How to get good black & white from digital?

"hickster11" wrote in message
...

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.


Why don't they add a "grain mask" to Photoshop? - Strikes me that it would
be a reasonably easy thing to do......

William Graham wrote:
"hickster11" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


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.


Why don't they add a "grain mask" to Photoshop? - Strikes me that it would
be a reasonably easy thing to do......

There are all kinds of filters in PS3, including Texture- Grain. Within
that, there are about 8 types of grain. Each one can be altered by three
sliders.

So, one could make a smart filter, and play all day with grain....

--
John McWilliams

Harry Lockwood wrote:
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.

You did an excellent job.

Thanks very much Harry. It was well worth the time and effort to learn how
to do that kind of thing.

One thing I like about mine is the contrast and detail in the backs of the
seats. Mark's looks palid in comparison (sorry Mark - no offence intended
:-).

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
William Graham wrote:
"hickster11" wrote in message
...
wrote in message


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.


Why don't they add a "grain mask" to Photoshop? - Strikes me that it
would be a reasonably easy thing to do......

There are all kinds of filters in PS3, including Texture- Grain. Within
that, there are about 8 types of grain. Each one can be altered by three
sliders.

So, one could make a smart filter, and play all day with grain....

--
John McWilliams

I use a program called DxO to process hundreds of raw images and correct
Canon's lens anomolies at the same time. They also have a film simulation
program http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/dxo_filmpack Like all good software, you
have to pay for it but if you want the results...

Douglas

On Oct 28, 11:04 am, "Wilba" wrote:

One thing I like about mine is the contrast and detail in the backs of the
seats. Mark's looks palid in comparison (sorry Mark - no offence intended
:-).

None taken - I agree. Overall, I think yours has the better 'look',
but I would incorporate some of my stuff in a final version, if I had
any remaining energy... I'm over it now.. (O;

Mark Thomas wrote:
Wilba wrote:

One thing I like about mine is the contrast and detail in the backs of
the
seats. Mark's looks palid in comparison (sorry Mark - no offence intended
:-).

None taken - I agree. Overall, I think yours has the better 'look',
but I would incorporate some of my stuff in a final version, if I had
any remaining energy... I'm over it now.. (O;

Right. :-D