TimS wrote:
Agh young gwas-happah. You have to know why the "rules" are there so you know when it's OK to break them. High tonal contrast = good B&W image. High noon = real good tonal contrast.
I shot this at high noon.
TimS wrote:
Agh young gwas-happah. You have to know why the "rules" are there so you know when it's OK to break them. High tonal contrast = good B&W image. High noon = real good tonal contrast.
Been at it for 50 years so I know something about it. High noon in Iceland on Dec 23 is pretty dark. In Havana on June 22 you get no shadows.
TimS wrote:
I shot this at high noon.
That's not tone, it's texture. Not bad, but it isn't architecture either.
selmslie wrote:
That's not tone, it's texture. Not bad, but it isn't architecture either.
That's the best I can do with photos I have on my iPhone :)
I turned the color image into BW using Onone software Perfect Suite 8.
snapshot4619 wrote:
I turned the color image into BW using Onone software Perfect Suite 8.
snapshot4619,
Good try, and it works.
Have you compared your conversion to the original B&W I posted?
Without being biased, which one looks better to you?
That is what you may want to go with in B&W.
Michael G
Armadillo wrote:
LoneRangeFinder,
Both images I attached are downloadable, I did this specifically so members could have almost identical image files to work with. Anybody can download both files, and modify the color image to see how close, or better they can make a B&W conversion. Then they can measure how long it takes to convert the color image, and modify it to meet the B&W image.
Michael G
Thanks. I'm just enough of a "scientist" to try this at some point....
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Thanks. I'm just enough of a "scientist" to try this at some point....
LoneRangeFinder,
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Good luck, and waiting to see the results.
Michael G
This is true..shoot in camera b/w and your lose the ability to adjust the color channels, and converting later in pp is really very little work
Armadillo wrote:
LoneRangeFinder,
I cannot argue with your point, it can be done.
What I an trying to illustrate is; if we use the proper filtration in front of the lens, we might be able to get the image we had in mind, when we visualized it in our mind in B&W.
Why spend hours in front of a computer, experimenting with PP software, looking up complex procedures to allow the software to perform the task we are trying to create, if we can get an original direct out of the camera?
Michael G
LoneRangeFinder, br br I cannot argue with your p... (
show quote)
ahhh, a b/w can be converted in seconds..you not talking hours
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
I get your primary point, which is to produce the image without a lot of PP fuss. To be honest, this is the part of photography that I enjoy the least-- perhaps because it draws up the smell of Dextol.
However, I'm not sure how this would be done if the visualized image required the manipulation of the tonal range of several different colors in the same image.
I'll think about this. I still have all of my old B&W filters, 80a to darken the blue in a sky, etc....
Interesting point you make here. I made up an attachment to my computer. When I am at my computer, the power supply heats up a liquid in the attachment that emits the aroma of Dextol. I am working now on patents for the device and a follow up of other chemical film processing aromas.
Dektol.
Dektol has virtually no smell. It's the acetic acid and hypo that choke you up.
RMM
Loc: Suburban New York
Armadillo wrote:
This topic is open for discussion, and the two attached images are open for modification.
Camera set to normal color with 5 presses of button on back of camera.
No filters on camera.
Camera EV = -1Ev
Minor Levels adjusted (same values as in B&W image)
The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate how easy it is to take B&W pictures with a little effort and no major PP time on the computer.
I am aware both images can use some PP (Post Processing) work, and they can be improved. The issue is in spending as little time as possible in the digital darkroom.
Both images, combined, took less than 5 minutes to process.
Michael G
PS Personally, I would prefer the Color Flag, with CPL filter applied.
MG
This topic is open for discussion, and the two att... (
show quote)
Here's the color image, with the following changes:
1. Created a set of luminosity masks.
2. Duplicated the original onto a new layer, lightened the blues using Image -> Adjustments -> Black and White
3. Copied the Light channel from the luminosity masks and pasted it into a new layer
4. Added a layer mask and applied a gradient to it to alter the sky from dark at the top to light at the bottom
The result is a lot more contrast. There might be room for further changes, but this was a 5-minute job, or less.
nekon
Loc: Carterton, New Zealand
RMM wrote:
Here's the color image, with the following changes:
1. Created a set of luminosity masks.
2. Duplicated the original onto a new layer, lightened the blues using Image -> Adjustments -> Black and White
3. Copied the Light channel from the luminosity masks and pasted it into a new layer
4. Added a layer mask and applied a gradient to it to alter the sky from dark at the top to light at the bottom
The result is a lot more contrast. There might be room for further changes, but this was a 5-minute job, or less.
Here's the color image, with the following changes... (
show quote)
No contrast in sky-can hardly make out the clouds
2 mins channel mixer
RMM
Loc: Suburban New York
nekon wrote:
No contrast in sky-can hardly make out the clouds
You're right. I said there was room for improvement. However, I'd ask whether the clouds were all that important in this image, bearing in mind that I was trying to boost the contrast.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.