B&W Conversions

[Sparrow]

Swmbo has insisted on colour photos from family holidays for years so I use scans of the Fuji superia 400 negatives and process in photoshop.

Scan as 16 bit tiff, but from then on processing is dependant on the actual negative, if one works in layers it's easy to preserve the original scan as a master and still waste countless hours faffing around with the print just like I did in the darkroom 😉

 

[Duane Pandorf]

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?

If you use PS, the Nik plugins for PS allow you to save the completed PS file in layers allowing you to go back and re-edit if you need to.

The LR & Aperture versions do not save the final edit in layers and once saved you can't go back to the saved image and make changes to the different filters you may have used. In other words, you would have to start again with the original from scratch.

 

[Murchu]

I I tried and liked Silver Efex, but did not like having to go outside Lightroom and foregoing the many advantages gained by staying inside Lightroom, so use Lightroom for my b&w conversions.

The following gives me a basic b&w conversion with nice tonality, which I use for evaluation purposes and making workprints. For final images, I will most likely learn and persevere with Photoshop to squeeze out the best possible b&w I can, using my Lightroom b&w as the baseline for further work like dodging/ burning/ masking, et al.

Lightroom 3 processing steps:

Import images into Lightroom
Apply auto b&w conversion
Apply reverse-S curve (light curve)
Boost Brightness (moderate to decent bump)
Boost Contrast (small bump)
Boost Clarity (moderate to decent bump)
Boost Blacks (small bump)
Apply grain (very light; removes the overly smooth/ clean digital look)

All the above, along with capture sharpening and a light vignette, are applied via a preset I have saved, to virtual copies of the original 14 bit raw files I feed to Lightroom. For legacy jpeg images I never converted to b&w, the above steps are too heavy handed, and have a seperate set of steps saved as a preset for jpeg files, which have a stronger reverse-S curve applied, as well as a negative contrast value adjustment, to rein back in the baked in contrast of my jpegs.

 

[gdi]

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

Thanks, but I would hope that Silver Efx would give better conversions that the video linked; it seems pretty heavy handed to just add contrast and vignetting. I think I'll go for the trial to see if I am correct.

 

[gdi]

If you use PS, the Nik plugins for PS allow you to save the completed PS file in layers allowing you to go back and re-edit if you need to.

The LR & Aperture versions do not save the final edit in layers and once saved you can't go back to the saved image and make changes to the different filters you may have used. In other words, you would have to start again with the original from scratch.

Thanks, I see now. I usually shoot B&W film, so for BW conversions I may be able to live with LR only, but I may use the other tools enough to justify the PS version...

 

[fstops]

Thanks, but I would hope that Silver Efx would give better conversions that the video linked; it seems pretty heavy handed to just add contrast and vignetting. I think I'll go for the trial to see if I am correct.

You should not make your photos look like the image in the video, the point is to copy the techniques used in the video, which is basically dodge and burn.

 

[gdi]

You should not make your photos look like the image in the video, the point is to copy the techniques used in the video, which is basically dodge and burn.

Thanks - that makes sense...

 

[DNG]

Nostalgia Film Simulation Plugin

Nostalgia Film Simulation Plugin

This is a very interesting topic, I just recently purchased (Donation Ware) a Plugin called Nostalgia Film Simulation by Sean M Puckett, at http://nexi.com/afplugs , It has a ton of film presets, and a ton of Paper Presets with all the appropriate tools to adjust DR, exposure, contrast for each. Even a simple RBG color sliders. It also has Color Neg and Slide simulations with a color paper selection also.... Not related... just an unknown Plugin for Aftershot Pro and LR (separate plugins) Being on a nonexistent budget, this is really a decent plugin.

I usually pick Fuji or Ilford films. but it has Foma, Agfa, Kodak, and a bunch of others also.

It does have a nice Film Grain effect, and does really good with a long gray-scale also...

Here are a few from today with my Olympus OMD E-M5, and 14mm shot in RAW only, and developed and converted in Aftershot Pro, tweaked in CS5


Candid: Monument Circle: Indianapolis, IN 9-1-2012 by Peter Arbib, on Flickr


Candid: Monument Circle: Indianapolis, IN 9-1-2012 by Peter Arbib, on Flickr


Candid: Monument Circle: Indianapolis, IN 9-1-2012 by Peter Arbib, on Flickr


Candid: Monument Circle: Indianapolis, IN 9-1-2012 by Peter Arbib, on Flickr

 

[kbb]

When I first investigated digital(about 2006), I figured that there'd be a simple way to add film grain to any image. A bit later, I saw that there were programs like DXO and Nik SE that had film simulations based on well known monochrome films. Great idea, I thought.
I was dismayed and disappointed when I saw that these "black and white film simulation" programs were mostly about applying gimmicky contrast effects and not about grain-matrix image structure.
Pick any black and white film:
IT DOESN'T HAVE JUST ONE CONTRAST RENDERING...all the conventional silver films are variable contrast (dependent on developing of course)...and highly variable at that.

 

[DNG]

I think you're missing the point, it is not to look JUST like film, Just to take the digital edge off, and try to have a less "sterile" look, in terms of ruffing up the noise (or lack there of).

No film simulation software can duplicate film grain or texture. But, they can hide the digital stamp a bit. And many film users, are accepting the digital image a bit better if they can ruff up the smoothness of the digital image, and still have a good image.

 

[emayoh]

I've read this thread, and it has led to many more questions for me. When I see someone's method or results, I would like to hear *why* they like the results. IS the goal to get good dynamic range? Detail in shadows whilst retaining deep blacks? Is the goal to have no lost highlights? Is it possible to characterize the results with more than just liking "the look"? Maybe this question is heresy, but ... Is it possible to expound upon that with a bit more words?

 

[paulfish4570]

i think i might start making color photos of monochrome subjects, and say they were converted ... 🙂

 

[astro8]

Is it just me or does it seem that all these film simulation softwares want to apply too much contrast, crush the blacks and apply too much grain?

And, yes....I use DXO, SEP2, Exposure and some others.

I find the best way is to start from scratch and 'develop' each image on it's own rather than any preset.

I like the look of the M Monochrome, but the highlights still look a bit dodgy...or is it just me?

I think where digital b&w conversions and even the M Monochrome fall down is in the transition from highlight into midtone...from all I see they still look a bit posterised to my eye.

None of this detracts from a good photo though. A good photo can stand on its own...film or digital, colour or b&w, leica or holga.

 

[C_R]

The M Monochrom let me think about filtering again. Many years ago when I shot film and had my own darkroom, it was a good idea to get the shot right with choice of film, filter, exposure. The M Monochrom owners are in the same situation, they must see in greyscale, so to say. And they have just one emulsion, the MM sensor. After exposure, just dodging and burning, local contrast, curves, quite similar to the wet darkroom techniques. LR4 and Silver Efex cannot do wonders when foliage is muddy, tonal variation is lost when you used a red filter for the sky, or tones are so-so when you shot without a filter.
What I want to say is, after fiddling with B&W conversion for 10 years now, after trying out almost every software for B&W, I got the best results with filtering for exposure again.
Take one of your good old B&W filters, screw it on, and shoot some color RAW / DNGs. Then convert it directly to B&W with, for example, Capture One. Works much better than tweaking a color shot with some software like SFEX.

For landscape, a 060 B&W Yellow-Green is nice to get better tonal variations in foliage and sky (M9 and 21/3.4):

Carsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/

 

[astro8]

The M Monochrom let me think about filtering again. Many years ago when I shot film and had my own darkroom, it was a good idea to get the shot right with choice of film, filter, exposure. The M Monochrom owners are in the same situation, they must see in greyscale, so to say. And they have just one emulsion, the MM sensor. After exposure, just dodging and burning, local contrast, curves, quite similar to the wet darkroom techniques. LR4 and Silver Efex cannot do wonders when foliage is muddy, tonal variation is lost when you used a red filter for the sky, or tones are so-so when you shot without a filter.
What I want to say is, after fiddling with B&W conversion for 10 years now, after trying out almost every software for B&W, I got the best results with filtering for exposure again.
Take one of your good old B&W filters, screw it on, and shoot some color RAW / DNGs. Then convert it directly to B&W with, for example, Capture One. Works much better than tweaking a color shot with some software like SFEX.

For landscape, a 060 B&W Yellow-Green is nice to get better tonal variations in foliage and sky (M9 and 21/3.4):

Carsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/

Thanks for the examples.

I think you are on to something there.

Although he epson raw software for my R-D1 seems to do the best job simulating filters of all the software I've used and I 've used quite a lot, I've recently bought some.

I have the same idea in mind to do some experimenting and comparison shots.

 

[JoeV]

Carsten, I agree with you about in-camera filtering for B/W, and have done so for sometime now, despite criticism from forum lurkers who tout the flexibility of shooting unfiltered in color and doing channel-mixer conversions in post.

The thing is, many experts will tell us how important proper white balance is to getting good highlight exposure, ensuring each color channel is adequately exposed. Filtering in-camera works this way, permitting the camera's exposure system to properly expose each color channel after it's been filtered, so that you have adequate bit-depth in each channel for B/W conversion.

Too many times, when I've tried doing B/W conversions on color images unfiltered in-camera, I notice each color channel taken individually is often under-exposed. This leads to B/W images with poor highlight separation.

Thanks for posting, and your example images are great.

~Joe

 

[C_R]

Thank you 🙂 Many cameras, like the M9, let you shoot (filtered) color, but show a monochrome preview. I use this feature to learn "seeing in B&W".
Joe, your explanation is spot on, I think. To get the best tonal quality, tech experts advise us to "expose to the right" with digital, like slide film. Indeed, a comparison of filtered and unfiltered shots show that one or two channels are often underexposed, and filtering in-camera puts more exposure to the right, where the bit depth is higher. Software like SFEX pushes those underexposed channels, and when pushed too strong this will affect tonal quality.

Carsten

 

[Turtle]

I agree that DXO film pack and silver Efex II are good short cuts compared to spending more time in LR, or PS (or similar) to get exactly what you want. The same tweaking can be done in these dedicated conversion programs, however. Expecting great results from any cookie cutter solution is asking a bit much, I think, but I have never been able to understand why digital B&W images need so much darned tweaking and why two seemingly similar images require such different treatment. In the darkroom, a limited palette of materials seems to give great results more widely, but I have no idea why.

The one area where I feel Silver Efex is great is on the grain pattern. Much better than LR.

I used DXO film pack and Silver Efex II as trial software and did not end up buying either in full, but that was largely due to the limited amount of digital B&W I do (I'm a film user). In the near future, I will be probably buy silver Efex, or DXO film pack, just to have a little more by way of options compared to LR only, but that said, I think LR allows you to get 95% of the way there.

On the topic of injecting a little colour for improved tonality, the same is true in the wet darkroom. In both, however, I feel the routine use of colour toning can often be a product of deficiencies elsewhere in the workflow. Quite a few years ago, I shot landscapes exclusively, with the occasional nude. Most prints were toned, often subtly. However, when I started documentary work I needed to make straight neutral B&W prints that really sang. I learned a lot more about printing as a result of that simple challenge. I see a similar journey in my B&W digital experiments. Toning can become a crutch, which is best pulled away to force deeper learning.

 

[dasuess]

I have been watching this thread with interest, hoping to find a great (but cheap and easy) solution to producing a B&W rendering from my color digital images. Not seeing that so far in the thread, I have taken a deeper look at something I've had under my nose almost since I first started using Aperture on my Macbook over 18 months ago. It's a free B&W editor that can be easily used to round-trip in Aperture. It has sliders for R/G/B/Contrast/Grain/Sepia. I did a quick compare of doing a B&W conversion within Aperture and then using this B&W converter. I did not spend much time on either, minutes really. The B&W converter wins - I think I have a keeper, and it's free.

 

[fstops]

Here is a simple test.

Photoshop B&W adjustment layer:

Photoshop B&W adjustment layer with green filter preset (green plant):

Photoshop LAB color mode lightness channel: