dcsang Posted July 15, 2008 Share #1 Posted July 15, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) There was a couple recent threads in a few forums that I frequent and all of them centered around B&W conversion "software" or "actions" for Photoshop. This is mainly due to the recent release of Nik's conversion software (aka "Silver Efex Pro") Seeing as how many of the companies offered a free trial and I already have purchased one brand for my purposes, I thought it would be an interesting study to look at four different types of software and, blindly, see what appeals to each of you. So, without further adieu, I will give you our "test" image. This is shot on July 1, 2008 with my M8 and 50 Lux wide open. ISO160, 1/750s. The shot is directly from the camera, no post processing has been done to the colour image. Along with Edmir (that's who's in that photo), we'll look at a 100% crop that should offer a good idea of the grain structure. Here is the original crop: I will proceed to post in this thread the results from the four "brands" of software/plug-ins (I'm limiting the initial post due to forum restrictions on the number of images in a single post. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2008 Posted July 15, 2008 Hi dcsang, Take a look here A Blind Sampling Of B&W Conversion Software For Digital Cameras. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dcsang Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share #2 Posted July 15, 2008 Now, that said; here we go with the samplings. All of these are examples of Tmax P3200 @ 3200 ISO save for ONE. One of them is an example of Delta 3200 @ 3200 - you can choose which one afterwards. All have been converted using the DEFAULT values for the particular software/plug-in. Image A Image B Image C Image D The crops are coming next. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsang Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share #3 Posted July 15, 2008 Now here are the crops of each image in the SAME ORDER. Crop A Crop B Crop C Crop D So, there you go... now you can try to determine which one you think gives the "best" likeness (in your mind) in comparison to Kodak P3200 @ 3200. Also, tell me which of these is Delta 3200. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 15, 2008 Share #4 Posted July 15, 2008 In terms of realism, the grain structure in Image C looks most like what I would expect to see from a 3200 ASA film. As for personal preference, I like Image A for contrast and tonality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 15, 2008 Share #5 Posted July 15, 2008 can't see the point ............ guessing games Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsang Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted July 15, 2008 can't see the point ............ guessing games It's not about "guessing games" but when you look at the tools available to you, and the cost of said tools, you may be surprised to find that the image you most prefer is created by the least expensive tool. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted July 15, 2008 Share #7 Posted July 15, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I suspect that D is the Ilford Delta 3200 and the rest are Kodak TMax. C is the one that I suspect is closest to Kodak TMax film. Like Brent, I prefer the overall 'look' of A. Having done almost no film B+W work in recent years, I'm probably completely wrong... Wouldn't it be great if we could specify a film+developer combination when converting digital files to monochrome..! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morbius Posted July 15, 2008 Share #8 Posted July 15, 2008 It's not about "guessing games" but when you look at the tools available to you, and the cost of said tools, you may be surprised to find that the image you most prefer is created by the least expensive tool. Dave Ah! A hint! I think this is an interesting thing to do (and I really like what Nik produces so I'm always interested in how it compares to other software), but of course the image we prefer at default settings may not tell us much about what the software is capable of. Still, good fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetshooter Posted July 15, 2008 Share #9 Posted July 15, 2008 Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Posted July 15, 2008 Share #10 Posted July 15, 2008 So once one has made their mind up about which one they prefer, then what? Answers by Xmas? This retention of information is hardly achieving the stated goal of being informative on which product to acquire Then there is the ease/ability whereby it is possible to modify default settings to meet individual preferences.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcsang Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share #11 Posted July 15, 2008 So once one has made their mind up about which one they prefer, then what? Answers by Xmas? This retention of information is hardly achieving the stated goal of being informative on which product to acquire Then there is the ease/ability whereby it is possible to modify default settings to meet individual preferences.... Ok ok ok !! Image A = Alien Skin "Exposure 2" Software - price: $249 USD ( Alien Skin Software: Exposure ) Image B = Imagenomic's "Real Grain" Software - price: $99 USD ( Imagenomic RealGrain - Film Grain Simulation, B&W Conversion and Finishing Effects ) Image C = Nik's "Silver Efex Pro" Software - price: $299 USD ( The Power of Black and White ) Image D = Photoshop Channel Mixer adjustment to Delta 3200 and a freebie "monochrome noise" plug in to emulate ISO3200 There you go. I personally own the Imagenomic version because it was bundled with Noiseware and Portraiture. Having looked at these images I can emulate image A and/or C easily via Imagenomic's software simply by bumping up the contrast via curves either in the software itself or in PS. And, as others have stated, these are default results - tweaking is always possible within the software itself. Is it worth the money for the others? Well, that's for you lot to decide for yourselves. If you're not going for grain there's some really good methods using channel mixer and curves out there for ISO 100 to 400 - beyond that, you're going to have to fool around with adding monochrome noise and using gausian blur in order to make the noise random enough to emulate film. That, I believe, is part of the problem with digital B&W when you're trying to emulate higher ISO B&W film - the grain structure. In film, I believe, the structure is far more random while in Photoshop the structure tends to be more of a pattern or more ordered/less random. Anyway, I hope this was sort of helpful to those who are perhaps considering their options in performing B&W conversion. Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Posted July 15, 2008 Share #12 Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks Dave - much appreciated - the test itself and saying which is which. I like the look of B full sized picture, but own A! However would tweak the curve to suit my tastes. C is really overcooked to my way of seeing, but user interface presumably would let you reduce the intensity? I watched a couple of their web-videos and it seems very controllable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted July 16, 2008 Share #13 Posted July 16, 2008 First is conversion of unprocessed image to B&W - CS2 Channel Mixer - monochrome 24 - 38 - 38 : auto curves : brightness -10 contrast +10 The second is the same but with 2.75 gaussian noise added. The third is the same as the first but with filter - artistic - grain added @ 2 : 1 : 1. CS2 came free with my second hand computer. Osscat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 16, 2008 Share #14 Posted July 16, 2008 It sorta shows that most applications when set on default are a bit iffy,.......... once one learns to tweak it becomes a whole new ball game, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalippe Posted July 16, 2008 Share #15 Posted July 16, 2008 Thanks for taking the time to do this. It is certainly interesting to see the products compared in this way. I, like a couple of others, like the look of A the most. But is that really the right question to ask? Shouldn't we be asking which looks most like Tmax P3200 @ 3200? For that, you would have had to also take the picture with Tmax P3200@3200, made a "straight" print, and compared it to straight prints of the other four. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 16, 2008 Share #16 Posted July 16, 2008 Imants--I think you're absolutely right. I don't use any of these out of the box because for one thing, the tonality of BW film is different than digital colour, especially in skintones. None of the posted images appear to have very much variation, too, in grain structure in shadows vs highlights, which is what I really look for in a great conversion. That may be because it's a patch of midtone... So having said that, AlienSkin gives me the most control; I haven't found a grain control in the Nik plugin yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 16, 2008 Share #17 Posted July 16, 2008 Double cick Film Types a bit of fun to play with Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasl.se Posted July 16, 2008 Share #18 Posted July 16, 2008 It sorta shows that most applications when set on default are a bit iffy,.......... once one learns to tweak it becomes a whole new ball game, Like many, been using ASE2 for quite a while and I think tweaking is intuitive enough for good and quick conversion; but after 10 minutes of Silver demo I will say the latter is every bit as intuitive. Very streamlined operation with everyting at the fingertips, on the same page; and not least it's responding much quicker to tweaks, practically real time. OTOH, Like Jamie, not quite sure yet about the grainmaker. Did anyone get more than two sliders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 16, 2008 Share #19 Posted July 16, 2008 These applications only really offer is a bit of grain....... the rest is all in PlayStation .......... just presented in a different manner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted July 16, 2008 Share #20 Posted July 16, 2008 I have had very good results usng B/W Styler from "the plug in site". It has to be used with care, but for the price ($49.95) it offers great possibilities. Worth a try. Maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.