Black and White

I use Aperture and convert using separate channels for R, G and B. The one advantage of shooting colour is you can decide on filters afterwards.

This I used colour filters when shooting and in post.



Rocky shore by Eirik0304, on Flickr
 
My goal for B&W conversions is to adjust each photo to make it "look right" according to my intentions and my judgement, rather than to emulate the look of any particular film. My approach is completely subjective. Because I dislike the smooth-toned, "waxy" look of digital conversions for most subjects, I usually add a touch of "grain" as a final adjustment. I do my B&W conversions in Lightroom. Usually, I don't tweak the color image before conversion: I'm after a B&W result, so I usually work entirely in B&W. After converting immediately to B&W, I use any of the available adjustments as needed to get the result that satisfies me. Often I'll use the adjustments for color temperature and for color saturation and luminance to produce a useful emphasis of elements in the photo with no concern for their "true" tonal relationships as defined by the spectral response of some traditional B&W film. Converted back to color, B&W conversions that satisfy me can look a bit bizarre, just as color photos can look when taken through a color filter that is traditionally used with B&W film. I start afresh with each photo and don't save any adjustments as presets, but treat each photo as unique. Be aware that despite my free-form approach, I want to produce rather "straight" photo documents from the world I live in, and I don't aspire to make abstract or self-consciously "arty" photos or ones that have been heavily "photoshopped".

Which leads me to a question. What might I be missing by not using any special B&W software or plugin? A digital photo is just an array of numbers, one triad for each pixel. All post processing software implements a collection of adjustments in its user interface which map pixel triads into other triads to make a new adjusted array. And each software has a collection of tools which enable the user to limit an adjustment to just some of the pixels. Lightroom has a large collection of adjustments and tools, which would seem to cover nearly all possible useful mappings. However, many of you employ plugins like Silver Efex, DXO Film Pack, Topaz Black and White, etc. Why? What are the specific useful mappings/tools that are impossible to adequately approximate using Lightroom's many adjustments/tools, singly or in combinations? Or is it a matter of perceived convenience, or a matter of "XXX company certifies that their YYY adjustments/tools make my images look just like the results from ZZZ-film"?

--- Mike
 
From one of my old posts, also I don't know if the freeware is still available:

I stopped doing B&W conversions from digital. I just like the B&W negative digitalized better, but when I was doing it this was my work-flow:

Open file (color)
Adjusted levels
A/W Conversion from www.photo-plugins.com (http://www.photo-plugins.com) (freeware)
I usually choose the TriX preset.
Converted
then hit UnSharp Mask 20-50-0 (to add a little snap)
then sharpened if needed
Adjust brightness
Save, done

Looks like the plugin is still available: basically a channel mixer with presets for different films.
 
Am I completely wrong in my thinking, but seems we are always trying to emulate a certain film look, but what about the different papers that were on the market? Didn't a film like Tri-X look different printed on certain papers? So what about the way a image looks on paper?
 
mrmeadows said:
or a matter of "XXX company certifies that their YYY adjustments/tools make my images look just like the results from ZZZ-film"?
Click to expand...

Well, for the folks and companies how offer these film presets, I'd imagine mostly what they do is shoot a colour checker with the film stock they are trying to profile, then play with the controls in the software, until they come up with a combination of settings that replicate what the film stock captured. So you should be getting a combination of settings that replicate the film stocks tonal response to a scene, or at least that specific film stock/ developer/ EI combo.
 
gb hill said:
Am I completely wrong in my thinking, but seems we are always trying to emulate a certain film look, but what about the different papers that were on the market? Didn't a film like Tri-X look different printed on certain papers? So what about the way a image looks on paper?
Click to expand...

I haven't done any darkroom work for over 15 years. But the way I remember it was... Yes for the normal papers there were subtle changes due to the paper u used. But it would take an unusual paper like an Agfa Portiga to really change the feeling or the look.

Never did any color printing. Be interested in hearing about this from others though.

Interesting point

Gary
 
gb hill said:
Am I completely wrong in my thinking, but seems we are always trying to emulate a certain film look, but what about the different papers that were on the market? Didn't a film like Tri-X look different printed on certain papers? So what about the way a image looks on paper?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The papers had a curve too. All the computer "film" simulations I have seen have fallen short in some way, even in the more limited situation of a scanned silver negative printed by inkjet. I am not particularly interested in duplicating a specific film/paper combo. I just want something that brings my current digital work somewhat in line with earlier silver work. I don't want to have a set of pictures that divides itself into two piles, silver and digital. I compress the shadows and may even block the highlights of digital images to achieve that match. But I'm not foolish enough to not think that the long, relatively linear scale possible with digital is not beautiful, just not appropriate for a mixed bag or pile or stack or whatever it is when old work gets shown with new.
 
mrmeadows said:
....

Which leads me to a question. What might I be missing by not using any special B&W software or plugin? A digital photo is just an array of numbers, one triad for each pixel. All post processing software implements a collection of adjustments in its user interface which map pixel triads into other triads to make a new adjusted array. And each software has a collection of tools which enable the user to limit an adjustment to just some of the pixels. Lightroom has a large collection of adjustments and tools, which would seem to cover nearly all possible useful mappings. However, many of you employ plugins like Silver Efex, DXO Film Pack, Topaz Black and White, etc. Why? What are the specific useful mappings/tools that are impossible to adequately approximate using Lightroom's many adjustments/tools, singly or in combinations? Or is it a matter of perceived convenience, or a matter of "XXX company certifies that their YYY adjustments/tools make my images look just like the results from ZZZ-film"?

--- Mike
Click to expand...

I don't think you are missing anything.

People spend large sums of money for PS plug-ins and actions for convenience and saving time.

I use NIK's Viveza 2 LR plug in to dodge & burn even though I know if I was skilled and experienced at PS I could achieve similar results. But I'm not, so I use the plug in. LR 5 can do part of what Viveze does, but it can not make the changes based on color luminance. In LR 5 every pixel is treated the same.

I pay for third-party gallery creation and web page production software in LR too. If I was expert in CSS and HTML5 I would need those tools either.

If you can accomplish your goals without using plug-ins, then you in great shape.
 
gb hill said:
Am I completely wrong in my thinking, but seems we are always trying to emulate a certain film look, but what about the different papers that were on the market? Didn't a film like Tri-X look different printed on certain papers? So what about the way a image looks on paper?
Click to expand...

You certainly may be right about that, contact Silver-whatever. But I still feel if I digitalize a negative and then send it to someplace that does 'real B&W paper' and use a laser printer, BUT with chemicals; I get very close to what I want. Maybe, sometimes even better.
 
I try to make the monitor look like my decades of monochrome prints. Generally use levels to set histogram BP and WP and then curves to raise midtone contrast. I do not try to emulate any specific film, but set the curve to the occasion, long or short toe etc.

Even if I scan a film, it comes out looking flat and I have to use levels, curves & gamma.

Various luminosity masks can be used to confine adjustments to local areas, highlight, shadows, or midtones. Use You
Tube tutorials to make the masks.

Now there is a perfect screen image, but it will not print the same unless you can profile it and do a soft proof before printing. You will need a reflection densitometer to measure what printed vs what was on the screen.
 
Reader.jpg


Is a photo from the Leica Monochrom edited using two curves from 135 Plus-X step wedges, all developed to a CI of 0.58 in D76 1+1, printed on Kodak Medallist grade 3 and developed in Selectol. One curve is for black and white tones and one is for print colour. I also have a third curve for spectral response with a medium yellow filter, but it's only for converting colour digital images so I didn't use it with this photo.

Printed on appropriate paper, I can put these beside my old silver prints and they are indistinguishable.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Anything that looks like a quality silver print looks "normal" to me, so that's my reference point. I start with LR, sometimes that's sufficient playing around with the colour temperature, tone curve and local dodging/burning with the brush tool; if not then I use any of a number of plug-ins for LR or CS to get what I want, including Filmbot (freeware), PhotoLooks, and now DxO Filmpack 3 (currently free if you download by October 31).
 
Bill, thanks for the link to the online photographer...

I think that I am starting to understand the background of your original post... maybe what you are looking for is as follows:

a) a workflow based on a "standard" digital capture
b) a process to get on paper an image that approximates your existing (film) portfolio

If you define your standard digital capture, the paper, and printer that you want will use, might not someone (there are services available) create for you a one-off parameter set that enables you to create a digital negative ( for contact printing ) that might be close to your needs... rather than a general solution????

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

Casey
 
Bill:

Thanks very much for the link to the Epson page. The articles there contain just the sort of information that I'd hoped someone would point me to in response to my previous questions in this thread.

--- Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom