B&W processing critique

[dem331]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am interested in receiving critique on some of my digital B&W processing. I am just starting out with this.

 

For example, I have tried everything to do something with this image which was rather bland in colour.

 

Any comments as to what I am missing or overdoing much appreciated.

 

Many thanks, and I hope that it is ok to post this here.

 

M-P 240, 35mm f2 Asph.

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!

[pico]

My fellow image enthusiast, sometimes there is nothing we can do to improve an image without making it unbelievable.

.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

It's a fine photograph of a telephone wire, or is it a cliff?

 

Anyway whatever, it needs 'oomph', a technical term that combines the elements of correct exposure with natural overall contrast with some micro contrast. So increase the overall brightness and see how it then looks, if still flat add some overall contrast keeping an eye on the histogram, and after this I suspect you will still need some more 'oomph' in the shadows to the right of the scene, so lift them with contrast and brightness in that area. When it is nearly perfect you could then pretend you'd taken a step to the left and clone out the telephone wire, or the cliff.

[dem331]

Yes Pico, this is exactly my problem.

 

I always shot slide film before coming to digital, so processing has been a challenge for me.

 

In B&W, I have experimented by taking a RAW file and trying to get it to look like the MP 240 B&W out of camera JPGs, which has helped.

 

Now I am trying to be more creative or whatever you want to call it. But I have a difficult time assessing when I'm overdoing it. I see a lot of B&W pictures posted on the web that look to me to be over-processed but get a lot of positive remarks, so I doubt my own judgement.

 

Maybe the idea of taking a bland picture and trying to make it look good in B&W is not a good starting point. I am just struggling a little with how to improve my technique.

[Exodies]

Try colorising it.

[dem331]

It's a fine photograph of a telephone wire, or is it a cliff?

 

Anyway whatever, it needs 'oomph', a technical term that combines the elements of correct exposure with natural overall contrast with some micro contrast. So increase the overall brightness and see how it then looks, if still flat add some overall contrast keeping an eye on the histogram, and after this I suspect you will still need some more 'oomph' in the shadows to the right of the scene, so lift them with contrast and brightness in that area. When it is nearly perfect you could then pretend you'd taken a step to the left and clone out the telephone wire, or the cliff.

 

Haha! You are right about the telephone wire, I just didn't cloan it out because it wasn't the point of my exercise. Lazy.

 

You're right about the brightness too, I have tried it out and it looks much better.

 

The contrast slider is harder for me. I play around with it and can never make my mind up where to leave it. The Clarity slider is another one that is hard to judge and easy to overdo.

 

Thanks.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Techniques can be easily learned. The heart of photography is more about a 'good eye' and good judgment...at every step from shooting to editing to framing and display.

 

The best aids are looking at lots of other work (including paintings) and lots of practice developing your own style. You might also consider a good workshop that offers feedback.... at least until you gain confidence to beat to your own drum.

 

Jeff

[LeicaPassion]

Excellent post, Jeff.

[otto.f]

Did you use vignetting, e.g. -1.25 elliptic. Could give some more depth perhaps. Maybe the composition and variety of light is low on this capture, making it difficult to get the real taste of this cliff

[250swb]

Haha! You are right about the telephone wire, I just didn't cloan it out because it wasn't the point of my exercise. Lazy.

 

You're right about the brightness too, I have tried it out and it looks much better.

 

The contrast slider is harder for me. I play around with it and can never make my mind up where to leave it. The Clarity slider is another one that is hard to judge and easy to overdo.

 

Thanks.

 

The key (and justification if needed) to making a great image is to realise there has hardly been a famous photograph in the history of photography that hasn't had some dodging and burning done to it. This is to balance the picture and help the viewer understand what the photographer wants to convey.

 

It isn't trickery, it isn't faking an image, but yes, sometimes it can be 'making a silk purse out of a sows ear'. Ansel Adams 'manipulated' his images, so did Bresson's printer, so did McCullin's printer for his war photographs. Artistic landscape or hard core documentary, they all have the tones lightened or darkened in various places to give a natural balance for the eye. So just go at it, go wild, go conservative, but a small rule if there can be one when it comes to personal expression is to leave the finished image for a week without looking at it, then revisited you may find it needs finishing some more, or less. 

[Doug A]

[snip] ...but a small rule if there can be one when it comes to personal expression is to leave the finished image for a week without looking at it, then revisited you may find it needs finishing some more, or less. 

 

I find it sometimes takes a lot longer than a week. I've reprinted some photos I've had hanging on the wall for years 

[Jeff S]

I find it sometimes takes a lot longer than a week. I've reprinted some photos I've had hanging on the wall for years

Ansel Adams changed the rendering of his Moonrise print continually over 34 years....

 

https://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/arrington/arrington_adams.html

 

Jeff

[erl]

I agree about 'walking away' from the image for awhile. Sometimes, I leave an image on my computer screen overnight, so that it is the first thing I see when I get up in the morning, with fresh eyes. That nearly always provokes a change.

 

To the OP, I don't see anything needing change in your pic, other than the telephone wire. The tones look fine to my eyes.

 

A hardcopy print is always the final arbiter for me.

[otto.f]

Up in the morning on screen or on paper?

[250swb]

Up in the morning on screen or on paper?

 

After a fantastic night spent in the darkroom the cold light of day was always a leveller.

[bruniroquai]

is that my hometown, Ronda?

[dem331]

It is indeed Ronda, taken from La Hoya del Tajo. I go there quite often, it is my wife's home town

[bruniroquai]

great!! call me next time and We can share some tapas and wine!

 

 

Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[pico]

The key (and justification if needed) to making a great image is to realise there has hardly been a famous photograph in the history of photography that hasn't had some dodging and burning done to it. [...]

 

Probably true! One of the biggest photography liars was W Eugen Smith whose work was between illustration and documentary.

 

Regarding 250swb's sincere post, the NPPA disagrees. There are some good accounts where photographers were fired for even modest image manipulations.

Edited April 28, 2017 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

I am interested in receiving critique on some of my digital B&W processing. I am just starting out with this.

 

For example, I have tried everything to do something with this image which was rather bland in colour.

 

Any comments as to what I am missing or overdoing much appreciated.

 

Many thanks, and I hope that it is ok to post this here.

 

M-P 240, 35mm f2 Asph.

Well, I think you could ease up on the sharpening a bit.