High Sierra Topix

I have been converting some of my color photos to B&W (using Photoshop) and am really getting into it. Some photos with off-color do quite well as B&W. So my question - do you get a different image if you initially shoot in B&W or covert to B&W? Just from what I know about image processing of LANDSAT data, I would think you could get a clearer (sharper) photo if shooting on B&W setting (more reflected energy to each sensor). However, if shot in color, you then have the option to work on the light-to-darkness in each color band. Not sure if my camera sensor works like the LANDSAT sensor. I suppose a good option is to shoot one in B&W in the field, and a repeat photo in color to have the best of both worlds.

Above 10,500, especially in the early fall, the available color spectrum is somewhat limited. I often think that Ansel Adams images would never have been as good or as popular in color because of the color limitations above treeline.

WD,

Due to the way most digital sensors work images are captured in colour (each pixel picks up only red green or blue light) if you tell the camera to shoot in B+W the camera just doesn't add the relevant colours to the brightness values. Therefore you won't get any more info shooting this way. In fact if you post process you ca vary the relative contributions of different colours and create an equivalent to Film B+W shot with coloured filters.

Dave

Thanks for that information. I suspected this was the case. I have been playing with a lot of conversion to B&W by manipulating the different colors. My Photoshop Elements 10 lets me manipulate blue, green, red - not sure why I do not get to work with yellow or cyan. I have not tried to shoot in B&W for the original photo. From what you say, this does not do much and you loose data by doing that. Not sure why my camera then even has a B&W setting. Seemed to me that if they put a B&W setting in the camera, it must have some advantage.