Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2014 · B&W workflow/processing?

  
 
MayaTlab
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · B&W workflow/processing?


OntheRez wrote:
You are familiar with the option/alt mouse click on a given u-point which duplicates it so that it can be moved elsewhere? I find it useful when working in large areas - say the sky.


Oh, good tip. Thanks.



May 31, 2014 at 11:55 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · B&W workflow/processing?


MayaTlab wrote:
The points that are giving the hardest time is getting the highlights right - I believe the trick with B&W is to make them look quite soft, at least softer than mid tone and shadow transitions, which I like slightly grittier, and also trying to give the picture a rather dense look in the mid tones without sinking the shadows. I believe that i'm sort of starting to envisioning the plausibility of getting somewhere near there.


I'm not sure this will make a lot of sense as a description using words rather than pictures, but here goes.

One "problem" with digital capture is that it fails abruptly at the bright end of the luminosity scale, where film failed more gradually, with the response rolling off rather than cutting off. (There is a difference in how positive and negative film media worked here, but I'll leave that out for now.)

This issue has several parts. First, overexposing highlights can lose virtually all detail in bright areas. So, as most folks probably already know, generally be very careful to not blow out highlights. (Exceptions are possible for creative purposes and with very small specular highlights.) A take-away is that it can be better to slightly underexpose if you are especially concerned about nice looking bright tone areas.

Second, a problem with digital can be that the differences among slightly different near-white areas of the image can be very small. The result is that even when bright areas are not blown out they can seem to be flat and devoid of detail. Underexposing a bit can help here, but there are also things you can do in post to improve the quality of highlight textures. Some ideas are:

1. Use the "highlights" slider in ACR or LR to lower the brightest tones a bit. This actually sort of "flattens out" the brighter tones, separating their levels a bit. (Sometimes, oddly, you can lower the highlights slider and then increase "brightness" and end up with something that can be a bit better. You may also be able to use the "white" slider, but be cautious about this.

2. In Photoshop there is a really useful trick you can use with a curve layer. Create the layer and set the type to "multiply." The image will become very dark. You may want to change the curve a bit, but often it works "as is." If you do change it, lock down the near white tones by clicking on the diagonal line perhaps 10-15% of the way down from maximum white. Then click on the point for black and raise it. A lot. Maybe all the way. Now delete the automatic mask on this layer and replace it with a new "hide all" mask. You image will now look just like it did before you added the curve layer. In bright areas of the image, use a white paintbrush to paint in on the mask and darken the not-quite-pure-white areas to reveal a bit more detail.

3. Do try different photoshop "filters" when you do your black and white conversion. I wait until the image is in Photoshop to do the conversion, which I do by adding a black and white adjustment layer. Once you do this you will see a dialog that includes a number of basic filter types, plus the ability to manually tweak things. Depending on the coloration of your highlight areas, one of the color filters (yellow, red, green, blue) may improve the tonalities there.

Always work with your converted raw file as a smart layer in Photoshop and essentially all of your editing can be non-destructive... which is a Very Good Thing.

Good luck!

Dan

Edited on May 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM · View previous versions



May 31, 2014 at 09:06 PM
Tim Knutson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · B&W workflow/processing?


In my humble opinion FP4 in Pyro is pretty nice for black and white. Just saying.


May 31, 2014 at 11:29 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · B&W workflow/processing?


You can see how

" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">how Jeff Ascough does B&W conversion
in this video. BTW Capture One Pro 7 is 50% off for $150 as we speak.



Jun 01, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Healey
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · B&W workflow/processing?


Hi. everyone is talking about workflow. But you have never mentioned your intended output. So will you be printing, and if so, how? Sending to big box store, large commercial online printer, doing your own (with what quality printer and what quality media), or custom printing by a professional custom printer. Or web only display, or display on your own monitor for only your own pleasure. etc etc etc.

Really where I want to end up determines how I get there.

For the best improvements in any photography color or B&W your best investment is a good light meter, so you can use all the capacity of your digital sensor and not have to fix exposure mistakes. But if you are good at film you know this.



Jun 01, 2014 at 12:37 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · B&W workflow/processing?


One reason why I shoot B&W film is that I have the ability to either print the traditional way via a darkroom or I can scan the negative and process / print digitally. Best of both worlds IMHO. I also find film allows more lenience in the highlights and produces much better tonal values, even when scanned. Sure, I also shoot B&W digital and even digital IR, but when I'm out on a B&W specific shoot, it'll be my Fuji 6x9 or my Tachihara 4x5 loaded with b&w film. I find I get better results using film, and for me results are the most important, not necessarily cost or convenience.


Jun 01, 2014 at 02:16 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · B&W workflow/processing?


gdanmitchell wrote:
I almost never use that saturation adjustment layer approach any more.

Of course, my earliest background in BW shooting and so forth included the use of the old-school red, yellow, orange and so forth glass filters, added to that camera at the time of the exposure. So, for me, I love to be able to essentially replicate that functionality in digital post, especially since digital adds even more power and control: I can control the opacity of the filtering effect, I can create custom filters that are not the old glass filter equivalents, and I can even add different filters
...Show more

+1 @ more versatility in post.

I use Channels and Channel Masks, calculations/apply image ... mentally thinking about what I would anticipate a glass filter to do. Combine that with filters, NOW I finally get it. I never could grasp it with film @ CYMK, colored filters @ mono, etc. The digital darkroom has allowed me to explore it, until it finally sunk in.

De-Saturation is certainly an efficient way for "standard" conversion ... but several ways to garner greater control.



Jun 01, 2014 at 06:51 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · B&W workflow/processing?


RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ more versatility in post.

I use Channels and Channel Masks, calculations/apply image ... mentally thinking about what I would anticipate a glass filter to do. Combine that with filters, NOW I finally get it. I never could grasp it with film @ CYMK, colored filters @ mono, etc. The digital darkroom has allowed me to explore it, until it finally sunk in.

De-Saturation is certainly an efficient way for "standard" conversion ... but several ways to garner greater control.


As a former long-time film user (now reformed... ;-), I feel like I can do anything I could do with film only with more flexibility and more control. The result will never look exactly like film, but that's like saying that you won't play guitar because it will never sound like a violin! Both are great, just a bit different.

That said, I have friends (including at least one who is a pretty renowned photographer) who still love film, do all of their work with BW film and use the optical/chemical darkroom... to produce beautiful work.

Dan



Jun 02, 2014 at 08:46 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · B&W workflow/processing?


Dark room is dark room, either chemical or digital. Tools are different but concepts are the same. Yes, film looks trashy compared to wet plate people used to say in the old days just as some argue film looks better than digital today. It's all about reference, after all, that is another way of saying garbage in garbage out. Today people are ever after the next sharper camera, lens and monitor because they have never seen the great masters' works in their own eyes and this is particularly so in landscape photography.


Jun 03, 2014 at 12:10 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · B&W workflow/processing?


If you can afford an M8, you can afford to upgrade your hardware and software. Silver Efex Pro is widely considered the de facto standard in digital B&W manipulation. It does pretty good with standard settings, but play around in the filters settings for some really good conversions.

I print with a Pixma Pro 9500 because it does true grayscale with just black and gray inks. I get wonderful prints from it.



Jun 04, 2014 at 12:04 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.