Getting good Black and Whites

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been printing B&W since I was 15 o9r so, around 52 years.

 

You seem to achieved the end points and the intermediate greys on the sample well, but the faces are too bright. I hope you did not get the contrast correct by increasing the contrast as that would drive the very light greys toward white. After all that is the control used in printmaking so it would seem reasonable.

 

The better way is to use levels and bring the end points in to touch the histogram, then adjust the gamma or center to get the internal contrast correct. You can also use the curves function to lower or darken tones. Grab the point at around 75% and pull it toward the lower right. If you hover the cursor over a face, you can see where it lies on the curve.

 

You can always resort to making a selection of the faces and darkening them. But I feel an error occurred forcing this bright area and you need to go back to that point and correct the problem.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wstotler]

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.

 

You may be correct about the NIK and other plug ins. TrueGrain, however, produces prints that you can't tell were shot digitally.

 

 

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

 

I don't want the hassle of developing Tri-X, but I do want the digital workflow and the choice to apply the genuine grain/tonality of a specific film type to my shots.

 

 

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.

 

I do accept the digital shots for what they are--digital shots. But they require post-processing. And I'd prefer to see a color shot processed appropriately through a B&W conversion process that emulates film rather than one that just desaturates the color and then tweaks the curves. Even with the tonality adjustments, without grain they just don't look good to my eye. Too smooth. My eye expects the grain with B&W--even if it is a light grained film, like a Fuji NeoPan 400 or Ilford HP5.

 

Horses for courses.

 

Thanks,

Will

[andybarton]

Fair enough

 

But I bet that film emulation software dies out before film does, as ex-film/now digital users die out and digital only users take over. They won't feel the need to fake film, they are used to smooth tones and all the digital stuff.

[wstotler]

Fair enough

 

But I bet that film emulation software dies out before film does, as ex-film/now digital users die out and digital only users take over. They won't feel the need to fake film, they are used to smooth tones and all the digital stuff.

 

I won't bet you! You are absolutely right.

 

Here's where I say that I feel like any discussion about black-and-white film/digital is like discussing the make and build of buggy whips. There are good ones and better ones--but in the end the issue is moot to a large degree.

 

In recent Flickr tests I've run (let's call them more than anecdotal, but less than purely scientific), B&W images get about 1/8th the traffic that color images do, on average, even when of the same subject, found in the same basic set, and even when submitted to the same groups. This is just to say that color images--of the same subject and in very similar shots--get looked at 8x more often when in color.

 

And, you're also right: The smoother the better. That über-photoshopped-Hollywood-DVD-box-art-skin-look is absolutely "in."

 

B&W, on the other hand, is certainly a "for the craft of it" kind of thing--film OR digital.

 

Me? I still want good-looking grain. And I love my buggy whip.

 

Thanks!

Will

[h00ligan]

Reminds me of people who think vinyl is better. Technically it's not.. but it does have more soul.

[250swb]

 

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.

 

I think it is well enough understood that the grain in film adds something more to the image than being simply a side effect of a faster film. Grain and contrast can reduce the tonality of the image, act as a mask when detail isn't important but the structure of the image is, add 'acutance' to edges and tones. And then there are all the emotional responses to graininess, like nostalgia, atmosphere, mystery, romance, social documentory style 'hardness', mood ....there is a long list. It is as basic as the choice of B&W or Colour as to whether you prefer some grain.

 

So grain and the way an image is presented is a cultural aspect of communication, and if a photographer has the use of grain as part of his or her repertoire I can't really see why it shouldn't still be incorporated in a digital image. 'Grain' (in the form of noise) is present in high ISO images anyway, and why shouldn't it be used as a means of expression if you can't get rid of it? There is no social, photographic, or cultural compulsion to limit a digital camera to 160 ISO. It is a small step therefore to choosing the type of grain/noise a photographer wants in their photo's. If an image made at 160 ISO was pre-visualised with grain I say get out the Silver Efex Pro and make your own grain formula's if not use a Tri-X profile, its only like choosing a different film developer to 'adjust' the image.

 

Even Ansel Adams, the age old guru of film photography and the Zone System, realised that the end photograph was something you had in your head before pressing the shutter, and was not simply a passive result of the camera and film combination processed 'by the book'.

 

Steve

[Guest joewehry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andy,

 

With regards to the above post recommendations on levels, I recommend DNG over JPG for more subtle control.

 

I agree the faces of the adorable children are too bright (at least for this image.) It looks as if you went to the extremes to get some "bite", but considering the lighting of the scene, the black triangle of shadow on the left and glowing faces seem alien to the mood and source of light.

 

In terms of composition, the white faces against the grey field to my mind don't look close enough for a grouping, not far enough away for contrast or not at odds enough for tension. My initial reaction is the "bite" is minimized more from perspective than tonality. Or you could play around with placement of a lighter pillow on the couch to "triangulate" the white points into a grouping.

 

(To be fair, how do you define "bite." Is it the final print quality of blacks/white/tones, content or composition?)

 

I use Aperture, and if you can use the cursor likewise in Lightroom to show luminance value, I find that if the skin highlights (at least on caucasian) are around 190-210, it prints nicely and shows on the web well too, and 220 luminance for cheekbone or forehead highlight is the highest I like for natural lighting depending on scene.

 

Per your request here is my BW JPG / DNG workflow:

 

M8, 28mm Elmarit - sharpening off / 50mm Summarit - sharpening low

Portraits - contrast low to mid, Scenes - contrast mid, Night - contrast mid to high depending on my mood. Saturation BW. For 4x6 to 8x12 glossy prints.

 

Depending on room brightness, turn monitor brightness down to about half-way. (mimics more of paper print to my eyes.)

 

JPG

1) Take picture.

2) Stick card in printer and print. If I think I got the shot right, I'll leave it. If not, I might hit "auto correct" and reprint.

 

or

 

1) Take picture

2) Open in Aperture. Adjust in order: Exposure, Highlight Recovery, Black Point, Brightness.

3) Print

 

DNG - for BW

1) Take picture

2) Open in Aperture.

3) In order: adjust white balance, toggle BW adjustment slider, adjust exposure, highlights, black point and brightness if needed.

4) See if any red/yellow, etc. filter effects enhance intention of original picture.

 

I may or may not do any level adjustments. If I do, I usually just toggle the "auto-levels" and leave it at that.

 

The above simple adjustments work best for me and while I grant others take DNG/JPG to another level with more involved post production, it's not a process I enjoy. My only interest in post production is to make sure the image "prints" correctly (i.e. blacks are black, not grey), and if I have to do much more than that to the image to enhance impact, I'm probably trying to make dull content look better than it is, and I force myself to re-evaluate the image.

 

Here are a extreme examples from that workflow.

 

Happy New Year lighting,

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!

[Marquinius]

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.

 

Tried Nik, liked it, dumped it for exactly that reason. Digital is digital and should be appreciated for its own virtues.

 

BTW: I LOVE the original thread photo with the two kids. What a tonality. My iMac is zapping it at me like a true B&W.

[roguewave]

Andy, as someone that has followed your work for as long as I've been on the forum, you have developed a highly recognized & appreciated style. Some of that may have been generated in partby your use of the CL/Cron 40, which renders very sharp, high contrast images, frame-wide. I remember seeing some frames shot more wide open some time ago and that heralded further changes in your work. I'm a big fan.

 

No plugin will ever get you to where you might want to go. I don't think you are looking to change your composition or "style". With that in mind, I think you might consider investing more time in expanding the choices available for YOU to choose, not have them chosen by a plugin designer.

 

It's time to open the only tool that let's you experiment with every element in the frame, Photoshop. I have made this recommendation to many people since it was first given to me by my esteemed friend, William Palank. Go buy this small, inexpensive book; Scott Kelby's 7-Point System for Adobe Photoshop. It's cheap. After you get the book, download a free trial copy of Adobe Photoshop and start from the beginning of Kelby's book & don't skip any exercise.

 

As Bill would say, get the wife, the dogs & kids out of the way & give yourself some hours to dig in & get your hands dirty. It is a total game changer. You will now be in the director's chair of every element in the frame. There is one other major tool that I believe is essential, a Wacom tablet & pen. It need not be large at all & they can be had for a very small price on ebay, even used is just fine.

 

For the first time, you will be able to realize anything that is in your imagination & not be limited by all the fast & easy solutions. You will force yourself to experiment, because it's so easy to do & a very powerful experience.

 

From what I have seen in your frames, I think your kids would love this as well. It's a lot like painting & magic. Be warned, for someone like you, this can become very addictive and open up aesthetic avenues hitherto uncharted by you.

 

I look forward to enjoying the results, if you decide to give it a whirl. This will be a lot of fun. All the best, Ben

[andym911]

Ben

just got back from Tel Aviv ...read your comment, totally inspired and am downloading as we 'speak'.

 

keep you posted and I thank you for your inspiration...you know I luvyourstuff

 

Andy

[vdb]

For what it's worth I too have followed Ben's advice the past 2 months and am greatly appreciative. I have completely set aside Aperture and Nik Silver and have found that CS4 offers astounding control...but requires a great time commitment. You certainly get out what you put into it...and I continue to learn. The Wacom tablet and Kelby's book have changed my approach completely. So, thank you again Ben.

 

May I also suggest Leslie Alsheimer's book for advanced Digital B&W with LR and CS4. By far the best book on this very specific topic I have ever read. A must have for anyone interested in suoerb B&W conversions....from import to print.

[roguewave]

For what it's worth I too have followed Ben's advice the past 2 months and am greatly appreciative. I have completely set aside Aperture and Nik Silver and have found that CS4 offers astounding control...but requires a great time commitment. You certainly get out what you put into it...and I continue to learn. The Wacom tablet and Kelby's book have changed my approach completely. So, thank you again Ben.

 

May I also suggest Leslie Alsheimer's book for advanced Digital B&W with LR and CS4. By far the best book on this very specific topic I have ever read. A must have for anyone interested in suoerb B&W conversions....from import to print.

 

Virgil, I too think Leslie's book is an important resource. The only thing I think she didn't address is that before the conversion, you need to make the color image look as you would want it be BEFORE the conversion. It's always easy to view the changes by desaturating as a quick look see. More importantly, if you want t olearn more about the conversion process, save a copy of the intermediate steps to see how the different channels affect the image. There's a ton of information in the image that gets changed by even the smallest changes in any channel. Ignorance is not Bliss!

 

On a lighter side, it's heartening to see others embark on a serious study of how to move forward with image creation. The future looks promising.

[downstairs]

I was happy with CS3 and Effex until I discovered 'Raw Photo Processor'. It's like switching to Acufine. I never managed such delicate tweaks before.

There are some M8/M9 tests with a difficult white subject at the bottom of this page.

[vdb]

Virgil, I too think Leslie's book is an important resource. The only thing I think she didn't address is that before the conversion, you need to make the color image look as you would want it be BEFORE the conversion. It's always easy to view the changes by desaturating as a quick look see. More importantly, if you want t olearn more about the conversion process, save a copy of the intermediate steps to see how the different channels affect the image. There's a ton of information in the image that gets changed by even the smallest changes in any channel. Ignorance is not Bliss!

 

On a lighter side, it's heartening to see others embark on a serious study of how to move forward with image creation. The future looks promising.

 

Ben, I think that indirectly she does try to make that point. She spends a great amount of time on color management. Something I hadn't initially considered but has helped me enormously. I will be doing a workshop with her in a couple weeks in Santa Fe so will fill you in later.

[thompsonkirk]

I'm glad Ben is turning folks toward staying in PS. Many fled from it when we had to use the old Channel Mixer, but the more recent BW Adjustment Layer is so much more sophisticated.

 

After proper color corrections, the BW Adjustment Layer sliders offer a full set of 'filters' for BW photography. For example, it's like screwing on a Y or R filter for skies, or a G for foliage – but you can use more than one at a time.

 

It's a good idea to cycle through the series twice, because they're interactive. The R & Y sliders offer a great range of tonal options when printing people pictures. The B slider is what one of my friends calls the 'Ansel Adams slider,' changing skies dramatically.

 

LR has one more slider, Orange, that helps with skin tones; but as Ben says, you can do the whole job well in PS. (Or is there an Orange slider in CS4 BW conversion? I didn't like CS4 very much, so I use ACR from v.4 & everything else from v.3.)

 

As to adding grain to digital BW, that's a matter of taste. (IMO of bad vs. good taste; but tastes do differ.)

 

Kirk

 

PS, I'm going to try the suggestion above re: systematically oversaturating the color version before BW conversion.

 

PPS, I love the skin tones in JoeWehry's third image! Perfect, on my monitor.

[gverdon]

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

 

(...)

 

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

 

Interesting. Jeff, do you manage to make some soft proofing inside LR, post-post-process in PS or you just trust your skills and eye?

 

I'm struggling with a 3880 and LR to obtain fine BW prints and I'm really confused about the soft proofing part (tried qimage, but not convinced at all...)

 

Cheers,

Gérald