Processing to Black and White

[Brownbear]

Just to say that I think that both the colour and the b&w images are gorgeous, and that the 2nd b&w version, is exceptionally beautiful for me, and that I usually prefer colour.

[Manfred M]

I like the reworked second version; the unexpected bonus is the trees on top acting as a frame to bring everything together. I do like the crop on the bottom, it works better in my view.

Nicely done!

[Manfred M]

Hi Mark,

Ah prefer the colour. If you'd only uploaded the b+w as an image, ah'dve thought "converted from colour". It just has that look. Ah think the detail/sharpness impression from the b+w is marginal. Digital is just too "smooth" for b+w. Ah very rarely use my DSLR for b+w. 99.999% of my b+w is still done with film/SLR/rangefinder. It just looks "right", even when digitised for the web. Mebbe that's just me, though...

PS Think the frame distracts.

I won't necessarily disagree on the film versus digital look and I find it applies equally to colour and B&W images; but that does not suggest I find one is better than the other. The same argument goes for video versus film; vinyl recordings versus high quality digitial (I don't consider an mp3 as high quality). Each medium has its own characteristics, whether it be that "film look" or the warmth from an analogue music recording (hisses and pops aside).

The one place where I find that film blows digital out of the water is grainy high speed film. It adds a grittiness to the image that just can't be reproduced properly in digital.

[Downrigger]

To hopefully clarify Manfred's message, use the following workflow:

1. Prepare the image as you would to make the best possible color version.
2. Change the tones in the color version so it displays the desired tonal variation after converting to monchrome.
3. Convert to monochrome.
4. Fine tune other details.

About Step #2: Keep in mind that whatever part of the spectrum you use as a filter to convert to monochrome, that part will be bright once the image is converted. The tone on the opposite side of the color wheel will be dark.

Mike, thanks. I want to make sure I understand you. I'm working with LR and Nik. Correct me if my expression of steps two, three and four is incorrect:

In LR, make the best possible color version, then, examining the B&W conversion that LR does, and while switching back and forth from color to B&W in LR, further adjust the colors in the color version to achieve a desired tonal range as seen in the B&W version. Then import the resulting color version into Nik and further tune the image.

Maybe this isn't what you meant... If it is, I do not understand why simply taking the best color version you can make in LR to directly to Nik, and using the filters and color sensitivity sliders in Nik to manipulate tonal ranges is less effective.

[Mike Buckley]

Sorry, Mark, but I haven't used LR to do anything other than cloning and correcting distortion. I haven't yet used NIK for anything.

If NIK provides the capability to convert from color to monchrome and/or to adjust the color tones to make them ready for conversion, it won't matter which program you use to accomplish either of those two steps.

[Downrigger]

OK, FYI: Nik Silver takes up a color image and presents it as a black and white. It provides you the options to apply filters in the primary and secondary hues, and to separately adjust sensitivity to each of these hues as they exist in the chromatic grayscale. It of course has further tools for adjusting brightness contrast "structure" etc, globally or locally with control points.

I'm thinking, but don't know, that there may be an advantage to pre-viewing a black and white conversion in LR, and adjusting colors in the native LR color image to get the best tonalities in the LR B&W version before exporting the color to Nik so that you are closer to where you want to be on tones in Nik from the git go. But that may be an unnecessary extra step.

[Downrigger]

I do like the crop on the bottom, it works better in my view.

Mine too. Thanks very much for that coaching, Manfred.

[ajohnw]

I won't necessarily disagree on the film versus digital look and I find it applies equally to colour and B&W images; but that does not suggest I find one is better than the other. The same argument goes for video versus film; vinyl recordings versus high quality digitial (I don't consider an mp3 as high quality). Each medium has its own characteristics, whether it be that "film look" or the warmth from an analogue music recording (hisses and pops aside).

The one place where I find that film blows digital out of the water is grainy high speed film. It adds a grittiness to the image that just can't be reproduced properly in digital.

One of the reasons it's difficult to reproduce true black and white photographs as the would look when they were really taken on film is down to reciprocity and associated effects Manfred. The process end to end tends to flatten tones in an odd sort of way that retains gradation. On this shot for instance it's easy to get tone and detail correct on the building structure correct and also the whiteness of the snow complete with detail. The problem is that this is at the expense of the gradation in the trees. That isn't helped by the fact that digital is digital either. It goes in steps and film plus paper isn't, it's analogue and has no discrete steps only a range with a rather peculiar response to light levels and time. Actually I'm inclined to feel that it's relatively easy to produce images that look like they were taken on poor quality early modern film.

My favourite for scenes like this one was 100:1 Acutol, Ilford film under rated and a very very long development time. More pastel tones than you could imagine or even get digitally I suspect.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

One of the reasons it's difficult to reproduce true black and white photographs as the[y] would look when they were really taken on film is down to reciprocity and associated effects

There's no reason to believe that we should be trying to reproduce true black-and-white photographs as they would look when taken on film.

On the other hand, people are making photographs today using every technology that has been developed since the birth of photography. If we want to make an image that looks as if it has been taken using film, we should use film. Considering that the one technology that may not always be available to us is the use of film, we should take advantage of it while it sill remains available.

[Manfred M]

John - as someone who started photography in the black and white darkroom, I remember B&W negative film all too well. Most of my exposures were will within normal exposures, so reciprocity failure was more of an academic issue

Agfapan 25 developed in Rodinal was absolutely sublime. Tri-X or Ilford XP2 in D76 pushed to ASA 800 or 1200 produced lovely grainy images; perfect for grainy shots of athletics or theatre.

[ajohnw]

I never mentioned the word failure Manfred. I used the word effects and associated. They relate to the efforts that manufacturers put into providing exposure latitude that I susect reached it's peak in the post wwII period. I've never had the slightest interest in grainy shots. In fact like a number of people took no notice of supposed increases in ASA rating that were obtained by changes to development regimes as that would prevent the production of 20x16 prints from 35mm that could match the work of others black and white or colour. The same effects were very noticeable on slides too. I probably started getting serious in a different way to others. Clubs in the UK. People would come along, lecture and show work that I couldn't match - most would explain why. Being me I also did a fair amount of experimentation with regimes that were mentioned elsewhere from time to time.

John
-

[Downrigger]

There's no reason to believe that we should be trying to reproduce true black-and-white photographs as they would look when taken on film.

On the other hand, people are making photographs today using every technology that has been developed since the birth of photography. If we want to make an image that looks as if it has been taken using film, we should use film. Considering that the one technology that may not always be available to us is the use of film, we should take advantage of it while it sill remains available.

Yes. Why try to make an oil look like a watercolor?

I took film at a time in my life when time did not permit working with it much at all - but I miss it nonetheless. Digital seems a virtual version of what was once a more direct experience of putting light into something completed to hold in one's hands as a finished object. Now, to return, would entail costs and time and much learning that would confound my efforts to become reasonably adept in digital. I wonder if a "third way" will be conceived in which a megamegapixeled screen is worked with to effect an evolving result in real time on what is effectively an analogue hardcopy that is tossed in the fixer once finished.

[ajohnw]

I can't help looking at digital black and white on the basis of how it can appear from film. Gives me a sort of attitude about certain styles from digital. Each to his own really. Me; I periodically have a go at producing quality black and white from digital. Sort one day I might manage it approach. So far results have been mixed so it's a case of figuring out why as it should be possible. I find it's a case of working through a sequence of PP. Looking at the results and then starting from scratch again trying to correct the particular part that wasn't "right."

I have been tempted to have a go at film again but doubt if I will. There is a camera kicking about and I think my developing tank is still around as I didn't sell it when I sold the rest a long time ago. After mentioning Acutol I googled it. Interesting result. There may even be a book in the house on creating your own chemicals somewhere to get true older effects but since chemical houses started getting particular about who they sell too probably of no use.

Frankly I'm not convinced there is all that much time difference in film as against PP in fact I suspect it would usually be quicker.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - the only time I used the word "reciprocity" was dealing where the exposure became non-linear; i.e. very short (for instance less than 1/2000th sec) and very long (running into many seconds and even minutes) exposures). It seems that this in not what you are referring to.

I assume you are looking at the "knee" and "shoulder" areas where the frequency response of the film got into non-linear sensitivity at the longer and shorter wavelengths?

[ajohnw]

I might be introducing you to a bad habit Manfred. The internet archive is an amazing place.

I hoped to find a book that gave complete details on the subject on the internet archive. This one does touch on the subject in terms of exposure latitude and briefly mentions reciprocity effects even around and in the speed range a film may have been designed for. It's a bit too recent and pushes dye based black and white which was about when I tried colour for a while and then for a variety of reasons gave up after several subsequent years of mostly slide.

There is an interesting range of black and white images in it. It's a hard subject to search for on here as b&w was photography so loads of books turn up many of which are very old. Just goes to show that amateur photographers were a source of income for some rather a long time ago as well as now.

https://ia601508.us.archive.org/19/i...kroomPractice/

John
-