Hello - I'm a new member to the Mpix forum.

I am trying to sort out how to get good B&W prints in this "advanced technology" era.  I shoot film (color slide - scanned to digital & edited in Photoshop Elements).  So far, all my attempts at converting these images to B&W have been disapponinging!  I print them on a Canon S900.  Blacks and whites are good, but it appears that the process does not produce the range of tones that I was used to years ago using conventional dark room processing and printing.

Concluding that the techniques I'm using won't produce satisfactory results, I am about ready to do the darkroom thing again.  It seems to me that there are several options - to shoot B&W film and process it - or to go all the way with conventional darkroom printing.  I am impressed with Mpix printing services with my color shots, so if I processed B&W film, had it scanned, then printed by Mpix on their B&W specialty paper, is it likely the results would be good?  I would love to hear your experiences before I decide to commit a bathroom to be a darkroom again!.

 

Hi Bill. Welcome  to the forums!  And to BW in the digital age.  I've spent a year trying to master BW conversions in my spare time.  I have seen examples in some books, but never even come close.  There is a guy here, I can't think of his name offhand, but he owns a lab in  or whatever in CA that specializes in doing it for you.  If you do a search here under something like "BW" you'll probably find him.  He seems to know what he's doing.  Otherwise, I think it's back to either sending the film out or developing it yourself.  (Or buying a dslr that can shoot raw, a raw program, CS2 and all that). Good luck, let us know what happens. 

I'm almost positive that the issue would be the scan.
However, there is known problem with digital files converted to BW - it's just not what it should be. No color images problem from digital camera.
However, from own experience + other photog. reports one big help is to shoot raw with digital and process 16 bit tiff files. That way the tonal range is far greater, and results as for converting to BW are huge difference compared to 8 bit file.

Is it possible that you loose data/tonal range during scanning?
What I typed above applies to digital photo, and I'm not sure about two things - what you can get out of your scanner and second, if elements is able to process 16 bit files.

Now I'm not even sure if I've helped a bit. But I'm positive about my wife (negative) reaction if I'd present darkroom in the bathroom idea

Tomas

 

 

My thanks to both shannone and tommas4 for your replies.

The files that I have used are TIFF from a commercial scanning company at 4000dpi resolution.  With color, they seem great - excellelant resolution and color depth.  They really do look good for large color prints.  But, they sure don't convert to B&W well.  My Photoshop elements doesn't have the right tools based on what I've read, but I have used a plug-in for conversion that has a good reputation.  The problem may be in the scanned file, but the conversion is also suspect.

The RAW file suggestion is probably the reality - but I have been hesitating to spend the bucks until Canon and Nikon decide when they will give us a full size sensor in a 30D or D80 package for under $1K.  I may be unrealistic on that one!

Although my wife enjoyed working in the darkroom and probably would not object to a replay - what I remember with some pain is the time spent in setting up and cleaning up for a darkroom session.  The rest was fun and satisfying!  Developing the film was easy and a no-brainer - but setting up all that stuff for printing and cleaning it up was a real chore.  I think I would like to find an easier solution.

Maybe I should look into some of the new non-Photoshop software that is beginning to show up.  Nikon is marketing Capture NX, and I've read about another one by Lightzone that works with a Zone system concept.  Anyone have any experience with them?   (I know, it's blasphemy to look beyond Photoshop!)

Anyway, thanks to you both for your inputs.  This seems like a fun and helpfull forum.

 

I think the technology goes pretty fast.
Six years ago, the 4 megapixel 1D was 7000$.
About three years go the revolution came with 6 megapixel, uder 1000$ rebel.
Today for same money, you have 30D, but those both here with me - frankly, the rebel is for sale.
In three years - 1000$ full frame with abilities of 30D I think will be standard tool.

Anyway, if your scans are top notch, what exactly is your workflow to get monochromatic images?
I pesonally first go to channel mixer, select monochrome (which is the same as desaturate) and then "swap" red and blue chanels (ie set red from 100% to zero and blue from zero to 100%). See what happens and take it from there.
Here is a sample, done just that, nothing else.

I'm not a big fan of the way how optikverve plug-in handles my files, usualy I loose lot of data and also tonal range goes down, not mentioning the noise, but custom settings can be, to certain level, compensation for it.

Tomas

 

Tomas

Yes!  That is what I am looking for.  Nice blacks and highlights and a good range of greys.  (I also like the car!)

For the moment, I am going to assume that my scanned file has the information, and my problem is in the conversion.  However, in doing so. I may find myself in that uncomfortable position described by that American expression - "rock and a hard spot".

I have a version of Photoshop that Canon bundled with their digital cameras - the 5.0LE.  It is actually a pretty good version, but does lack some of the tools - in this case, it lacks the Channels capability.  It does have the ability to saturate/desaturate each color individually, so maybe if I learn to use that tool, I can simulate your workflow.  I think the basics are probably the same.

If that doesn't work, Photoshow does sell Elements 5 that has the Channels tool.  But, it requires Windows XP and Pentium III - my (perfectly good) system uses Windows 2000 and Pentium II.  Odd - so many of life's problems seem to get solved with another trip to the store!

I think I will also work with a bit simpler shot - the one I am struggling with is of El Capitan taken in Yosimite NP this fall.  Anything taken there seems to get judged against Ansel Adams - that may be an unreasonable expectation for me!

So, thanks much for your help.  I think you have set me upon the right path, Tomas.

Bill

 

I spent about three years getting my digital B&W where I wanted it and now it is beautiful. You main problem is most likely your conversion method, be warned that there are about as many color to B&W conversion methods as there are photographers and everyone swears that theirs is best. It is also difficult to get good B&W from some inkjet printers. If you can get good color prints then the data is ther for B&W, and after spending many years in a darkroom Photoshop is one of the best for turning color into B&W.

a straight mode conversion to greyscale is one of the least effective ways to convert color.

this chart shows what happens with either greysclale or "remove color"

 

the gradient map is intersting because you can slide the middle tone up or down the scale or lock it at 50% and move the black and white points or set color tones... say a nice warm black( well 85%)

the two adjustment layer technique is equally useful for controlling the tonal range.

both of these are easy in psElements.

with practice, you may find that you can get greyscale tonal ranges that would take a lot of time and paper to do in a wet darkroom.

and as someone said many, many b/w converters swear by the channel mixer.

and many of us like the OptikVerve for its custom settings which you can save for one click application to the next image you want to use it on.

 

I forget which technique I used, but it was one of those two I mentioned above.(plus some other tweaks)

I found a PS action for B&W that I really like. Its by Greg Gorman (http://www.gormanphotography.com/gorman.html) and Mac Holbert...

I don't have a link to the action itself, but on his site there's a tutorial pdf on how to create the action for yourself. Here's a couple examples of its use...

Dan ( by the way... Welcome to Mpix!)

 

drh681:

a straight mode conversion to greyscale is one of the least effective ways to convert color....

...the gradient map is intersting because you can slide the middle tone up or down the scale or lock it at 50% and move the black and white points or set color tones... say a nice warm black( well 85%)

the two adjustment layer technique is equally useful for controlling the tonal range.

both of these are easy in psElements.

with practice, you may find that you can get greyscale tonal ranges that would take a lot of time and paper to do in a wet darkroom.

and as someone said many, many b/w converters swear by the channel mixer.

and many of us like the OptikVerve for its custom settings which you can save for one click application to the next image you want to use it on.

The problem with a Gradient Map is that you can't control how the individual colors convert to greyscale like you can in Channel Mixer, a good example is your cyan and light red which come out almost the same shade of grey. The density and contrast changes you are making can also be don after the conversion using a Curves adjustment layer.

Many Graphic designers like to convert using Lab color. The swithch the image from RGB to Lab the delete the a & b channels which contain all the color information leaving the L channel which holds the density info.

Unfortunately I can't upload the samples I did, for some reason this forum is not very Mac friendly.

http://www.trwheels.com/images/conv.jpg is a link to the conversions I did using the above color chart. Sorry I can't make the URL a link another forum issue.

cort

hmm...

gradient map is still better than a straight greyscale or desaturation. Tthose do indeed give exactly the same shade of grey for all three colors at any given brightness level.

if you look close,(use the info eyedropper) you will see that there is a difference in tone value in the gradient mapped colors. however, the main thing I use the gradient map for is to manipulate the ranges and break points in the greyscale. that is to extend the mid tones(as in the screenshot) or deepen the overall image by moving the 50% point right. I also set the white to 3-5% and the black to 98-95%.

oh and I use it to make a contrast control mask when needed.

LAB and the channel mixer are excellent tools but they are not in most versions of psElements.

There is a good brief on five conversion techniques in the January ShutterBug magazine.

drh681:

gradient map is still better than a straight greyscale or desaturation. Tthose do indeed give exactly the same shade of grey for all three colors at any given brightness level.

One of the powers of Photoshop is its ability to meld approaches together in addition to offereing up parallel paths.  For B&W conversion, I start with Curves to set the range and then Channel mixer to adjust the "definition" of color mapping to darks and lights in monochrome.  Often, I use multiple channel mixer layers with differing layer masks and color conversion definitions to make each portion of the image and its colors convert the way that I envision them in monochrome.

 Once that is done, I will often then use either a gradient map adjustment layer, hue/saturation adjustment layer, or shifting to a duo/tri/quad tone image type to add slight (or substantial) toning to the image or to increase/decrease the tonal detail in specific tonal ranges.

 
If you can envision the destination in your mind's eye, Photoshop can take you there.  No need to contrain oneself to a single approach though, mix-'n-match, rinse-'n-repeat.

 

Jim
 

Awesome info people... wonderful discussion!

Just a quick bit of info, Photoshop CS3 beta has a fantastic BW conversion tool.  It's essentially a channel mixer adjustment layer with some extra controls (including tinting) to really fine tune the conversion.  Plus it allows tinting in the same dialog box.  It works wonderfully and is extremely intuitive especially if you've had experience with BW printing in a dark room.

One of the things I have discovered with Photoshop is that the less you do to an image the better. I have never been a fan of long complicated multi-step processes, I usually find that the results are not any better than the shorter methods. Doing a Mode Convert to Greyscale in Photoshop works for me most of the time and I will put the quality of my B&W prints and images up against anyones. I know that sounds arrogant but I have spent tons of time and money getting the process down and all the photographers that have seen my prints always comment on the print quality, some don't believe it is digital.

Jeff,

 Good point about CS3.  There are also some features therein at the Camera Raw stage that can work conversion to B&W and/or tinting as well.  My brief dabble with those left me unimpressed.  I would rather be able to channel mix in Photoshop itself, and, as you point out, the feature there is much improved. 

Personally, I was hoping that there would be more options blurring the line between the nice curve-based features of duo/tri/quad toning procedures and the channel mixing and gradient map routes.  It would be both faster and more precise to have an option to model curves rather than flat values in something like the channel mixer.  If that ability exists in CS3, I have not found it yet.

 

Cort,

Sounding a little defensive.     As you originally pointed out, there are as many ways to do B&W conversion as there are people interested in doing it.  Every one should seek out (as the original poster has done) and try out (as I hope they will) various methods to see what works for them.  Funneling the discusion to one and only one route - or a narrow defintion of monochrome - only shackles one's creativity.  Of course toned/tinted images are not B&W...hence the other names.  Are they often a part of or a different angle on the same question?  Yep.  Two birds one stone.

 

Cheers,

Jim 

Jim
 

trwheels:

I don't consider tinted, duo/tri/quad tones to be B&W. They are RGB files that have to be printed in color to get the desired effect and if you don't have a well calibrated printer this can lead to all sorts of unwanted tints and tones. There are some dedicated B&W inksets that let you adjust the tone when printing but they start with a greyscale file.

cort

I don't consider toned images to be the same as b&w either...  no one does.  But, while we're one the subject, b&w, sepia or any other toned image, is a monochromatic image and in that sense they are very similar and require similar tonal adjustments since they are both being converted from an RGB file, which probably explains why they are now located in the same location in CS3.

At WPPI a few years ago I sat through a hour and a half presentation about a method for manually doing unsharp mask sharpening. It was long and complicated making it impractical in most workflows and the results were no better than using the USM filter in Photoshop. So why use it?

jjhat1:

But, while we're one the subject, b&w, sepia or any other toned image, is a monochromatic image and in that sense they are very similar and require similar tonal adjustments since they are both being converted from an RGB file, which probably explains why they are now located in the same location in CS3.

This thread as taken on a life - that's great!

I  now have a lot of information to consider - but the thing that is really valuable from these discussions is that they cause you to start thinking!  In my case, I do have a little background in the darkroom - so I have started to think about this as a darkroom process as I would have back in those dark ages.  Here is what has happened.

Going back to ground zero, I chose my best conversion option -Optikverve - to convert the color scan image.  I know that it is not a perfect conversion, but being careful with settings seems to be important.  I did not use their stock settings but developed my own primarily looking for good grey tone range and not paying too much attention to the blacks and whites   The result was the best B&W "negative" that I could produce.

In the "wet" darkroom, you typically enlarged, rotated, cropped, adjusted for density and tone placement, burned and dodged, then printed (and hoped for the best).  Photoshop (even my LT version) can do all of those things - and much easier.  So, instead of a PS "workflow" I tried to convert my thinking to a darkroom workflow.  That helped me a lot.

The results? Not bad.  I now have an acceptable image, although not remarkable.  I'll get better with time.  Also,  I am sure my inkjet printer falls short for monochome, so I will have Mpix print one to explore that potential fix. 

As for the conversion problem, the full Photoshop is not at the top of my priority list.  There are at least two lenses that have a higher priority - so I need to look for another option.  The obvious one is to shoot B&W film, develop it, have it scanned, and process it in my "PS LT darkroom" (the one without the smell of fixer)  That sounds reasonable, anyway.

The company that has done most of my scanning believes this is a good approach, and has a number of professional customers using that technique (especially those who use medium format).  Since I shoot film anyway, it is only a matter of which body to grab for the shot.  I think It is worth a try.  When I jump to digital all the way, I will obviously loose this option, and have to then make that very very big trip to the store!.

Thanks to all for your great inputs - and thanks for getting these "grey cells" working!

Bill