I'm not sure who said what where now but I think it was Pathfinder who said this "
Apply image red channel blend mode darken to green channel
Apply image blue channel blend mode darken to green channel
Keep only the green channel
Sharpen"
Can you take me to square one pleasea senor... I'm adobe challenged it seems.. are you using adjustemt layers - channel mixer - I think not and I can't seem to figure out where to start. must be the alchohol......
...I think it might have been Rutt rereading.. methinks I must order Dan Whatshisnames book immediately if not sooner...
This was me. I didn't use either adjustment layers or the channel mixer in this case, though probably I could have achieved the desiered effect that way. I used Image->Apply Image:
Select the green channel
Image->Apply Image
Choose the red channel and the current image as source
This was me. I didn't use either adjustment layers or the channel mixer in this case, though probably I could have achieved the desiered effect that way. I used Image->Apply Image:
Select the green channel
Image->Apply Image
Choose the red channel and the current image as source
Choose darken as blend mode
Viola
Got it?
Got it and love it... turning out a bit on the dark side tho... need to play with it a lot more..any hints?
Hi Rutt, I used your formula.. I think this is as far as I can go... what do you think..
Doesn't this look much better to you? Yours and mine are pretty close. I think I used a lower opacity when I blended in the red channel. This resulted in the ligherter jacket that Pathfinder didn't like. You made my point for me by using 100% opacity in this blend and therefore getting the darker jacket witout any burn or dodge. We both ended up with better facial detail than Pathfinder (you can measure this with the color sampler tool or see it with threshhold adjustment, it's not a subjective statement.)
Did you use some kind of blur at some point in the process? Mine looks a little sharper than yours. I also sharpened more aggressively after the conversion, perhaps that's all I've seeing. To my eye, it looks better with the sharpening, but this is a matter of taste. Even with all our work, there isn't enough facial detail to make aggressive sharpening make Pam look like a reptile (the big danger of sharpening portraits of people over the age of 30.) If it had been a problem, we could have sharpened in CMYK on the C+K channels before conversion. Since there is usually very little black and cyan in faces, this sharpens hair, eyes, clothes, etc, but not wrinkles. This is another Dan Margulis trick
Now that you have an image that isn't missing a big part of the face and have nice tones in the face relative to the jacket, you can use curves or some such to tweek if you think it's too dark or could have better contrast (I don't).
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
We both ended up with better facial detail than Pathfinder (you can measure this with the color sampler tool or see it with threshhold adjustment, it's not a subjective statement.)
John, You noticed - I am so pleased - I did the glammd version -
After adjusting tonality, I did a duplicate layer with aGaussian blur of 2.5 and then a blending mode of overlay and an adjustment slider to lighten the blending mode. People call this the glamor treatment - It smooths the skin - makes it glow. See - you did notice. I thought the shadows under under her eyes were not an assett.
But you are right - there was less detail in the face, deliberately....
Fish, I am wearing ths watch - Great minds think alike I guess. But where does the little row of hatch marks from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock come from?
Second hand ticks.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
nice stuff. I like this one a bit more than the watch. The watch makes a nice B&W, but I think it's much better in color.
Thanks...and agreed.
But here's a minute's worth of high-contrast B&W with curves and levels and luminosity and calcium chloride and all that other PS mumbojumbo.
Okay...I'm done with the watch.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
And now some high-contrast coins. Better than color? What do you think?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Yes
by the way, you might want to jump over to the other side of the street and check out some of kbasa's work. He got some pretty cool stuff today!
I've been trying to avoid it. My liver needs a break.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
I think the B+W coins are great and make a of sense. I understand why they are great in B+W, no information is really lost by conversion to B+W and the choice of tone is so interesting that it makes up for the loss of color.
John, You noticed - I am so pleased - I did the glammd version -
After adjusting tonality, I did a duplicate layer with aGaussian blur of 2.5 and then a blending mode of overlay and an adjustment slider to lighten the blending mode. People call this the glamor treatment - It smooths the skin - makes it glow. See - you did notice. I thought the shadows under under her eyes were not an assett.
But you are right - there was less detail in the face, deliberately....
This might have worked well in color or with a original with stronger contrast in the highlights, but in this shot in b&w, the result was to lose her cheek. Maybe the trick would be to start out with a conversion that emphasized the green channel, used the red channel only to darken, and then apply any "glamming". But the cheek detail is very delicate and easy to lose.
In the end it's a matter of taste whether keeping the cheek detail is more important then losing the shadows under the eyes. You might even be right about it, I don't have very strong feelings about this image. But technically, the big challenge for me of b&w conversion is to lose the least amount of information possible, so that's what I was trying to learn to do.
Contrast
I spent today and will be tomorrow in a local Visual Arts class. I enjoy shooting with other photographers, you can certainly pick up a few tips. Here are some contrasty shots for the assignment and I will look out for more tomorrow.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Doesn't this look much better to you? Yours and mine are pretty close. I think I used a lower opacity when I blended in the red channel. This resulted in the ligherter jacket that Pathfinder didn't like. You made my point for me by using 100% opacity in this blend and therefore getting the darker jacket witout any burn or dodge. We both ended up with better facial detail than Pathfinder (you can measure this with the color sampler tool or see it with threshhold adjustment, it's not a subjective statement.)
Did you use some kind of blur at some point in the process? Mine looks a little sharper than yours. I also sharpened more aggressively after the conversion, perhaps that's all I've seeing. To my eye, it looks better with the sharpening, but this is a matter of taste. Even with all our work, there isn't enough facial detail to make aggressive sharpening make Pam look like a reptile (the big danger of sharpening portraits of people over the age of 30.) If it had been a problem, we could have sharpened in CMYK on the C+K channels before conversion. Since there is usually very little black and cyan in faces, this sharpens hair, eyes, clothes, etc, but not wrinkles. This is another Dan Margulis trick
Now that you have an image that isn't missing a big part of the face and have nice tones in the face relative to the jacket, you can use curves or some such to tweek if you think it's too dark or could have better contrast (I don't).
Yes I did use a little blur at the end to soften her... I'm very interested in all this... thanks for the help it's great. I need to get Dans book I think.
Yes I did use a little blur at the end to soften her... I'm very interested in all this... thanks for the help it's great. I need to get Dans book I think.
It's a must have. But don't expect to be able to absorb it all at once. Read it in order and enjoy it; it's very well written and entertaining. Try to get the big picture. It repays multiple readings after periods of attempting to apply the principles.
One last shot at Cletus' assignment. I thought I would give the house in the field a try. It is really interesting the different effects achievable in PS.
The first conversion is the done using the saturation multilayer process.
This came out OK, but flat with no pizazz!
I then tried the channel mixer process with better results I think. More contrast - it seems to jump out from the page.
The ground in the forground is darker and retains a little better detail in mine.
The patch of ground that the house sits on is also darker in mine. In this, Hutch is truer to the original, where this patch is definitly lighter.
We both decided to loose some details of the house in the interest of a strong shawdow there.
Sky tone and detail very similar.
Hutch's sharpening is visible in the tree branches. To my eye, they are a little oversharpened.
Which conversion is "better" here is pretty much a question of taste. The image retoucher inevitably ends up making aesthetic decisions, but that shouldn't be his/her goal. B&W conversion is difficult this way, because color is so much richer than B&W (this is meant as an objective statement, there are many possible colors for the same luminosity.)
Foam on the river in a backwater
I thought this would be a perfect candidate for B+W conversion. Not much information lost, really. Still I like the blue tint of the original.
Conversion of this image was very simple. Increase contrast in the original, sharpen, convert.
Lynn:
Your Box is Full... Did get a chance to check out the Gallery? Again posted it open under the same password--will shut it down 25th of April.
ginette
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
[/color] You are encouraged to post not only your final image, but also your original color image and a description of your color to black and white conversion method.
My entry into this weeks assignment, is RoRy EliZaBeTh, born 3:05am Easter Sunday, 11 April 2004, weighing in at 7lbs 11oz & 20.5" long.
This was one of her first photos. Taken just 5 days after she was born, and she is rather jaundiced. So, I knew I would be converting some of them to B&W anyway.
Made touch up to any outstanding Blemishes.
Checked and Adjusted Levels & Curves
Changed the Mode to Grayscale
re-Adjusted Levels
Curves
Contrast
Mode-DuoTone
Selected PANTONE 7533 C & PANTONE 1405 C
Comments
This was me. I didn't use either adjustment layers or the channel mixer in this case, though probably I could have achieved the desiered effect that way. I used Image->Apply Image:
- Select the green channel
- Image->Apply Image
- Choose the red channel and the current image as source
- Choose darken as blend mode
- Viola
Got it?Did you use some kind of blur at some point in the process? Mine looks a little sharper than yours. I also sharpened more aggressively after the conversion, perhaps that's all I've seeing. To my eye, it looks better with the sharpening, but this is a matter of taste. Even with all our work, there isn't enough facial detail to make aggressive sharpening make Pam look like a reptile (the big danger of sharpening portraits of people over the age of 30.) If it had been a problem, we could have sharpened in CMYK on the C+K channels before conversion. Since there is usually very little black and cyan in faces, this sharpens hair, eyes, clothes, etc, but not wrinkles. This is another Dan Margulis trick
Now that you have an image that isn't missing a big part of the face and have nice tones in the face relative to the jacket, you can use curves or some such to tweek if you think it's too dark or could have better contrast (I don't).
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
After adjusting tonality, I did a duplicate layer with aGaussian blur of 2.5 and then a blending mode of overlay and an adjustment slider to lighten the blending mode. People call this the glamor treatment - It smooths the skin - makes it glow. See - you did notice. I thought the shadows under under her eyes were not an assett.
But you are right - there was less detail in the face, deliberately....
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
nice stuff. I like this one a bit more than the watch. The watch makes a nice B&W, but I think it's much better in color.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
But here's a minute's worth of high-contrast B&W with curves and levels and luminosity and calcium chloride and all that other PS mumbojumbo.
Okay...I'm done with the watch.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
and
No
by the way, you might want to jump over to the other side of the street and check out some of kbasa's work. He got some pretty cool stuff today!
I've been trying to avoid it. My liver needs a break.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
In the end it's a matter of taste whether keeping the cheek detail is more important then losing the shadows under the eyes. You might even be right about it, I don't have very strong feelings about this image. But technically, the big challenge for me of b&w conversion is to lose the least amount of information possible, so that's what I was trying to learn to do.
I spent today and will be tomorrow in a local Visual Arts class. I enjoy shooting with other photographers, you can certainly pick up a few tips. Here are some contrasty shots for the assignment and I will look out for more tomorrow.
Deacon
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Adjustments to color balance to increase red, then desaturated, adjusted contrast.
Increased red a bit
Convert to BW.
Adjust Contrast Slightly.
Frame and title.
(BTW , thanks for arena to learn this complicated software)
original
then:
1.Image - Equalize
2.Enhance - Adj. Br./Cont. - Levels - RGB - Red - Green - Blue
then:
3. Image- Mode - Grayscale
same original pic - done in iPhoto - 1 click
The first conversion is the done using the saturation multilayer process.
This came out OK, but flat with no pizazz!
I then tried the channel mixer process with better results I think. More contrast - it seems to jump out from the page.
Done!
Hutch
Differences:
- The ground in the forground is darker and retains a little better detail in mine.
- The patch of ground that the house sits on is also darker in mine. In this, Hutch is truer to the original, where this patch is definitly lighter.
- We both decided to loose some details of the house in the interest of a strong shawdow there.
- Sky tone and detail very similar.
- Hutch's sharpening is visible in the tree branches. To my eye, they are a little oversharpened.
Which conversion is "better" here is pretty much a question of taste. The image retoucher inevitably ends up making aesthetic decisions, but that shouldn't be his/her goal. B&W conversion is difficult this way, because color is so much richer than B&W (this is meant as an objective statement, there are many possible colors for the same luminosity.)I find it useful to compare different attempts.
I thought this would be a perfect candidate for B+W conversion. Not much information lost, really. Still I like the blue tint of the original.
Conversion of this image was very simple. Increase contrast in the original, sharpen, convert.
Lynn:
Your Box is Full... Did get a chance to check out the Gallery? Again posted it open under the same password--will shut it down 25th of April.
ginette