For b&w conversion, DXO or Silver Efex Pro?

[galileo42]

There is a big difference in price between the two programs. How do they compare? I am looking into simple b&w film emulations, with

some tweaking possible, like grain, levels, local detail and contrast. Thank you.

[Ed_Ingold]

A special B&W conversion program is superfluous. Most people use the Photoshop utility "Channel Mixer", which allows you to emulate the unique color sensitivity of B&W film. Sharpening, contrast and other adjustments are also done in Photoshop.Emulation of grain is generally unconvincing. If you want grain, use B&W film. Otherwise pretend you have a medium or large format camera, which must be enlarged to a wall-sized mural before grain is visible.

[jtk]

Many are migrating away from Channel Mixer because Lightroom, does at least equally good B&W conversion with ONE CLICK, offering infinite variation and playing well with Photoshop. Both offer local control, but Photoshop can be a subtle second phase if you need more than Lightroom offers.

 

Grain emulation isn't everybody's cup of tea, but don't let anybody talk you out of it. Me, I shoot film when I want grain: Neopan 400@ 800-1200 in Rodinal @ 1+200 ...Yum!

[galileo42]

Yes, yes, I agree, nothing actually replaces b&w film (APX 100 in Rodinal, double-yum!) but I've become lazy (digital will

do that to you) and my chemicals, vials, tanks and reels just lay there, gathering dust. As is my beloved Nikon FM2n.

 

John, what ONE CLICK b&w conversion in LR are you talking about? The couple of b&w preset in the presets list? I've

never tried them. Now, sometimes I will want to later convert a color Tiff or jpeg, so PS or an emulator will come in

handier than LR, at least as a starting point. But the emulator will be faster than PS, where I've spent countless hours

fiddling with Channel mixer or Black & white or Gradient or Lab color or what not.

[Brad_]

Channel mixer is where people start. There are far better methods.

[tonmestrom]

"Channel mixer is where people start. There are far better methods"

 

such as? I've tried the b&w slider option which can be found in CS3 and CS4 and it works nice enough but I still prefer the channel mixer for my b&w conversions.

 

As far as the above question is concerned DxO is a Lightroom clone while Silver Efex Pro is a plug-in. DxO is nice enough but I myself prefer LR any day of the week. Silver Efex Pro I've tried. Apart from the presets, which as far as I'm concerned are worse than useless, it does a very good job. But really, both don't offer anything that you can't do in PS as is true of almost every plug-in you can find.

[jtk]

Michael, the simplest LR method: select Develop, look immediately under the brushes, click Greyscale.

 

LR's built in Sharpen seems to produce fewer artifacts than Photoshop's Smart Sharpen.

 

I evaluate everything in terms of my own prints (no labs)...some of the presets have led to bronzing that I wouldn't have had with Channel Mixer etc, others are too ugly to consider...so I rarely bother with them.. LR also lets you set up your own conversion technique, then use it with one click, just like the LR's canned presets.

 

Martin Evening's book discusses all sorts of LR B&W conversion and manipulation techniques. Surprisingly well-written. Lightroom 2.0 (updated to 2.01) is a lot better than 1.4, but that was great as well.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Book-Photographers/dp/0321555619/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227295375&sr=8-1

[jack_landry]

As far as film emulation is concerned (color and B&W), Alien Skin Exposure in the best and tweaking is not a problem with this plugin.

[phil_jackson2]

Alien Skin Exposure, excellent program, also BW Styler and Digital Film Lab, I have all 3, all of them are very good...phil

[bill_fouche]

LR 2.0 "low contrast BW" preset can be a useful starting place, in that it modifies the "camera calibration" settings in a way that brings out detail not otherwise easy to access. It's particularly useful on images that were not ideally exposed. While the preset rarely looks good "out of the box, further tweaking of exposure sliders can sometimes get you results that can otherwise be difficult. And finally - don't forget to fiddle with white balance sliders, which remix the color channels somewhat (sort of).

[jtk]

Bill, that's interesting.

 

If you have a chance, compare that to a few non-preset workflows not involving "presets," as described in Martin

Evening's book.

 

I'll try your preset route too. LR's an amazing tool, as important as RAW. Better than a new lens :-)

 

I do find that the simple Greyscale one-click (ie no "preset") is remarkably good and the exposure/contrast

adjustments immediately make things even better.

[gerard_smulevich]

I use the GORMAN action in CS3 (free); so far it's the best BW conversion tool I have found for the type of BW I like. I have an exhibit up right now of 25 of my photographs out in Bristol, Rhode Island (I'm based in LA). During the opening 2 weeks ago most people, all artists and architects, could not immediately tell that my pieces were actually digital BW. My work: pbase.com/gerards

 

Most of my pre 2007 work (done on a D70) was converted into BW using the Yosemite action ($5 to purchase). It's fantastic for landscapes with clouds and big skys, creating an amazingly convincing burn of the sky a-la Ansel Adams. I used Yosemite in a candid portrait of famed photographer Julius Shulman, who actually bought the portrait from me and has been published in Taschen's 3-volume book on Shulman: http://www.pbase.com/gerards/image/56089929

Some layer masking was done to increase DR and shadow detail around the Sinar camera on the left.

 

I like my BW with a slight warm tone and lots of DR. For a while I had switched to film because I liked it better printed but then I realized that most pro printing involves scans nowadays, unless you pay an arm-and-a-leg for hand/chemical printing. The cost factor is over 300% difference! You can get digital fiber prints now that are STUNNING and indistinguishable from chemical printing. Julius himself was persuaded by the Getty Research Institute to produce his last e big xhibit (LA Library exhibit in 2007)

on archival pigment prints made on fiber paper, all scanned negatives printed digitally. Shulman himself was blown away by the quality and fidelity of the prints.

 

I'm always looking for a better or more sophisticated BW conversion app, so let's keep the experiences and references commin' :)

[gerard_smulevich]

I use the GORMAN action in CS3 (free); so far it's the best BW conversion tool I have found for the type of BW I like.

I have an exhibit up right now of 25 of my photographs out in Bristol, Rhode Island (I'm based in LA). During the

opening 2 weeks ago most people, all artists and architects, could not immediately tell that my pieces were actually

digital BW. My work: pbase.com/gerards

 

Most of my pre 2007 work (done on a D70) was converted into BW using the Yosemite action ($5 to purchase). It's

fantastic for landscapes with clouds and big skys, creating an amazingly convincing burn of the sky a-la Ansel

Adams. I used Yosemite in a candid portrait of famed photographer Julius Shulman, who actually bought the portrait

from me and has been published in Taschen's 3-volume book on Shulman:

http://www.pbase.com/gerards/image/56089929

Some layer masking was done to increase DR and shadow detail around the Sinar camera on the left.

 

I like my BW with a slight warm tone and lots of DR. For a while I had switched to film because I liked it better

printed but then I realized that most pro printing involves scans nowadays, unless you pay an arm-and-a-leg for

hand/chemical printing. The cost factor is over 300% difference! You can get digital fiber prints now that are

STUNNING and indistinguishable from chemical printing. Julius himself was persuaded by the Getty Research

Institute to produce his last e big xhibit (LA Library exhibit in 2007)

on archival pigment prints made on fiber paper, all scanned negatives printed digitally. Shulman himself was blown

away by the quality and fidelity of the prints.

 

I'm always looking for a better or more sophisticated BW conversion app, so let's keep the experiences and

references commin' :)

[robert gordon]

In both CS3 and Lightroom and the Epson printers if you want to print some down and dirty b/w images just go to Page Setup, select Best Photo, then select Advanced, and finally select your toning prefererence (I favor Warm). You will get VERY good quality prints without having to convert the file to greyscale.

[jtk]

My impression, from seeing hundreds of Ansel Adams' originals, including several large collections, is that he

reached the pinnacles of certain narrow visual/technical domains and made powerful visual statements of one type

only, repeatedly. He did make some fine annual report style portraits. I wish he'd pursued that more.

 

His scenics are powerful of course, and are now copied endlessly... we're suffering one overblown Richard Wagner

(composer) and Led Zeppelin (band) after another. This photographic legacy reminds me of the booming of sound

systems in low-rider/rapper cars.

 

Adam's couldn't have created passionate, simple images to rival Weston's, nudes rivaling Stieglitz, portaits

rivaling Penn or Avedon, or urban graphics rivaling Siskind. Incapable. It wasn't in him.

 

Adams' greatest legacy was his teaching of previsualization...and few of his fans even know about it. Buying a

plug-in to "look like" Adams seems a profound mistake.

[scottie_ceei]

Michel, to answer your question, Silver Efex is the very best choice. DXO Filmpack is okay but Silver Efex is far

above and it has features you will not find in others. I use both of them as well as Tiffen DFx to work with

converting to B&W. Get Silver Efex. Check out the Structure slider. I also use that in Color images on a

Luminosity layer. The Toning in Silver Efex is very good with both silver and paper sliders for retaining deep

velvet blacks and sparkling whites if you want that. The color filters are good too with your choice of quick

looks with the presets or the slider to tweak to infinite results. The film list is very good with variable

features in the grain effects. There is a lot more. Check out the demo. I have a lot of B&W converters but go to

Silver Efex most of the time.

[yinkamd]

I believe the majority of the folks that have answered this question have never even used Silver Efex Pro, yet pass judgment based on prejudice. In addition, it appears that most did not even read the question.

I think Silver Efex Pro is a great B/W conversion with limitless options, and nothing even comes close. I think it may be even more esthetically pleasing, and certainly more flexible, than film.

[tonmestrom]

Yinka,

 

that's quite a suggestion. I can only speak for myself here but I don't make such statements lightly and I found that to be true of most people here. I do a lot of postprocessing for other people and and I'm therefore always interested in what comes along. It's obvious you're enthousiastic about Silver Efex Pro and like I said before it does a fairly good job of converting to b&w. The problem is that most of the presets, especially the film ones in my opinion are useless and as far as converting images is concerned I can do it just as well in PS or LR.<div></div>

[tonmestrom]

wanna see the DxO as well?

[tonmestrom]

oops<div></div>

[tonmestrom]

Before I forget. Most plug-ins/Filters are destructive by nature. I agree with Scottie about the stucture slider but that's a or LR for your postprocessing?

[scottie_ceei]

One important thing I forgot to add here. Silver Efex also has U Point which is a very good way to work on specific points in an image. Yes, you can work on PS layers to achieve something like this but it is a great feature in the plugin.

 

I use DXO for RAW conversion but my answer was based on the DXO Filmpack plugin alone but that is integrated into DXO optics as well.

 

Opposite of Ton, I find several of the Film presets in Silver Efex to be very good and work from there if one works well with an image. Sometimes I don't use them. Much of the time I turn off Grain but use it for some images. I did turn off the left pane previews which I do not like in Silver Efex and like to work up my own from scratch as far as contrast, structure, toning and the like are concerned.

 

When I started with photography, I did shoot B&W film and only B&W for the first years. I like B&W for what it is and am not trying to emulate film so much as working up a B&W image. Of course everyone has their own favorite little way of doing this.

[kuryan_thomas]

I will add my voice in support of Silver Efex Pro.

[raysgallery]

I will add mine too.

[Nowhereman]

I agree that Silver Efex is the best at this, certainly a lot better than Alien Skin, and use it together with Aperture 2, but you can

use it with Photoshop as well. Have a look at the following thread for more information <a

href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65495/"><u>by clicking here</u>.</a>

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok