B&W Conversions

Everyone has their own method.

I like the Photoshop B&W filter. In essence, I can apply a "filter" at post-processing time instead of on the lens at exposure time. Here's an example, a cold clear day after snowfall on the Boston Common:

080229-Common-Snowscape-BW-DSC-4520-Scr.jpg
 
I am still experimenting. I usually do BW conversion in Lightroom/Photoshop. I was given Perfect Photo Suite 6 as a gift and am now trying the Effects module. My goal is to create a preset for a particular result that I like. I have not tried Silver Efex yet.

7799454910_4896a20964_z.jpg
 
I have been using Aperture to basicaly do the b&w conversion of shots I took when I was not carrying a film camera. Did all the adjustments to my liking in color and then as a last step did the b&w conversion. After that make minor adjustments with the color sliders. In the past have used similar technique with photoshop.

I have really not been as happy with results as compared to what I would have expected from film. Ok to good results but not great.

I downloaded the demo version of silver efex pro tonight and I have to admit the results so far have been better then what I have gotten in the past. Since it is plug-in to Aperture, it makes life easier :)

I just started experimenting with using RPP to do b&w conversion as well... Overall slightly better than what I got from manual technique using ps or aperture but not for all shots I tried. Silver efex was faster and easier to use and so far looks better than what I was doing using any other technique.

Plan to play with the demo until the 15 days are up, but if initial impression remain the same, looks like I am going to buy it.

Gary
 
burancap said:
....One thing I am struggling with is the re-introduction of grain or perhaps a "grittiness" to the files. They almost have a sterility to them otherwise. But, I am not sure that that is not just what they are -and that I am struggling to make them look like what I am used to on film!....

....My question(s) to myself now are: Why can't they stand on their own? Do they HAVE to look like film? Is that somehow faking it? How far do you take it before they really aren't what you shot? All tough questions.
Click to expand...

This is the major obstacle that I personally have to shooting digital. Why can't digital images 'stand on their own'? When I scan film I just invert and adjust curves/levels to suit, no other post processing (apart from very very light dust removal if absolutely required - I will even clean the neg and re-scan to avoid doing this in post!)

If, and it's a big if, I ever move over to digital capture I would only feel truly comfortable with a dedicated monochrome sensor such as the Leica MM.

Now, getting back on topic - this thread is about B&W conversions, well, my question, raised partly by burancap is with a monochrome sensor, do you still need to run through the same sort of post processing as you would do for a colour file, sans the B&W conversion part?

BTW - in the past when I have converted a colour image to B&W I use the following method:
- Convert the image to LAB colour mode
- Remove the colour channels
- Convert to greyscale
- If required, I then convert the greyscale image back to RGB for further post processing such as curves/levels adjustment.
 
c.poulton said:
BTW - in the past when I have converted a colour image to B&W I use the following method:
- Convert the image to LAB colour mode
- Remove the colour channels
- Convert to greyscale
- If required, I then convert the greyscale image back to RGB for further post processing such as curves/levels adjustment.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's not a good method, any method where you throw info away like that..
Let me explain; I've been using L*a*b mode since Photoshop 2 the luminance channel is not a good starter for a mono conversion, its just like a greyscale but sans the residual density you get in the a & b channels so you just end up getting a light greyscale conversion.
Converting to greyscale is throwing info away too, so those destructive methods aren't the way to go unless you wan't weak sterile looking files.

The channel mixer tool is a much better way, as is keeping the file in RGB mode. I have found that putting a little colour into grey images makes them look dynamic, the eye hates that bland grey just putting in 5-6 yellow and 1-2 magenta will give the resulting file more depth.

Try it!– take a sterile grey file and make RGB and put a little yellow makes a world of difference, just the merest hint of colour gives better apparent tonality illusion:
103683360.jpg


I've tried Silver FX and just about every other 'miracle snake oil' out there and while I still have film I think they are a waste of money, time and effort–if you don't want to mess with film Photoshop and lots of time is a better choice.
 
This one was a color JPG from my D80 forgot to shoot RAW.
Capture one was used for editing.
Simply desaturated, clarity control to 34, vignetting -1.5 EV, very small curves adjustment to lift the skin tones and unsharp mask.
U3357I1337803558.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Here is one more from DXO film pack. This time it's the HP5 preset.
U3357I1316094872.SEQ.0.jpg


Now I don't really believe that these presets look like the films they are trying to emulate but they stand up OK on their own so I just pick the preset I like the best for a particular image. I don't really believe that digital images have to have grain added to them to make good B&W conversions. Many people shoot medium format or slow B&W films in 35mm so they can enjoy grainless prints so why not also take advantage of digital as digital is also great for grainless prints.
 
I'm interested to hear Bill's method. My preferred method in LR2-3 was based on some suggestions of his in an earlier thread. Now I'm playing with LR4, trying to find a good balance, but working with a touch of clarity and a heap of highlight slider works nicely.

I do agree with photo smith above, and use the toning feature in LR often.

Here's one toned, for example:
 
I can only describe the methods I've used with LR and CS, as this is the software I own. I've seen consistently good results here with SEP, so it might be a better tool.

My approach to bw conversion depends on the original file, and the (most often pre-visualised) end result I want in a print - am I working with a dark and moody landscape on PhotoRag, or light skin tones in a bright portrait on Baryta.

I mostly work with LR4.1., exporting to CS4 for further adjustments, and very occasionally I use a plug-in called PhotoLooks. Before using LR I had mostly used Channel Mixer, and layered and masked Curves in CS.

With most files I start by adjusting saturation to zero, setting highlight and black clipping points and then playing with the development sliders to get an approximation of what I want. Often that means boosting contrast quite high and then raising the shadow detail. Use the Highlights and Lights sliders to control white clipping and roll-off. I also play with the colour control sliders to approximate the effects of colour filters. Sometimes checking the b&w button improves tone, sometimes not.

I use the brush tool for local dodging, burning, and other adjustments.

Lately I've been using split tones to provide subtle highlight/shadow colour contrast to bw prints. Also to convert to sepia.

Depending on the image, I may boost Clarity, mostly not exceeding 30%, and avoiding artefacts. I've started using LR's portrait or landscape presets for input sharpening, then adjusting as necessary.

Sometimes I add grain, but often I find higher ISO sensor noise is as good or better, if I can use it when shooting. I've always liked the look of film grain - digital can look clinical by comparison. When processing I try to avoid that clinical look.

After LR I export to CS4 and check if autotone improves the tone characteristics, and do any touching up with the healing brush. After resizing in CS4 I apply output sharpening and save a print file. I print from either CS4 or LR.
 
I think I'm going to opt out of shooting digital with the intention of converting it to black and white for personal reasons. I'm genuinely concerned with what is happening with film at the moment. The way options are being reduced and smaller manufacturers going under! (Efke)

I accept that digital has won the battle on all fronts and I don't take issue with that but I do want my favourite medium (black and white film) to survive. I'll shoot digital exclusively for colour because to be honest the range of colour film available these days is limited, pricey and dwindling at an exponential rate. E-6 will fairly obviously be totally gone very soon ... the way of Kodachrome!

I've seen some impressive results from the M9M tonality wise but they still don't have texture ... that has to be software added and it's not inherant at the point of capture. This is important to me! The new Leica Monochrom could be the beginning of the end if other manufacturers follow it even in a minor way with smaller, cheaper, dedicated mono cameras! X100M anybody ... black and white will become highly fashionable, trendy, call it what you want!

If the new Plustek is reality and can deliver what it promises that will me my next major purchase for my black and white future. Not a camera or a piece of software!
 
I guess converting to 16 bit grayscale and flattening the layers is tantamount to treason?

Keith,
There will always be carbon printing and glass plate photos.

Wayne
 
I need some advice. I can get the Nik Complete Collection for a significant discount ($250), but I see that there is a Lightroom or Aperture only version that is $100 cheaper . Should I opt for the LR version, or spend more for the version that works in PS as well as LR? I use LR 4 and CS Prod Premium 6. Will I limit myself with the LR version?
 
This is a great thread. I have been fooling around in LR3 and Aperture, but dont really have a "method." I have been thinking about getting SEP. I think I'll wait and see where this thread goes...

Kent
 
Interesting discussion. I am not settled on a method, myself. I am still shooting B&W film (sometimes chromogenic, like T400CN and sometimes traditional silver) and scanning. But the majority of my BW images these days are converted RGB files. Here is a scanned film portrait from last week.

Not-as-Serious-Sophie-August-XL.jpg


This particular scan was made by the photo shop in town when they developed the film. Viewing it on my uncalibrated laptop rather than on the monitor where I did the scanning, I see that I could have bumped up the blacks a little. The key line comes from SFex 2.

Later today I will add a picture of tghe same subject but with a Silver Efex 2 conversion of a Sony RGB file.

[Watch this space.]

Edit: here is the SEFex 2 file:

DSC02381-Edit-For-Posting-XL.jpg


I am amazed when I see my own film scans. I was so much more into the grain of my 400 speed film in my film-only days.

Ben
 
gdi said:
I need some advice. I can get the Nik Complete Collection for a significant discount ($250), but I see that there is a Lightroom or Aperture only version that is $100 cheaper . Should I opt for the LR version, or spend more for the version that works in PS as well as LR? I use LR 4 and CS Prod Premium 6. Will I limit myself with the LR version?
Click to expand...

Buy a Leica Monochrom and Silver Efex 2 comes free with it...

But seriously, save your money and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLvfweHBhLM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom