Re: B&W conversion - could I get feedback?

[dave.englund]

I recently posted an image I converted to B&W to my gallery, and subsequently

submitted it for critique. I'm a little surprised at the ratings it's

received...<br /><br />

 

4/4 (7),&nbsp 4/5 (1),&nbsp 5/5 (3),&nbsp 6/6 (1)<br /><br />

 

The ratings in the 5 and 6 range would seem to say there are those who think

it's a good image, a good B&W conversion effort. But, there's a larger share of

those who give it an average at best evaluation. So, I'm left wondering if it's

a poor image and my technique needs work, or if it's a good image and there's

just that many folks who are inclined to dislike B&W whatever the quality of the

image.<br /><br />

 

Here's the image, and I'm wondering if some of you who really know B&W would

give me an honest assessment, and perhaps some pointers on what I need to work

on in terms of improving my B&W conversion technique...<br />

 

<u><a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6369938">http://www.photo.net/photo/6369938</a></u><br

/><br />

I generally like the result, although I'm still thinking about lightening the

top of Devils Tower with a bit with some additional dodging.<br /><br />

 

I did not use the built in Photoshop Elements "Convert to Black and White"

utility. Instead, I followed the directions outlined by Mark Galer in his "Adobe

Photoshop Elements 5.0: Maximum Performance" book for B&W conversion.

Essentially, his method uses two layers, one in which Saturation is reduced to

minus 100, the other in which Hue/Saturation (blend mode: color) is reduced in

similar fashion (to around -150). Additional layers are used to improve contrast

(blend mode: overlay, and using the transparent gradient tool) and to dodge &

burn as needed (a neutral color overlay, where a soft edge brush is used at

around 15% opacity with black to darken or white to lighten).<br /><br />

 

Thanks much for your helpful feedback!

[nealcurrie]

The tones in that image aren't pleasing to my eye. I'm no great photographer, but the image appears to be a little flat (could be that I'm on a laptop) for a sunny day.

[SCL]

It's tough to say, viewing a B&W on the computer instead of via a print. However, I would be tempted to say insufficient tonal range...whites aren't clearly distinguishable white. The tower itself isn't sufficiently differentiated from the sky, IMHO. I would play around with it a little more, and hopefully you can expand the tonal range.

[thomas_lamont1]

I'd agree - it does look a little flat - I'm not sure if this is the tonal range or the contrast or bit of both. I would have done the conversion and then tweaked the curves a bit till the image got that look of clarity.

I've tried a few b&w conversion actions and plugins for photoshop but have always ended up with better results from scanning b&w film and then playing with the curves. My digicam is a bit dated now though, and perhaps doesn't have the tonal range of good quality film.

It's all an art so you might find that your b&w conversion technique might work better on some images than on others.

[skygzr]

You're making the assumption that ratings in photo.net somehow relate to a picture being "good" or "bad"! Also, this is the forum for traditional B&W film and processing. Perhaps the folks over on the digital side of things could help you better.

 

But about the picture. Me, I'd like to see more contrast between the sky and the ground, and a little more "snap" in the tower.<div></div>

[skygzr]

BTW....since the thread is in the wrong forum, I'm setting it to expire in a couple of days. Since I'm the moderator I guess I should abide by the rules!

 

My earlier comment about photo.net ratings had a smiley face but the intention was serious. I've discovered its fairly pointless to make stuff with the intention of satisfying others (unless you're a pro for hire). These days, if it satisfies me, I'm happy.

 

That's not to say that you shouldn't solicit the advice and opinions of others. Just don't get upset if they don't like your work. I have some pictures that nobody likes but me!

[jtk]

Find a few favorite B&W photographers, slowly and critically compare their images to yours, identify specific differences.

 

IMO time of day and sky condition made this a weak B&W image to begin with. It's probably better in color?

 

Your anxiety about the numbers is interesting. You take them seriously. I think they should be removed from P.N.

[toner]

I wonder what a green filter would do to this scene?

 

Here's my fudged version. Took the color version, decerased red & blue a few times, then removed color and pumped up the contrast (perhaps even a littel too much).<div></div>

[asher]

Hard to tell without seeing a print.<p>

 

Ansel would have used the image just as a starting point for printing, likely with a fair

amount of burning and dodging to get a real glow from the print (see his text "The Print").

<p>You won't get that straight out of any camera, film or digital.

[dave.englund]

Thank you all for your constructive feedback. Very helpful:-)

 

I chose this forum purposely rather than Digital Darkroom because I assumed this group would have the best eye for B&W. But understand the need to move the discussion. My thanks to Kevin for allowing the discussion to develop a bit here first. With respect to ratings, since its all but impossible to understand where folks are coming from when they leave a rating, that's why I wanted to ask you all, to get some *real* feedback.

 

Thanks also to those who gave me a couple of tweaked examples to look at. It's very helpful to get other perspectives. I will be doing some more reading, and more reviewing, and then take another run at it (or two or three;-) See ya in the critique forums!

[bwbob]

Scan B&W film or preferably print or have it printed using traditional darkroom techniques. IMHO you can't get the tonality from converting a digital color image to B&W as you can by using b&W film.

[robertshults]

If you are doing conversions without the benefit of a channel mixer (such as that in CS3, GIMP, etc.), may I suggest the following complex but effective technique:

 

http://www.webreference.com/graphics/elements3/index.html

 

Additionally, you got some weird halos going on around the tower which showed up immediately upon the first level of conversion.<div></div>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Digital capture converted to B&W just seems to lacks something most of the time. There just seems to be too much muddy mid-tone grey and a very compressed tonal range as compared to traditional B&W. However, the time of day at which you shot, with the lighting you had, doesnt do anything for a B&W image either. Ive tried working your image, beginning from the colour version, and its really hard trying to get anything out of it - basically, I'd say leave this one as colour!

[gnashings]

There is a reason why people in this forum have an eye for B&W (and I am not counting myself among them). Try shooting some film and making a real silver print - I think it will be an eye opener, and I am sure you will thoroughly enjoy it.

[oskar_ojala]

That type of BW usually needs good contrast and good midtone separation. The light is hard, but your midtones do not separate, giving a flat appearance although the pic is taken mid-day. This is just for the BW separation, I'm not going into aesthetic qualities here.

[dave.englund]

Okay ya'll. I went back and gave it another run. Here's the latest BW...<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6378315&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/6378315&size=lg</a><br /><br />

 

I'm likin it much better and think I have your input to thank for it.

[jtk]

Huge improvement...well done! Looks ominous...was the weather turning?

[dave.englund]

Thanks! Gee, I don't recall, don't think so. I was on my way out of town on a Sunday morning heading toward Wapiti and then Yellowstone, and decided to stop by the tower again on the way. I think the sky went that way because I was doubled-up on grad ND filters and I just had one in a different position than the other. It's sure a neat place, and I intend to get back there again and do some more hiking for additional vantage points.