kshapero
South Florida Man
Always wondered how I might get a result like this with a digital camera? Any thoughts?
How would I do this with a digital camera?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 6K
daveleo
what?
My 2cents . . .
Nice light for the wall texture and plaque shadows. So don't wander far from that light.
He/she let the shadows go black in spots and the highlights go white in spots.
My first cut, to generate a JPG out of a Fuji camera . . .
Shoot RAF and process to JPG in the camera with
BW (what filter??)
shadow mode = medium hard
highlight mode = medium hard (or "std" ?)
sharp = +1
no noise reduction
In a computer . . .
get the color image to have high contrast and maybe oversaturate, sharpen a bit. Decompose to R,G, B layers. Adjust layer opacity and curves (of each layer) and see what that looks like. Hard to say exactly what, unless you had the original color image and the time to experiment with the layers.
Nice light for the wall texture and plaque shadows. So don't wander far from that light.
He/she let the shadows go black in spots and the highlights go white in spots.
My first cut, to generate a JPG out of a Fuji camera . . .
Shoot RAF and process to JPG in the camera with
BW (what filter??)
shadow mode = medium hard
highlight mode = medium hard (or "std" ?)
sharp = +1
no noise reduction
In a computer . . .
get the color image to have high contrast and maybe oversaturate, sharpen a bit. Decompose to R,G, B layers. Adjust layer opacity and curves (of each layer) and see what that looks like. Hard to say exactly what, unless you had the original color image and the time to experiment with the layers.
YYV_146
Well-known
Silver EFEX pro is your answer. One stop B&W processing 😀
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Akiva, it might help generate useful responses if you reveal what's behind your Oz-curtain (emulsion/EI at least, if not also lens, aperture, speed, lighting conditions).
I don't have any images handy that approximate your benchmark subject here, but in small cameras, the resolution of the DP Merrills might come closest out of the box.
This is an f2.8 1/500 snap jpg at iso 800 in overcast:
F5 1/640 at iso 100 in coastal glare:
Not much post processing for either image. Other Sigma users are likely to be better at getting a more filmic rendering than I, but my film benchmark these days is medium format/ easy on the grain, please.
I don't have any images handy that approximate your benchmark subject here, but in small cameras, the resolution of the DP Merrills might come closest out of the box.
This is an f2.8 1/500 snap jpg at iso 800 in overcast:
F5 1/640 at iso 100 in coastal glare:
Not much post processing for either image. Other Sigma users are likely to be better at getting a more filmic rendering than I, but my film benchmark these days is medium format/ easy on the grain, please.
GaryLH
Veteran
I agree w/ Robert about more info. Especially about what u are after vs what u have already tried yourself.
My default monochrome cameras are the Sigma foveon ones.. I have all the dp Merrill cameras and the new dp Quattro. To my eye, they produce the most accurate tonal range and detail of any camera out there. It is my camera of choice when I am shooting monochrome.
I would point u to this monochrome thread that was created by noimmunity..it shows some excellent examples..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125464
Gary
My default monochrome cameras are the Sigma foveon ones.. I have all the dp Merrill cameras and the new dp Quattro. To my eye, they produce the most accurate tonal range and detail of any camera out there. It is my camera of choice when I am shooting monochrome.
I would point u to this monochrome thread that was created by noimmunity..it shows some excellent examples..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125464
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Here are three example from my new dp2 Quattro. These are all small raw, which end up as around 22mb files depending on the size of the embedded jpg. Monochrome pics converted using Silver FX Pro 2. Almost all images have some level of cropping between 50-70%.
As a reference, large raws from this camera average 56mb. Large raws from the Merrill run about 44mb... Tiff16 files are 122 vs 88 mb respectively. The small raw from Quattro is equivalent to 5mp sensor in non-foveon speak and the large is 20mp. In comparison, a small raw to tiff16 creates a 22mb file.
I find that the 5mp files show so much detail that they look better than my Fuji xp1/xe1 and my Sony a7. Since I don't print big, I don't need the large raw output. Ymmv.
Since these shots were taken I am now using the direct ooc monochrome jpgs straight from the camera. The Merrill series camera had horrible jpg engine and I used raw to tiff conversion instead. The new Quattro has such a good jpg engine, it is rare for me to use the raw to tiff method these days.
The ooc monochrome jpg from the Quattro is really good. If I happen to decide to change a color ooc jpg to monochrome, my preferred sw these days is silver xf pro 2.
Gary
As a reference, large raws from this camera average 56mb. Large raws from the Merrill run about 44mb... Tiff16 files are 122 vs 88 mb respectively. The small raw from Quattro is equivalent to 5mp sensor in non-foveon speak and the large is 20mp. In comparison, a small raw to tiff16 creates a 22mb file.
I find that the 5mp files show so much detail that they look better than my Fuji xp1/xe1 and my Sony a7. Since I don't print big, I don't need the large raw output. Ymmv.
Since these shots were taken I am now using the direct ooc monochrome jpgs straight from the camera. The Merrill series camera had horrible jpg engine and I used raw to tiff conversion instead. The new Quattro has such a good jpg engine, it is rare for me to use the raw to tiff method these days.
The ooc monochrome jpg from the Quattro is really good. If I happen to decide to change a color ooc jpg to monochrome, my preferred sw these days is silver xf pro 2.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
I forgot to mention.
I am not sure if any camera has the dynamic range of the b&w films.....???
Gary
I am not sure if any camera has the dynamic range of the b&w films.....???
Gary
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
If you are talking the range, this from an X Pro 1 would seem sufficient. RAF in PSE11 with Topaz BW. Lots of contrast, shadow/highlight adj. Topaz DeNoise and Detail were also used.
f16sunshine
Moderator
kshapero
South Florida Man
Shot with a Leica M3 and a 50mm Sum. Film Ilford XP2 400 shot at 200 ISO.
Probably F5.6 at 1/250 sec.
Probably F5.6 at 1/250 sec.
Ronald M
Veteran
Nik Sharpener effects pro. Probably others. Enhance "structure" or micro contrast. Adjusting overall contrast will not do it. Check out the detail slider in ACR sharpening. It might do it.
It enhances local contrast or texture. But the light has to be right to start just as with film.
It enhances local contrast or texture. But the light has to be right to start just as with film.
GaryLH
Veteran
Yeah. I agree Fuji has some of the best dynamic range.. But it could be my imagination..I think film may still have better..??
Gary
Aristophanes
Well-known
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Akiva,
I honestly don't think film-based b&w is special any more. There are lots of examples here, and at web sites like Flickr, showing superb digital-based b&w images. IMO, we've reached the age where its no longer necessary to even mention film or digital. Mention of lenses is handy however. 🙂
I honestly don't think film-based b&w is special any more. There are lots of examples here, and at web sites like Flickr, showing superb digital-based b&w images. IMO, we've reached the age where its no longer necessary to even mention film or digital. Mention of lenses is handy however. 🙂
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
My reading says other. Way back when, I didn't get too involved with the technology of film, I was stumbling just to get the pictures.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Wouldn't that be nice? Just deal with the image and how you got it and no criticism of the other guy's methods. Wow.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
peterm1
Veteran
I don't know what post processing software you use but as someone else posted on this thread, the Nik Silver Efex Pro software will give you the best software available for converting images to black and white. It is great.
However please understand Silver Efex works as a plug in - you need to install it over Photoshop or Lightroom or something like the software I use - Corel Paintshop Pro. You cannot just use Silver Efex on its own as it needs to run in conjunction with a stand alone image editor.
Also I noticed that in addition to being in monochrome, the "local contrast" in the image you displayed is very high (as is the global contrast). High local contrast gives that very crisp, very detailed, almost over-sharpened look to the image you provided. if you want to replicate it exactly you may need an image editor that supports local contrast adjustments. I think Silver Efex can to some extent (its filter for this is called "structure" and there is an adjustment slider for it within the plug in. It is good but you may want more control than it gives you).
You would do well to research the extent to which other image editors do this kind of thing as well. I use Corel Paintshop Pro as my "base editor," instead Photoshop. It has a local contrast filter built in. Do not over do it however as local contrast is an effect that produces unpleasant artifacts if applied too much.
A further option is another Nik plugin called Color Efex Pro. Within it there is a filter called "Tonal Contrast" which boosts local contrast / structure as well. Again be careful as too much ruins the image by giving it an unpleasant "overcooked" harsh look.
I suggest you do what I do, make a few variants of your base image, save them with different file names and that way you can come back later if you decide that the post processing you have done is overdone and you need to make changes. Also keep the original as a separate unaltered image as well. (Which of course if you shoot RAW will happen automatically).
Here is an image made m Leica and converted using Silver Efex. The local contrast has been dialed up to some extent. I find that stronger loacl contrast works best with things like man made structures - the built environment etc where architectural detail or as in this photo the detail of the statue can be brought out. High local contrast generally should not be applied to portraits as it turns human faces into an ugly caricature. The exception to this rule is where someone has a rugged, craggy weather-beaten face and you wish to bring this aspect out in the photo.
Spooky by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
And it also works with some landscapes where there is lots of detail and texture to be drawn out.
Coast in black and white by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
However please understand Silver Efex works as a plug in - you need to install it over Photoshop or Lightroom or something like the software I use - Corel Paintshop Pro. You cannot just use Silver Efex on its own as it needs to run in conjunction with a stand alone image editor.
Also I noticed that in addition to being in monochrome, the "local contrast" in the image you displayed is very high (as is the global contrast). High local contrast gives that very crisp, very detailed, almost over-sharpened look to the image you provided. if you want to replicate it exactly you may need an image editor that supports local contrast adjustments. I think Silver Efex can to some extent (its filter for this is called "structure" and there is an adjustment slider for it within the plug in. It is good but you may want more control than it gives you).
You would do well to research the extent to which other image editors do this kind of thing as well. I use Corel Paintshop Pro as my "base editor," instead Photoshop. It has a local contrast filter built in. Do not over do it however as local contrast is an effect that produces unpleasant artifacts if applied too much.
A further option is another Nik plugin called Color Efex Pro. Within it there is a filter called "Tonal Contrast" which boosts local contrast / structure as well. Again be careful as too much ruins the image by giving it an unpleasant "overcooked" harsh look.
I suggest you do what I do, make a few variants of your base image, save them with different file names and that way you can come back later if you decide that the post processing you have done is overdone and you need to make changes. Also keep the original as a separate unaltered image as well. (Which of course if you shoot RAW will happen automatically).
Here is an image made m Leica and converted using Silver Efex. The local contrast has been dialed up to some extent. I find that stronger loacl contrast works best with things like man made structures - the built environment etc where architectural detail or as in this photo the detail of the statue can be brought out. High local contrast generally should not be applied to portraits as it turns human faces into an ugly caricature. The exception to this rule is where someone has a rugged, craggy weather-beaten face and you wish to bring this aspect out in the photo.
Spooky by yoyomaoz, on FlickrAnd it also works with some landscapes where there is lots of detail and texture to be drawn out.
Coast in black and white by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
willie_901
Veteran
I will speculate quite few higher quality digital cameras and contemporary lenses could create a similar image.
The key is not that different than analog photography. Data processing technique, experience and tools are as fundamentally important as their analog, wet chemistry counterparts.
Besides excellent optics and technique used to produce Kiva's photo, the light is outstanding. I believe the photographer made the difference since they were responsible for using that perfect light for their subject.
The key is not that different than analog photography. Data processing technique, experience and tools are as fundamentally important as their analog, wet chemistry counterparts.
Besides excellent optics and technique used to produce Kiva's photo, the light is outstanding. I believe the photographer made the difference since they were responsible for using that perfect light for their subject.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
For this kind of (boring test) shots?
My own experience as b/w film addict - it depends.
It is different, for sure on 0/1 side, but some photogs and only very few of them are able to make it as good as on film in real life shots.
But, I have seen some tasty digital b/w examples from many digital cameras.
And to be honest - digital B/W - even if it doesn't look like film in 99% - is OK, to serve its main porpoise.
Take it easy. I'm happy with my B/W files from $40 Lumix camera and I'm happy with my LF b/w film shots as well.
I love my analog b/w on contact and enlarger prints, while my digital ones are good enough for the monitor.
Similar threads
