I would like to have a wall collage of monochrome images.  I would like my monochromes to be consistent from one image to the next.  Not with a blue tint that is more pronounced then the next.  I have not gotten close to being able to do this by eye-ball on my own.  I'm looking into buying some actions to do conversions with and I am wondering if that would be the ticket to keeping the conversions consistent?  Anyone have an answer for this, am I even making sense?

Thanks,

Alicia 

 

When you use a conversion, they usually have you adjust the saturation, sharpness, and contrast manually, therefore, they could still be slightly inconsistent.  maybe do the pictures yourself and write down the values you use and make them the same picture to picture. 

You conversion is also going to depend on the exposure of each image.  Unless you are shooting a series of shots in the same lighting situation, you will likely have a different look to each image.  Your conversion on an image that was shot in full sunlight will be different than one shot in full shade, and it will be diff. from a studio shot.

It is easy if you want B&W images.

1) Convert your images to greyscale using whatever conversion method you like.

2) Adjust the images so the same areas in each, highlight detail, shadow detail, skin tones have similar black values. Do not do any image adjustment after this step!

3) Convert the images back to RGB and save as JPEGs.

4)Send to Mpix for true B&W prints.

This will get you very consistent images. Like Wendi said there will be some differences based on the individual images and how and where thy were shot. |c

a color cast in a monochrome image is not so much from the conversion as from inconsistent calibrations from the monitor to printer.

you mention a blue tone, some others see either green or red shifts.

sending for real b/w prints is a good way to avoid this.

but for home use, you need to make corrections to the monitor until the screen matches the output.

if your prints are running to blue, your monitor is probably too much yellow.

Ok I think I've got my problem.  I think it may be the inconsistency in the temperature or exposure of the image that is throughing me off though I can see how the printer, monitor thing could play into it.

Here is an example

Now #2

 

#2 seems more blue to me than #1.  They were converted using the same procedure, on the same monitor.  The images where taken under nearly the same lighting conditions as well.  Am I just nuts?  These are not the images I intend to use.  I have not taken those yet.  If it is a lighting thing then I'd like to figure that out before hand.  I am trying very hard to do most of my work in camera.

Thanks,

Alicia

 

 

 

what method are you converting with?

if you want exactly the same tones every time, use the black to white gradient map.

You can also add a layer filled with a color (or black) and change the mode to "color".  Just use the same color each time:

 

You are all trying to make something very simple into something very complicated. If you want to do B&W you need to use a conversion that gives you a Greyscale file. This will eliminate all color casts in the image. Greyscale is also where you should be doing your final density/contrast tweaks.

People get into these complicated conversions that aren't necessary to get good results, I have found that simple works better. If you don't believe me take a look at my Web site. |c

Thank you everyone for your help...Oh Cort, if I could get my images to look half as good as yours I'd be over the moon/  My husband just said...yup I would do exactly what that guy tells you to.  So here I am with my next lame brain question.  I am using the gradiant map, is that changing it to grayscale?  Where is the best place for me to read all about it without begging you all for the energy to explain?

Thanks

Alicia

Here is my method for doing conversions.

1) Start with a well exposed and color corrected image, I shoot in RAW and do this in Lightroom, Photoshop will work too.

2) Open the image in Photoshop.

3) Go to Image > Mode > Greyscale

4) Create a Curves Adjustment Layer and do any needed density/contrast adjustments.

5) Do any cropping, retouch or other work.

6) Save the file then save a copy and open the copy.

7) On the copy file resize for the print then sharpen.

7a) If your lab requires a RGB file then go to Image > Mode > RGB.

7b) Print to your own printer using black only if possible.

8) Save as JPEG to send to lab for print, preferably a true B&W print.

Others use different methods and I have one or two others I use occasionally but this is what I use most of the time. It works well for me. I also want to stress how important the first step is, no conversion is going to save a bad color image. |c

trwheels:

You are all trying to make something very simple into something very complicated. If you want to do B&W you need to use a conversion that gives you a Greyscale file. This will eliminate all color casts in the image. Greyscale is also where you should be doing your final density/contrast tweaks.

People get into these complicated conversions that aren't necessary to get good results, I have found that simple works better. If you don't believe me take a look at my Web site. |c

"gray scale" and "remove color" are the WORST ways ro get to monochrome.

do the test your self;  make a square and fill half with 100%red and half with 100%green then "remove color"

there is nothing complicated in a black to white gradient map. or in the color merged black(or white) layer.

and if the printer profile is off, the color cast will still show up in any conversion.

 

drh681:

"gray scale" and "remove color" are the WORST ways ro get to monochrome.

I use Mode > Greyscale on most of my conversions and get great results, it is the same as using Channel Mixer except you cannot change the channel percentages they are set by the program. The problem with a gradient map is that it throws out data during the conversion and after the conversion you have very little to work with if you want to make any adjustments.

Again, if you have any doubts about how well Mode convert to Greyscale works take a look at my site. |c

Well, I had to do an experiment after reading this thread.  I'm used to using the channel mixer - yes it takes more time, but I still think I like the results better.  I so think that converting to greyscale looks much better than just desaturating though.  What do you all think?  (this is a photo I took at Pike Place Market in Seattle a couple of weeks ago)

 

 

true enough, but I prefer have less data than having colors walking on each other in tonal value.

and the adjustments can be made to the gradient.

you can "stretch" either end or the middle; you can "tone" the middle gray or the "black" or "white" points.

you can also use the gradient map for special effects to mimic solarization or tri-tone printing.

the gradient can be a very creative tool.

I'm always up for learning something new.  How do you use the gradient map?  Especially the "stretching", etc. that you're talking about.

this shows what you can get with pre-made gradients.

each was made in the gradient editor and saved for use in a gradient map adjustment layer.

 

Your samples show why I don't like gradient map conversions, it shows loss of detail in some highlight and shadow areas, that cannot be brought back. The channel mixer version has a much fuller tonal range which will yield better prints because there is more to work with. Your problem of overlapping colors can easily be solved if it is a problem by making adjustments in Channel Mixer. But I don't see any more overlapping colors there than I do in your gradient map.

What I am looking for in my conversions is as full of a tonal range as possible so that I have as much room as possible to make tweaks.

With my method if I want more contrast I can compress the highlights and shadows to get it, with gradient map you cannot flatten it out to get more detail in the highlights and shadows because it is gone.

What I am looking for is a balance of tonal range/detail/contrast all working together. |c

Personally, I prefer Cort's method.   I have used all of the above mentioned but keep coming back to the convert to grey scale and then using curves to adjust.

Scott Kelby recommends using the gradiant map method in his book.   

Karenl39:

Scott Kelby recommends using the gradiant map method in his book.   

Karenl39:

Scott Kelby recommends using the gradiant map method in his book.   

I know he is a recognized Photoshop expert, however I have spent a large amount of time and money refining my B&W process and my prints have gotten good reviews from photographers that have seen them.

I think the difference is people doing gradient map conversions are doing all the density/contrast adjustments at the time of conversion, this leaves little room for adjustments later because of the compressed tonal range. With a greyscale conversion I make density/contrast adjustments afterwards via a Curves Adjustment Layer. I can tweak these as much as I want or even do multiple adjustment layers because I have started with a full tonal range and have room to work.

If I have problem areas I can even adjust those via adjustment layers with layer masks.

While it varies from image to image good B&W is a balance of tonal range/detail/contrast, if you go too heavy on one then the others suffer and the print doesn't look right. For example if you crank the contrast up too much you compress the tonal range and you lose detail in the highlights and/or shadows. I see this often in gradient map conversions. |c