Jump to content

Getting good Black and Whites


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I often see good images taken with M8 or M9 in Black and White that are lacking something...they are very often flat, grey and with little or no blacks and whites.

THe tones are all there but they have no 'bite'.

Particularly skin tones can be seen as nondescript grey with little contrast.

I don't like using plugins and am trying to use just LR for most tasks and maybe PS Elements.

 

What I have settled on is EITHER shooting JPEG In camera or converting RAW using the LR preset low contrast and then fine tuning from there.

 

Let me know what you think of this example which I think is OK.....and share any workflow that works for you please.

this is with M8.2 and Elmar 35/3.5 No IR Cut

 

thanks

andy

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent topic for a thread, Andy.

 

The skin tones on the childrens' foreheads and cheeks are quite bright and about as bright as you'd want to go without clipping but there is ample detail in the light shadows on the rest of their faces and the tones graduate smoothly. I'd call this a 'high key' effect and I think it works well with young (smooth) skin and looks very good in your picture.

 

To be honest, I struggle to understand what black and white 'look' I like so I correspondingly struggle to know what I'm aiming for during a black and white treatment, which is a potential recipe for disaster.

 

Most of the time I suspect that I'm trying to achieve a look that will appeal to other people when I should be satisfied with a look that I like. Unfortunately I've posted the latter pictures on forums and received a degree of negative feedback that there's too much contrast, not enough contrast, odd skin tones, too many cracks and wrinkles, tones aren't graduated enough, the shadows are too black, the highlights are too bright etc etc so in the words of Vinnie Barbarino "I'm so confused!".

 

I guess the answer is to stick with what you like and 'let the devil take the hindmost' because that's the first step to developing one's own style.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My goal is a finished print, not a screen shot. The look is very different.

 

I did my own darkroom B&W printing for 20 years, so I know the look I'm after. Now that I use an all-digital workflow, including use of LR, I find that the workflow after LR is as critical as everything before. This includes paper choice, profiling, ink set, and so forth. I'm now switching from Epson inks, with 3 shades of black, to Cone inks with 7 shades. The increased tonalities and subtleties make all the difference.

 

But, I agree with Pete...you have to know what you're after. And that might take a while. No different, I suppose than your shooting style.

 

Oh yes, your question. I shoot RAW and convert, then use a few basic LR controls...contrast, black level and clarity, for example...to varying degrees depending on the image and how I chose to expose in the first place. Often some fine tuning with the gradient tool or adjustment brush is required.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, Pete

 

agree that each has their own tastes in B&W....

 

Above I agree the skin tones are at the limit but I prefer the skin to represent accurately the subject and these kids do have really light skin.

 

I also see the print as the final measure..I print a lot...r2400 and hanemuhle rag gives me results very close to screen shot with my settings....(took me over a year to get there..)

I tend to enjoy more contrasty prints....deep blacks and white whites even if they are not a true representation of the scene.

 

thanks for commenting..interesting subject me thinks for many as it is no easy journey from pressing the shutter to hanging the framed print:)

 

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Then i won't tell you that you can get better results with Silver Efex. ;)

 

And I won't say anything to recommend that you try TrueGrain to get an accurate grain/tonal application of B&W filmstocks like Fuji Neopan 400 (my personal favorite at the moment) for your images and prints.

 

TrueGrain - details and a set on Flickr

 

Later!

Will

Link to post
Share on other sites

lct

 

I tried that and then dumped it.I did not 'get on' with it...now a year later, maybe I am ready.....

 

andy makes note to reinstall and give it another run..:D

 

cheers

andy

 

I tried Silver Efex as well. Worked fine, but I found that I could mimic different film styles using my various LR settings. I saved some as presets in LR so that I can preview in different styles if I wish. Most often, however, I've learned to stick with the basics and not apply a lot a controls.

 

If I do my job on the front end, usually I don't have to do much on the back end. But, as I said, it has taken a while to get both ends sorted. And, I still continue to refine.

 

For me, finding small improvements in every step from capture to print is part of the joy of photography. However, digital seems to be a two edged sword. In the film age, my camera, film, papers and processing stayed fairly consistent, with small incremental enhancements along the way. In this crazy digital age, though, no sooner do I land on something and there's something new and different to try.

 

At least the learning is keeping my old brain active...and my bank account, too.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy, I don't do a lot of people photography with my M8 but 98% of my work is in B&W primarily B&W IR. Most of the manipulation that I do is done with curves in PS3 which makes blacks really pop out with a nice richness that I like and transfers well onto the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers that I also like. I use the Canon i9900 pro and really like the velvety smoothness of the deep rich blacks the inks produce. Here is a shot that I took with an old M converted Canon 55 mm F1.2 lens shot wide open. This lens produces B&W that is not as contrasty as a comparable Leitz lens and I prefer it for people photography for that reason.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys, but IMHO, no amount of Silver-Efex or any other plug in will ever make a digital photograph look like one made with film.

 

If you want a shot to look like it was shot with Tri-X, use Tri-X.

 

Nothing wrong with B&W digital shots, but accept them for what they are. Why would you want to replicate film? You don't use film. I just don't understand this at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys, but IMHO, no amount of Silver-Efex or any other plug in will ever make a digital photograph look like one made with film.

 

If you want a shot to look like it was shot with Tri-X, use Tri-X.

 

Nothing wrong with B&W digital shots, but accept them for what they are. Why would you want to replicate film? You don't use film. I just don't understand this at all.

 

Don't know about others, but I don't try to make anything look like film, and never meant to say so except as part of the experimentation and learning curve using different tools. I just try to make and print the best damn b&w photograph I can with the tools at my disposal. For 20+ years that included film and my own darkrooms. Now it's digital.

 

I collect photographs. I collect books. I don't collect them because they look alike. I love them both. And, no, the books and digital prints are not inferior...just different.

 

Jeff

 

PS However, if I could get my ink prints to ever look like my silver prints, that would be just dandy. The digital workflow better suits my needs at this point in my life, and I have no desire to build another darkroom or go back to film, which is much more limiting...for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks fine on my monitor...couch and shadows are placed great, there is still a little detail in the white collar, maybe the faces are placed just a little high and starting to block, but I'm not sure

Link to post
Share on other sites

I second the vote for Sliver Efex and also the vote not to use the film grain add-ons.

 

I use Efex just to tune the b/w dynamic range. I actually prefer NO grain. I would go back to film in an instant if I could have Panatomic-X and Dupont Varilour papers again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys, but IMHO, no amount of Silver-Efex or any other plug in will ever make a digital photograph look like one made with film...

What's film? ;) Seriously, i don't care about film at all. Just trying to get the results i like. Silver Efex is of good help for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

My experience with the M8 has been different from yours. My best B&W work has been done with the M8 and I get consistent feedback from Leica User Forum members on the quality of the tones. If you get flat images, I suggest you further experiment with your PP. I use both Silver Efex Pro and PSCS4, some images work better with Silver Efex, others work better with PSCS4 (or even earlier versions). Spend lots of time playing with Levels on PS CS4. Remember what Adam's said, your negative (DNG) is only the composition (the equivalent of a musical score), your print is your performance.

 

BTW I'm not looking for a film look when I shoot with the M8. If I really want a film look then I load the old cameras with film, and later scan the negatives.

 

I'm including a shot taken over a year ago in daylight with the M8. My friend Carmina liked it very much. I believe the M8 delivers exceptional skin texture and tones. Something in-between film and digital.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the M8 delivers exceptional skin texture and tones. Something in-between film and digital.

 

:confused: It's from the M8, which is entirely digital. Not that there's anything wrong with that. No reason to use digital as a pejorative IMO.

 

Digital results can be good or bad. Just as film results can be. Lots of factors involved...including the photographer.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver Efex is your friend.

that being said even though the makers of this plugin say

its very easy its not.

yes its easy to use, but to get the results you want you have to have everything

working together. by this i mean computer moniter, camera and a rip for printing.

then theres the paper.

 

i reccommend using the entire NIK suite with the end result being a b/w.

nik says over saturate +25 in color (try this in lightroom if you only have Silver Efex pro)

and then carry on from there.

 

i agree sometimes it works better than other times.

ive found (suprise!) that it works best when, i have a really good exposure and beautiful light.

just like film.

i dont agree that if you want film shoot film. i think you can get amazing results

using silver Silver Efex pros film grain. i dont often use it because im not trying to mimic film.

i also usually shoot at low isos.

if i do shoot at a high iso then the

film grain module is a lifesaver.

 

im just sayin...

best, melissa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...