B/W photography with the M8.2.

[primrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings.

 

I have allready posted a thread on the M8 forum, for which I must apologise, as it was obviously the wrong forum,but I must say I did get some good advice.

 

I am seeking advice on taking B/W shots with the M8.2. and have previously been advised to use Silver Efxe Pro. I have downloaded the free trial version, but up to

now it appears to be a little complicated, for me to understand properly at the age of 80yrs young.

 

It is not a case of the monetary outlay, but a question of if I would be able to use it properly, or would it just sit in the box. Does the product come with a well detailed

Manual, which would be quite easy to understand ?

 

To any of you who uses Silver Efxe, do you think that it is worth getting the product, or being satisfied with what comes out of the M8.2. with the B/W setting.

 

Kind regards. Ken Taylor.

[Advertisement]

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

[mhulbert]

Greetings.

 

I have allready posted a thread on the M8 forum, for which I must apologise, as it was obviously the wrong forum,but I must say I did get some good advice.

 

I am seeking advice on taking B/W shots with the M8.2. and have previously been advised to use Silver Efxe Pro. I have downloaded the free trial version, but up to

now it appears to be a little complicated, for me to understand properly at the age of 80yrs young.

 

It is not a case of the monetary outlay, but a question of if I would be able to use it properly, or would it just sit in the box. Does the product come with a well detailed

Manual, which would be quite easy to understand ?

 

To any of you who uses Silver Efxe, do you think that it is worth getting the product, or being satisfied with what comes out of the M8.2. with the B/W setting.

 

Kind regards. Ken Taylor.

 

Mr. Taylor:

 

I don't have a M8.2, so can't give camera specific advice. Personally, I prefer to stick with film for B&W (I shoot mostly with a M7). But there are those that produce some wonderful B&W shots with the M8. The tricks, however, are not really in the camera -- the M is -- handled well -- going to give you a good RAW shot to work with, then the magic will come in processing. With digital, I have had some good results with the "Camera RAW" feature in the Photoshop CS3 -- it is quite easy to work with. You simply take the color shot (you should always shoot in color rather than the option to record only in B&W I believe), and turn in greyscale and then tweak away. The nice thing is that it is like being able to rethink all of the various choices one would, with B&W film, have to have made at the time of shooting -- such as different color filters and the like. Sky not dramatic enough for a B&W landscape -- mess with the red adjustment, etc.

 

The upshot -- the M8.2 can no doubt produce great B&W but there will be a bit of a learning curve to figure out the processing necessary to get the really great results.

 

-- Mark

[wda]

Greetings.

 

I have allready posted a thread on the M8 forum, for which I must apologise, as it was obviously the wrong forum,but I must say I did get some good advice.

 

I am seeking advice on taking B/W shots with the M8.2. and have previously been advised to use Silver Efxe Pro. I have downloaded the free trial version, but up to

now it appears to be a little complicated, for me to understand properly at the age of 80yrs young.

 

It is not a case of the monetary outlay, but a question of if I would be able to use it properly, or would it just sit in the box. Does the product come with a well detailed

Manual, which would be quite easy to understand ?

 

To any of you who uses Silver Efxe, do you think that it is worth getting the product, or being satisfied with what comes out of the M8.2. with the B/W setting.

 

Kind regards. Ken Taylor.

 

Ken, you don't need special software to produce black and white pictures. I use Lightroom, but I guess the cheaper PS Elements would do a similar job. Lr has several conversion presets which makes production of monochrome very easy. With modest exploration and help from this community you can find ways of moving on and gaining even better control of the mono conversion.

 

Some cameras let you shoot black and white and the conversion is done in camera. I don't do this but shoot raw files regularly which gives you more information to exploit in mono conversion. Results can vary from satisfactory to stunning. I suggest you explore what your imaging software can do. At the very least it will allow you to desaturate your selected colour images.

[SJP]

Apologies if this is beside your point, but I am wondering if you won't get as much satisfaction from the B&W jpegs straight out of the camera? The main con is the considerably longer processing time. But I guess you are not into machine-gun photography anyway & prefer the contemplative approach.

 

The B&W jpegs straight out of the camera are pretty good from my point of view, see example here:

 

 

M8 in camera B&W jpeg, summicron 28/2 ASPH, ISO 640, 1/50 s

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Hello Ken,

 

I have SilverFX Pro and find it to be a pretty advanced piece of software, however my main use for it have become "apply grain to digital file" style use. I rarely use the other features and tend to use photoshop or lightroom for creating the B&W file and then SiverFX for just the grains, this is mainly because I had several portrait images where for some reason it created a halo around the head and haircut, this had something to do with the graduation I guess..

 

About B&W mostly I shoot Kodak BW400cn, drop it off and the camera store and pick up a disk with high-rez scans next morning, I find this process create much more B&W like images. Particularly digital do not burn out as graciously as film does, so the areas where we on film get a very smooth burnout can get some sharp edges in the M8, if you shoot in the M8 underexpose roboustly and open it back up in light-room as that will get you much prettier transitions into burnout areas. (if that is in the image that is)

 

.Just my 2 cents.

[ho_co]

Ken--

Are you already using post-processing software? If so, I'd say just stay with it.

 

I've got Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2 and Capture One 4. They all seem to have been thought up by completely alien minds that not even an instruction manual can help.

 

Any software is unusably difficult when you start, and as soon as you start to get the idea, the manufacturer comes up with an upgrade that adds new kinks and changes what you thought you understood.

 

I get along best with Photoshop, but that's because 1) I took a course in using it; 2) I've attended a number of day-long training seminars on getting the best out of it; and 3) I've been working with it for ten years or so.

 

My other programs seem to me to go at things in particularly difficult ways from directions that don't allow any transfer of knowledge from other programs.

 

I haven't worked with SilverFX because it seems to be a kind of final add-on, the frosting on the cake that I would never find time to master.

 

Personally, I would recommend more general software instead; work with it till you see what its limitations are. And whatever you choose, you'll find that the minds that created it were demented.

[graeme_clarke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ken, If you have Photoshop CS3 then the best advice is to open the image then use Image - Adjustments - Black and White to convert your picture to black and white. There are 6 colour sliders to play with - red, yellow, green, cyan, blue and magenta, as well as controls for tints.

 

Coverting to grayscale reduces the amount of information being handled so fine detail and tones are lost and the picture can look "rough". The process above keeps all the colours from the image and gives much finer control of monochrome tones.

 

Give it a go and you'll be surprised at the effects moving the sliders have.

 

Have fun, Graeme

[tmldds]

Silver Effects has been working very well for me. The tutorial from their website is very informative. As with any software, there is always a learning curve. I love the preset effects as well as the ability to simulate different film characters.

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Ken, as another B&W fan, I can recommend Silver Efex. As it has been mentioned, there are some great video tutorials (link) that seem to cover all key features.

 

If you are computer-literate enough to post on this forum and download it, you should have no problems using it.

 

Alberto

 

PS I hope to be shooting into my 80-years-young like you.

[tbarker13]

Personally, I find Silver Efex to be very easy to use. I do the Raw conversions in Capture 1. Then I open in Photoshop and do a simple B&W conversion with Silver Efex, generally with one of the film filters.

Here are couple I did last night. M8.2 and Zeiss 50/2 Planar:

 

 

[epand56]

Hello Ken, I have an M8.u and personally love very much B&W photography. I also have Silver Efex Pro, but in the end I do not use it all that much unless I want to achieve a special look, mostly on grain.

I'm used to convert my colour RAW using the Gorman-Holbert method on Photoshop CS3 or 4 (is the same) Using this tecnique, you have a great control over the image and the B&W tones. Here you are the link to the Gorman method page:

 

Gorman-Holbert Conversion Method

 

Keep in mind that here you find the basis. Any color RAW is different from the others so you will have to experiment a little before getting the results you want.

Here you are an example:

 

 

 

The warmer or colder tone of the B&W depends on the color you choose.

Hope this helps.

[mathomas]

Apologies if this is beside your point, but I am wondering if you won't get as much satisfaction from the B&W jpegs straight out of the camera? The main con is the considerably longer processing time. But I guess you are not into machine-gun photography anyway & prefer the contemplative approach.

 

The B&W jpegs straight out of the camera are pretty good from my point of view, see example here:

 

 

M8 in camera B&W jpeg, summicron 28/2 ASPH, ISO 640, 1/50 s

 

 

I totally agree that the B&W conversions straight out of the camera are really good (or, at least good enough for me). I've been very pleasantly surprised most of the time. I use the defaults, except for "medium high contrast", and am almost always happy with what comes out with just a touch of sharpening. I do use RAW + JPG so that I have flexibility later. You can always play with the in-camera settings and live with the results, as if you'd loaded B&W film and had it processed at the lab :-).

 

Here is a set of photos I took, with out-of-camera B&W. I didn't even sharpen them (I think). I think the tones are beautiful, for the most part, IMO. FYI, these were with the Zeiss 25mm Biogon.

 

St. Mary's Academy, Denver, CO

 

And a sample image from that set:

 

 

 

I have to admit that I also use Silver Efex Pro, but generally only for spot corrections and special effects. I find it fairly simple to use once you understand the concept and effect of the "control point".

[ottocrat]

I've recently started using Silver Efex Pro after years of converting to B&W in Photoshop, and I must say I love it. Personally I find it very quick, easy and intuitive. I'm especially fond of the colour and film filters which can do wonders for an image with a single mouse-click. For example here the application of a high grain film filter rescues a really noisy shot taken at high ISO:

 

 

It can also delivery punchy results which couldn't be obtained in colour, for example here where the application of a yellow filter brought out the eyes:

 

 

Of course these results could have been achieved with post-processing in Photoshop or another application but it would have taken longer and required a good deal more trial and error.

[chris_livsey]

Ok Ken so most posters want you to persist with the software they have found to work well for them. As a disclaimer I'm a Capture One fan. I would however like to suggest you work with the in camera conversion as digital has a no cost option for multiple shots choose a scene and shoot at the various levels of contrast and sharpening then view the results, I think you will find a level that pleases you. Unless you want to print above 10 x 8 the jpeg artefacts are acceptable unless you are being pixel picky. The time you save in post processing will give you much more productive shooting time.

Leica ran a short course in London about 6 to 9mths after the M8 came out, they may still, and the posts from those who attended reported the settings for BW the tutor favoured and recommend the jpeg approach. If you want to spend time at the computer tweaking, and that for some is a perfectly valid approach, then I would shoot RAW + BW Jpeg and compare after your hard work, you may well find the learning curve for the software isn't worth it, after all Cartier Bresson didn't do his own printing

 

 

PS yes I know he did early in his career but if you saw the work he did for his "Scrapbook" you can see why he gave it up.

[oxlee]

Silver Effex is the best B/W conversion software out there, in my opinion. I shoot b/w film these days, but if i were to shoot a digital color picture for b/w, Silver Effex is what i'd use.

 

The interface may look intimidating at first for novices, but is really quite simple. You'll soon find that you'll be adjusting only a few perimeters once you get the hang of it.

 

One of the most useful feature aside from simulating film looks & grain, is the control points which allow you to burn or dodge selective parts of the image. It works very intuitively and easily, with great results. Wonder why Photoshop hasn't incorporated 'control point' method for selective doge & burn.

 

Silver Effex also has a 'structure' adjustment which does quite amazing things.

 

Invest a bit of time, the images you get will be worth it.

 

Btw, Silver Effex works great even on B/W images out of the camera.

[atufte]

I recommend making your own profiles, take your favorite film and your favorite digital camera and take a few shots of your most used subject with both mediums, then scan the film on a drum scanner for best results, then develop the raw files and create your own digital film profile in PS, if you use enough time you will reach a close to identical result as your favorite film, i actually like my digital version of my favorite film better than the analog version, but remember, this does not show in the right way before you print on the right medium, try this and you will see what i mean...

 

Black and White Prints From Digital - Black and White Prints from Digital | 35mm Black and White digital | 120 Black and White digital | Colour process black and white digital.

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!

[chris_livsey]

but remember, this does not show in the right way before you print on the right medium, try this and you will see what i mean...

]

 

Not sure what you mean here by "right medium" are you comparing final results of analog printed on photosensitive paper in a darkroom with inkjet printed on a particular paper base and saying the results are close to identical ?

Not being stroppy here but interested in what comparison you are making to come to that conclusion.

The Ilford link is printing digital files on photosensitive paper and is not darkroom printing of a negative direct BTW.

[atufte]

Not sure what you mean here by "right medium" are you comparing final results of analog printed on photosensitive paper in a darkroom with inkjet printed on a particular paper base and saying the results are close to identical ?

Not being stroppy here but interested in what comparison you are making to come to that conclusion.

The Ilford link is printing digital files on photosensitive paper and is not darkroom printing of a negative direct BTW.

 

Of course you can do this anyway you want (inkjet or chemical) but i find that using the Ilford service you can print both the negative and the digital file on the same material chemically (and yes you can send them your negs if you prefer, but i'm scanning my self, for more control)

 

From Digital:

 

Black and White Prints From Digital - Black and White Prints from Digital | 35mm Black and White digital | 120 Black and White digital | Colour process black and white digital.

 

From Analog:

 

Black and White Prints from Film - Black and White Prints from Film | 35mm Black and White film | 120 Black and White film | Colour process black and white films.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chris_livsey]

I am sure with some work, as you suggest, you can match the digital camera output with the digital scan because by definition both are digital and thus one should be able to match the numbers. I was pointing out that you are not matching to a negative printed conventionally. the Ilford "analog" service you link to prints on silver halide paper but uses a laser to print from a scan of the negative it is not a print made direct from the negative using a conventional enlarger ie analog.

I have used Ilford and had excellent results but I still wonder if the OP really wants to invest the time in making his own profiles and learnig the software when the out of the box BW jpeg is not bad at all.

 

 

For the OP the settings I referred to were discussed in this thread,

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/51106-leica-training-london.html

 

The -1/3 exposure compensation used has now been corrected in a later software update and you will find no adjustment is now required.

Quote

 

His recommendations were as follows:

ISO 320/640

EV -1/3

White Balance Cloudy (This I was also unsure about)

Colour Saturation Black & White

Contrast High

Everything else: Standard

[atufte]

I know that they use a laser (Durst Lamda) but it's still conventional chemical printing, enlarger or not, it's still a wet chemical process with the same traditional look and durability...

 

And yes i also like the "in camera" B&W JPEG, but you loose a lot of DR, and tones (8 Bit = 265 tones pr. channel VS - 12 Bit = 4096 tones pr Channel or 16 Bit which is 65536 tones pr channel) this way, since i always use 16 bit for the conversion (it gains more than 8 bit no matter what anybody says the M8 is able to capture)

 

So saying that this is the best way to go for capturing B&W with the M8 is VERY wrong to say at least, it's like saying you should always drive with a formula 1 car i the first gear only, since it has better acceleration...

 

(Try using levels in PS with a 8 bit file and pull it up by let's say 3 stops, you will get vertical stripes which indicate loss of data, then do the same with a 16 bit file, no vertical stripes...= no loss of data)