How to get good black & white from digital?

On Oct 14, 5:36 am, wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:26 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 14, 4:18 am, wrote:

I'm a bit
sick of hearing "you just can't do quality b&w with digital" - while I
agree that seems to be mostly true, I want to know *exactly why*...!!!

I don't agree with this at all.
It is very possible to get quality B&W from a digital capture.
So the question becomes, "Why can't you?"

Fair question. And I'll probably never be a good b&w imager - I just
don't readily see scenes in b&w... I tend to experiment with images I
have already taken, and (more by accident than design), 'discover'
those that look good (or at least better than they did in colour...)
in b&w.

But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

And I often hear comments about the difficulty in getting the quality
achieved from a good b&w film and them legendary platinum prints...
here are a few examples of the 'look' I mean - of course you could
(accurately) say these images are more about the image content and how
they were lit. But any tips on how to approach this sort of tonality
(for want of a better word) would be appreciated.

http://archives.imaginginfo.com/arti...ard_Avedon.jpg

Anwyay, I'm sure I've heard you say that b&w is mostly a waste of
time! Are you turning? (O:


What I remember Bret saying is that b&w in not good in many cases.
And I agree. For his type of photography, such a wildlife, macro
shots of insects and flowers, and panos of those gorgeous places in
the area that he lives, are definitely best done in color. (I do love
those IR panos though). I use b&w to mainly tell a story, such as in
portraits of people or a street scene.....I guess it's best described
as photojournalism.
Helen

On Oct 14, 12:07 pm, wrote:
On Oct 14, 5:36 am, wrote:

On Oct 14, 6:26 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 14, 4:18 am, wrote:

I'm a bit
sick of hearing "you just can't do quality b&w with digital" - while I
agree that seems to be mostly true, I want to know *exactly why*...!!!

I don't agree with this at all.
It is very possible to get quality B&W from a digital capture.
So the question becomes, "Why can't you?"

Fair question. And I'll probably never be a good b&w imager - I just
don't readily see scenes in b&w... I tend to experiment with images I
have already taken, and (more by accident than design), 'discover'
those that look good (or at least better than they did in colour...)
in b&w.

But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

And I often hear comments about the difficulty in getting the quality
achieved from a good b&w film and them legendary platinum prints...
here are a few examples of the 'look' I mean - of course you could
(accurately) say these images are more about the image content and how
they were lit. But any tips on how to approach this sort of tonality
(for want of a better word) would be appreciated.

http://archives.imaginginfo.com/arti...96970_Lyson.jp...

Anwyay, I'm sure I've heard you say that b&w is mostly a waste of
time! Are you turning? (O:

What I remember Bret saying is that b&w in not good in many cases.
And I agree. For his type of photography, such a wildlife, macro
shots of insects and flowers, and panos of those gorgeous places in
the area that he lives, are definitely best done in color. (I do love
those IR panos though). I use b&w to mainly tell a story, such as in
portraits of people or a street scene.....I guess it's best described
as photojournalism.
Helen

Sorry about the typos. I'm typing with one hand these days.
Helen

On Oct 14, 1:09 pm, wrote:

Sorry about the typos. I'm typing with one hand these days.

I've been doin that for years.

On Oct 14, 3:45 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:09 pm, wrote:



Sorry about the typos. I'm typing with one hand these days.

I've been doin that for years.



You could've fooled me. I hardly see a typo from you.
If my typing teacher from high school saw me, I would be severely
scolded.

wrote in message ups.com...
On Oct 14, 6:26 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:18 am, wrote:



I'm a bit
sick of hearing "you just can't do quality b&w with digital" - while I
agree that seems to be mostly true, I want to know *exactly why*...!!!

I don't agree with this at all.
It is very possible to get quality B&W from a digital capture.
So the question becomes, "Why can't you?"

Fair question. And I'll probably never be a good b&w imager - I just
don't readily see scenes in b&w... I tend to experiment with images I
have already taken, and (more by accident than design), 'discover'
those that look good (or at least better than they did in colour...)
in b&w.

But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:
http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

And I often hear comments about the difficulty in getting the quality
achieved from a good b&w film and them legendary platinum prints...
here are a few examples of the 'look' I mean - of course you could
(accurately) say these images are more about the image content and how
they were lit. But any tips on how to approach this sort of tonality
(for want of a better word) would be appreciated.

http://archives.imaginginfo.com/arti...6970_Lyson.jpg
http://a4.vox.com/6a00d10a7a1eb08bfa...c0b46a47-500pi
http://www.chroniclebooks.com/Chroni...8/coltrane.jpg
http://www.thespiderawards.com/image...ichele_009.jpg
http://lakarita.bravehost.com/Karita...ard_Avedon.jpg

Anwyay, I'm sure I've heard you say that b&w is mostly a waste of
time! Are you turning? (O:


These questions as an approach do make much more sense. In the first place everything
in my previous post. In the second, I'll assume you are using a digital camera that is
artistically viable, such as, whether or not it accepts interchangeable lenses, doesn't need
to, like a super zoom but the lens...

1) must accept filters,
2) you can control the shutter speeds,
3) you can control the aperture sizes,
4) you can control exposure compensation...? Correct?
5) you can set the camera to record in raw mode
6) and use a red 25a or 29 filter on the front of the lens
7) set the aperture to F/11, 16 or 22
8) using aperture priority to control the shutter speed by the aperture that is used
9) set the exposure compensation to one or two stops [under-exposing] down,
10) and make sure the setting for sharpness in the camera menu is set to "sharpest" or "hard",
11) using a tripod and a cable release, or the two second self timer. And mrror lock-up if
your camera has it.

And all that will get you what you want, out of the camera. You experiment with all these
variables, and make it come together for yourself.

--
Giant_Alex
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:36:32 -0700, wrote:

But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:
http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

Are you sure that's posterisation? (I assume you're referring to the
changes in the brightness of the sky.) To me that looks like thin
high-level cloud, and the "step" is actually quite soft with no jump
in brightness that would be expected in posterisation.

As for taking the photograph, I suspect that you'll get better results
from using filters at the time the picture is taken rather than taking
a colour image and applying a digital filter effect later. A real
filter works on a continuous spectrum, but by the time a filter effect
can be applied that spectrum has collapsed to three points and much of
the colour information in the original scene has been lost.

Consider the difference between something that's yellow because it
reflects yellow light and something that's yellow because it reflects
red and green light. A real filter can treat them differently because
they are different; a filter effect can't because once the image has
been recorded there is no difference between them.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

On Oct 15, 5:34 pm, Matthew Winn wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:36:32 -0700, wrote:
But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:
http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

Are you sure that's posterisation? (I assume you're referring to the
changes in the brightness of the sky.) To me that looks like thin
high-level cloud, and the "step" is actually quite soft with no jump
in brightness that would be expected in posterisation.

As for taking the photograph, I suspect that you'll get better results
from using filters at the time the picture is taken rather than taking
a colour image and applying a digital filter effect later. A real
filter works on a continuous spectrum, but by the time a filter effect
can be applied that spectrum has collapsed to three points and much of
the colour information in the original scene has been lost.

Consider the difference between something that's yellow because it
reflects yellow light and something that's yellow because it reflects
red and green light. A real filter can treat them differently because
they are different; a filter effect can't because once the image has
been recorded there is no difference between them.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

Probably the most sensible post on this subject to date. Placing a
filter in front of a "DI" or Designed for Digital lens is an
altogether different subject which should be address before doing the
former.

Doug

Thanks to all the contributors thus far! What I will be taking away
from this, is as follows:

I am using the right techniques, eg channel mixer, then tweaking gamma
and white/black points.
but... but the images I am selecting are probably not the right ones!

At the capture phase I need to take more care with looking for images
that will benefit from monochrome, be that because of the nature of
the scene, or the way that I might intervene by choosing better/
different lighting.

I should also consider filtering at time of capture (rather than over-
using the channel mixer - aka "The Douglas Technique"..) to ensure I
have enough mathematical headroom to keep those grey tones slippery
smooth..

Now I guess the challenge is for me to come back with a winning
image..

I'll try, but don't hold your breath. (O:

On Oct 15, 7:48 pm, wrote:
Thanks to all the contributors thus far! What I will be taking away
from this, is as follows:

I am using the right techniques, eg channel mixer, then tweaking gamma
and white/black points.
but... but the images I am selecting are probably not the right ones!

At the capture phase I need to take more care with looking for images
that will benefit from monochrome, be that because of the nature of
the scene, or the way that I might intervene by choosing better/
different lighting.

I should also consider filtering at time of capture (rather than over-
using the channel mixer - aka "The Douglas Technique"..) to ensure I
have enough mathematical headroom to keep those grey tones slippery
smooth..

Now I guess the challenge is for me to come back with a winning
image..

I'll try, but don't hold your breath. (O:

There you go again... Making a totally incorrect assumption about what
I did to produce that image. Seriously Mark, you really need to pay
attention to these issues. They are what got you in trouble in the
first place. READ MY KEYSTROKES:

I did not use the channel mixer! GOT THAT?

When you actually recognize the wrong you've done me over my
Interpolation algorithm and apologize for the lies and aspersions you
posted as personal entertainment, then begin to communicate in a
responsible and adult manner, I might (note I said MIGHT) share with
you some of my universal plugins for Photoshop that allow you (amongst
other things) to make prints (as opposed to Internet images) that are
exact lookalikes for film prints... Right down to the imitation
traditional photo paper you can put through an r2400 Epson Inkjet
printer.

I developed the software to faithfully reproduce restored photos. My
clients often can't distinguish between the originals and the
reproductions except for the damage to the originals.
How about it Mark? Do I get the apology or are you going to keep it
going to the end? The end incidentally will be the Police knocking on
your door before Christmas.

Doug

Helen wrote:

I use b&w to mainly tell a story, such as in
portraits of people or a street scene.....
I guess it's best described as photojournalism.

Hello Helen. You sometimes refer to your own photography but I'm not sure
I've ever seen any of your work. Do you have some images on the web
somewhere?

Please - I'm not trying to set you up, I'm genuinely interested. E-mail me
if you prefer (the reply-to address is munged).