original sensor data that you can always go back to as your processing skills increase in time. All my original camera files and folders are totally write-protected. They are my digital equivalents of my film negatives, which also would never be altered.

Quote:
And if not, why have a black & white setting on the camera in the first place? Is it just a gimmic?

Depends upon your point of view. It looks like another feature which might help sell the camera, and is probably very cheap to implement, so most cameras have it. If shooting JPEGs, all colour is lost if you set it to B&W and you get B&W results direct from the camera, which probably satisfies those who are not advanced enough in the medium to be much into processing.

Realize that it is easy to turn colour into B&W, but extremely difficult to turn B&W into colour. For that reason with film, if a client asked for B&W, I generally shot on colour negative and printed on panchromatic paper. Upon delivering the prints, there were many times that the client said that the shots would have been great in colour. I could say "no problem - I can do them in colour". Made for some very fine shooter/client bonding.

Other than a test shot to see how it looked, I would never shoot B&W with my digital camera. With RAW, I can choose, but with JPEG, I am stuck with B&W. In fact, with my camera, if I choose B&W, I can NOT choose RAW.

Quote:
Please help as this is really bugging me.

The key is understanding that RAW is a DATA file - not an IMAGE file. Until the data is interpreted by your RAW loader program, there is NO PICTURE. It is LITERALLY the raw data off the sensor - nothing more.

Thank you to the two Larry's. I'm glad I joined the Shutterbug now.

I always thought that converting a colour photo to black & white in something like Photoshop was somehow cheating.
I also thought that RAW was an image format. I am completely clear on that score now.

I must admit, I have never tried saving images in JPEG in black & white. I just assumed it would give the same results as RAW, in that the pictures would stil be colour.

I can see the sense now of using PS to convert. I'll still cntinue to shoot in RAW as I like the freedom to be able to choose what I do to the image. And I always keep my images in a folder called RAW and the variouse images sorted into sub folders. I must admit that I don't write protect them (but I probably will do now!), but I never overwrite them as I want the original for further 'work experiance'. As I learn something new I can reload the RAW image Ooops, sorry, data file, and try out my newly learned sills.

I keep going on about the RAW image, old habits and all that. I'll work on that from now on. It's a DATA FILE.

Thank's for clearing those points up. I really appreciate your effort.

>>I always thought that converting a colour photo to black & white in something like Photoshop was somehow cheating.<<

The only cheating involved is that what the digital camera sensor collects in data is RGB color information, by neutralizing the color bringing the RGB values for each pixel to the same value, resulting in an RGB monochrome file you are in a sense cheating yourself by throwing out the information that defines the image as color.

Raw is an image file format, but because it is a proprietary format involving a unique non-lossey compression strategy, it cannot be opened by an image editing application like Photoshop directly, but must be converted to non-compressed RGB data to be accessed as an image displayed by the image editor. That conversion is a direct simile of what the post exposure processing chip in your camera does as part of making the image available in an idealized photograph in JPEG file format.

Actually shooting in raw and converting to B&W after conversion and open in an application like Photoshop provides a great range of options as part of the process of converting color to grayscale ,y channel editing and parallel methods. which by-the-way is one of the new features in Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0.

Keep going on referring to Raw as an image file as that is what it is and the way it is understood as such by most and is therefore a quite correct common reference.

Quote:
I always thought that converting a colour photo to black & white in something like Photoshop was somehow cheating.

Explain cheating. Has someone written a rule book for photography when I was not looking? Is photography now a sport instead of an art? Does the referee hand out penalties? How would you rule on the following if you were wearing the stripey shirt and blowing the whistle?

I once did a routine publicity shoot of a music star in performance, for his PR agency. They wanted it in B&W so I shot it Tri-X film, since it was in a fairly dimly lighted club.

A few days later, his agent was on the phone saying that the star felt that it was the shot of all time, A shot that captured everything that he was about. His wife loved it, his management loved it, and they wanted it for his next album cover. Great - a routine shoot just became real money!

An hour or so later, the head art director of his record company was on the phone to make the arrangements. He loved the shot too. As he was about to hang up, he added "In colour of course, and I need it here in 48-hours."

"Nashville, we got a problem..."

I printed a stack of B&W prints, bought a top quality airbrush and set about learning to use it. I finally nailed the colour and shipped off the print, making it just under deadline. The album shipped double-platinum, made Country Album of the Year and the cover was made into a poster, four by four feet that was plastered to walls in record stores for months. Work picked up considerably.

After that, I shot all B&W gigs on colour negative film and printed them on B&W panchromatic paper. Many times when I delivered them, my client wailed, "Those would have been great in colour!"

I'd say, "No problem, I shot on colour film." There followed a period of shooter/client bonding - I'll spare you the moist details. It made many art directors look good to their bosses, and generated much more work.

I might add that several realized that very nice, totally colour corrected transparencies could also be made. Clients began specifying that I shoot on colour negatives so they could make their mind up later. Since that time I very rarely shot B&W - everything at least started in colour. Digital is no different.

Now for your ruling on the play. Which was cheating? One, the other, or all? Or none of the above? Or do the rules change depending upon if the print happens to be done in the fume-room or digital darkroom, even though the end result is identical and the client is totally happy?

Hi Larry, and David.

Thank you for that advice and information.

Wow! I never realised what was acceptable in the photographic industry. As one who has never sold a photo in his life, or even entered a compertition, I really have no idea. I always thought professionals produced their work 'in camera'. This now gives me the enthusiasm to learn to use my editing software properly, and to make use of it.

I think from now on I'll forget about shooting in black & white, even on film. Mind you, I only use the film camera occassionally, so I'll probably drop that now. I hadn't really gotten into it much anyway.

I am so pleased I joined the Shutterbugs, I think I am going to learn a lot here.

Quote:
Wow! I never realised what was acceptable in the photographic industry. As one who has never sold a photo in his life, or even entered a compertition, I really have no idea. I always thought professionals produced their work 'in camera'. This now gives me the enthusiasm to learn to use my editing software properly, and to make use of it.

Ansel Adams was not only a great photographer and highly knowledgeable teacher, he was a fine musician who had contemplated a concert career. He said - in musical terms: "The exposure is the score and the print is the performance".

My goal with the camera, is to capture the best possible raw material, that I can polish into the most compelling images of which I am capable. The two are absolutely linked in my mind as I set the camera and approach each shot. A perfect exposure is one that has a wealth of great content as a starting point for creating the image.

Camera work is important - it is real-time and if you miss the moment, it is gone forever. The shoot with all its stress and pressure, is rarely a time for contemplation or interpretation. You gather the best content you can at the highest technical quality conditions allow.

Whether in the fume-room or in front of the monitor, one has the time to recollect ones feelings and the message one wants the image to deliver. There is the time to contemplate the image in depth, and do whatever is necessary to realize and express the nuances that one visualized during its concept. Here the raw content becomes the eloquent image one puts forth for presentation.

Realize that since Fox Talbot made the first negative/positive print in 1836, every exposure since then - bazillions of them - has been processed. When you drop off your film at a one-hour lab, the technician pushes the buttons and turns the knobs of the big machine, and interprets every shot. If the technician is bored and overworked, thinking mostly of quitting time, those feelings will be embedded in every print. Even at best, one rarely gets an exciting print back when someone else interprets it. I tends to be homogenized to the lowest acceptable denominator - as if run through the blander.

The darkroom also allows one to go way beyond the simple snapshot. The tools allow one to use techniques within the photographic medium that are rich and inspiring. See Shutterbug, October issue or click on Photo Art Masters. A sample of my pseudo-aquatint work is on the second page of the web and on page 136 of the magazine. Though it has the appearance of a pen or pencil drawing overlaid with transparent watercolour, it is done purely with photographic processing. George, and the folks at Corel, evidently liked it.

This refinement process takes place in every medium. In terms of words - editing and polishing takes an author's initial draft manuscript and not only corrects the grammar and spelling, but through revision seeks the best narrative sequence, replacing words and phrases to inspire the reader's imagination. In movie making, cutting and editing are the difference between a confusing or boring picture and an Oscar-winner, no matter how famous the stars or director. With a ballet or a play, there is a rehash of almost every performance in the green room following the curtain - the production is constantly being evolved and improved. Recordings are mixed from many takes, and the sound is clarified, equalized, channeled and compressed as necessary - a host of post-processes before it is released. Painting may start with a rough sketch, and the whole process becomes one of evolving and refining.

Refinement of the art and the craft, to the point that the craft itself becomes invisible and the art speaks without distraction, is a vital part of making art, no matter which medium you use.

Yes, of course. I really didn't mean my last message to sound as if I was downgrading the highly trained skills and abilities of any photographer, especially long standing professionals.

I fully appreciate that you 'cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear', so the RAW image has to be the best you can possibly get (or want) before you can start to enhance it.

I went over to a digital slr perposly so that I could have more control over what I produce, and what I want to produce. Often, what I get is not exactly what I wanted. This is where I need to hone my skills in the virtual digital darkroom. I also need to practice more with the camera.

For this reason I try to work as much as possible in Manual mode, although I sometimes use Aperture of Shutter priority, and occassionally Program mode. Also, I have found that AutoFocus doesn't always focus on the area that I want to be sharp, so I use manual focus a lot.

These are all skills that I must work on, and i realise they are the skills that make a good photographer good.

I have been having a look around your website Larry. I will be spending a lot of time there, especially the tutorials.

Even better, do the B&W conversion in Adobe Lightroom (the beta version is free, final comes out within 2 weeks). It's easy and very powerful. I found you more info on the process in the Adobe Website. I've been using Lightroom for a while now and I love it.