b&w tonality - comments please

[Florian1234]

Here's one example of the last processed roll (Leica M4, Industar-61 L/D, Hp5+ in D-76 1+1, scanned with Epson V500). I then played around a bit in Photoshop with the contrast, brightness and this was the result:

Do you find the grey tones a bit too "shallow"? Is it the same with all the other shots from that roll (see flickr) ?

What could I do to make it look better? Or is it just the situation with the light that makes it look dull?

Help me understand and learn b&w processing after scanning, please.

 

[robbert]

An uneducated try:

 

[Svitantti]

I have accepted, that I cant get nice tones digitally unless I use some masks or layers to control the contrast locally.

In the darkroom this is not a problem, dont know why. There I just use a little dodge and burn, but seems I cant get same kind of satisfying results digitally without using contrast masks. At least usually. Sometimes the image can be OK already after scanning, but then I guess the negative has to be "perfect".

Before the masks, I just use levels by taking the empty space out of both ends and then maybe sliding the middle point.

 

[Florian1234]

Robbert: Would you also tell me what you did, please? 😀

 

[tmfabian]

just looks like you need to apply some levels. Film always scans a bit flat for me...but then again it's all personal tastes and likes.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have found two key elements in printing b&w digitally (using Photoshop terms).

First is adjustment of the levels so that the tonal range of the scene (difference between highest and lowest densities), as indicated by the histogram, is the same as that maxium possible. This is almost a mechanical adjustment of the levels.

Then the key adjustment is the contrast curve. This distributes the contrast range to the highlights, midtones, and shadow areas. This is the advantage of digital output where you can see the effect immediately on the screen. By using an S shaped curve, you can move the contrast to the different areas. I tend to develop my negs a bit soft. Then I distribute the contrast heavily to the midtones which gives the final print a bit of punch while leaving both the shadow and highlight areas less contrast. This results in greater shadow detail and less blown highlights.

The contrast curve is the artsy part where you can made an otherwise tonally boring photo really have impact. Play with this and just watch the screen.

 

[Papercut]

It looks flat -- but almost like it has some veiling flare.

My method for improving flat scans (and a good scan should be flat imo) is to do the following steps in this order (layered on top of each other):

1. levels adjustment layer -- usually moving black point in and, if needed, adjust the grey point whichever direction (light/dark) is necessary.

2. curves adjustment layer -- either to heighten contrast or reduce it. clicking in the image will show you where on the curve that point is shaded and an apple-click will set a point there; this makes choosing which tones to adjust easy.

3. dodge and burn locally as needed -- but since the dodge/burn tool is a DESTRUCTIVE tool in PS, I never use it. Instead I use another layer: option key + click on the "new layer" button; choose "overlay" as blending mode; make sure to click the box for "fill with neutral grey", and then using the brush tool (B), paint in on the gray layer the areas you want to lighten/darken. I usually use a fuzzy brush, with an opacity of between 8-16%. Set the foreground (brush) color to black to darken or white to lighten. And the best part is you don't destroy any of your original data -- you can delete the layer; erase all or part of it with an eraser, etc., etc.

The first two are, obviously, global adjustments and will affect the entire image. I tried using masks for curves adjustments, but found that for images where complicated dodging and burning is needed that it just gets too messy and complicated -- the single layer that combines dodge and burn is simpler and more efficient for me.

-- Kevin

 

[mikeseb]

Agree with Kevin. I think flare may be a large part of your problem, since your scene is backlit from camera left. Exposure and dev look about right for what is basically a bright scene. robertt's version is quite an improvement, and maybe the best you're going to do with this image.

My film workflow terminates with scanning and digital printing, and I've had to re-learn how to process film for that end purpose. Thinner, less developed negatives scan optimally; scanners do better pulling detail from thin shadow areas on the negative than they do in penetrating dense highlight regions.

And, frankly, I doubt you'll ever approach the quality of a dedicated film scanner using a flatbed. Just one man's opinion, but not unfounded.

mike s.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I hate to make this a digital vs. silver thread but if it's so darned easy to get great tonality with just a bit of burning and dodging (and I'm not the one who said that) why is everybody so hell bent on re-inventing the wheel?

As Fred puts it, "It would take hours of building masks to make this really work".

 

[craygc]

Had to have a go... although it's a little small to work with and a lot of the highlights are blown

 

[mh2000]

Hours to make a scan look great???? You are either scanning wrong or something... should be dead easy. Agree with Keven... Levels->Curves and maybe some dodging and burning... a couple minutes tops. And unless you are doing some grandly heroic work on a really bad photo Layers aren't worth the effort. You have your original scan for backup and you just work toward your final image... just like in a real darkroom... when you are done you get a print.

In Florian's image, it almost looks like just a few points on a curve would do it... nothing fancy... just judicious and careful curves work. Sometimes it's easier to do a couple curves on top of each other... in 16 bit mode you don't lose anything.

 

[oscroft]

I hate to make this a digital vs. silver thread but if it's so darned easy to get great tonality with just a bit of burning and dodging (and I'm not the one who said that) why is everybody so hell bent on re-inventing the wheel?

Because not everyone has, or wants, a wet darkroom?

 

[robbert]

Robbert: Would you also tell me what you did, please? 😀

I opened the file in Photoshop and played with the levels until I liked the results, I don't have a specific method I just mess around until I see what I like

 

[jbf]

Personally its all relative. How do you want your photos to look?

Something that is more important however... (it is to me at least)

I would highly suggest start doing a lot of research on photographers and their shooting styles.

Where is the photographer in relation to their subject?
Why did you take the photograph? What is it that has drawn you to take the photo?
How do the subjects relate in the frame to one another?
How do the lines of the photograph move?
What is the light doing, etc, etc.

All of these are IMO much more important than the processing of an image.


Just my 2 cents. 😀

 

[mh2000]

you could turn this around... why spend so much time in a traditional darkroom when so many things are so much easier in Photoshop? I think most of us are trying to balance getting the best prints we can using the method that seems easiest to do so...

I hate to make this a digital vs. silver thread but if it's so darned easy to get great tonality with just a bit of burning and dodging (and I'm not the one who said that) why is everybody so hell bent on re-inventing the wheel?

As Fred puts it, "It would take hours of building masks to make this really work".

 

[craygc]

If I had this image a a 16-bit 4000 dpi scan with no clipping, Im sure this would consume at least 3 hrs of my time before spot cleaning - let alone if it were a 6x7 neg. Levels and some basic curves as global adjustments but this image has so many sections that, for me, need to be worked individually. My version of dodging and burning in PS is about making tonal adjustments for one section with curves, regardless of the impact it has on the rest of the image then mark this as a history state and paint it as required back into the previous state with a pen and tablet. It all takes time and I do it all by eye. Also, to a slight degree on my version above, at the end I loaded a luminosity mask for the top 75% of the lights (actually 25% of blacks and invert) then apply a slight gaussian blur.

How simple or difficult post processing becomes is really about what you want to achieve and are prepared to accept...

 

[Svitantti]

It is a shame to start underdeveloping your negatives just because the scanner likes them better a little thin. But I guess not so many people "have time" to print traditionally.

It is not easy to make a film-scan look good (I mean good like on silver-gelatine print). But tastes vary and I guess many will be happy with just levels and curves and maybe a bit of dodge and burn. I don't want to compromise too much, I'd like my photos to look as good as I can make them.

 

[charjohncarter]

You certainly had an excellent negative. The rest is personal choice. Sometimes I use UnSharpMask at 20-50-0 to add some pop to counter the flatness of digital processing.

 

[Florian1234]

Gentlemen, thanks for your advises.

I realized before that it is personal taste mostly, but wanted to hear some hints for making it possibly better looking.
Right in this case it is a bit odd that adjusting the contrast makes the quality of this shot look a bit worse than it actually is.

Maybe it comes from both slight flare in this pic and that the V500 scanner's filmholder does not make "curled" film strips flat ( I know that there's that set of glas plates, but I'm not sure if it will really improve scan quality. I also could use Vuescan or SilverFast instead of the generic Epson software, but both options would cause costs again. If a used Nikon film-scanner would have been not that pricey, I would have taken one instead of the flatbed one.)
In the end it's all about costs for a rather underpaid university full-time student with a 12h/week part-time job like me.:bang:

 

[williams473]

Florian,

Yeah, just increasing contrast is not the best way to go about getting a tonal image. Using levels in Photoshop, you can individually control shadows, highlights and midtones, to get everything right where you want it. If your whites are clipping or flaring, bring them down to just below "paper white." If your blacks (like the shadow area behind the piano) are gray, drop them down until you get a nice rich black. The principle is the same in the darkroom - my rule of thumb when I print is to have an area (however small) of pure black, and area of almost paper white, and let the midtones fall where they may, then dodge and burn from there to personal preference. And to do this in Photoshop, just use the levels and you'll be amazed how it snaps up the photos.