How to get good black & white from digital?

wrote:
On Oct 16, 5:52 am, Paul Furman wrote:
wrote:
If I've missed a good site on this topic, *please* enlighten me!!
Here's something interesting relating to converting from color to b&w:http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/c...rception-3.htm
-scroll down to figures 3 & 4 where the blue on green looks darker but
desaturated they look the same. That would suggest a set of standard
levels adjustments to match the response of the human eye. I tried that
& it worked on the blue, then filled it in with red & it wouldn't work,
oddly. This does not necessarily make a 'better' picture but there are
times when the color scene has a dramatic contrast which is lost in the
conversion to b&w and this approach should help there.

Thanks Paul - that is interesting - one of Ron's pages I hadn't seen
before. And, yes, this seems to be the thing I find the hardest to
master.

I've got a lot to mull over, but I'll be back, (with images I hope...)

Here's another take on excellent B+W from a well exposed image- use the
grayscale sliders in Lightroom. There are eight of them, and not only
are much easier to use than the former methods in PS of creating layers
and making adjustments that way in color channels, but gives more
control, reversible and non-destructive. Plus a nice history that's
reatined. PS CS3 has also vastly improved B_W conversion.


--
John McWilliams

wrote in message
ups.com...

A great b&w has a 'look' to it that is often referred to, but rarely
is an attempt made to explain *what gives it that quality* - is it the
tone curve, the dynamic range, the nature of the media, ... 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*...!!!

If I've missed a good site on this topic, *please* enlighten me!!

Try "Picasa". It's on Google. And it's free. Bob
Hickey

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Wilba wrote:
AAvK wrote:
Wilba wrote:
AAvK wrote:
6) and use a red 25a or 29 filter on the front of the lens
If I didn't have a red filter, could I achieve a similar result by
converting a colour image in PhotoShop, using the channel mixer,
based mostly on the red channel? Or have I misunderstood? :-)
Absolutely, there are MANY ways to accomplish beautiful monochrome
images in Photoshop that are sharp and contrasty, and with good shadow
and highlight
detail. You should take a gander at my other reply about the right book
to buy
to learn all of the methods.

Yeah, I read the other message, and I know there are many ways.

Here I'm interested in whether there is a _fundamental_ difference
between an image recorded through a filter, and a straight image filtered
in post-processing.

Yes.

The principle behind using a red (or to a lesser effect, yellow) filter when
shooting a sky with clouds is this: The red color is the opposite
(complementary) to the blue (actually more cyan) sky. This causes the sky to
register much darker. The clouds, being white are not affected as much as
the blue (cyan) sky. Depending on your software, you could possibly get the
same effect by processing a color image, but it is almost always better to
get the image right on the film (or image sensor) than to fix it later.

Learning how filters work takes a little thought. but once you get a handle
on it, color filters can be the B&W photo's friend. Basically, if the filter
is opposite a particular color, that color will be darker. If the filter is
the same as a particular color, that color will appear lighter. Get a color
wheel and study it until you have it burned in your brain! Opposites are
red-cyan, green-magenta, and yellow-blue. Note that cyan is a 'baby blue'
and blue is a deep, nearly purple-blue. That's why a red filter has more
effect on an average sky, which is more cyan than blue.

"Ken Hart" wrote in message ...
Depending on your software, you could possibly get the
same effect by processing a color image,

Absolutely.

but it is almost always better to
get the image right on the film (or image sensor) than to fix it later.

An option that each person gets to choose for themselves of course.

Learning how filters work takes a little thought.

But a lot less effort when working in Photoshop etc.
Not to mention the cost a large number of glass filters.

MrT.

On Oct 19, 2:27 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Ken Hart" wrote in ...
Depending on your software, you could possibly get the
same effect by processing a color image,

Absolutely.

but it is almost always better to
get the image right on the film (or image sensor) than to fix it later.

An option that each person gets to choose for themselves of course.

Learning how filters work takes a little thought.

But a lot less effort when working in Photoshop etc.
Not to mention the cost a large number of glass filters.

MrT.

You forgot the issue of light falling on an external glass extension
to a lens in that lot.
Traditional filtering using lens covers of different colours may have
been the only means of tampering with degrees of gray before
computers.

Today however, "Designed for digital" lenses which provide a
straighter, less scattered light path to the sensor, do not perform to
their best when a transparent cover (regardless of the colour tint) in
placed over the front of the lens. In these circumstances, software
designed to mimic film and those filters.

Alienskin's excellent "exposure" (now in version 2) plugin for
Photoshop is one example of how digital photographers can make their
noiseless, plastic looking images more closely resemble what film
shooter's get. It is what I used in my example. The one Doug Jones
lifted from my web site and tried to embarass me with by claiming I'd
lied about having created film qualities in the image.

Such attempts to discredit those with real examples to offer is
getting way too common in this group.

Doug

On Oct 19, 4:17 am, D_Mac wrote:

Alienskin's excellent "exposure" (now in version 2) plugin for
Photoshop is one example of how digital photographers can make their
noiseless, plastic looking images more closely resemble what film
shooter's get. It is what I used in my example. The one Doug Jones
lifted from my web site and tried to embarass me with by claiming I'd
lied about having created film qualities in the image.

Such attempts to discredit those with real examples to offer is
getting way too common in this group.

Doug

Have you ever made a post where you didn't accuse someone of stealing
something from you or stalking you or bullying you?
Geez, you sound like a broken ****in record! Who cares?
Believe me, Douggie, nobody here wants anything you have except maybe
to have a laugh at during parties.

That "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me" song is getting old.

Ken Hart wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Wilba wrote:

Here I'm interested in whether there is a _fundamental_ difference
between an image recorded through a filter, and a straight image
filtered in post-processing.

Yes.

Thanks. That was enlightening. :-)

The principle behind using a red (or to a lesser effect, yellow) filter
when shooting a sky with clouds is this: The red color is the opposite
(complementary) to the blue (actually more cyan) sky. This causes the sky
to register much darker. The clouds, being white are not affected as much
as the blue (cyan) sky. Depending on your software, you could possibly get
the same effect by processing a color image, but it is almost always
better to get the image right on the film (or image sensor) than to fix it
later.

This makes sense to me - that you have more options working with the source
(the light in the scene), than you do working with a derivative image.

Learning how filters work takes a little thought. but once you get a
handle on it, color filters can be the B&W photo's friend. Basically, if
the filter is opposite a particular color, that color will be darker. If
the filter is the same as a particular color, that color will appear
lighter. Get a color wheel and study it until you have it burned in your
brain! Opposites are red-cyan, green-magenta, and yellow-blue. Note that
cyan is a 'baby blue' and blue is a deep, nearly purple-blue. That's why a
red filter has more effect on an average sky, which is more cyan than
blue.

Thanks very much for your help.

"Wilba" wrote in message
...
The principle behind using a red (or to a lesser effect, yellow) filter
when shooting a sky with clouds is this: The red color is the opposite
(complementary) to the blue (actually more cyan) sky. This causes the
sky
to register much darker. The clouds, being white are not affected as
much
as the blue (cyan) sky. Depending on your software, you could possibly
get
the same effect by processing a color image, but it is almost always
better to get the image right on the film (or image sensor) than to fix
it
later.

This makes sense to me -

Congratulations, that makes two of you then :-)

that you have more options working with the source
(the light in the scene), than you do working with a derivative image.

How so?
(polarising filters excepted)

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Ken Hart wrote:

The principle behind using a red (or to a lesser effect, yellow) filter
when shooting a sky with clouds is this: The red color is the opposite
(complementary) to the blue (actually more cyan) sky. This causes
the sky to register much darker. The clouds, being white are not
affected as much as the blue (cyan) sky. Depending on your
software, you could possibly get the same effect by processing a
color image, but it is almost always better to get the image right on
the film (or image sensor) than to fix it later.

This makes sense to me -

Congratulations, that makes two of you then :-)

that you have more options working with the source
(the light in the scene), than you do working with a derivative image.

How so?
(polarising filters excepted)

You talkin' to me? :-) I'll have a go, but I don't really know what I'm
talking about.

It makes sense to me via the general principle that the closer you get to
the source of any signal, and the fewer times you transform it, the greater
the fidelity.

In my limited experience, trying to enhance the contrast between clouds and
sky via the channel mixer can only go so far - eventually I start to get
visible artefacts, posterisation(?), whatever it is.

Yes, I know that there are many other ways to get B&W, and that it's
different with RAW, bla bla bla, but when I hit that limit, I'd like to have
more contrast in the original image to start with.

Does that make sense to you? :-)

On Oct 14, 4:18 am, wrote:
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
?

Oh, you were expecting *me* to supply some tips..? No, I'm a no-talent
loser in this area!

I was hoping to hear from those who have tried, successfully or
otherwise, to get high quality black and white results from a digital
workflow. I think it's a given that the printer is a big issue, and
that you need a lot of resolution (eg 200 ppi is probably not going to
suffice!). But I would like to concentrate on the *capture stage* -
what is it that makes a superb b&w image?

A great b&w has a 'look' to it that is often referred to, but rarely
is an attempt made to explain *what gives it that quality* - is it the
tone curve, the dynamic range, the nature of the media, ... 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*...!!!

Seems to me that if the issues can be defined, then maybe there are
some workarounds and techniques that will help to let us digital-geeks
begin to explore the final frontier... If the issues *can't* be
defined, then that also tells me something.. (O;

If I've missed a good site on this topic, *please* enlighten me!!

PS - The answer "use film" - while technically correct - is not quite
the answer I seek...
PPS - Any attempts to answer this thread concentrating specifically on
the issues while avoiding personality clashes, will be greatly
appreciated. (O:

You can't. Use B&W film and a darkroom, DAMMIT!