Old house #2 Critique and comments welcome

[tbob]

Another old house from archives processed just recently. Assessing the merits of black and white versus colour

[Mike Buckley]

Another very nice conversion! Try adding structure or Local Contrast Enhancement to the wood to bring out its texture as nicely as is displayed in the color version.

[tbob]

Another very nice conversion! Try adding structure or Local Contrast Enhancement to the wood to bring out its texture as nicely as is displayed in the color version.

I will revisit the image and check this out.

[Manfred M]

This is another one where I prefer the coloured image, mostly because of the textures in the wood of the building on the left. I find that fom a tonal standpoint, the grass in the foreground just merges with the building too much.

Could I suggest that you try playing with the colours a bit. In ACR hit the HSL / Gray scale button (4th from the left) and then hit the "Luminance" tab. Try lightening the yellows and possibly greens to get a bit more contrast before conversion to B&W (I would probably lighten this). If you want a punchier sky, move the blue and aqua sliders to the left.

[Mike Buckley]

the grass in the foreground just merges with the building too much...Try lightening the yellows and possibly greens to get a bit more contrast before conversion to B&W

Those are the kinds of decisions that regularly have to be made to properly prepare the color version for conversion to monochrome. Many times those kinds of decisions aren't apparent until the conversion has been made; you then have to back up to the color version and make the changes that improve the monochrome version.

[Manfred M]

Those are the kinds of decisions that regularly have to be made to properly prepare the color version for conversion to monochrome. Many times those kinds of decisions aren't apparent until the conversion has been made; you then have to back up to the color version and make the changes that improve the monochrome version.

Agreed, Mike, but to a point. After a while you know a good starting point. I virtually aways put a bit more detail into the sky / clouds to start, and often lighten the vegetaion a touch as my starting point. Often these are good enough, or they need just a tiny tweak. I tend to work the image in PS (for speed) and then jump over to Nik Silver Efex for final tuning.

[tbob]

Basic error then; I don't start the black and white version from a clean version. Up until now I have completed the colour then done the black and white; mainly as trial to see how it works. I will try the proper way! Amazing if doing things right has a better outcome (not my usual operating procedure).

[Mike Buckley]

Agreed, Mike, but to a point. After awhile you know a good starting point.

Absolutely! Like anything, the more you are confident in the look you are trying to achieve and what is necessary to achieve that look, the less back and forth between the color version and the monochrome version is necessary to achieve the desired monochrome.

[Mike Buckley]

Basic error then; I don't start the black and white version from a clean version. Up until now I have completed the colour then done the black and white; mainly as trial to see how it works.

Completing the color version first is the best-practice approach, Trevor. Don't change a thing.

Once you know the fine-tuning of the color version in advance that affects the black-and-white version, you can make those adjustments before converting. Until you learn that, which takes a LOT of practice, you will have to do more back-and-forth between the monochrome and the color versions to achieve your ideal look of the monochrome.

[NorthernFocus]

Another interesting comparison, Trevor. IMO, in this one the building itself really lends itself to the B/W. But my overall impression of the two is that the color version is about the building and the B/W is all about the sky. The sky really becomes a dominant part of the image in B/W. The color is kind of like, oh, look at this old historic building in the lovely field. Whereas the B/W is more like, wow, look how tough the living conditions are there and how they've beat down man's attempt at incursion.

You're really supporting the mission of CIC to be a learning forum by posting these examples for discussion. Well done.

[wilgk]

Whilst both are very well presented, I find the BW holds my attention longer & has me thinking about the house, what went on there, I think it might be the lush green of the field, makes the colour one a nice landscape scene.
Whereas the BW for me is about the house.

[Shadowman]

Had these been captured with an overcast sky I would prefer the B & W versions, there's just something about a derelict structure captured in direct sunlight that appeals to me. Nicely done.

[Manfred M]

Completing the color version first is the best-practice approach, Trevor. Don't change a thing.

Once you know the fine-tuning of the color version in advance that affects the black-and-white version, you can make those adjustments before converting. Until you learn that, which takes a LOT of practice, you will have to do more back-and-forth between the monochrome and the color versions to achieve your ideal look of the monochrome.

Interesting Mike. I do the opposite.

Even in the film days, I viewed colour and B&W two totally different forms of photography that needed to be treated completely differently. Colour was (and is) all about the colour content and balance. The only filters I would use were the UV (it was actually needed to reduce the haze) and a polarizer.

B&W was a totally different kettle of fish. Contrast and different shades of gray is what a monochrome image is all about. All kinds of filters were used in front of the lens to alter the light hitting the film. A yellow filter would reduce the amount of blue wavelengths getting through to the film, the sky would darken and the clouds would "pop". Using a red filter would make them pop even more.

We don't use filters explicitly for B&W work (other than perhaps on the pure monochrome cameras), but we have a full drawer full in the B&W conversion functions in our PP tools. After doing some of the basic work in the RAW converter, sharpening, contrast, sometimes white balance, I go straight into B&W mode and adjust the colour sliders, the same way I would have used filters and more, in order to give the the image I want (globally) before I do any edits. I effectively work the image as if it is B&W from the conversion stage.

Interestingly, I've chatted with a number of former B&W film photographers, and we have a similar workflow. People that either did colour film or have always shot digital follow a workflow more like yours. I've tried converting a fully processed colour image, like you suggest, but find it takes me a lot longer to get the image I want (if I get it at all).

There is no right or wrong answer here; whatever works for each individual is great, but in PP, there are many different approaches to get one to the desired end state.

[Mike Buckley]

When I mention that the best practice is to prepare the color image before post-processing the monochrome image, the context is the two books by Michael Freeman and Vincent Versace. If there are similarly authoritative books explaining not to prepare the color image first and why, it would be good for us to at least be aware of them if not familiar with their content. Perhaps there is disagreement about what constitutes best practice, perhaps not.

Vincent Versace began as a black-and-white film photographer and he prepares the fundamentals of the color image before converting to monochrome. He calls a digital black-and-white image a chromatic greyscale image for reasons he explains having to do with the entire workflow retaining an RGB color space.

Clearly, it doesn't matter how we achieve the desired results; it only matter that we achieve them. I'm not even suggesting that best practice should be adopted because it is the best. However, best practice, regardless of the field, is a documented way to achieve desired results.

[Mike Buckley]

I wonder if we're having a basic misunderstanding, Manfred. Your post #6 makes me think you prepare the color version reasonably thoroughly before converting to monochrome.

[Downrigger]

As Mike points out, Versace's excellent "From Oz to Kansas" emphasizes processing as color before moving to B&W.

Beyond technical reasons for this, I think it is helpful to re-visualize well-represented color to re-capture one's original vision, from in the field, of the image as black and white. After that, before going to black and white one might tweak the color further if the processing you have in mind would be aided by that.

I think this makes a wonderful black and white, but I agree with Manfred that part of the processing strategy here should be to separate the foreground grass from the wood as distinctly in monochrome as these two areas are separated by hue in the color version.

[Wavelength]

A choice is utterly difficult...they are equally mind blowing

[mknittle]

Basic error then; I don't start the black and white version from a clean version. Up until now I have completed the colour then done the black and white; mainly as trial to see how it works. I will try the proper way! Amazing if doing things right has a better outcome (not my usual operating procedure).

I think you are doing it right Trevor. It seems to me that you won't get a good conversion with out a fully processed image to start with.
Anyway they are all looking great.

[mknittle]

As Mike points out, Versace's excellent "From Oz to Kansas" emphasizes processing as color before moving to B&W.

Beyond technical reasons for this, I think it is helpful to re-visualize well-represented color to re-capture one's original vision, from in the field, of the image as black and white. After that, before going to black and white one might tweak the color further if the processing you have in mind would be aided by that.

I think this makes a wonderful black and white, but I agree with Manfred that part of the processing strategy here should be to separate the foreground grass from the wood as distinctly in monochrome as these two areas are separated by hue in the color version.

Maybe processed as a duotone?

[flashback]

Trevor, the best I can say is that, in the color version there is a sense of dignity, whereas in the B&W there is more of a sense of failure and loss. I can't explain beyond that, to me the story changes with the version; so what story do you want it to tell?