M9 B+W conversion options revisited -- in-camera?

[Sanders McNew]

Okay: So I'm trying real hard to warm up to the idea of shooting
an M9 for B+W photography. I have practical questions, that come at
the end for those of you who want to cut to the chase. But I should
explain why I'm feeling at sea here for those of you who are reading
for the vicarious joys of feeling others' pain.

I prefer a wet darkroom to a scanner when working with negatives
because the papers and filters guide my work. I get only so many
choices and I can sort through them to get the image right. With a
scan, I have an infinite number of options, and I get lost among them.

Which sums up my early experience with trying to wrap my head
around shooting B+W with an M9. Everybody says shoot in color and
convert in Channel Mixer. Okay, I see the logic in that, except that
after moving sliders around for a couple of minutes I want to throw
the computer in the rubbish and go fetch my Rolleiflex. And I don't
like looking at the color image in the LCD and imagining how it will
look in B+W (assuming I have any clue what the conversion might
look like anyway).

I want a way to do this that shuts most of the doors and leaves me
with a B+W image that comes reasonably close to the kind of B+W
translation of the color spectrum that Tri-X gives me in 120. Is that
too much to ask?

It occurs to me that maybe I can get there by using the in-camera
B+W conversion option, and then running the file through a plug-in
like Silver Efex Pro -- which I do not have but will buy if that's the
ticket here. That way I would get a B+W image to preview and a
way to balance the RAW file to a grayscale that looks right to me.

Possible?

Does anyone rely entirely on the M9's in-camera B+W conversion
feature?

Should I just go back to my Rolleiflexes and succumb to the reality
that Melanie's already commandeered the M9, and this is a moot
concern at this point?

Thoughts and advice are much appreciated, as always. If I've
repeated another thread, just point me in the right direction, and
apologies for cluttering the board.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Have you tried shooting RAW +JPEG? Make your JPEG black and white so that you can 'visualize' the scene in black and white, then when you're back at your computer use the RAW file for the final print.

And 'everyone' says use the channel mixer to convert? Really? You mean I had been doing it wrong all this time???

 

[robbeiflex]

As Vince says, set the camera to shoot RAW+JPEG. Go to Saturation in the menu and select Black and White. The B&W jpeg will show on the LCD for your preview, to give you an idea of the exposure and compensation. Then for the shots you want to use, convert the raw file to black and white using a plug in or program with the film setting you want. This is important because a good plug-in will use the colour data from the raw file to apply just the right look for your film type. I just bought an M-E and I've been doing this with Lightroom and DxO Filmpack. Here is a sample using DxO's HP5+ setting:

Cheers,
Rob

 

[Dez.]

When I'm in a B&W mood, I switch the camera to RAW+JPG (2mp) with saturation set to B&W, sharpening on high and contrast set medium high. That usually gives me a decent reference look in the LCD.
Personally I'm not a fan of set plugin looks or Lightroom presets, that being said, Silver Efex has some decent looks, though the majority are over the top. Of course they can be tweaked, but to be honest I end up spending as much time tweaking in Silver Efex as I would in Photoshop, so I usually just end up using photoshop.
Lightroom is horrible for B&W conversions, especially if you want to simulate a red filter look in landscapes. For some reason, Silver Efex and Photoshop can darken the blue channel without serious artifacts but with Lightroom your skies will get noisy and mushy looking.
So, if you're looking for a "drop a filter and go" kind of approach and don't want to spend a lot of time mucking around, I'd go with the Silver Efex plugin. There's lots of good looks and the control points work well for dodging and burning, have less of a "this area's been adjusted" look than using the adjustment brush in Lightroom.

 

[Steve M.]

If that looks like HP5, then I'm a monkeys uncle. OK, I MAY actually be a monkeys uncle evolution wise, but that is not what HP5 looks like. Sorry, but someone has to say it. I developed some yesterday and today, and I'm looking at wet prints and proof scans of it right now. Not even close. I wish digital software companies would give up on this idea of emulating film. It's not gonna happen. Apples and oranges. Besides, there is no such thing as an HP5 look. HP5 developed in what? Trust me, if you develop it in D76 full strength it will look nothing like developing it in Rodinal at 1:25 dilution. You would think you were looking at two different films.

 

[kennylovrin]

I'd actually say that what you want sounds like a preset, as it's by far the easiest and most consistent once you have it set up. Perhaps I am reading your post wrong.

I like consistency so I more or less always use one single preset and rarely change it apart from some exposure and white balance (I have one for color and one for b&w).

It is worth taking the time to try to create a preset, and then tweak it as you go along if needed. Of course it depends on your software of choice, but for me I did a color preset in aperture which I actually based by eye on the JPEG output of my m9, then I made it black and white by adding that adjustment block in Aperture. But that is just my choice.

Now when I have it it is just a one click adjustment in most cases.

There are a few plugins and preset packs worth looking into if they are available for your software:

nik silver efex
True grain
Vsco film presets

All different approaches but from what I've seen all great results in their own way.

I am with you in spirit on using the camera output, but it think the best compromise for quality and flexibility is to take the time to create a preset. Adjust one image quickly to your rough liking, copy the adjustments to another image, tweak, copy to another image and so in. I think after 4-5 images you'll have a preset that works well for many types of subjects.

If you are using Aperture I'll be happy to share mine as a starting point.

Kenny

 

[nightfly]

Why not just not look at the back and pretend you are shooting film? Or as others have said, make it show you b&w.

Then get a copy of DXO Filmpack. They have a trial version and I feel like mine never actually expired.

I like the film emulation and the fact that it doesn't give you many options (at least the version I'm using doesn't they might have changed it).

I feel like the film looks are reasonably accurate.

SilverEFX has too many things to play with.

I think what you are looking for is more like a digital version of choosing a film and living within those narrow parameters.

I'm with you. Once I got the process I liked (Tri-X in Rodinal) I could devote my energies to shooting, knowing that the processing would give it the look I wanted.

I guess the other elephant in the room is the Monochrome.

 

[Richard G]

The M9 black and white JPEGS are gorgeous. And clever. I've had files I just cannot tweak to get the same late night grey hair, for instance, that the M9 turns out automatically. I watched the raw v jpeg debate with the X100 and just kept on with the jpegs. I've even shot jpegs with the Monochrom on occasions.

I have Lightroom set to import the jpeg separately and have often shot the M9 on raw + jpeg, and at one horribly colourfully lit evening function, having the black and white on the LCD was the only thing that stopped me from just giving up and putting the camera away. The first two images of mine in the related thread are M9 jpegs.

 

[ChrisN]

...

It occurs to me that maybe I can get there by using the in-camera
B+W conversion option, and then running the file through a plug-in
like Silver Efex Pro -- which I do not have but will buy if that's the
ticket here. That way I would get a B+W image to preview and a
way to balance the RAW file to a grayscale that looks right to me.

...

You're on the right track here - this is exactly what I was going to recommend. Lately I've been setting the jpeg option to B&W high contrast, which to me looks closer to the way I cook my TRI-X. That's for the preview, as you say, and sometimes it's good enough. All the files, jpeg and RAW, get dumped into Lightroom for sorting and indexing. For an image I want to work on further in the develop module, I'll get the basic exposure, dodge/burn and tonality right in the color view, then hit "V" (the letter V on the keyboard) to show the greyscale version. Sometimes I'll hit "V" as a first step. Lightroom's color conversion is pretty flexible as I can control the luminosity of each individual color with sliders. That gets get certain (converted) colors to pop. Sometimes that's enough. I play with Clarity and Contrast a lot.

Often I'll take the adjusted color image in to Silver Efex Pro, and just go through all the presets to give me ideas. If I like a particular preset I might make some further adjustments.

The whole system is pretty flexible, and as you've found, that flexibility can be overwhelming at first. Stick with it and I think you'll find those M9 RAW files can be wonderful to work with.

 

[kermaier]

If you really want to pretend you're shooting film, cover the entire LCD with gaffers tape. 😀

 

[Frank Petronio]

In Photoshop, LR, or ACR/bridge sans plug-ins, go to black & white conversion/color mixer controls and play with the red or green sliders to achieve a pleasing balance of grays in flesh tones. Same with yellow/blue for skies, water, shadowy places.

Then go to curves and learn how to set the white point and black points. Then pull a point on the curve up or down to adjust the mid tones. Make the curve slightly "s" shaped for more contrast or the opposite shape for less.

This is all the "film like" plug-ins do, in a canned fashion. So why not grab the bull by the horns and learn to do it with the editing program rather than depending on a crutch?

I don't have an M9 but I use B&W previews even when shooting color so I can see any close tonal mergers and to keep things a bit more abstract.

 

[Richard G]

In Photoshop, LR, or ACR/bridge sans plug-ins, go to black & white conversion/color mixer controls and play with the red or green sliders to achieve a pleasing balance of grays in flesh tones. Same with yellow/blue for skies, water, shadowy places.

Then go to curves and learn how to set the white point and black points. Then pull a point on the curve up or down to adjust the mid tones. Make the curve slightly "s" shaped for more contrast or the opposite shape for less.

This is all the "film like" plug-ins do, in a canned fashion. So why not grab the bull by the horns and learn to do it with the editing program rather than depending on a crutch?

I don't have an M9 but I use B&W previews even when shooting color so I can see any close tonal mergers and to keep things a bit more abstract.

I agree. I've looked at SEP2 but mainly just use Lightroom with the raw files. You learn as you have to.

 

[Oren Grad]

My own attempts to replicate the look and feel of Tri-X via digital capture have been, to my eye and my taste, completely futile. That includes spectral response, which is what you were specifically asking about. (Yes, I've tried Silver Efex Pro, and a grillion other things, both in camera and in post.) Digital capture is just a different medium, with its own flavor.

 

[craygc]

I've spent a lot of time working through trying to get "good" digital B&W, albeit with a Sony Nex 5n with Leica lenses. At the end of the day, thinking that there's something substantially different with the initial capture being on a Leica digital versus something else when you're evaluating tonality is telling yourself you're seeing a difference.

The other part to clear from your mind is trying to emulate a particular emulsion - as stated by Steve M., thats a moving target to begin with - you're going to be better off just aiming to get good tonality regardless of the preset's name, and that can even vary for each image. A tool like DxO Labs Filmpack is also good as it gets you into a ballpark position quickly - I find a digital RAW file is way too malleable to get consistently good results manually - you always end up either under or over processing.

One observation I've noticed with DxO Filmpack conversions is that frequently they "pull" the white point - that is there is no pure white in the image. I assume this is to address some of the issues caused by linearity in digital as, for example, what I see in many of even the Monochrom images posted are the much too often domination of the highlights and near highlight areas within an image. Pulling the white point often helps rebalance the overall tonality.

For what its worth, I still don't see digital B&W (from any camera) consistently even being close to film for tonality, although I often do shoot both together, the more serious work ends up on film. These are some recent examples of digital B&W conversions. There is a mix of processes here; the first 18 are the result of blending a couple of different conversions in SEF 2.0 and the rest are DxO Filmpack 3 (should also mention that only the "Expert" version is useful as the "Essentials" give you no control over filtering, grain, etc).