How to get good black & white from digital?

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? :-)

Off topic - persons wishing to benefit from the nice posts on this
thread should read no further. (O:

Just the same old stuff... Remember it wasn't me who posted the
nastiness.

On Oct 15, 8:31 pm, D_Mac wrote:
There you go again... Making a totally incorrect assumption about what
I did to produce that image.
But Douglas refused to say what he did. So what point is he trying
(and failing) to make?

READ MY KEYSTROKES:
I did not use the channel mixer! GOT THAT?
I don't need capitals or abuse to point out that using the channel
mixer set to its default of 100% red channel gave an absolutely
*identical* image. Even Douglas would have to admit that if you get
the same result in two ways, both ways are valid. We can then start
arguing about which method gives easier or better results, and why
100% red was a bad choice, but Douglas refuse to engage. Is this
forum about learning, or just a platform for his personal abuse of
others?

When you actually recognize the wrong you've done me over my
Interpolation algorithm
For those new to Douglas, he claims to own an interpolation
algorithm. He may well do so - we'll probably never know. But when
challenged to show the results of that algorithm on (any) known test
image - as every other enlarging vendor does - Douglas (aka "Ryadia")
refused to allow any tests, despite promoting it heavily on these
forums. He also used other identities (eg "Graham Hunt", amateurishly
posted from his own IP), to promote his business. The evidence for
that is he
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...51efcf54a561c/
("Enlarging Digital Images" - in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems) and
here, on Gisle's excellent site:
http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html
(Scroll down to the bottom - Douglas used Ryadia and Technoaussie
amongst his hundreds of aliases)

Douglas also posted numerous examples of his algorithms abilities that
were subsequently shown to be false representations - on that same
thread above you will find the following quote (a couple of minor
spelling errors corrected for clarity) from Gisle Hannemyr, one of the
more respected identities regarding image enlargement..

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
From: Gisle Hannemyr
Date: 06 May 2005 09:33:58 +0200
Local: Fri, May 6 2005 5:33 pm
Subject: Enlarging Digital images

I've now looked more carefully at the two images on this page,
and noticed the following features:
...
The crop, as reproduced on the webpage, is 421 x 299 pixels.
If we interpolate the image back to its original size
(3504 x 2336 pixels), the crop actually occupies 566 x 402 pixels.
This means that the crop displayed on the webpage is not "full
size" (as claimed) but /downsampled/ to approx. 55% of the
original 20D file.

Now, as far as your ability to "add detail" with mathematics goes, I
think that a crop /downsampled/ to 55% of the original is a rather
weak proof.

In other words, Douglas posted a falsified example allegedly showing
enlargement, when it was really a reduction. The page disappeared
very quickly, as it always does. You might excuse that once, but how
many times? Douglas did this at least 4 times. I have cached
evidence of this sort of behaviour for anyone who might 'visit'.

.. apologize for the lies and aspersions you
posted as personal entertainment
Douglas has never been able to substantiate his claim that I lied
about him. Because I haven't. The same can't be said in reverse, and
I can prove that easily.

I might (note I said MIGHT) share with
you some of my universal plugins for Photoshop

A cynical person might suggest that Douglas uses this technique to
ensure that he never has to post these mythical things he brags about,
the ones he never shows (except misrepresented) or allows tests of.
He doesn't sell his algorithms or plugins or tutorials, nor does he
share them on the internet... And we are to believe that is simply
because I and others criticise his work? What might one infer from
this? And why does he post on a public forum in a way that singles
out one person and then use that as an excuse not to post
information. Why does he withdraw images as son as they are
criticised? Why does he not discuss things rationally with the group?

It's not all about me, or Doug. (So I better wind this up!)

Douglas' approach is to brag about his abilities and techniques, then
when he is asked to put up or shut up, we either get nothing,
misleading 'examples' that are quickly proven to be flawed (at which
point they immediately disappear), or just plain poor quality images.
When he is rightly taken to task, he cries foul and uses any technique
he can think of to cover his failings, along with threats of legal
action.

There are many other folk here who post images, techniques and
answers, that don't hide behind over 100 identities, and somehow
manage to keep their credibility.

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.

This threat of legal action has appeared against me and many others
*so* many times, it is just sickening. He has been doing this since
at least 2004, probably earlier. Yet, as I have publicly said to Doug
many times, if he simply got a solicitor or lawyer to look at the
facts and contact me on my email address (it's always been valid) and
tell me exactly what I am doing that is illegal, I will not only stop
but also apologise.


Problem is, as soon as anyone investigates Douglas' claims and looks
at his history.... Well, you be the judge. Here's a *partial* list
of Douglas' aliases - they are easy to verify. I haven't kept it up
to date, but he is pretty easy to spot.

ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald,
an interested bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan
jones, alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix
on canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham
hunt, healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey
fong, wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC,
deciple of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple,
notsimple, not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas,
Julian, Cryptopix


Me? I was ("Charles" was my childhood nickname) until
Go.com closed down their email. Now it's just the real me. I've
never posted under any other names - never had to. One voice is
plenty if it's the truth.


Happy Xmas to you too, Doug.

On Oct 15, 6:38 am, "Wilba" wrote:
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).


I've submitted some of my work to the SI hosted by Jim Kramer on this
newsgroup.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
Here is the Mandates I've participated in:
Timing, Multiple Exposures, Odditorium, Loss, Sloth, Bond and I think
that's it.
Helen

On Oct 15, 6:42 am, "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? :-)

Other than the really special effect filters (IR, polarizer, UV) you
can replicate the effects in PS or other image editor thet lets you
work with channels.

On Oct 15, 9:26 am, wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:38 am, "Wilba" wrote:

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).

I've submitted some of my work to the SI hosted by Jim Kramer on this
newsgroup.http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
Here is the Mandates I've participated in:
Timing, Multiple Exposures, Odditorium, Loss, Sloth, Bond and I think
that's it.
Helen

Some of us are expecting to see more as well... :-)

On Oct 15, 9:49 am, JimKramer wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:26 am, wrote:

On Oct 15, 6:38 am, "Wilba" wrote:

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).

I've submitted some of my work to the SI hosted by Jim Kramer on this
newsgroup.http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
Here is the Mandates I've participated in:
Timing, Multiple Exposures, Odditorium, Loss, Sloth, Bond and I think
that's it.
Helen

Some of us are expecting to see more as well... :-)

Yes, I should participate more. My schedule has been eratic and
haven't had the time. May I also be so bold as to suggest a
Mandate?
Thanks Jim!
Helen

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:

I think the best answer is using the curves function. A nice flat S
curve will help most images immensely. Ever once in awhile I like to
use a bell shaped curve for effect, so the "whites" become "blacks" as
well, but the grays remain with an odd contrast.

I think the most important thing is to see the image as you want it.
Bump the contrast up to 100%; is the shape of the image still
appealing? What do you want to see in the final image?

Many people that shoot digital get overly excited about "shadow
details" and "blown highlights", let the whites go white, let the
blacks go black. Are the details at either end adding to the image, or
just providing distraction from the subject?

On Oct 15, 12:05 pm, "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
"JimKramer" wrote

I think the most important thing is to see the image as you want it.
Bump the contrast up to 100%; is the shape of the image still
appealing?

Very good advice ...

Many people that shoot digital get overly excited about "shadow
details" and "blown highlights", let the whites go white, let the
blacks go black. Are the details at either end adding to the image, or
just providing distraction from the subject?

Carlo Rossi Paisano or Chateau Y'Quem?

God is in the details.

And yet I don't see many pictures of God? :-)

But there is nothing wrong with pure white and pure black,
neither is there anything wrong with their absence.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Metershttp://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Life is usually shades of gray sometimes there is absolution in
absolutes. :-) Or if you perfer, it is called black & white why? :-)

But I really do think that digital shooters spend too much on the
extremes and not enough on the substance of the image; be that
content, context or composure.

This has all been said time and again, but I haven't spewed on it
for some months now and so I have to relieve the pressure build up.

"AAvK"

... 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

That portrait should have really glowed.

If shooting B&W film I think a large chunk of the problem
is that scanners don't do B&W negatives at all well. Not
bad on B&W prints, but then why scan except for electronic
transmission.

But any tips on how to approach this sort of tonality
(for want of a better word) would be appreciated.

http://lakarita.bravehost.com/Karita...ard_Avedon.jpg

Some Tri-X in a Hasselblad? Ilford MGIV-FB?
- and a wee bit of talent.

... I'll assume you are using a digital camera that is
artistically viable...

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 mirror lock-up if
your camera has it.

Agree with all the above, but a box-brownie can produce black and white with
better
tonality than most digital B&W. Box Brownie $4.95, Tri-Chem pack $0.55,
Pack of Velox $1.29,
roll of Verichrome $0.80 - you are in the running for $7.59 + 2% tax [in
1958].

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.

35mm cameras are just about being given away on ebay. A bit more will land
a
'Blad. And you get to splish-splash in the dark - just as much fun as it
was
when you were 18 months old.

* * *

I think digital cameras are designed for color and black & white is sucking
half a
foot below hind-tit. I'm sure this is the only viable approach for the
manufacturer as the camera's are judged on their color performance and
99.995%
of the time they are used for color.

With a lot of hew and haw a camera's color data can be converted to
generally
acceptable black and white. But why bother?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"JimKramer" wrote


I think the most important thing is to see the image as you want it.
Bump the contrast up to 100%; is the shape of the image still
appealing?

Very good advice ...

Many people that shoot digital get overly excited about "shadow
details" and "blown highlights", let the whites go white, let the
blacks go black. Are the details at either end adding to the image, or
just providing distraction from the subject?

Carlo Rossi Paisano or Chateau Y'Quem?

God is in the details.

But there is nothing wrong with pure white and pure black,
neither is there anything wrong with their absence.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com