processing/converting to B&W in LightRoom

[John Di Leo]

Looking for the pluses ans minuses of converting to black and white in Lightroom.

I plan on shooting in color through the camera, D810, but in Lightroom, would you first convert to B&W then process or process and then convert to B&W?

I seen videos where I think I remember that is was recommended to do the latter for better tonal range.

thoughts?

TIA

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Generally I would convert first then process. But I'd say try it both ways and see what result you get as the editing in Light Room is non-destructive.

[paddler4]

I convert and then process, making heavy use of the color sliders to emulate filters, e.g., to darken blue skys.

I doubt the choice has any impact other than on what edits you decide to make. There are some exceptions, like spot healing, but for the most part, the order that Lightroom executes edits is not determined by the order in which you make them. However,  your initial edits may lead you to make different choices.

[digitaldog]

The pluses in LR (or ACR) is it's totally non destructive (parametric edits), you can build as many Virtual Copies (iterations) as you wish with no overhead, the edits are always applied in best processing (not user order), and your color (raw) data is never touched. 

If you saw a video that said better tonal range, ignore it! Raw is raw. The DR of the data is what it is there. 

[AlanKlein]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:16 PM, John Di Leo said:

Looking for the pluses ans minuses of converting to black and white in Lightroom.

I plan on shooting in color through the camera, D810, but in Lightroom, would you first convert to B&W then process or process and then convert to B&W?

I seen videos where I think I remember that is was recommended to do the latter for better tonal range.

thoughts?

TIA

I convert first than process.  Changing contrast, and other sliders, etc while it's still in color mode doesn't translate easily to see before you switch to BW.  Switching to BW first, then adjust so you can see the changes in BW as they're happening.  Also, as Paddler4 says, you can change the tones by adjusting each color even after switching to BW suing the HSL/COLOR/BW Mix panel in the BW Mix section.

Try it both ways.  See what works for you. 

[digitaldog]

Watch, there are few better ones:
https://photopxl.com/black-white-conversion-in-lightroom-pxl-print-series/

[rodeo_joe1]

Prompted by another thread, I was recently looking at the spectral sensitivity curves of some B&W films. This one seems pretty typical:

So if the aim is to emulate the look of film, then I'm wondering if the PhotoShop 'auto' conversion option puts that kind of spectral bias onto a colour original? With a dip in the green response and a boost to the blues and orange-reds.

Because I seem to remember reading previously somewhere, that the aim was to emulate the apparent colour luminosity response of the human eye, which is totally different. 

Just curious really, since I generally simply 'play' with the colour sliders until the preview looks right.

And all totally irrelevant if the aim is to emulate a yellow, orange or red lens filter of course. 

However, there are some features, like highlight and shadow preservation sliders, that are only available during RAW processing. Those are extremely useful in some cases and would need to be used before B&W conversion. 

WRT to non-destructive editing - surely it's all 'non destructive' as long as you don't overwrite the original raw or camera JPEG file? And philosophically; isn't all editing essentially destructive? I.e. getting rid of the unwanted. 

(Re: The above film spectral curve - it might be more useful if translated from a logarithmic to a linear form... or then again maybe not.)

Edited February 5, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[digitaldog]

Parametric editing actually is non destructive editing.

https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing

No, it's “not all” non destructive editing. But parametric editing is.

Edited February 5, 2023 by digitaldog

[rodeo_joe1]

2 hours ago, digitaldog said:

Parametric editing actually is non destructive editing.

It would better be described as non-permanent editing, since all it's doing is creating a script to 'push the pixels around' rather than immediately 'pushing them around'. (a bit of emotive word-play being used there, to make direct editing sound more crude and basic than it really is) 

In the end, what's needed for nearly all purposes is an edited file in which the changes have been made permanent and baked-in (pixel-pushed or 'destructive' if you like). Since one cannot rely on a customer or printer or viewer of the file to have access to software that can read the parametric script. This drawback is clearly explained in that article. 

What happens between starting file and edited end-product file is largely irrelevant unless and until all image editing/viewing/printing software settles on a standardised script and sidecar format - and that's probably never going to happen.

So, no editing method is truly 'destructive' unless the camera original file is lost, deleted or overwritten. The rest is just a workflow choice. 

 

[digitaldog]

You can make up a new term (non-permanent editing) to replace a well know and historically understood term (parametric editing), if you wish Joe. But the whole statement is kinda like, "Which is better for removing a brain tumor? A Black and Decker cordless screwdriver, or the thingie on Swiss Army Knives for taking stones outta horses' hooves?"

Parametric editing doesn't burn anything into the original! It is used to create pixels. It doesn't push them, it only reads them as raw data. 

A color print from a negative isn't much different. The neg is read only. 

Adobe (and others) treat raw parametric editing as read only. Again, raw is raw and remains raw. 

Yes, the rest is a workflow choice; some make better choices based on the understanding of the workflow and the data treatment, than others. 🤔

[rodeo_joe1]

5 minutes ago, digitaldog said:

It is used to create pixels.

Wow. It's that magic!? 

The term 'non-permanent' is much more appropriate and positive than labelling non-parametric editing as 'destructive' in a very negative and denigrating way. 

Yes, I fully understand that reversing, say, a tone curve change parametrically is a better solution than trying to apply an inverse curve. However that's not the way that most people work. There's an Undo, Step Back or History pallette to choose from. Rather than forging ahead and creating that reverse curve, and then letting the parametric software sort out the mistake.

 

[digitaldog]

If you want to falsely believe it's magic Joe, go for it*. 

It's a new(er) kind of image editing. It has a name, many dozens of software vendors (those who supply raw processors) use it, it's not destructive and it has a name: Parametric editing.  If you want to go to the ASMP site provided, or suggest to Peter Krogh who wrote that article for the ASMP several decades ago, your new name  'non-permanent' is more appropriate, again, go for it Joe; seems you have a lot of time on your hands to try changing the industry.

As for whe way you assume most people work (instead of speaking just for your own workflow), might I suggest: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."-Bertrand Russell

Undo in History isn't non destructive editing! It's undoing, there's no edit applied. Layers are not non destructive editing either. You want to print the document, you want to save it as a TIFF or JPEG to upload or present that to someone outside of Photoshop's handling of layers, you have to flatten it. It isn't non destructive! Parametric editing is, completely non destructive because you want to believe its magic. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
 

*"Tell people that there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin

Edited February 5, 2023 by digitaldog

[paddler4]

Quote

Yes, I fully understand that reversing, say, a tone curve change parametrically is a better solution than trying to apply an inverse curve. However that's not the way that most people work. There's an Undo, Step Back or History pallette to choose from. Rather than forging ahead and creating that reverse curve, and then letting the parametric software sort out the mistake.

The difference in underlying mechanics is clear, even though some aspects of editing in a pixel editor can be undone.

Parametric editing changes the parameters in the editing algorithms but does not change pixels. It's as simple as that. Because all you are doing in Lightroom is compiling a set of xml commands--which the software doesn't even execute in the order you do them--absolutely everything can be undone. You can do hundreds of edits, and the data file remains unaltered.

Is this the ideal terminology? It doesn't matter. it's what has become conventional in the photographic world. And unlike "non-permanent", "parametric" distinguishes the method by its underlying mechanics, not just its effects. 

[John Di Leo]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:28 PM, digitaldog said:

Watch, there are few better ones:
https://photopxl.com/black-white-conversion-in-lightroom-pxl-print-series/

I'll check that out

 

And thanks to all for the discussion.

Edited February 7, 2023 by John Di Leo

[rodeo_joe1]

On 2/5/2023 at 5:38 PM, digitaldog said:

If you want to falsely believe it's magic Joe, go for it*. 

No. YOU said it's magic by making the ridiculous claim that it 'creates pixels'. 

Flinging the complete panoply of fallacious arguments back at me doesn't alter that. 

On 2/7/2023 at 2:20 PM, paddler4 said:

Parametric editing changes the parameters in the editing algorithms but does not change pixels.

Then how is the appearance of the image altered at all? What happens after an Export or 'Save As' then? 

On 2/7/2023 at 2:20 PM, paddler4 said:

You can do hundreds of edits, and the data file remains unaltered.

As it does with any editing method as long as one isn't stupid enough to overwrite the original file(s) that came out of the camera.

It's a matter of choice, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that's been using PhotoShop since version 2.5 on Windows 3.11. 

Because the most efficient workflow is one that's familiar through use and practise. What the software does internally is largely irrelevant. 

[paddler4]

Quote

Then how is the appearance of the image altered at all? What happens after an Export or 'Save As' then? 

The answer is obvious. There is no new data file created during editing. Not true of Photoshop. A few file is created only if you need it for other purposes.

[rodeo_joe1]

13 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

A few file is created only if you need it for other purposes.

But those 'other purposes' are the aim point of nearly all editing. In order to transfer that edited image to another person, or to another piece of software, or to create a hard (printed) copy, or just to archive the edit. Nobody edits just to view the result in one specific piece of software... do they? 

Editing is altering pixels, even if they're only temporarily altered while being viewed on a monitor. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[digitaldog]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

No. YOU said it's magic by making the ridiculous claim that it 'creates pixels'. 

I said no such thing. And yes, the process creates pixels! 

This process isn’t magic. Magic is the word you used** to describe a  process you don’t understand and then write assumptions about the process. A process you could have understood if you read the article I posted discussing PIE from a professional photographer and industry expert in this subject. Now that’s two such experts you’ve failed to read and comprehend both inside and outside the forums!

It isn’t magic, and yes, new, virgin pixels are created (rendered; a new term for you Joe?), with parametric editing. You clearly missed or didn’t understand this from Peter’s article:

Non-destructive workflow Since you cannot alter raw files, PIEware doesn’t even try. With PIEware, all changes you make to images are simply instructions, or parameters, to interpret the source data differently. In order to return to an image in its default state, you simply get rid of the rendering instructions (or tell the software not to pay attention to them, if the software allows that).

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Then how is the appearance of the image altered at all? What happens after an Export or 'Save As' then? 

Explained in the article you didn't read or understand. When I asked (I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.) it is now clear you're really struggling. Paddler's reply was spot on, it's obvious (if you actually read and try to understand from experts, how stuff works). 

In all Adobe Raw converters (that includes LR Joe) and, for that matter, virtually all raw converters, raw is read-only! The results are rendered RGB data from raw.

Here is another article you should slowly read a few times:

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Langs_Render_to_Print.pdf

These are the facts of how PIE software works: Flinging the complete panoply of fallacious arguments back at me doesn't alter those facts Joe.

"Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes." -Jawaharlal Nehru

Understanding the vast difference between PIE (parametric editing) and pixel editing is a matter of education and choice. And I'm sure I'm not the only person that's been using PhotoShop since version 1.0.7 on macOS (years before it was able to be run on Windows), while writing multiple dozens of articles on this subject in peer-reviewed magazines, journals, and symposiums all over the world. How about you Joe; you one of those? There’s no transparency on your PhotoNet page that tells us anything about your experience in this field; care to share?

**

Edited February 8, 2023 by digitaldog

[digitaldog]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Editing is altering pixels, even if they're only temporarily altered while being viewed on a monitor. 

Expect when it's not. 

[AlanKlein]

On 2/5/2023 at 5:41 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Prompted by another thread, I was recently looking at the spectral sensitivity curves of some B&W films. This one seems pretty typical:

So if the aim is to emulate the look of film, then I'm wondering if the PhotoShop 'auto' conversion option puts that kind of spectral bias onto a colour original? With a dip in the green response and a boost to the blues and orange-reds.

Because I seem to remember reading previously somewhere, that the aim was to emulate the apparent colour luminosity response of the human eye, which is totally different. 

Just curious really, since I generally simply 'play' with the colour sliders until the preview looks right.

And all totally irrelevant if the aim is to emulate a yellow, orange or red lens filter of course. 

However, there are some features, like highlight and shadow preservation sliders, that are only available during RAW processing. Those are extremely useful in some cases and would need to be used before B&W conversion. 

WRT to non-destructive editing - surely it's all 'non destructive' as long as you don't overwrite the original raw or camera JPEG file? And philosophically; isn't all editing essentially destructive? I.e. getting rid of the unwanted. 

(Re: The above film spectral curve - it might be more useful if translated from a logarithmic to a linear form... or then again maybe not.)

Exactly what I do.  Trying to guess what the eye might like beforehand doesn't work for me.  Better to adjust to my eye until it looks good and figure it will work with most other people as well.  

[digitaldog]

Another expert (and very good photographer albeit not a pro) Karl Lang in his superb article referenced above discussing rendering raw data:

Like a negative, the Raw file is not of much use until it has been rendered. To perform the task of rendering the Raw file on a desktop computer, we need a software application called a Raw processor. The Camera Raw engine used in Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom is an example of one such application. There are already many others.

Just as there are myriad types of film, paper, enlargers, and chemistry, there are different Raw processors. Each application provides its own set of tools or “controls” to adjust the rendering of the print. Just as there was no single “correct” set of darkroom equipment, there is no single right way to design a Raw processor.

What the raw processor needs to do is well understood. The controls offered to adjust the various parameters in Raw processing are determined by the individual application designer. Each Raw processor has different tools, and new tools are constantly being developed. These applications are in their infancy and will evolve rapidly over the next few years.

A key point to remember is that you can always return to the Raw file and re-render it. As Raw processors become more sophisticated, new tools will allow more control and exciting new methods of rendering. Just as better chemistry and papers allow us to make prints of old negatives that are far superior to what was done at the time, new rendering tools will allow you to go back and improve a modern digital print that is rendered from the raw data.

 

Further down for someone that may have difficulty getting through this superb white paper:

When opening a raw file, the processing software produces a neutral rendering of the image, a starting point to begin the process. This is not the same as the automated rendering in the camera. It’s designed to utilize the full range of the source scene in a predictable way, to provide a reference. An experienced photo printer can look at a negative and know what to do, and likewise, a Raw print maker learns to look at the “neutral” rendering of the Raw software. From it he can see what’s possible, and know just what controls will realize his vision for the print. It’s also important to understand that there is no correct way to realize the neutral rendering. In fact, just like the camera JPEG it will vary by manufacturer. In the darkroom, you learn how the the brand of paper you work with acts. In the same way, with experience you will learn how your Raw processing software acts, and you will be better able to process satisfying render- ings from your Raw digital captures.

Raw processing software provides more control over the rendering of a print than any process in the history of photography. The tools now available control aspects of the print that weren’t possible with traditional photography.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

7 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

No. YOU said it's magic by making the ridiculous claim that it 'creates pixels'. 

Flinging the complete panoply of fallacious arguments back at me doesn't alter that. 

Then how is the appearance of the image altered at all? What happens after an Export or 'Save As' then? 

As it does with any editing method as long as one isn't stupid enough to overwrite the original file(s) that came out of the camera.

It's a matter of choice, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that's been using PhotoShop since version 2.5 on Windows 3.11. 

Because the most efficient workflow is one that's familiar through use and practise. What the software does internally is largely irrelevant. 

You are correct that as long as you work from a copy of the original file you effectively don't have to worry about altering your file in PS.  But whenever you flatten the image or make any edit and save the file it is altered. Going back in history does work, but once you close the file the history is gone and the file is altered and subsequently altered  with any operation you may do. You can then use the copy you've made if you want to start over, but then you will need to make yet another copy of the original and so on.  In parametric editors the underlying file isn't altered. You can go back to any image in LR, and I think Capture 1 at any time and re-adjust, or remove all your edits without altering the underlying image.  So in PS if you set levels and contrast alone you are destroying pixels in the image once you save it. Every time you work on the image, you are removing information from it once you save it.  That doesn't mean PS is inferior, but it will alter your underlying image.  I have the bundle and use both programs as some things I find easier to use in PS and can pass the file between both programs especially especially re-touching and sharpening which is the latter stages of my process.

I think the parametric editor puts a layer of instructions that interpret the image in the viewer, but doesn't alter the under lying image where programs like PS actually alter the underlying file. It is a major difference.

Edited February 8, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry

[digitaldog]

17 minutes ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

I think the parametric editor puts a layer of instructions that interpret the image in the viewer, but doesn't alter the under lying image where programs like PS actually alter the underlying file. It is a major difference.

Yes. They create previews to show you an adjustment/edit you'll get that matches the finished (rendered) image. This differs somewhat in Lightroom Classic depending on the module (most accurate previews are in Develop). 

After all, this is what a raw image really looks like when you view the raw data in a product like RawDigger. 

[AlanKlein]

4 hours ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

You are correct that as long as you work from a copy of the original file you effectively don't have to worry about altering your file in PS.  But whenever you flatten the image or make any edit and save the file it is altered. Going back in history does work, but once you close the file the history is gone and the file is altered and subsequently altered  with any operation you may do. You can then use the copy you've made if you want to start over, but then you will need to make yet another copy of the original and so on.  In parametric editors the underlying file isn't altered. You can go back to any image in LR, and I think Capture 1 at any time and re-adjust, or remove all your edits without altering the underlying image.  So in PS if you set levels and contrast alone you are destroying pixels in the image once you save it. Every time you work on the image, you are removing information from it once you save it.  That doesn't mean PS is inferior, but it will alter your underlying image.  I have the bundle and use both programs as some things I find easier to use in PS and can pass the file between both programs especially especially re-touching and sharpening which is the latter stages of my process.

I think the parametric editor puts a layer of instructions that interpret the image in the viewer, but doesn't alter the under lying image where programs like PS actually alter the underlying file. It is a major difference.

One caveat with Lightroom.  If you switch to another editing program from within Lightroom such as Silver Efex for BW edits, I believe one of the suggestions is to apply the Efex edits to the original file when switching back to LR.  So you want to be sure to select the option that creates a new photo file after you apply the Efex edits. 

[digitaldog]

47 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

One caveat with Lightroom.  If you switch to another editing program from within Lightroom such as Silver Efex for BW edits, I believe one of the suggestions is to apply the Efex edits to the original file when switching back to LR.  So you want to be sure to select the option that creates a new photo file after you apply the Efex edits. 

Your caveat is rather unclear. All the edits here, as we've discussed are parametric. They are proprietary. Raws are read only. Lightroom has to send Sliver Efex or anything else, a rendered image (a TIFF, JPEG, PSD), or maybe, maybe a linear DNG. The "original" file is raw so what are you proposing and warning us what? 

A "new photo file" has to be produced to move edits from LR to anything outside LR (expect ACR, they share the same engine and parametric effects). 

Do you have and use Lightroom Classic? 

Edited February 9, 2023 by digitaldog