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

[cam]

thank you, Dave!

i was only lurking on this thread, but found it all fascinating. i will think of you fondly as i get intimate with my software 😀

 

[pagpow]

Many thanks for taking the time. The demo of subjective reactions are as interesting to me as the samples of technical performance. Hope we can continue to have things like this -- and that I can contribute as well as observe in the future.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Another converter

Another converter

Just for comparison, here is a shot converted using the DXo filmpack plugin for photoshop. The original was shot at iso1600 on a 1Ds3 and then pushed 1.5 stops in raw conversion (using Lightroom) with minimal noise reduction. I've attached the full frame and 100% crops. There is no sharpening for web output and the BW conversion was done at default 35mm equivalent settings.

The 100% view is broadly equivalent to a 4000 dpi scan of 35mm film (if you ignore the resolution loss inherent in Bayer sensors).

Sorry to have used an slr for the original file, but I don't have a drf.

Mike

 

[sojournerphoto]

and the last crop

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I really like the Alien Skin emulation. It looks excellent to my eye.

 

[jplomley]

Dave,

Nice comparison. Have you given True Grain a try?

http://grubbasoftware.com/

I know a lot of folks at the LUF really applaud this softwares capabilities. Ability to tweak the spectral response curve offers quite a bit of control.

~ Jeff

 

[tensai]

Thanks! For these defaults I would choose A.

 

[Tim Gray]

This is interesting. A looks more like Tri-X to me (from a grain standpoint). B or C I could go either way, depending on the neg. Sometimes I get massive grain like in C, sometimes it's more like B depending on the lighting. Unfortunately, the contrast in all of the pictures is all over the place which makes the choice harder. P3200TMZ tends to be relatively low contrast... but then you push it which boosts it up.

Depending on what I was going for, I'd take either of the first 3, though I feel A is the least P3200TMZ of the three, even though it looks very nice.

I won't talk about D.

 

[Nh3]

'This a critique of the digital b&w not the skill of the photographer.'

The only common factor in all of these photos are a look which feels like the picture of the guy was pasted on a background. The image is flat and no algorithms or fancy software is going to change that.


You really want to know what Tri-X is capable of? Look at this image and study it carefully keeping in mind that its highly compressed, the full size image would knock you senseless.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_mali_full.html

 

[titrisol]

i would say A, B lookd more like D3200
C is way too contrasty
and D is too good for either fast film, looks more like Neopan400

 

[vha]

Thanks for the thread, always nice with different views and input, especially since I´m looking for a new bw conversion tool, The imagefactory does not function with CS3 so sooner or later it have to go ..

vha

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

'This a critique of the digital b&w not the skill of the photographer.'

The only common factor in all of these photos are a look which feels like the picture of the guy was pasted on a background. The image is flat and no algorithms or fancy software is going to change that.


You really want to know what Tri-X is capable of? Look at this image and study it carefully keeping in mind that its highly compressed, the full size image would knock you senseless.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_mali_full.html

It's not exactly fair comparing dcsang's test image to Salgado. I mean, there's more going on there than the film, wouldn't you say?

 

[dcsang]

It's not exactly fair comparing dcsang's test image to Salgado. I mean, there's more going on there than the film, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for that..
It's just a test - not a discussion about the images or such - and really, to be honest, the real results are what you're going to get once an image is printed and that, in itself, is an art form 🙂

Still in Aus,
Dave

 

[Ted Witcher]

You really want to know what Tri-X is capable of? Look at this image and study it carefully keeping in mind that its highly compressed, the full size image would knock you senseless.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_mali_full.html

Bah. Those pictures are made by a genius, it's got nothing to do with Tri-X. If he took the M8 and any of the software displayed at the top of this thread -- good or not -- and took the same pictures, they'd still be great.

The results were interesting. I, too, preferred A as a default/"ballpark" 3200 look, but it's clear you can tweak Silver EFX and Exposure 2 to look like one another if you choose. But did anybody go check out that link to TrueGrain? Man, those guys seem to have gotten the algorithms really right. There is an excellent example on the site where they try matching actual Tri-X to their emulation and it's pretty damn close.

 

[mh2000]

thanks for posting these! interesting!

that said, once you know your way around the Channel Mixer, Curves and the Add Noise filter it is pretty easy to get these effects for free... when I've done this stuff I worry more about ending up with a nice image than trying to specifically emulate any given film... and I'm a film guy.

 

[Chris101]

... I worry more about ending up with a nice image than trying to specifically emulate any given film... and I'm a film guy.

Heh. Me too, because if I want to 'emulate' a particular film, I buy that film and stick it in my camera!

 

[Nh3]

Bah. Those pictures are made by a genius, it's got nothing to do with Tri-X. If he took the M8 and any of the software displayed at the top of this thread -- good or not -- and took the same pictures, they'd still be great.

The results were interesting. I, too, preferred A as a default/"ballpark" 3200 look, but it's clear you can tweak Silver EFX and Exposure 2 to look like one another if you choose. But did anybody go check out that link to TrueGrain? Man, those guys seem to have gotten the algorithms really right. There is an excellent example on the site where they try matching actual Tri-X to their emulation and it's pretty damn close.

Salgado is a great photographer but his not a superman so he cannot change the nature of light and meddle with laws of physics. Tri-X is capable to produce those kind of results - thats why people swear by it.

And if Salgado was going by your logic, he would have taken a Canon G9/10/1000 to complete his Genesis project.

Lets not get into absurd arguments.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I dont have a digital camera and had no idea anything like this existed. Why on earth would anyone pay $300 for a photoshop action? Perhaps I take my ps skills for granted sometimes, but anyone can learn how to get results like that just with a few online tutorials and an idea in their head of what the final image should look like.

this is very very very basic photoshop stuff.

All the people railing on and on about film in this thread have must not have too much experience scanning tmz. It doesnt scan well at all. The amount of effort you have to place in getting scanned TMZ to look right on a monitor is not marginally less work than trying to make a color digital image look like what has been posted in this thread. I wish more people would come to terms with this concept. Its not like you just shoot film, put it in a scanner and its all of a sudden awesome. It demands the same amount of effort that shooting raw does if you are serious about your results.

 

[Ted Witcher]

Salgado is a great photographer but his not a superman so he cannot change the nature of light and meddle with laws of physics. Tri-X is capable to produce those kind of results - thats why people swear by it.

And if Salgado was going by your logic, he would have taken a Canon G9/10/1000 to complete his Genesis project.

Lets not get into absurd arguments.

Your counter-argument is incorrect (and my original is hardly absurd). By my logic, it's not that he would've taken a Canon or whatever to complete his project, it's that he could've taken whatever camera he wanted and produced equally impressive pictures. This is because he is a master of narrative, composition, lighting, exposure, and, most importantly, the overall conception of the photograph. Perhaps I wasn't clear with the point I was making: his photos are not great because they were shot on Tri-X and contain the specific characteristics of Tri-X. Nobody's are. That's like saying a particular Caravaggio is great because you think that particular shade of red in the painting is great or better than other shades of red in other paintings. All of that stuff has little or nothing to do with a great picture.

 

[emraphoto]

I dont have a digital camera and had no idea anything like this existed. Why on earth would anyone pay $300 for a photoshop action? Perhaps I take my ps skills for granted sometimes, but anyone can learn how to get results like that just with a few online tutorials and an idea in their head of what the final image should look like.

this is very very very basic photoshop stuff.

All the people railing on and on about film in this thread have must not have too much experience scanning tmz. It doesnt scan well at all. The amount of effort you have to place in getting scanned TMZ to look right on a monitor is not marginally less work than trying to make a color digital image look like what has been posted in this thread. I wish more people would come to terms with this concept. Its not like you just shoot film, put it in a scanner and its all of a sudden awesome. It demands the same amount of effort that shooting raw does if you are serious about your results.

i think actions are a viable expenditure for the wedding shooters (and if memory serves me correct dave shoots the odd one). fast and painless... if you are processing thousands of frames a month then it probably makes sense.

the second paragraph i agree with 100%.