On 2016-10-08 19:11:51 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2016 2:25 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 09:23:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-07 13:32:24 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:24:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:
:
: Actually I thought the people just complimented the building. As you
: noticed from the original the building is the subject. I was not very
: close to the people with the effective 16.

The most interesting part of the picture is the reflections in the
glass panes
of the overhang. And they're not helped by the gratuitous graniness.

Bob

...and part of that grainiess is due to the unnecessarily high ISO and
slow shutter speed, resulting in high ISO noise which is there before
any added B&W conversion "grain". The noise is there in a clean post
processed color rendition fron RAW before any B&W conversion.

Personally, I would have worked to obtain the lowest noise original, and
cleanest RAW at the time of capture. Then apply a more realistic film
emulation grain during B&W conversion, using decent software such as NIK
Silver Efex Pro, ExposureX, or even On1.

Peter has still not explained the choices he made for that particular
exposure, and they are looking to be more of a random guess than a
calculated action. The noise, not "grain" in the original NEF he
provided shows that, and the added emmulated grain just compounds the
problem.

Noise is not grain and does not have the quality of grain in an image.
Calling noise grain does not make it so.

For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."

That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.

Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.

I have to wonder, then, why it was presented in a thread titled "Ping
Tony Cooper". The only architectural shots I go after are old barns
and dilapidated houses. I do produce a lot of street photography,
though, and consider people in those shots to be essential elements.

This thread is progressing to the ludicrous. Peter says my latest
black and white version has too much contrast and is not what he was
going after.

Of course it isn't! That's what happens when files are available to
"play with". The resulting image is the new person's concept of how
the scene should be presented. I made no attempt to follow or enhance
his conception.


When I post a RAW file, I would hope to see different seeing.

Well I tried to give you different with stuff such as this
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-TP-FC.jpg

....but that doesn't seem to fly.
So this might be the ridiculous rendition of what you like.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-TP-HG.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck