Fuji X-series:
I'm asking the general public here... what dslr has the best monochrome (b&w) profile?
-
D
- Thread starter vanislandguy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
Forum statistics
This thread had me curious. It seems like the advancement of technology can and has left some of our cameras in the dust and selling a once expensive body for pennies vs converting them into something different is a question that gets asked a lot.
I did a pretty brief search and found;
It seems legit, but all I did was a web search.
"Monochrome conversions start at $1500..." Ouch. They also state quite plainly that they may not be able to convert every camera so one is expected to contact them first.
Given this small data, that new Pentax K3 sounds pretty good.
I did a pretty brief search and found;
It seems legit, but all I did was a web search.
"Monochrome conversions start at $1500..." Ouch. They also state quite plainly that they may not be able to convert every camera so one is expected to contact them first.
Given this small data, that new Pentax K3 sounds pretty good.
If you get serious about digital black and white, and unless you get a monochrome camera like the Pentax or Leica, you will probably end up converting colour RAW files. Koraks gave but one methodfor that. Using RAW files gives you much more artistic freedom than relying on JPEGs out of the camera. Of course there's something to be said for the latter approach as well...
In terms of using old cameras, I use a Sigma SD 9 or 10, a hassle due to using AA and CR5 batteries depending on which body you use. Other option is a early Fuji with Nikon lens mount, the hexagram designs of the pixels made for great color that seems to translate to well to monochrome. I do have a good large format printer and need to take my files to be printed at a Office Max or even Walgreens.
This added cost goes with anything that ends up as monochrome image, whichever body is used to capture image. But I think it is not being challenged that mono-dedicated bodies produce superiory cleaner files
My experience with DSLRs is limited to Nikon. The stock monochrome picture control (JPEG image profile or what Fuji refers to as "film simulation") is pretty boring, but you can download additional picture controls from https://nikonpc.com/. I quite like the "Tri-X B&W" picture control from that site. (I'm not sure it bears any resemblance to actual Tri-X but I like it.)
What you call Fuji "film simulation" is arguably the best out there attempt to turn digital file into film like output.
What you read about results is in my opinion no exaggeration, but I do wish Fuji came up with their own monochrome body.
Given what they've been able to accomplish flipping colors back into greys, a dedicated mono sensor would have a chance of becoming one of a kind.
The Nikon mirror-less bodies have many more picture controls. Nikon's least expensive mirror-less camera, the Nikon Z30, for example, includes the following picture controls in camera....(bold are monochrome).
Basic:
Flat, Landscape, Monochrome, Neutral, Portrait, Standard, Vivid
Creative Picture Controls:
Dream, Morning, Pop, Sunday, Somber, Dramatic, Silence, Bleached, Melancholic, Pure, Denim, Toy, Sepia, Blue, Red, Pink, Charcoal, Graphite, Binary, Carbon
the selected Picture Control can also be modified in camera...which, I suppose, hypothetically gives one the possibility of approaching a personal "Tri-X look" or "APX-100 look", etc.
Last edited:
short version
If you are unable / unwilling to pay for a dedicated monochrome camera from Leica or Pentax, then get whichever Fuji mirrorless camera you can afford, and some kind of photo editing software known to produce good results from Fuji RAW files.
TL;DR
The opening post mentions, "An older dslr that has the best jpg (out of camera ) monochrome profile looking almost like it was shot on film."
To me, it seems like accepting the out-of-camera default monochrome JPEG profile as a photographic goal imposes an unnatural limitation on your possibilities. There is a fairly limited number of different ways the default monochrome JPEGs from the various camera manufacturers will look.
However, working in something like Adobe Lightroom with a single RAW file from any one camera allows for a vastly greater number of possibilities. A person who wants their digital photographs to have a certain look might be better off buying competent post processing software and learning how to use it.
My first digital camera was Pentax Kx dSLR, and now I have a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless camera. Using the RAW files from both of those cameras in Lightroom, I have done enough conversions to monochrome to get a good feel for it. How successful I was in making my digital photos "look almost like it was shot on film" is highly debatable. If that is your goal, then there are many third party plug-ins, presets, LUTs, and profiles to help customize Lightroom's already considerable control over the digital editing process.
Having said all that, I made a decision to use my digital cameras for scenes which I think work best in color -- and to stick with film for subjects which I think will work best in b&w. The photo below is one of the last digital images which I converted to monochrome. On that particular day, my film camera was suffering from incorrectly loaded film (which I did not discover until later), so when I got home, this digital version was all I had.
I should mention, the final look of this photo has A LOT MORE to do with what I did using Adobe's software than it does with the look produced by the Fuji camera.
Fuji X-T1 / Fuji XF 23mm F2.0 / SW Missouri / June 2022
If you are unable / unwilling to pay for a dedicated monochrome camera from Leica or Pentax, then get whichever Fuji mirrorless camera you can afford, and some kind of photo editing software known to produce good results from Fuji RAW files.
TL;DR
The opening post mentions, "An older dslr that has the best jpg (out of camera ) monochrome profile looking almost like it was shot on film."
To me, it seems like accepting the out-of-camera default monochrome JPEG profile as a photographic goal imposes an unnatural limitation on your possibilities. There is a fairly limited number of different ways the default monochrome JPEGs from the various camera manufacturers will look.
However, working in something like Adobe Lightroom with a single RAW file from any one camera allows for a vastly greater number of possibilities. A person who wants their digital photographs to have a certain look might be better off buying competent post processing software and learning how to use it.
My first digital camera was Pentax Kx dSLR, and now I have a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless camera. Using the RAW files from both of those cameras in Lightroom, I have done enough conversions to monochrome to get a good feel for it. How successful I was in making my digital photos "look almost like it was shot on film" is highly debatable. If that is your goal, then there are many third party plug-ins, presets, LUTs, and profiles to help customize Lightroom's already considerable control over the digital editing process.
Having said all that, I made a decision to use my digital cameras for scenes which I think work best in color -- and to stick with film for subjects which I think will work best in b&w. The photo below is one of the last digital images which I converted to monochrome. On that particular day, my film camera was suffering from incorrectly loaded film (which I did not discover until later), so when I got home, this digital version was all I had.
I should mention, the final look of this photo has A LOT MORE to do with what I did using Adobe's software than it does with the look produced by the Fuji camera.
Fuji X-T1 / Fuji XF 23mm F2.0 / SW Missouri / June 2022
Last edited:
short version
If you are unable / unwilling to pay for a dedicated monochrome camera from Leica or Pentax, then get whichever Fuji mirrorless camera you can afford, and some kind of photo editing software known to produce good results from Fuji RAW files.
TL;DR
The opening post mentions, "An older dslr that has the best jpg (out of camera ) monochrome profile looking almost like it was shot on film."
To me, it seems like accepting the out-of-camera default monochrome JPEG profile as a photographic goal imposes an unnatural limitation on your possibilities. There is a fairly limited number of different ways the default monochrome JPEGs from the various camera manufacturers will look.
However, working in something like Adobe Lightroom with a single RAW file from any one camera allows for a vastly greater number of possibilities. A person who wants their digital photographs to have a certain look might be better off buying competent post processing software and learning how to use it.
My first digital camera was Pentax Kx dSLR, and now I have a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless camera. Using the RAW files from both of those cameras in Lightroom, I have done enough conversions to monochrome to get a good feel for it. How successful I was in making my digital photos "look almost like it was shot on film" is highly debatable. If that is your goal, then there are many third party plug-ins, presets, LUTs, and profiles to help customize Lightroom's already considerable control over the digital editing process.
Having said all that, I made a decision to use my digital cameras for scenes which I think work best in color -- and to stick with film for subjects which I think will work best in b&w. The photo below is one of the last digital images which I converted to monochrome. On that particular day, my film camera was suffering from incorrectly loaded film (which I did not discover until later), so when I got home, this digital version was all I had.
I should mention, the final look of this photo has A LOT MORE to do with what I did using Adobe's software than it does with the look produced by the Fuji camera.
Fuji X-T1 / Fuji XF 23mm F2.0 / SW Missouri / June 2022
But you're not showing a B&W image to start.
Not everyone has to agree, some may think it's a hype, but what Fuji does in camera with B&W jpeg is to me of very high grade, and in fact rather difficult to emulate with any software (referring to getting same look). Perhaps not to everyone's liking, but this may well be part of mental lock where if it ain't from RAW it cannot be better. Something that was true maybe 10 years ago.
Didn't know there were monochrome inksets available(what printers will accept them?), I had inquired at my local camera shop if and they just looked at me...
What Paul said.
Some of the current printers can’t use the third party cartridges used by the piezogrphy system. But some are capable of good monochrome results without using a full scale of monochrome inks that the piezography system offers.
The FUJI ACROS simulation is interesting. And if you shoot RAW you can access it again through FUJI free software, but in this case, the camera still needs to be hooked up to the computer, and the camera still does most of the processing.
Does the Nikon 1 series offer anything like what BradS described with that Z camera?
Even something as old as my Nikon D200 has the capability of uploading and storing custom output profiles (LUTS).
With some investigation, you can create your own profiles and get the look you want, but it does take some effort to understand and produce a useful profile.
With some investigation, you can create your own profiles and get the look you want, but it does take some effort to understand and produce a useful profile.
Since you mention it, I've seen the D200 mentioned as an alternative to Fujifilm's old F-mount bodies for good JPEG files. I've never had the honor of trying it.
Edit: The discussion was actually more about color and rendering than JPEG specifically.
Last edited:
It's a reasonably capable camera and very inexpensive, but you can probably do a bit better Megapixel-wise now for not much more money.
The key is to confirm the camera can and will take custom profiles you generate with either manufacturer's provided software or some after market package.
The number of pre-built profiles for digital film stock look emulation is quite staggering if you factor in the ones produced for DSLR movie making. Many are free to download, some cost a few dollars and some are quite expensive.
The key is to confirm the camera can and will take custom profiles you generate with either manufacturer's provided software or some after market package.
The number of pre-built profiles for digital film stock look emulation is quite staggering if you factor in the ones produced for DSLR movie making. Many are free to download, some cost a few dollars and some are quite expensive.
I'm happy with mine on the Nikon D800, but I have no comparison.
The Nikon 1 cameras and lenses are all discontinued, but yes, it have similar color profiles. I have a couple of the AW1 cameras and lenses. I don't SCUBA but a camera that can submerge to 15 meters should be good in the rain and other bad weather events. If you want specifics, I can dig it out and look at all the color and B&W options.
Also remember that all those type of options are really only for the JPEG output. the raw file may have the embedded jpeg, but the raw data isn't affected by color settings.
a very realistic-looking B&W!
short version
If you are unable / unwilling to pay for a dedicated monochrome camera from Leica or Pentax, then get whichever Fuji mirrorless camera you can afford, and some kind of photo editing software known to produce good results from Fuji RAW files.
TL;DR
The opening post mentions, "An older dslr that has the best jpg (out of camera ) monochrome profile looking almost like it was shot on film."
To me, it seems like accepting the out-of-camera default monochrome JPEG profile as a photographic goal imposes an unnatural limitation on your possibilities. There is a fairly limited number of different ways the default monochrome JPEGs from the various camera manufacturers will look.
However, working in something like Adobe Lightroom with a single RAW file from any one camera allows for a vastly greater number of possibilities. A person who wants their digital photographs to have a certain look might be better off buying competent post processing software and learning how to use it.
My first digital camera was Pentax Kx dSLR, and now I have a Fuji X-T1 mirrorless camera. Using the RAW files from both of those cameras in Lightroom, I have done enough conversions to monochrome to get a good feel for it. How successful I was in making my digital photos "look almost like it was shot on film" is highly debatable. If that is your goal, then there are many third party plug-ins, presets, LUTs, and profiles to help customize Lightroom's already considerable control over the digital editing process.
Having said all that, I made a decision to use my digital cameras for scenes which I think work best in color -- and to stick with film for subjects which I think will work best in b&w. The photo below is one of the last digital images which I converted to monochrome. On that particular day, my film camera was suffering from incorrectly loaded film (which I did not discover until later), so when I got home, this digital version was all I had.
I should mention, the final look of this photo has A LOT MORE to do with what I did using Adobe's software than it does with the look produced by the Fuji camera.
Fuji X-T1 / Fuji XF 23mm F2.0 / SW Missouri / June 2022
It's a great shot in any case
Thank you, Ralph.
Thanks for offering so much information about Nikon 1. I have really considered buying it used. There are numerous complaints about reliability. That's my main hesitation. Do you have any experience with "SOOC" JPEG shooting with a Nikon 1 camera?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |