Processing to Black and White

[Downrigger]

I've been working through Versace's from "Oz to Kansas", noting that he may be as good a writer as he is a photographer.
Here I tried my hand at processing (Nik Silver Efex) an image of a 100-year old two bed and chamber pot "guesthouse" on an Adirondack property. Some may prefer the color, some neither, but my C&C request is obtain input on the processing to black and white, specifically.
Was this a good choice for B&W, what would improve the result?

The color, as tuned up a bit in LR:

[Downrigger]

And the B&W I came up with:

[Mike Buckley]

Each image has its own strengths, so I imagine the decision for most people about which one is better is going to come down to whether they generally have a strong preference for color or monochrome images. Both are nicely done!

I prefer the monochrome image mostly because it brings out the detail in the wood better. That version would be even better for me if you hadn't gotten rid of the deep pock marks in the snow on the roof (surely not a result of converting to monochrome). I would also like it better if you hadn't replaced part of the image with the frame; that little bit of missing space makes me feel the building is a little cramped.

Hope you're enjoying Versace's book as much as I am. I have read the entire book and often refer to parts of it as needed.

[Manfred M]

I agree with Mike on this one; the B&W is a stronger image than the colour one, and the reason seems to be that conversion accentuates the grain and texture in the wood, while the colour really prevents us from seeing that detail because, to some extent, the colours hide that aspect of the image.

As for improving the image; I find the crop a bit tight as we can't really see the context of the building itself. It's a bit tough to do something about it at this stage of the process. If it were my image, I might do a bit tighter crop on the foreground; I'm not sure that the rocks on the bottom add to the composition (I'm thinking about losing perhaps up to half of what is shown). I might have preferred a touch more "headroom" on the top of the image, but again, it's a bit too late to affect that change.

[Downrigger]

Thanks, Mike - just what I was looking for. Cloned out the pocks - thought they distracted - helpful to know you preferred them in. Is referent to Versace's Einstein quote to the effect that things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

On frame - first, I didn't intend that it rob me of some image, have learned.
Second, I'm totally without a clue as to the etiquette of frames here, and in general when showing or sharing images. Absent the amputation of some nice pixels, I think this frame goes nicely with and enhances the image. But is including it in presentation for evaluation or appreciation merely superfluous artifice that distracts from the image itself? Is there accepted protocol, in CiC, and more broadly, on this matter?

[Shadowman]

Are you planning to print the image? I think further processing steps may depend on the final output, for instance I printed an image using both glossy and luster papers and the blacks stand out so well on the luster.

[Polar01]

Mark, I am with Mike and Manfred and prefer the B&W, my own personal taste would be to increase black, however you have a very nice balance there. As to borders I personally do not like them myself as I tend to print, again however to show on a screen, the right border can really set off an image.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

There doesn't seem to be any strong consensus about the use of frames so long as they don't strongly detract from the image. Yours doesn't.

If you could use the same frame by adding it mostly to the outside of the image rather than replacing so much of the image with it, I would certainly like its overall effect better. I realize that this particular style of frame requires replacing at least a small part of the image, but hopefully not as much as your current version.

[Downrigger]

As always, lots of useful information as a return for my post.
Thank you John, on print – still an unexplored frontier for me.
Manfred – this is a crop. I’ll explore restating this image with more context, while retaining the goal of formality.
Allan I see what you say about the black – I think the my challenge is that the principal structures of subject are rather homogeneously toned, limiting the range available within the subject. Nik helped a lot to introduced some fields of different tones.
Mike – OK on frames: case-by-case but not much, not often.

[Manfred M]

Mark - before exporting to Nik; try doing the conversion in post and adjust the individual colours. You will find that going that route will get you even better results.

[Mike Buckley]

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.

[IzzieK]

I am late to this party, but my view is that B/W is the better one here.

[Downrigger]

Thanks, Izzie - That was my goal - it looked to me worthy of the effort. With all of the suggestions above I have a revision that is intended to have benefitted from them. To me, it has.

[Mike Buckley]

This last one is just terrific, Mark. The compositional ideas Manfred suggested and the increased tonal range in the wood really take it to another level.

The shape of the decoration on the door that reminds me of a chapel makes me believe its owner thinks of this private recluse perhaps rather spiritually as their place of peace in the woods.

[tao2]

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.

[Mike Buckley]

It would be interesting to see how close Mark could bring this image to Robert's satisfaction by adding film-emulating presets. There's no question that if the goal is to get it to look like film, we're better off shooting with film.

[Polar01]

With just that little bit of extra blackness those two windows with reflections in really popped. Like it very much.

Cheers: Allan

[Downrigger]

I'm not in your league, Robert.

I need to study more black and white film work to understand at least fragmentarily what Robert must have in mind - it is useful, but a hardly surprising near inevitability, to know that this does not look like a black and white film photograph on photographic paper.

But it is important to note that my processing goal had not an iota of effort in the direction of mimicking a black and white film image, first because I have insufficient vision as to exactly how that would look different and second because I am not in command of the elements that would achieve that.

One can use Nik's analogue software reputedly to achieve more Old-camera/film effects - like the one below, (I didn't bother to add in scratches and dust) but given my state of ignorance about how film effects should look, this takes me from processing towards an image held in my mind to just messing around.

[Downrigger]

Mark - before exporting to Nik; try doing the conversion in post and adjust the individual colours. You will find that going that route will get you even better results.

Thanks Manfred - I did do that here, as I was attempting to practice the lessons in Versace's book about the very important difference between a desaturated gray scale and a chromatic gray scale and the effect of that difference on what can be achieved in Black and White processing. So I am in the process of learning of which you speak.

[ajohnw]

The only thing I would wonder about re B&W is that the snow looks a bit grey. Apart from that it's nice to see one that hasn't gone to far down the everything was printed on hard gritty grade paper route. Film is capable of producing a very fine tonal range especially in B&W.

The old camera effect seems to have gone a bit blue to me. I have used old film cameras. Very old at one time.

John
-