BW conversion feedback

Stustaff

Here is the original and then my Black and white version, what do you think?



EDIT
My original conversion deleted and replaced by latest version at bottom of thread

Andy

Stustaff wrote:

Here is the original and then my Black and white version, what do you think?

I think you can do better


First, let's correct your overexposure. Simple shadow/highlight adjustment in photoshop PS CS2 will recover the white top, nicely. Oh and look closely at the man's hair in your short and mine. Details in the shadow highlight tutes, here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1100284




Next, let's punch it up a bit in the B&W, shall we? And pay close attention to the facial details and tonal variations. Our eyes crave that!

Here are two BWs. On the left, using simple channel mixer technique. On the right, adding a luminosity toning layer.


There are a zillion ways to do Black and White - choose your favorite, but pay close attention to the details

Stustaff

Nice work Andy, I was pretty happy with mine until I saw yours

No im still happy with mine but now I can see what it could be like, will go back to the drawing board now

Mitchell

Any suggestions on how to adjust the channel mixer levels? I noticed on Andy's tutorial that he uses just the red and green channels. I've always started at 33% on all three and adjusted by eye, but I'm finding most of my B&W conversions are flat and muddy looking.

I need science here, not trial and error!

Andy

Mitchell wrote:

Any suggestions on how to adjust the channel mixer levels? I noticed on Andy's tutorial that he uses just the red and green channels. I've always started at 33% on all three and adjusted by eye, but I'm finding most of my B&W conversions are flat and muddy looking.

I need science here, not trial and error!

i used 50/50/0 for the above, and then did local adjustments for the faces

Stustaff

Thats almost annoying, I had mine around 50 50 0 and thought it looked good but assumed I had to be more equal on the sliders so pushed more to 40 33 26 or something.

What do you mean by local adjustments? just mask off the faces and do seperatley after the initial adjustment?

Mitchell

Andy wrote:

i used 50/50/0 for the above, and then did local adjustments for the faces

Now you're not playing fair. "local adjustments for the faces"???? What the heck does that mean!

Stustaff

Ok here is my new version using Andy's feeback/suggestions



Im much happier with this one

Mitchell

Her white shirt still looks overexposed on my monitor.

Mitchell

My B&W conversions just have no pop.

Stustaff

Mitchell wrote:

Her white shirt still looks overexposed on my monitor.

Just on mine or on all? part of the problem is the fact it was a very white shirt with lights shining on it.

I dont want to darken it anymore as it almost starts to make it see through and the Bra underneath very obvious.

Mitchell

Stustaff wrote:

Just on mine or on all? part of the problem is the fact it was a very white shirt with lights shining on it.

I dont want to darken it anymore as it almost starts to make it see through and the Bra underneath very obvious.

On my calibrated monitor, the color photos look a little hot but acceptable. Your B&W conversions just seem to accentuate the overexposure of the white top. I'm not sure there is anything you can do about this at this point.

Did you shoot in RAW? If so, perhaps some selective exposure modification with attention to the white areas is possible.

pathfinder

Mitchell wrote:

My B&W conversions just have no pop.

The B&W image is lovely, but has no real black and no real white. If you want more POP, contrast, a quick persual with my pixel reader reads about 15,15,15 in the deepest shadows, and about 230,230,230 in the white of her eyes. You are giving up about 30-40 points out of of the 255 available in the grey scale in this image.

Try setting your black point down around 5,5,5 or 8,8,8, rather than 15,15,15. Steepen the curve to your white point, so it is nearer 245,245,245 or 248,248,248 than 230,230,230. That will increase contrast available in the image.

The lighting was soft in this image and gives very nice soft colors, but maybe not the dramatic lighting for B&W??

I think of harder, more dramatic, more contrasty lighting for B&W usually. Kids photos usually look better in color for me. Their complexions have such nice pink tones.

DavidTO

Mitchell wrote:

My B&W conversions just have no pop.

I think it's a rare B&W conversion that's good to go right from the start. The conversion will give you a good starting point, and then you will tweak the contrast.

pathfinder

Using Curves, or ala G Gormam, Multiply Blending layers with a black or grey layer.

Here is Greg Gorman's method - http://www.gormanphotography.com/bw_conversion.pdf

His website - http://www.gormanphotography.com/gorman.html - is worth a gander also.

System

as pathfinder mentioned, gorman is definitely worth a try-

I'm using it quite a bit, particularly for portraits-

and as davidto said, a conversion might be a good starting point but you probably will need to tinker and tweak-

and as others mentioned, a bluemillion ways to convert-

good luck, enjoy, keep at it, and post-

rutt

Mitchell wrote:

My B&W conversions just have no pop.

I don't know why you'd want to convert this beautiful portrait. Great eyes. I think PF is right about B&W in this case.

But ANYWAY, I tried my hand here. A good place to start with converting portraits is the green channel. Red is your enemy in flesh tones. Just look at it. All blown, no detail. So forget it. Blue is usually too dark, but sometimes has something good. In this case, I blended it in lighten mode and about 20% opacity with the green. Then a touch of shadow/HIGHLIGHT to bring back that left cheek. And some HIRALOAM sharpening to darken those eyes and bring out what shape there is in the face. Do HIRALOAM on a layer so you can use the blend-if sliders to exclude the lightest halos and prevent it blowing the blown parts (eyes) even more.

Here's what I got:



I would have steepened the curve a little, but my son said it made too big an emotional impact on the image, moving it from "kid portrait" to "war zone".

pathfinder

War zone??

You're the man, John. Nicely done!!


So when do we see the new and final version of Professional Photoshop??:):

You said you were reviewing parts of it, didn't you?

My pixel peeper now records 2,2,2 in her pupils and the shadow under her ear. And 243,243,243, in the whites of her left eye. More POP, indeed, and better use of the contrast available.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

So when do we see the new and final version of Professional Photoshop??:)

I've read all but the final chapter, which I got today. I think the book will go to press in September and be available late this year.

I'll say this, Dan has moved on. I think there are things in this book every bit as revolutionary as in the LAB book. I'm still struggling with incorporating it into my workflow. But I've learned a lot about blending.

Stustaff

rutt wrote:

I would have steepened the curve a little, but my son said it made too big an emotional impact on the image, moving it from "kid portrait" to "war zone".

Now your son points it out... he is right it does look a little like the typical BW shot of a kid from some war zone.

To be honest although the BW conversion is solid, I think in colour its a much nicer shot.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

I've read all but the final chapter, which I got today. I think the book will go to press in September and be available late this year.

I'll say this, Dan has moved on. I think there are things in this book every bit as revolutionary as in the LAB book. I'm still struggling with incorporating it into my workflow. But I've learned a lot about blending.

I am looking forward to its publication.:):

Mitchell

You guys are great.

Rutt, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I look at your B&W conversion. I love the way it came out. That's what I've been trying to acheive without any success. A part of me is quite frustrated that I just can't seem to nail these conversions. I'll just have to keep trying and follow your suggestions.

Thanks again.

rutt

I took a swing at the original shot and got this:



This is an example where you'll get much better results working with the full sized original and perhaps even better raw. Nevertheless, I think I have something to add to Andy's lesson. For me the challenge here is to bring back her face from the highlights without pushing him completely into shadow. Andy brought back the detail in the white clothes and in his hair, but I wanted more in her face, hands, and belly.

So, I started out the same way Andy did, using shadow/highlight on the unconverted shot to bring back the highlights and shadows. I probably used a much greater highlight tonal range and smaller highlight tonal range than Andy to try to get back some of her face.

Then I looked at the thee channels and found nothing good in either the rad or blue, so I just ditched them and went with the green. I played with curves to try to get more detail in the faces, but the tonalities are just too different for me to get what I wanted. So I used HIRALOAM sharpening instead, with blend-if sliders to keep it from blowing the teeth and eye whites. A second conventional USM sharpening move made her eyes glint and brought out some texture in her hair.

Her face is still flat in this version, but at least it's a face! Follow my approach starting with a better original and you can get professional quality results for this very amusing shot. No doubt it's one the couple will treasure for a long time to come.

You might also consider a color version using this good B&W version as a luminosity blend.

rutt

Mitchell wrote:

Rutt, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I look at your B&W conversion. I love the way it came out. That's what I've been trying to achieve without any success. A part of me is quite frustrated that I just can't seem to nail these conversions. I'll just have to keep trying and follow your suggestions.

Thanks again.

The B&W conversion thing is both art and science. It's art because it requires decisions which only you can make. Do you want blue to come out darker than red, for example. See . It's science because everyone will prefer different shades of gray for different colors that abut one another. Everyone will prefer faces to smears. And there is a toolbox available in Photoshop and the literature for achieving these goals. But as we've seen over and over again, not everyone will prefer a B&W conversion to a good color rendition, so just deciding to go to B&W is an artistic choice.

Anyway, here is a tip. Before you start off at all, make a mental list of your goals. What are you trying to do? What are the strengths of the image that you don't want to lose and what are its weaknesses which you want to improve? Form a mental picture of the end product you want.

Then follow a few simple steps.

1. Look at the channels before you start. Is one or more of the channels really working against your goals? Is one of the channels a good start all by itself.
2. Can you blend the channels in some interesting way? Often starting with green and then blending blue in "lighten" mode will give you the best of both worlds. Maybe just do a little.
3. Curves can help by bringing out detail. But sometimes with portraits that's not what you want exactly. Experiment with HIRALOAM sharpening to add contrast without having to trade off detail in different areas of the shot.
4. Oh, and read Dan Margulis. Professional Photoshop, 4th edition has a chapter Friend and Foe in Black and White. It's pure gold. That one chapter is worth the price of the book right now, even with a new and substantially updated version on the way. There is no substitute for understanding and Dan delivers that in a way that no other Photoshop author does.

Mitchell

Thanks for the book tip. I own several Photoshop CS2 books now and have been disappointed by their vague B&W suggestions. They ultimately just suggest you play with the channel mixer sliders until you get what you like.

Stustaff

rutt wrote:

I took a swing at the original shot and got this:

Thanks Rutt I will play with that and its good stuff but I have to say your version makes the skin toes look too grey for my tastes.

rutt

Mitchell wrote:

Thanks for the book tip. I own several Photoshop CS2 books now and have been disappointed by their vague B&W suggestions. They ultimately just suggest you play with the channel mixer sliders until you get what you like.

I very rarely use the channel mixer for B&W conversions anymore. Instead I get each channel I want to use onto it's own layer and then use the blending options to control what comes from which channel. This is a far more powerful approach. It can do everything the channel mixer can with the opacity sliders, but it can also do a great deal more because of the different blending modes. You can also use layer masks to control the blend.

So for B&W conversions, I now consider the channel mixer to be a toy, in the same category as levels. People trying for professional results should learn more powerful tools.

rutt

Stustaff wrote:

Thanks Rutt I will play with that and its good stuff but I have to say your version makes the skin toes look too grey for my tastes.

Yeah, I think I agree, but what exactly do we mean by "grey"? I think we want her face lighter than his. We want good detail in both faces. We want the white clothes to show detail as well. Right?

My version probably makes her too dark without recovering enough contrast in her face to keep if from looking gray. Right?

As I said before, the challenge here is to recover her face without losing his. This will be much easier to do with a full res original or raw, better yet. Too much detail has already been lost by the down-resing.

Stustaff

rutt wrote:

Yeah, I think I agree, but what exactly do we mean by "grey"? I think we want her face lighter than his. We want good detail in both faces. We want the white clothes to show detail as well. Right? RIGHT!

My version probably makes her too dark without recovering enough contrast in her face to keep if from looking gray. Right? YES RIGHT

As I said before, the challenge here is to recover her face without losing his. This will be much easier to do with a full res original or raw, better yet. Too much detail has already been lost by the down-resing.

Fortunately I have an original RAW, so I shall play cheers for the ideas.

DavidTO

Having long been frustrated with the Channel Mixer, I'm really interested in trying this approach. Yet again, simple logic finds another stone unturned.

rutt wrote:

I very rarely use the channel mixer for B&W conversions anymore. Instead I get each channel I want to use onto it's own layer and then use the blending options to control what comes from which channel. This is a far more powerful approach. It can do everything the channel mixer can with the opacity sliders, but it can also do a great deal more because of the different blending modes. You can also use layer masks to control the blend.

So for B&W conversions, I now consider the channel mixer to be a toy, in the same category as levels. People trying for professional results should learn more powerful tools.

Mitchell

DavidTO wrote:

Having long been frustrated with the Channel Mixer, I'm really interested in trying this approach. Yet again, simple logic finds another stone unturned.

David,
I couldn't agree with you more. I don't normally do this, but I'm glad I hijacked this thread. This has got to be the best thread I've read here at DGrin in the past year!