A Blind Sampling Of B&W Conversion Software For Digital Cameras

[dcsang]

There was a couple recent threads in a few forums that I frequent and all of them centered around B&W conversion "software" or "actions" for Photoshop.

Seeing as how many offered a free trial and I already have purchased one brand for my purposes, I thought it would be an interesting study to look at four different types of software and, blindly, let you decide what appeals to YOU.

So, without further adieu, I will give you our "test" image.
This is shot on July 1, 2008 with my M8 and 50 Lux wide open.
ISO160, 1/750s.
The shot is directly from the camera, no post processing has been done to the colour image.

Along with Edmir (that's who's in that photo), we'll look at a 100% crop that should offer a good idea of the grain structure. Here is the original crop:

Now, that said; here we go with the samplings. All of these are examples of Tmax P3200 @ 3200 ISO save for ONE. One of them is an example of Delta 3200 @ 3200 - you can choose which one afterwards. All have been converted using the DEFAULT values for the particular software/plug-in.

Image A

Image B

Image C

Image D

Now here are the crops of each image in the SAME ORDER.

Crop A

Crop B

Crop C

Crop D

So, there you go... now you can try to tell me which one you think gives the "best" likeness (in your mind) in comparison to Kodak P3200 @ 3200.
Also, tell me which of these is Delta 3200.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Keith]

I don't know about identifying which is which but I do know that A is the only one I like the look of ... and even that appears to have lost some shadow detail.

D is a shocker! 😱

 

[dcsang]

I'll give everyone some time (maybe a day or two depending on if people are interested in the sampling or not) and then I'll spring it on you which is which.

Don't stress the "D" is a shocker - it won't be once you hear the answers 😀

Dave

 

[erikhaugsby]

I'm going to say that I like A for T-Max 3200, and C for Delta 3200.

 

[JeffGreene]

Dave, I like A and D. A is the Ilford and D the Kodak. I mostly shoot TMAX and Delta 100, so I am by no means the authority, but it'll be interesting to find out which is which. 😀

 

[retnull]

A and C lose too much shadow detail (a look that I personally don't like much). The image that would make me intuitively think "Shot on film!" is C.

 

[itf]

C looks like delta 3200 to me too.

 

[gavinlg]

I definitely like Image A.

 

[c.poulton]

I'll vote for A as the best pick of the bunch.

 

[quizzard87]

image B or D. the other two are way too contrasty, resulting in blocked shadows.

 

[Keith]

Image D looks strange to me ... it's bordering on that smeary look you get when you over do the noise removal in post processing!

So when are you going to enlighten us Dave? 😛

 

[dcsang]

Image D looks strange to me ... it's bordering on that smeary look you get when you over do the noise removal in post processing!

So when are you going to enlighten us Dave? 😛

Hopefully later today (or overnight for you Keith) 😀

Dave

 

[dcsang]

Last call before I reveal all.. 😀

Dave

 

[sojournerphoto]

A is nicest, though I'm not sure it represents tmax 3200 as I've not used it🙂

B and D are really ugly and you'd do much better with the basic PS bw conversion tool. C has too much grain to b useful imho

Mike

 

[erikhaugsby]

Give us the answers already! 😛

 

[Rogier]

I like D
Just because I like it and see the posibillity to bump up the contrast if needed.
B and C look way to grainy for me.
A is a very good second. But the detaills are lost in the shadows to begin with..

 

[sevres_babylone]

I like C in the the blown up crop, but not so much the full image. I suspect it would make an effective print though.

 

[dcsang]

Give us the answers already! 😛

Ok ok ok !! 😀

Image A = Alien Skin "Exposure 2" Software - price: $249 USD ( http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/ )

Image B = Imagenomic's "Real Grain" Software - price: $99 USD
( http://www.imagenomic.com/rg.aspx )

Image C = Nik's "Silver Efex Pro" Software - price: $299 USD ( http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php )

Image D = Photoshop Channel Mixer adjustment to Delta 3200 and a freebie "monochrome noise" plug in to emulate ISO3200


There you go.
I personally own the Imagenomic version because it was bundled with Noiseware and Portraiture.
Having looked at these images I can emulate image A and/or C easily via Imagenomic's software simply by bumping up the contrast via curves either in the software itself or in PS.

Is it worth the money for the others?
Well, that's for you lot to decide for yourselves.

If you're not going for grain there's some really good methods using channel mixer and curves out there for ISO 100 to 400 - beyond that, you're going to have to fool around with adding monochrome noise and using gausian blur in order to make the noise random enough to emulate film.

That, I believe, is part of the problem with digital B&W when you're trying to emulate higher ISO B&W film - the grain structure. In film, I believe, the structure is far more random while in Photoshop the structure tends to be more of a pattern or more ordered/less random.

Anyway, I hope this was sort of helpful to those who are perhaps considering their options in performing B&W conversion.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[dcsang]

I've used Exposure2 for a while. But, Nik's Silver Efex Pro is also very good for BW conversions and I will probably buy it also. Thanks for the "test."

You're welcome.

Of course, these are, as I said, using the default settings on the installed software - all that can change if you do get to know the software intimately.. 😀 (and by that I mean, learn what it can do; not sleep with it 😀 😀 😀)

Cheers,
Dave

 

[vieri]

...

Well, I think I will stick to film for 1600-3200. I'm not sure if anyone at Adobe has actually tried a roll of Delta 3200, though...

Thank you to the OP for doing the test, I enjoyed it and the responses - as cirque here, I'll stick with film (Neopan 1600, Tri-X @ 1200) for high ISO B&W though... digital doesn't even get close IMHO, for the moment being 😀