B&W, 3 Techniques Compared

[Guest WPalank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since there has been a lot of talk about B&W technique in this new sub-forum, I thought I might take a stab at it. I took a single image processed in color through Lightroom 2, made three copies and then opened each in CS3 and processed the color image with three different techniques into B&W.

 

First image: CS3 B&W Adjustment Layer

Second image: Nik Silver Efex Pro

Third Image: Greg Gorman Technique (using a light gray in the color picker)

 

The results are below:

 

B&W Adjustment Layer

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!

 

Nik Silver Efex Pro

 

Gorman Technique

 

Everything is subjective but I liked Silver Efex Pro better, closely followed by the Gorman Technique. I felt the Nik image was more neutral on my calibrated monitor. The Gorman had almost a slightly purple tone.

 

If you are still with me I thought I might outline what I typically do next in my B&W workflow with the Selected Nik image. I keep the image in 16 bit and add a separate Dodge and Burn layer. (I'm fully aware of the technique of adding 50% gray to an Overlay layer and then paint with black or white to dodge and burn, but i like keeping the two separate.

To add the Dodge (Lighten) layer I add a Curves Adjustment Layer (just hit "OK" at the prompt) and change the Blending mode of that layer to Screen. I then lower the opacity of that layer to 35% and rename the Layer from "Curves 1" to "Dodge). Then I click the Layer mask and hit Command-I (mac) to invert the Layer mask to Black (so nothing shows through).

The Burn Layer is similarly created, Curves Adjustment Layer>OK. Change the blending mode of that layer to Multiply, reduce opacity of the layer to 35%, Command-I on a mac (Control_I PC) to inver the mask and then rename it to Burn or Darken.

 

I then hit the letter "B" on my keyboard to bring up the Brush Tool. Make sure the foreground color is white. Change the opacity of the brush tool in the upper menu bar (not the layer itself, it should already be at 35%)to somewhere between 20-35%, then paint while in the Dodge layer areas of my image I want to Lighten and Darken areas of the image on the Burn layer.

I work with a Wacom Tablet so that I use the pen in my right hand and my use my left hand to increase or decrease the size of my brush. I also have the pen set to lower or increase opacity on pressure. This works really well when subtly dodging and burning areas of the face.

 

The last step I take is to burn the edges. There are a million ways to burn this cat as well but the method I use that offers me the most control is to take the Final 16 bit TIFF flattened image. Hit Command J (mac) to create a new layer. Change the blending mode of that upper layer to Multiply then grab either the Rectangular or Oval marquee tool and make a selection in the UPPERMOST layer around the central focal point of my image (the subject). Then I go to the Photoshop Menu Bar and hit Select>modify>Feather and in the menu that appears set it for 120-160 pixels on a high res image.Hit OK. Then I hit the delete (backspace) key to cut a feathered hole and lighten the important part of the image. Hit Command-D to deselect.

 

Heres where the control comes in. If the edge burn is to much reduce the opacity of the upper multiply layer. I find somewhere between 85 and 100% usually works best. Then if there are areas of your subject that are to dark because they were cut off by the oval or Rectangular marquee, use the Eraser tool (keyboard shortcut "E") and go to the upper layer and rollover the darker areas of your subject t make them lighter at a low opacity between 5 and 20%. Here's the final Silver Efex image:

 

I also added a final Curves Layer for contrast. I hope I've stimulated some discussion.

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

Interesting. I use the 50% gray overlay area for dodging an burning (and soft light, normal, hard, modes depending). How does the look of your technique (other than keeping the dodge and burn separate) differ you think? Seems like a lot of work but I suppose if you set up actions and keyboard commands (my overlay layer comes up with a simple f2 keystroke) it's not that bad. So many ways of doing something!

 

I liked the Nik best. Funny thing is, like the color with the M8 so much I rarely find myself wanting to convert to b&w! (same with my D3 using Zeiss lenses).

[Guest WPalank]

Interesting. I use the 50% gray overlay area for dodging an burning (and soft light, normal, hard, modes depending). How does the look of your technique (other than keeping the dodge and burn separate) differ you think?

 

Charles, in my experience the result is exactly the same.

[Marquinius]

William,

 

First: thanks for sharing in such a detailed way!

 

I looked very hard at your three conversions and love the final result. However (yep, it's a discussion ) I wonder what happens if you take the Gorman thingy, take a DARK tone (I used RGB 60/50/40 on my last posts) and from there on use your final steps.

 

As said: may ways to reach a good result. IMHO the first conversion (B&W layer) is pretty flat compared to the other two. But again (discussion), I wonder what happens when you work the same finalisation on it.

 

In short: the basic steps are important, but I think that the tweaking adds enormously.

 

Marco

[ChrisC]

... the first conversion (B&W layer) is pretty flat compared to the other two. ...

 

William - I followed other conversion discussions with interest, and I am yet to see any conversion from the usually favoured converters that I have liked, including the Gorman technique. On screen the tonality of the Photoshop B&W layer gives by far the the better image, it's tonality leaves potential for further file mastering if it is so chosen. The other two are too contrasty for me, leave me unsympathetic to their tonality, and if the conversions are representative; I'd reject both converters [again] without hesitation. I view contrasty conversions as I did contrasty negatives when I was darkroom printing; they leave little room for 'finessing' the final image. You can probably see that I was a mostly film negative, rather than transparency user.

 

For the purpose of this exercise, I am viewing the images as if they were prints on a wall, not as images for another output - which is a different can of worms of course. Thank you for the effort, it's an interesting exercise.

 

.................. Chris

[Guest WPalank]

William,

I looked very hard at your three conversions and love the final result. However (yep, it's a discussion ) I wonder what happens if you take the Gorman thingy, take a DARK tone (I used RGB 60/50/40 on my last posts) and from there on use your final steps.

Marco

 

Marco,

Thanks for your contribution. what I should have said was, the gray I had chosen was slightly lighter than the color the action chooses. I finalized the Gorman image and posted it below.

Also, I wanted to add that I did final sharpening, only when I have the final size, using the Output sharpening action from pixel Genius exactly the same on all the images.

 

Gorman Final

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!

[Guest WPalank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William - I followed other conversion discussions with interest, and I am yet to see any conversion from the usually favoured converters that I have liked, including the Gorman technique. On screen the tonality of the Photoshop B&W layer gives by far the the better image, it's tonality leaves potential for further file mastering if it is so chosen. The other two are too contrasty for me, leave me unsympathetic to their tonality, and if the conversions are representative; I'd reject both converters [again] without hesitation. I view contrasty conversions as I did contrasty negatives when I was darkroom printing; they leave little room for 'finessing' the final image. You can probably see that I was a mostly film negative, rather than transparency user.

 

.................. Chris

 

Chris,

Thanks for chiming in. You see, there are so many sliders in all these converters that the final result is actually very subjective per user. In other words, your results may vary widely from mine. I happen to like more of a contrasty B&W and it seems Marco above would agree.

In all fairness, I gave the Silver Efex two contrast curves. First in the software itself (Contrast Tone Curve) and finally at the size I was going to present to the web. Like Marco, I found the Photoshop conversion a bit flat for my taste. Again, thanks for entering the discussion.

[roguewave]

William, let me thank you for this post. It serves as an ideal model for the intent of this Forum. My only suggestion would be to include the original color image and the color image you made before conversion.

 

I know that many people have concerns about revealing techniques. My personal experience is that post processing techniques can't make up for inferior images.

 

Your generosity and revealing insight is much appreciated. You have obviously mastered these methods. I am not as disciplined as you and will try shortly to post a similar exercise that displays a much different methodology.

 

Do you work at all in th LAB space with B&W? That is an area of keen interest to me.

 

You note that you employ the output sharpening action from pixel Genius. Can you speak to it's merits in more detail & in contrast to using USM in the Lab space for sharpening.

 

Again, let me thank you for setting such a high bar & an exemplar for what many of us had hoped & wished for when we petitioned Andreas for a chance to engage in this exercise. The early results on this Forum are gratifying.

[Guest WPalank]

Thanks Ben,

I thought about including the original Color images but thought I might be creating more of a treatise than a technique discussion. Here you go, first straight out of camera then the image I created in the Develop module of LR 2. No sharpening has been added to either image (except the default in LR).

 

Original

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!

 

Adjusted

 

I don't work in the Lab space for B&W Ben. But I am mighty impressed by your recent work.

I would love to see a thread where you compare your original B&W film scan to the final result and why. Tonal gradation?

 

I have two methods of sharpening. First through Pixel Genius (Schewe's and the late Bruce Fraser's group) since they separate sharpening for web from sharpening for print.

 

I also have three Actions from Kelby using high, medium and low sharpening in luminosity mode. Since it's so easy to undo anything in CS3, I just use the one that looks best on any specific image.

 

I will tell you something I have just started as of late. When down rezzing in CS3 (so I can upload to the web), I use bicubic smoother (although it is suggested to use bicubic sharper) and then sharpen to taste. It's all subjective, but I feel I'm getting a less crunchy file.

[sharookh]

William -

Great thread and a great job done in explaining the three methods. I for one have been using the Gorman method for years now so am quite sold on that.

 

Ben -

 

The Gorman method kicks off with the image being taken into LAB.......

[roguewave]

Thanks Ben,

 

I don't work in the Lab space for B&W Ben.

I would love to see a thread where you compare your original B&W film scan to the final result and why. Tonal gradation?

 

I have had family in town & haven't been able to [ut the thread together yet. I hope get this down by tonight or Monday.

 

William, again thanks again for providing just a thorough & insightful disscusion of this topic.

 

Sharookh any additional info you could direct me to about the Gorman method and LAB would be helpful in trying bridge the issues regarding conversion from color and using LAB as the native colorspace in treating B&W film scans. There is a lot of common ground here regarding methodologies.

[sharookh]

Ben -

 

Marco has started a great thread on the Gorman technique. He has also provided a link. I had done the same in the earlier B/W conversions thread where I have included a pdf outlining the entire workflow. I'd like to hear your views on this as well.

 

Enjoy...!

[ChrisC]

.... I found the Photoshop conversion a bit flat for my taste.....

 

William - I mean no disrespect to you, but the Photoshop version was the best placed for further 'mastering'; dodging, burning, local contrast building etc.. The other two images were locked too early into a final contrast and do not invite the subtle but necessary tweaking of post processing to pull a great interpretation out of the image. My argument is that a gentler conversion invites further finishing work, but with greater rewards. The contrasty conversions have the presence of a finished image in the sense that a transparency had, but your Photoshop image [rather like the work required to make a great print from a negative] has the greater potential waiting to be realised with further craftsmanship.

 

I may well be in a minority of one, but I don't believe your final Gorman interpretation; if for nothing else the young children's skin looks like a plastic surgeon's over enthusiastic work on an octogenarian. I have visited your web-site several times and enjoy your work, and the subtle nuance of colour and light that is evident in your work is at odds, for me, in your favoured B&W style.

 

Thank you for inviting the discussion.

 

................ Chris

[thompsonkirk]

Just so Chris doesn't feel he's a lonely minority of one:

 

What the comparisons demonstrated to me is that the differences between the several modes of conversion are small, at least when viewed on a monitor. I doubt anyone will be persuaded to changed from one of the 3 methods to another!

 

But I do want to echo Chris' apparently paradoxical view that the converter that looks most like what one wants to end up with might not be the best one to start with! I too would prefer the PS BW Adjustment Layer with a little less contrast, & for the same reason: I regard it as the best score to perform, in the way 'Uncle Ansel' meant the term. I also wouldn't want to build much contrast into the BW conversion itself. Contrast is one of the variables I'd like to deal with more subtly later, with Curve Adjustment Layers applied to the whole image &/or locally.

 

Minority of 2

(Kirk)

[Marquinius]

This is getting most interesting!

 

After having read Chris' and Kirk's viewpoint, I tried to go back in my thought WHY I prefer the Gorman method: it's fast and simple and does the trick more or less adequately. But is it as subtle as starting out from a B&W Adjustment layer?

 

I usually just ran the action after having first set the color photo correctly in levels, curves, etc. Later I started running and then opening the action to adjust levels and curves in the B&W. Now I switched to just doing all the adjustments in PS and leave the color photo (almost) unadjusted before starting in the B&W appearing right after the initial Gorman-run. But perhaps I should go back and try out all methods again.

 

Mmh, so many variables.

 

Marco

[Guest stnami]

subtle nuance of colour and light

 

If one converts William's processed coloured images to bnw. you will notice that tonally they are high contrast(it seems to be his preference) ........it is easy to be deceived by colour

[ChrisC]

If one converts William's processed coloured images to bnw. you will notice that tonally they are high contrast(it seems to be his preference) ........it is easy to be deceived by colour

 

Imants - I have to hold my hand up and say that on reflection; you are right, my memory of certain images were of soft Asian light, but overall William does seem to prefer higher contrast. Shame really as I was ready to disprove you, but I have lost a cornerstone of my argument. Damn.

 

On the plus side though; Kirk is clearly very very wise.

 

.................... Chris

[andym911]

I wish I was as competent as some of you guy's on this subject.

 

It is one that is dear to my heart.

Normally I have a basic conversion preset in LR (self defined)and take it from there, normally never doing the same steps on any two images.

 

I appreciate those sharing theor techniques as I would like to get to a level where I can get repeatable and predictable results.I am not there yet.

 

Thanks for all of the above postings....back to school:D

 

andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gesper]

I have to agree with Chris and Kirk. That said, I expect that from what I have heard Silver Efex has enough flexibility that in the end, with proper localized adjustment, it might give you the best final print. If it was me, I would take it easy on the contrast and only use it where needed.

[Guest WPalank]

If one converts William's processed coloured images to bnw. you will notice that tonally they are high contrast(it seems to be his preference) ........it is easy to be deceived by colour

 

Yeah ims, I much prefer a contrastier B&W and color output. The works of Giacomelli and Koudelka are more to my taste than pastural landscapes and floral scenes.