Monochrome EPIC...

[Andrew Salter]

Congrats John on collection of your new Epic Monochrome, black and white was always a joy for stills, its where l cut my teeth, BW video must be just fab.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Maybe Jarred can help clear this up.


KETCH, a filter will not, can not, add color to the RAW data, because it is black and white. Perhaps the camera has a way to "tone" the image but that would imply something quite different.
If this mono camera works in the same fashion as black and white film stock, then the use of black and white filters for fine tuning an image is indispensable. Try scanning a black and white neg and working on the RAW file. Hell, scan it in RGB for all the good it will do you. There are no color channels and data from which to fine tune and alter the sensors response to the scene. And from what I understand, there will be no color channels from which you can fine tune your Epic image. Now this does not mean that you can't fine tune the image in post, but it does mean, as in classic black and white acquisition, that a complex image made up of tonal values that are less than ideal, for a particular scenario, are not such an easy thing to alter. And in most cases, post is far inferior to providing for subtleties in the tonal range, compared to filtering at the camera stage. If the seperation is not there, no amount of sliders will help you.
Filters are certainly not mandatory for every shot, far from it, but the more one learns to use them, the more one becomes aware of their great value.
This is why photographers have been fine tuning tonal values at the camera stage for a very long time. It provides a superior point of departure for post work. Not, as you suggest, the other way around.

If the Epic mono provides color channel data, or another tricky means in which to access individual color info, then that is another story. And RAW post will be an even more powerful means to back up the effects of filters.

Sorry, need to disagree here, filters will in fact permanently bake and change therefor the composition of the acquired image in its RAW file base, same as it did on B&W film cameras, any filter that changes the composition of the light it self, and any other filter that changes the loo and fill of the image will be baked in the Raw, permanently.

This is of course the same with any filters, Polarizer included, except that Polarization happens to be the only TRUE filter that it can NOT be added in post, any way, we each have our own ways, I sure don't move from mine...

 

[Bill Anderson]

Sorry, need to disagree here, filters will in fact permanently bake and change therefor the composition of the acquired image in its RAW file base, same as it did on B&W film cameras, any filter that changes the composition of the light it self, and any other filter that changes the loo and fill of the image will be baked in the Raw, permanently.

This is of course the same with any filters, Polarizer included, except that Polarization happens to be the only TRUE filter that it can NOT be added in post, any way, we each have our own ways, I sure don't move from mine...

Ketch, you take care to use lights of a certain quality, and makeup, and wardrobe and a host of other things in order to present the sensor with the image (data) that suits your style. Using a filter is no less valid than any of these things. Would you consider not gelling a light or using makeup when required, or would that sully the quality of the light and skin and "bake it into the RAW file"? Silly stuff.

The chance that a sensor's response will agree perfectly with your/our needs on every occasion is not very likely at all. There is a very good reason that the greatest practitioners in the history of the medium used filters. If the only thing that concerns you is the "color" that comes right out of the tube, for your every expression, then you are good to go. Post will allow you wiggle room, but it will be an inferior point of departure than if you had taken the care to present it with the appropriate data in the first place.


And this is not to say that one cannot make decent images without filters. One can make decent images without makeup and lights, too, however, there are times….

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, you take care to use lights of a certain quality, and makeup, and wardrobe and a host of other things in order to present the sensor with the image (data) that suits your style. Using a filter is no less valid than any of these things. Would you consider not gelling a light or using makeup when required, or would that sully the quality of the light and skin and "bake it into the RAW file"? Silly stuff.

The chance that a sensor's response will agree perfectly with your/our needs on every occasion is not very likely at all. There is a very good reason that the greatest practitioners in the history of the medium used filters. If the only thing that concerns you is the "color" that comes right out of the tube, for your every expression, then you are good to go. Post will allow you wiggle room, but it will be an inferior point of departure than if you had taken the care to present it with the appropriate data in the first place.


And this is not to say that one cannot make decent images without filters. One can make decent images without makeup and lights, too, however, there are times….

Bill,

while I agree with you, I simply don't use nor do I ever suggest others to make use of any filters other then Polarizer and ND's.

What I do by carefully DP'ing a scene design the perfect lighting and insuring Make Up, Hair and all else is properly executed on set, which BTW, I also only use 5600K pure white Daylight, never any other temperature, the use of the filter, will inevitably contaminate the entirety of that scene captured, and this is what I stay away from, as I can individually isolate each color, or in the case of Monochrome, each Shade of Gray, and adjust as needed via advance Software, always leaving an original RAW copy in pristine neutral.

 

[Bill Anderson]

On another note:

Another interesting thing about the native b&w sensor response lies in how "we" might now choose make-up. For example, what does black lipstick and red eyeshadow look like combined with an orange or RED filter? Green lipstick? Rouge might kill a face, while some other "gaudy" color might impart vitality.


Surely makeups used in combo with filters opens up considerable opportunities for expression.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

On another note:

Another interesting thing about the native b&w sensor response lies in how "we" might now choose make-up. For example, what does black lipstick and red eyeshadow look like combined with an orange or RED filter? Green lipstick? Rouge might kill a face, while some other "gaudy" color might impart vitality.


Surely makeups used in combo with filters opens up considerable opportunities for expression.

Absolutely Bill, a Monochrome Sensor, now capturing the entirety of the light info strait with out the 3 channels filtration, sees things differently, and every choice we make in lighting, its temperature, Make up, and every aspect that has to do with the creation of a certain atmospheric look, will directly be reflected on the image it self.

I have to say, that having mastered Photoshop and other 12 programs with it, I learned and appreciated much more to spend the extra time on capture on set, to insure that the image was captured to give the result intended, so to spend as list amount as possible in post, with this new Monochrome sensor, will be that and now much more, can't wait to shoot it... And print some 6' Canvases...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Sorry, need to disagree here, filters will in fact permanently bake and change therefor the composition of the acquired image in its RAW file base, same as it did on B&W film cameras, any filter that changes the composition of the light it self, and any other filter that changes the loo and fill of the image will be baked in the Raw, permanently.

This is of course the same with any filters, Polarizer included, except that Polarization happens to be the only TRUE filter that it can NOT be added in post, any way, we each have our own ways, I sure don't move from mine...

For a color blind camera there are a lot of filters that can not be mimicked in post for sure. Since the world , in fact, comes in colors... you talk like a guy that shoots RGB, for that reason black and white capture is the world full of color filters.

 

[George Butterfield]

Lots of different colours, but in the end it's all monochrome. Why would filters be any different than reality? Am I being to vague?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

For a color blind camera there are a lot of filters that can not be mimicked in post for sure. Since the world , in fact, comes in colors... you talk like a guy that shoots RGB, for that reason black and white capture is the world full of color filters.

The RGB pattern applied to a sensor is a very different thing then what a Soft or colored filter is, and there is only one filter that I am currently confident, according to what I have done so far in post, that can not be absolutely replicated, and that is the Polarizer, all other filters can be replicated in post with even far better result as the control of such filter can be isolated to certain Shade of Gray, instead of on to the entire spectrum of colors, or in this case to all shades of Gray, again this is what I do, and what I suggest my students, and to those I teach, we of course can do what we please and think is best or what best work for us, and create our own Art as we see fit, but this is my opinion based on my results.


What I am trying to say is that while any one can choose to add any color filter, to Lighten or Darken a certain Shade of Gray, which in the real world will be a color, but in the monochrome sensor it is captured as a certain Shade of Gray, I choose not to do son capture, but adjust each Shade and tonality individually in post.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Ketch, you cannot agree with me and at the same time suggest to others to not use any filtration other than Pola and ND's. These are diametrically opposed positions. And you are clearly mistaken about the general use and impact of filters in combo with a RAW workflow; not to mention the potential filters offer in artistic expression, as well as corrective techniques.

 

[Bill Anderson]

It is easy to see how a hermetically sealed environment might be favoured for certain types of work, but that is not a place in which to measure the needs of the rest of the complex and demanding world of filmmaking and the likes. Not even close.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, you cannot agree with me and at the same time suggest to others to not use any filtration other than Pola and ND's. These are diametrically opposed positions. And you are clearly mistaken about the general use and impact of filters in combo with a RAW workflow; not to mention the potential filters offer in artistic expression, as well as corrective techniques.

It is easy to see how a hermetically sealed environment might be favoured for certain types of work, but that is not a place in which to measure the needs of the rest of the complex and demanding world of filmmaking and the likes. Not even close.

He he, I agree with you, in the fact that you might favor and be pleased with your results, but at the same time I would not do the same and of course neither will I suggest other to do so.

I have tried just about every filter out there with standard RGB sensors of different format cameras as well as in Monchrome sensor, such as the latest version of DSLTR in Monochrome, the Leica M9, I simply see that I much prefer to always keep the RAW file only permanently baked by the Polarizer, and by no other filter.

Per ups, you and I will achieve or can achieve the same results, at a difference that I will always have an Original Pure RAW to go back to.

 

[Bill Anderson]

He he, I agree with you, in the fact that you might favor and be pleased with your results, but at the same time I would not do the same and of course neither will I suggest other to do so.

I have tried just about every filter out there with standard RGB sensors of different format cameras as well as in Monchrome sensor, such as the latest version of DSLTR in Monochrome, the Leica M9, I simply see that I much prefer to always keep the RAW file only permanently baked by the Polarizer, and by no other filter.

Per ups, you and I will achieve or can achieve the same results, at a difference that I will always have an Original Pure RAW to go back to.

We might very well achieve similar results. Your results might even be superior to mine, but that will not be a product of my having used filters. Filters will not make one a genius any more than refusing to use them will. What you should be asking is how will Ketch Rossi's imagery compare, with the careful and creative application of filters, and the complete denial of them.

As for the "Original Pure RAW to go back to". Your understanding of "Pure", is not my understanding of "Pure". For I would rather have a Pure file that was in keeping with my intentions, than a "Pure" file that was in keeping with the camera's. And neither one is less Pure than the other.


I can't make this any clearer. And it's moving into silly territory.

 

[John Marchant]

With a monochrome sensor there are certain desirable effects on tonal reproduction that can only be produced destructively by use of colour filtration.

Take the simple example, two equally bright objects, one blue, one red. On the monochrome they will appear identical in frame and there is nothing you can do in post, regardless of raw capture, to separate them.

A blue filter one the other hand will yield a bright blue object and a dark red one. Sure its destructive, unlike making the same colouration decision when grading a colour raw file, but its an end result that the monochrome will achieve no other way.

The monochrome actually holds less argument for raw capture than a colour bayer pattern camera, but the advantages in other aspects are clear.

Personally, and like many, I started out in photography shooting black and white with colour filtration so its necessarily a high-tech return to old methods IMHO.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

We might very well achieve similar results. Your results might even be superior to mine, but that will not be a product of my having used filters. Filters will not make one a genius any more than refusing to use them will. What you should be asking is how will Ketch Rossi's imagery compare, with the careful and creative application of filters, and the complete denial of them.

As for the "Original Pure RAW to go back to". Your understanding of "Pure", is not my understanding of "Pure". For I would rather have a Pure file that was in keeping with my intentions, than a "Pure" file that was in keeping with the camera's. And neither one is less Pure than the other.


I can't make this any clearer. And it's moving into silly territory.

Bill, nothing is silly when it comes to express each other's choices, especially on a public Forum were thousands of others read...


To continue to agree with you, while maintaining my position on not using any filters other then a Polarizer, I say that while you may choose to use a RED (no pun intended) filter to darken your Skies dramatically, or choice an orange for a no so dramatic darkening, or even go lighter with a Yellow, or choose a Green or Blue filter, to either accentuate Foliage or Skin tones or lightly change coloration of the darks in the sky, I chose to do this in Post, and not because I wish to maintain a Pure Camera look, but because I wish to have an Original Raw file to go back to, to do any changes that might occur to me, that didn't at the tie of capture, since going Digital this has happen to me more and more, and I have learned from, that the best way is to have a neutral as possible image to start off form, as my idea of what I wanted today from the image I shot, might not reflect what I want a year from now.


Again, Filters are an Art too, you can choose to use them to quickly get a final look on your image from the start, or you can still change it in Post, but not as much as I will be able to do without them.

Lastly, Art is Art, as created by the individual, and there is no right or wrong, except Exposing properly, and keeping in Focus, so I hope you look forward to my Monochrome work, as much as I look forward to see yours, and each give our viewers a different image, or perhaps the same image yet captured in different ways...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

With a monochrome sensor there are certain desirable effects on tonal reproduction that can only be produced destructively by use of colour filtration.

Take the simple example, two equally bright objects, one blue, one red. On the monochrome they will appear identical in frame and there is nothing you can do in post, regardless of raw capture, to separate them.

A blue filter one the other hand will yield a bright blue object and a dark red one. Sure its destructive, unlike making the same colouration decision when grading a colour raw file, but its an end result that the monochrome will achieve no other way.

The monochrome actually holds less argument for raw capture than a colour bayer pattern camera, but the advantages in other aspects are clear.

Personally, and like many, I started out in photography shooting black and white with colour filtration so its necessarily a high-tech return to old methods IMHO.

John,

while I also tend to agree with you, I differ in opinion about current application of filters in Monochrome sensor, as when we both started out in Monochrome shooting, the Programs for post production manipulation did not existed as they do today, neither Photoshop, not any of the many Color grading softwares were at the level of today, and for this after I played around I came to the conclusion that I prefer not to use filters other then Polarizers.

 

[John Marchant]

Ketch I worry that you are heading for a disappointment. The example you give above would require masks / power windows to achieve in grading the monochrome, you simply wouldn't be able to create the same effect as colour filtration will give. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post production intentions though

 

[Bill Anderson]

Ketch. If you do not use filters to provide the necessary separation in tonal values, post will NOT always provide.

This is not about using filters in a shotgun style approach, this is about the corrective and creative element, and all of its potential. If you are uncertain about your sky, then use no filter. If you are uncertain, that is. And the proper use of a filter does not negate or undermine the power of post. However, filters improperly used, or not used at all when the need clearly arises, does nothing to improve one's post options. Nothing whatsoever.

Using your analogy: If you can plainly see that the light conditions do not provide for adequate separation of values between the clouds and blue sky, or any other subject that might be present, say an actor, then a filter or some other method is in order to provide for the best post work. Whether a polarizer ( not always a good choice because it can kill the vitality of skin tones and other things) or any of a number of filters, it is up to the individual. Photoshop and color grading softwares will not help you in every failing, far from it. If the cloud values and blue sky and skin tones are of the same value throughout, then good luck with that in post.

Black and white post differs considerably from color post.

If you are that inflexible, there is nothing more that I can say.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Easy test... put a girl with 5600k lamps infront of your monochrome then hold a blue filter, a red, green orange and/or yellow or any other colored filter in between the lens and girl... then go and try to replicate the results in post... there is no way you can, if im not mistaken.

As BW images are only possible to alter in brightness/contrast it's very common to create BW with color film stock and a lot of colors in the scene and then in telecine grab each color and by doing so set the contrast different within the different color regions. But with a BW sensor all you can adjust is contrast across the whole image or use masks / power windows as the whole image only holds two colors.

 

[Bill Anderson]

This is why I inquired about a REDCINE-X "Zone system" style option. Where each of the tonalities, from black to white, might be discretely adjusted using a number of "Zone" sliders.

Easier said than done. But most of what RED does, not to mention Graeme, is easier said than done.

Maybe there is something similar or better in the works?