How to get good black & white from digital?

On Oct 26, 7:49 pm, wrote:
Thanks for these Jim - very good/entertaining.. (O:

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Mar...rksPicture.htm

On Oct 26, 11:51 pm, JimKramer wrote: I decided to attack your image. (In PhotoShop)
1. Just an original for comparison
2. Some grain for Harry (serious)

I liek it, but would tone it down a little, and somehow you can tell
this is added noise. Is there a better way to get more realistic
looking grain? Or is it just me 'knowing' it is digital? I can't
quite put my finger on why it doesn't look like film grain, but
something isn't quite right.

The process is hidden in white text after "Harry". Fiddle with it to
your hearts content. It looks just like Tmax 3200 scans I've done. In
all honesty, I think you will like it better printed than looking at
it on the screen. Choices for the proper medium and all that. :-)

3. A little selective diffuse glow (moderately serious)

I like it, but again I would go for a bit less, and possibly apply it
to the boat as well. hmm.

I've always been an over the top kinda guy. I was going for that
dreamy effect but wanted a point of reference - the boat.

4. Some glass (not at all serious)

Heheh! That's seriously weird. And just a bit freaky.

That was the point; just a bit?

My sole attempt at selective treatment was just to leave the curving
rail on the boat in colour - it's a bright blue, and it sort of
naturally takes your eye around to the man in the suit.. It was ok..
but I looked at it for a while and decided it didn't really improve it
to my eye.

Feel free to leave the images up for as long as you wish, by the way.

Well since I stolen them, now I'll use my "super duper secret"
enlarging prosess and sell them for millions of imaginary dollars. :-)

Thanks for taking the time - genuinely appreciated.

mt

I was in a fiddling mood this morning, so thanks for something to do.
But you're not going to see all of the utter garbage I generated while
playing around. :-)

Jim

wrote:

Yes, I understand what you mean. I think this raises an interesting
point, that I have reflected upon before. Why do we like grain?

I think at least part of the answer is that it is a stand-in
for actual detail. A well made 8x10 from 35mm Tri-X looks
sharp, but to a large extent it is the sharp grain patterns
rather than the actual level of detail that is giving that
impression.

Is it because we have seen it in every photograph/film frame
that we have ever examined closely so that is simply part of the
psyche of photography?

I don't see visible grain patterns in contact prints or
in small scale (say 2-4x) enlargements with fine grain film.
But I do see very fine actual detail in contact prints.

A large format contact print will show an absolutely smooth
sky, which is absolutely smooth in real life, but will show
a wealth of detail where there is detail to be seen.

Or is there some aesthetic logic to it?

It gives the eye something to focus on over the whole
surface of the print. It makes the print look sharper
and more detailed than it really is. It is probably also
a learned expectation in photography, but it seems
to be one that people learned rather quickly. Contact
prints were the norm up until the 1930s, but people
had plainly learned to like a certain amount of
grain by the 1950s. In some books from the 1930s,
it is suggested that very slightly defocusing the enlarger
might improve a grainy photograph, but it quickly
became apparent that this wasn't a good idea.

Or is it because the smooth look reminds us of (bad)
digital photography, with lost tones, false/lack of detail.

Over-enlarged digital has neither the super-detail of
the contact print or the sharp grain of a good
enlargement and leaves your eyes with nothing to
focus sharply on. I think people find this disturbing.

lost tones, false/lack of detail. I mean, let's face facts, the sky
*isn't* grainy... yet I agree, a hint of grain often looks better.

I find the sky smooth with up to a 5x enlargement with
Tmax 100 or Fuji Acros in Xtol 1:1. I've learnt to like
the look. I also like Tri-x with its grainy skies, but
The smooth look of a medium format negative in Acros
or Tmax 100 has grown on me.

And then how does one get realistic grain out of a digital? - because
imo, added noise seems to always look almost as bad as the 'plastic
look'. Another thing to research... Or I guess I could just drag out
the old X700 and load her up with film.. nah.

Grain in a good enlargement has much sharper detail
than the eye can see. Why do people bother with
super enlarger lenses, glass carriers and minute
alignment? - To get dead sharp grain over the whole
print. (Well, maybe there are other reasons, but
that's the one I actually notice.)

Peter.
--

On Oct 27, 10:06 am, JimKramer wrote:
The process is hidden in white text after "Harry". Fiddle with it to
your hearts content.
I shall. Thanks.

It looks just like Tmax 3200 scans I've done. In
all honesty, I think you will like it better printed than looking at
it on the screen. Choices for the proper medium and all that. :-)
Trouble is, I don't have a decent b&w printer. So that would be the
next problem... And being a cheap s-o-b, I'll need to determine which
low cost outside printing method works best..

I've always been an over the top kinda guy. I was going for that
dreamy effect but wanted a point of reference - the boat.
Yep. (I can also see that the transition from the sharp guy out to
dreaminess would be awkward, no matter how it was done - maybe a
radial gradient increasing effect outwards from him.. (nice grammar,
mark..)

Well since I stolen them, now I'll use my "super duper secret"
enlarging prosess and sell them for millions of imaginary dollars. :-)

Oh no, not another sockpuppet...!! Gee, you hid that one well -
normally I can spot you from several miles... (O;
(yes, kidding)

I was in a fiddling mood this morning, so thanks for something to do.
But you're not going to see all of the utter garbage I generated while
playing around. :-)

And I'm not showing the ones where I started working in 8-bit b&w...
Oops.

Peter - I am seriously impressed!

There's a lot to think about there - I shall return later, maybe on a
new thread, because this subject fascinates me.

I'd love to hear Harry's take on this too..


mt

On Oct 26, 7:07 pm, wrote:
I think this raises an interesting point, that I have reflected upon before. Why do we like grain?

WE don't.

My theory is that some people like grain because that's what they grew
up looking at. Just as some folks prefer analog LP records to a
cleaner sounding CD. They are used to the noise inherent in an analog
system, and when you take the noise away they freak out.

That's just one reason I am and always shall be Totally Digital !!!

Wilba wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:

http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw.jpg

If anyone wants the full size (8Mp) colour original so they can play
(and then post a better version!), I'm happy to send it. It's only a
jpeg, but it's a pretty good one.. (And I'm fine with people
reposting my stuff. (O

Yeah I'd like to have a play with it, just for the chance to be able to
compare results, and to find out how others achieve theirs. Would
you put it with commuter_bw.jpg and then give us the URL?

OK, here's my version - http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw_wilba.jpg.

This was created by converting a layer to mono using the blue channel (to
get the side of the boat bright), then selecting the sky in another copy of
the background layer, adding a layer mask, and converting to mono using the
red channel to get the sky dark. That's probably baby stuff for most of you,
but I'm still trying to get to grips with masks so it was a very good
exercise for me.

On Oct 27, 7:00 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
OK, here's my version -http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw_wilba.jpg.

This was created by converting a layer to mono using the blue channel (to
get the side of the boat bright), then selecting the sky in another copy of
the background layer, adding a layer mask, and converting to mono using the
red channel to get the sky dark. That's probably baby stuff for most of you,
but I'm still trying to get to grips with masks so it was a very good
exercise for me.

As I mentioned to Wilba via email, I like his use of the blue channel
to lift the boat railing and create a nice leading line - it's rather
lost in mine.

I think it's a very good effort and in some (most?) ways better than
mine (-but I think I have a tiny edge in sharpness and fine detail...
(O

You can swap easily between them via these links, just back and
forward your browser.. I apologise for cropping mine which makes them
not quite line up..!

http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw.jpg (Mark T's)
http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw_wilba.jpg (Wilba's)

and for completeness, Jim's:
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Mar...rksPicture.htm

Thanks again, folks!

In article .com,
wrote:

Peter - I am seriously impressed!

There's a lot to think about there - I shall return later, maybe on a
new thread, because this subject fascinates me.

I'd love to hear Harry's take on this too..


mt

Peter doesn't need any backup from me; he knows what he's talking about.
As for Jim's attempt at adding grain, I'm afraid it fails the
looks-like-film test - for me. And I should add that, as a film
shooter, I've given no thought whatsoever to making a digital image look
like a film image. Bottom line: I have little to contribute.

So as not to come across as totally negative on digital, I have indeed
seen some beautiful digital images. It's just not my area of interest.

HFL

--
www.pbase.com/hlockwood
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

In article ,
"Wilba" wrote:

Wilba wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:

http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw.jpg

If anyone wants the full size (8Mp) colour original so they can play
(and then post a better version!), I'm happy to send it. It's only a
jpeg, but it's a pretty good one.. (And I'm fine with people
reposting my stuff. (O

Yeah I'd like to have a play with it, just for the chance to be able to
compare results, and to find out how others achieve theirs. Would
you put it with commuter_bw.jpg and then give us the URL?

OK, here's my version - http://www.marktphoto.com/commuter_bw_wilba.jpg.

This was created by converting a layer to mono using the blue channel (to
get the side of the boat bright), then selecting the sky in another copy of
the background layer, adding a layer mask, and converting to mono using the
red channel to get the sky dark. That's probably baby stuff for most of you,
but I'm still trying to get to grips with masks so it was a very good
exercise for me.

You did an excellent job.

HFL

--
www.pbase.com/hlockwood
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 26, 10:01 pm, Harry Lockwood wrote:
Mark, the tonal spectrum appears to be quite good, as are the
composition and subject matter. But (donning asbestos suit) the image
has the plasticky look of digital. You need to add some grain for
interesting texture.
Haha!! No asbestos required. I value your comments very much, having
seen your work.

Yes, I understand what you mean. I think this raises an interesting
point, that I have reflected upon before. Why do we like grain? Is
it because we have seen it in every photograph/film frame that we have
ever examined closely so that is simply part of the psyche of
photography? Or is there some aesthetic logic to it? Or is it
because the smooth look reminds us of (bad) digital photography, with
lost tones, false/lack of detail. I mean, let's face facts, the sky
*isn't* grainy... yet I agree, a hint of grain often looks better.

And then how does one get realistic grain out of a digital? - because
imo, added noise seems to always look almost as bad as the 'plastic
look'. Another thing to research... Or I guess I could just drag out
the old X700 and load her up with film.. nah.

I have to say that I don't find the plastic look too objectionable,
*as long as* the image has sufficient resolution to show detail right
down to the limit of close examination, provided the gradients don't
look like CGI, ie too smooth, and provided that genuine variations of
tone (eg skintones, imperfections) are not lost. In this case, it is
just the resampling that smoothed the image somewhat - there was no
added noise reduction. I did experiment with adding grain effects but
ended up with results like Jim's version, and I didn't really like
it. (nothing personal, Jim.. see other reply forthcoming... (O

Thanks for dropping by, Harry.

For those interested in good b&w, I suggest you drop in to HFL's site:
--www.pbase.com/hlockwood


Seems as if digital needs grain to impersonate a photograph. And that's the
only reason I can find. It's like using PS brush strokes on a scan of a
photo. Pretty soon it isn't much of anything. If digital is grainless, so be
it. If scans look 2 dimensional, fine. This is an excellant shot, but
adding to it would be to subtract. Bob Hickey