B&W Conversions

[DNG]

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.

Look at Post 48, and click on the link... If you use LR there is a version for that...
It has over 20 BW films, with most having 4 options for developer times (more/less contrast), and also over 15 paper selections most are multigrade papers (more/less contrast). plus a host of darkroom adjustments. So over 100 combos, plus fine tuning for in between exposure/developing/contrast settings
PLUS, a large selection of Correction Filters for B&W and Color.

Donation Ware, and very well done IMO...

Screen Shot in Aftershot Pro

"Camera/Enlarger" sliders = Exposure tweaking
"Density/RAW Stops" sliders = Dynamic Range tweaking
"Film/Paper" sliders = Contrast Tweaking

I do my normal editing 1st for Exposure, Curves, Contrast as normal before I apply my film/paper choice. then I can tweak the final image with optional controls under the film/paper selection.

 

[c.poulton]

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:

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.

Thanks Photo_Smith, that might explain why I've always been a little disappointed in my B&W conversions in the past.

I guess your method of adding in just the merest hint of a colour tone might work just as well for film scans? I'll have to give this a try out - thanks for the advice 🙂
BTW, not sure where I picked up the LAB B&W process - too many years ago now to remember.....

 

[biomed]

Thanks for the input!

Thanks for the input!

From what has been presented so far in this thread it is IMHO that there are many good tools available for digital BW conversion. I see from the examples posted here and http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100694 that these tools work well for many. There is not a universal solution. The problem that I have run into is getting so involved in the process that notes are not taken. Experimentation agumented with suggestions from the RFF membership have been the main course for me. What I am trying to do with my photography is only improved with input from other's visions of photographing the world. Please keep this thread going. It is very interesting.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Photo_Smith]

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.

I disagree wrt toning. I"m 100% wet print, I don't really do any digital mono.
With traditional wet prints you select the paper stock to give the colour you need, you can further enhance this by developer choice and dilution.

For instance my favourite combination was Record rapid in Neutol WA at 1:3 which gave warm green tones perfect for the type of shot i posted.
For portraits I'd use Portriga which had a lovely off white base which is impossible to mimic on ink-jets. Some cooler papers like Ilfobrom were nice in Dektol to give cooler image values.


So far from being a crutch, I see it as part of my pre-visualisation and it is this thinking about the end product that forces deeper learning and improved end aesthetic.

So personally speaking as a wet printer, if I'm forced to go digital I will add a little colour value in order to stop the sterility, no wet print was 100% neutral in colour, the eye doesn't like it–put in a barely detectable hint of colour and see the difference.

 

[fstops]

In my humble opinion toning sentimentalizes the image/subject.

Its like the Hipstamatic of b&w images, because it creates a faux vintage effect that goes back to pictorialism. Its also no remedy for digital b&w.

 

[maggieo]

I just posted over in the Fuji folder about my X100 B&W workflow, so I'll repost it here, as it seems germane to this thread:

...
As for the conversion, I usually start out with a home-brewed preset that combines the "Fine Art Print" factory preset with the Agfa 100 film type setting. Then I tweak overall settings for brightness and structure and will sometimes change the film type until it looks good to my eye in general. After that, I start laying down control points and adjusting brightness, contrast, structure, etc... until everything is just so and the stuff I want to pop, pops. Each frame is handled differently, sort of like printing in the darkroom.

Hope that was a good starting point for your own explorations!

Here's the latest batch of shots from Sunday's trip to Oakland and Uehling, Nebraska:


Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Back Room, Somebody's Bar, Uehling, NE, August 26, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

 

[Photo_Smith]

In my humble opinion toning sentimentalizes the image/subject.

Its like the Hipstamatic of b&w images, because it creates a faux vintage effect that goes back to pictorialism. Its also no remedy for digital b&w.

Yet in days gone by all traditional prints had a colour. This was because the emulsions were bromide (cool) or chloride (warm) or a mixture to make more neutral.
The greyscale image is not found in traditional wet prints.
That's why adding a little colour makes it look natural, it not 'hipstermatic' or whatever that means, just basic colour science–the eye likes it and it's what's missing from digital, it's why most digi mono images look flat and sterile

 

[charjohncarter]

Tried all the possible methods about 9 years ago. Some very complicated, some with presets and sometimes just out of the camera. But they all looked like a digital conversion, which if you like that you are 'in like flint' or is it 'in like flin.' After all the screwing around and too many hours wasted there was only one that was fun and as good as anything was this one:

http://www.photo-plugins.com/Plugins/Plugins/B-W-Conversion.html

And in is free.

 

[paulfish4570]

thanks for that, sir. i will check it out ...

 

[charjohncarter]

Be careful, there is a lot of junk with it so it may not be worth it.

 

[venchka]

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

sepiareverb, Robert, beat us to the idea. I still plan to steal/copy/borrow his idea if I see an appropriate subject.
I have been harboring a similar idea for a project. Festering now for a few years. Send me a PM.

Wayne

 

[venchka]

I just posted over in the Fuji folder about my X100 B&W workflow, so I'll repost it here, as it seems germane to this thread:

You lost me at control points.
I must admit: For me, loading a roll of Agfa 100 APX and sloshing it around in Rodinal or Xtol and passing the negatives through my Epson scanner is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more easier (in my best south Luziana diction) than mucking about in software trying to emulate Agfa 100 or any film I may have on hand.

That said, I do see the potential for using a digital camera in places where film would be a P.I.T.A. and then performing some VooDoo and coming up with an acceptable monochrome photo. I have approximately 363 days to decide between digital, film or a combination for a significant trip.

I am, afterall, here to learn. So far, I seem to be merely dazed 7 confused.

Wayne

 

[venchka]

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.

LR doesn't "save" a file in the sense of a traditional file save. The only way to "lock" a file with LR is to Export the file. The original is not changed in any way and you can browse through the Edit History, create virtual copies, continue to play to your hearts content.
Lightroom doesn't do File>Save>Name.

Wayne

 

[maggieo]

Tried all the possible methods about 9 years ago.

To be fair, that was several generations ago. That's like saying you tired wet plate colloidal photography and that new film stuff can't possibly be better.

 

[maggieo]

You lost me at control points.

Think of them as dodging paddles and burning masks. Same thing, only a different paradigm.

Photography is photography and if you have a vision, the tools are irrelevant.

The only thing standing between an artist and their realized vision is a lack of imagination and determination.

 

[venchka]

To be fair, that was several generations ago. That's like saying you tired wet plate colloidal photography and that new film stuff can't possibly be better.

That is true. 😉 😀 😎

Wayne

 

[maggieo]

Things are constantly evolving, so it's difficult to honestly make a blanket assessment of the state of digital imaging and printing.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

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?

No, it's not just you, as I find the same to be true as well.

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

I agree, although (apparently) unlike most people, I'm quite happy to "roll my own" B&W conversions using the Channel Mixer tool in ACR / PS. In fact, I have yet to find any software that even comes close to the B&W conversions I do myself.

 

[charjohncarter]

To be fair, that was several generations ago. That's like saying you tired wet plate colloidal photography and that new film stuff can't possibly be better.

I like colloidal wet prints, don't you?

And I still haven't warmed to many B&W conversions, especially mine. I still go though the motions at times and don't find I'm rewarded. I admit to being a little through back, but if you don't like it, don't waste any more time. At least, until you see something that says: wow.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, but it is often very subtle indeed and barely detectible (or not at all) on a monitor, when scanned. A lot of the colourised results seen in the digital era contain much stronger hues.

A print off Ilford MGWT in PQ or MG developer is about as strongly off neutral as I go for most of my work. Adox MCC is darned close to neutral. Much documentary work just does not look good with an obvious hue, although some project can, so you end up having to make a cracking print that is neutral. Agfa Record is/was one of the warmer papers ever made, like polywarmtone or some of the Foma papers, and certainly not typical.

IMHO the problem is often that photographers have no idea how good a neutral B&W print can look and they lack the skills to do so. When you see such prints, toning is seen in a different light and becomes far less important for many subjects. For me, that revelation was going to see a Salgado exhibition printed by Phillippe Bachelier. I had a similar response when I saw quite a bit of work printed by Robin Bell, in London. I endeavoured to reach a similar standard, but I'm still some way short (of course).

The problem is how simple the problem is! Its 'just' in the relationships between the tones LOL, but its in this area that the nightmare begins, but hopefully, the magic emerges. Toning (for colour) just is not necessary to make astonishingly sumptuous prints, if you are a great printer. The reality, however, is that most get nowhere near close and so rely on colour toning to make up for deficiencies elsewhere. Toning for subtle colour can still benefit a print, but unless that print is already amazing, it is still likely going to look decidedly inferior to an untoned one produced by a master.

I could be wrong, but see no reason why the digital process would be any different, although technology is perhaps such that achieving the same sumptuous tonality is more difficult.

The last 40" print I made on an inkjet (drum scanned B&W film) was as close to neutral as my eye could detect. It did not need colour; that just did not remotely come into it. Everything was made easier by inherently having the original film grain, but the curve had to be created from scratch due to the very flat scan (to preserve everything) and the nuances of the output vs what was on my screen.

Yet in days gone by all traditional prints had a colour. This was because the emulsions were bromide (cool) or chloride (warm) or a mixture to make more neutral.
The greyscale image is not found in traditional wet prints.
That's why adding a little colour makes it look natural, it not 'hipstermatic' or whatever that means, just basic colour science–the eye likes it and it's what's missing from digital, it's why most digi mono images look flat and sterile