Best Tips/Tricks for B&W

[zimboom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Thanks for making me feel stupid. For what its worth, I only use Aperture.

 

I didn't know, but for what its worth, don't tackle Potoshop if you only intend to convert your photo in b/w stick with what you know best!

 

Best regard!

Bernard

[Advertisement]

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

[mweiner]

@Beyder28

As I recall both the increase in saturation and decrease in contrast were 'ten to twenty units' in photoshop sliders. I think what you really want to look at is:

Amazon.com: The Photographer's Guide to Silver Efex Pro - Digital Black and White Conversion Made Easy (eBook on CD-ROM) (9781615841448): Jason P. Odell Ph.D: Books. I think that covers the earlier SEP rather than the later SEP 2, but the principles would be the same.

[Marquinius]

Hwo do you distinguish between what is better left in color and what would be better in black and white? I know its subjective but Im just curious what people's opinions are on this.

 

I think this is where it all starts and is the basic answer to your original question: some photos do better in B&W and some do better in color. And it's less subjective than you think, imho.

 

For B&W I think in structure, contrast, lines and most important: light and shadows. In color I think in a total image, where the color has a function of its own and leaving it out will lessen the overall depiction. I'm biassed: I really start to think in B&W and sometimes stop and look at something with my wife thinking I've gone crazy. Until she sees the print.

 

You'll have to train yourself to see that BEFORE you push the button. If you let it depend on luck (you'll see what it does in B&W or color afterwards), you're working without a plan. And in the end, that's unfulfilling. You're not using a Leica to take the easy way.

 

You simply will have to work at getting those special results. I'm talking about trial and error shots, reading books, showing your photos to forum members and accept the critiques, etc. The simple click on some standard preset will look fine, until you start to look better and see that a lot of detail is lost. Even in a magnificent program like Silver Efex Pro 2 you will have to tweak and twiddle.

 

Henry Cartier Bresson once said: "your first 10.000 photos, are your worst." I think that goes for your first 1.000 B&W conversions also

 

keep smiling

[Ted W]

I mostly use SEP. My only trick is to get the order of things right: I try to start with a fairly flat image, low-con, corrected for exposure and within the "proper" histogram. I do any retouching or removing or local what-have-you, fix whatever needs to be fixed, if anything. Then I convert. But I don't do grayscale-type conversions and just monkey with RGB sliders. I need parameters. I need restrictions -- because my general artistic principle is that there's no freedom in freedom. There's only freedom within structure. So I usually only start with presets that emulate emulsions that I use or would've used if I was shooting film. It's rare that I'll select an emulation of a film I don't use. I know which ones look best (closest) and how to adjust them. I like my Acros, my Delta 3200, my HP, sometimes Tri-X. I keep it simple. And I even try to stick to the actual or likely ISO number -- I won't use a "50 speed" film on a dim night interior, even if that is possible. I'll go to Delta 3200, which is what I would've had to use if I was on film. Or Delta 3200 outdoors at noon (generally speaking, of course -- I mean, at 1/8000 and some NDs maybe you could've gotten there, even with 3200). You know what I mean? I try to stay within what I know to be technically possible. And I exploit the advantage digital has over film: I can select the proper film for the subject and style after the fact. I may have taken a shot that is a "Tri-X type of shot" when I only had 100 speed Acros in the camera, which looks totally different. And then adjust from there, because just the preset alone will never get you there. As a result, my digital b/w's are pretty convincing, especially when printed. Nothing seems out-of-place. I'm not one of these guys who just comes up with some crazy-looking thing. There are guys like that out there -- some of them, a precious few, are even brilliant in going to a new place or breaking the existing conventions -- but I am not one of them. Then back to the host program (Aperture for me) where I make sure the translation didn't clog up a part of the image or blow something out I don't want blown out -- basically, final adjustments. Sometimes I'll even go back and re-do a portion of the original file, lifting it way up, for example, beyond where I like it, with an eye toward what the conversion will do to it. And then it'll finish at a density that I like. A little bit of grain, of texture, is useful as well, especially if the image will live mostly on LCD screens. If it goes to paper, maybe not -- your texture will be in the medium of exhibition.

 

I guess my short answer is, start with some rules for yourself, so you're not just playing around. Then when you feel the rules have limited you too much, make up some new ones, or expand the old ones. Rinse and repeat as necessary -- for the rest of your life.