Feedback:Groman Conversion for Raw images

asamuel

I am converting 40 images in the same style. I want them to shout because I like the shots, but my conversions are falling short.

HOW THEY START

These are Gromans, with additional curves work in areas I believe are important.
They are RAW: Sometimes the sky is a second Raw image from raw, layered in. I do a little stamp and clone also.

MY CONCERNS
Image A is scrapped, converted on a LCD screen looks great but terrible for print.
Image B is a new conversion made on a calibrated CRT screen, but I think this is still too dark.

QUESTIONS THAT I SEE
1) When doing a duo tone conversion what figures should I be looking for in a pixel count of darkest and lightest areas?
2) Should I layer a 3rd Raw image for people and expose them differently before I begin the groman (The figures really darkening is recurrant)?
3) do you think the high pass filter is important for the conversion or can just sharpen (it seems to make the image darker)?
4) where do you think I am going wrong?

I had converted all 40 to the style of imageA. So now I have to do them again (I merged all layers:wxwax ), disenchanted so please spur me on.

A

B

Stustaff

To my eye, Boy from B Background from A

asamuel

Yeah. Hadn't thought about that! But I haven't got so many B's done....its going to be a big fafferation if I try to think of doing the others this way. ....or maybe I just have a mental block. I was thinking of re-doing in a one stop process. maybe thats laughable.


the beauty of the tinternet is you go halfway round the world and end up getting help from where you left off! (or round the corner, I'm from Sheffield so cheers bud.)

asamuel

two more forgotten questions.

1) should I change a RAW image to 8 bit in the RAW converter before converting an image to BW in CS2?

2) If I want to make an A3 print what size should I convert to in the RAW converter (n.b. I use a 350D). Hoping you humour me SAM.

AntoineD

Why not B only?

the image seems pretty well balanced, although you may want to lighten up the eyes (it depends on your taste).

Stustaff

asamuel wrote:

the beauty of the tinternet is you go halfway round the world and end up getting help from where you left off! (or round the corner, I'm from Sheffield so cheers bud.)

No probs mate was up at Sheffield a couple of weeks ago snowboarding at the dryslope. Small world huh!

AntoineD to me the boy in B seems like he has been lightened too much to fit comfortably in the picture, It looks a little unnatural to my eye.

asamuel

Stustaff wrote:

To my eye, Boy from B Background from A

I took that to mean the boy in B is good and put him on background A.
....But if the boy in B is too light?

Both you and Antoine dont think its too Dark? I have a feeling its going to get darker in print and then we will not see any detail in the darker areas of my prints (many of my prints get this dark).

I like contrast (Im still in my barbaric infancy), but I don't want to loose detail.

AntoineD

Stustaff wrote:

AntoineD to me the boy in B seems like he has been lightened too much to fit comfortably in the picture, It looks a little unnatural to my eye.

uh, I don't think so: in fact, I do mean the A one is a little bit underexposed. It seems to me the light was hard this day, isn't it, asamuel?

On my calibrate screen, it does appear well, while the light is not the best it could have been at another time (I guess).

asamuel wrote:

two more forgotten questions.

1) should I change a RAW image to 8 bit in the RAW converter before converting an image to BW in CS2?

2) If I want to make an A3 print what size should I convert to in the RAW converter (n.b. I use a 350D). Hoping you humour me SAM.

1 > Well, let's say there's no need to keep it 16 bit, unless you know what you know exactly why you're keeping 16bit. If you don't, then you just have an heavy file to handle, whithout much need, especially in black and white.

2 > For an A3 print, don't worry: the initial resolution of the 350D is enough. You don't have to worry yet. Keep 300 dpi. Ok search in smugmug's help: I remember seeing a page where they say which res' is the best for which print size. But, really: don't worry too much

Stustaff

Sorry I wasnt very clear there, Yes to me id like to see Boy B in background A.

As boy B looks too light in the picture he is in now because he makes the whole thing look too light. If he were in Picture A I think that would create a nice range of contrasts.

Did that make any sense?

Stustaff

AntoineD wrote:

2 > For an A3 print, don't worry: the initial resolution of the 350D is enough. You don't have to worry yet. Keep 300 dpi. Ok search in smugmug's help: I remember seeing a page where they say which res' is the best for which print size. But, really: don't worry too much

I started a thread on this subject here, it has some useful info in especially beacause i use a 350D too

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41374

AntoineD

asamuel wrote:

Both you and Antoine dont think its too Dark? I have a feeling its going to get darker in print and then we will not see any detail in the darker areas of my prints (many of my prints get this dark).

I like contrast (Im still in my barbaric infancy), but I don't want to loose detail.

The boy B ain't too light.
But the A boy will definitely be quite dark on a print.

Instead of thinking about resolution or else (16 bit...), you should convert your image into sRGB before sending to print: prolabs with Fuji Frontier use sRGB space. This is where you'll see what becomes darker and what doesn't.

AntoineD

Stustaff wrote:

I started a thread on this subject here, it has some useful info in especially beacause i use a 350D too

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41374

Oh, yeah, I once read it. ;-)

And I still think one doesn't have to worry about resolution. You just want to have enough pixels to print

Richard

I have just a bit of experience with the Gorman technique, so I can't answer all your questions, but here are a few things that I have found helpful.

If a lot of the image is too dark, reduce the opacity of the fill layer. Then use the curve layer to darken to taste.

The high-pass layer will increase the contrast by emphasizing the brightest parts of the image. The best opacity for this layer depends on the image and what you are trying to do with it.

Finally, you should always feel free to deviate from the formula if there is something specific you think the pic needs. Using sharpening instead of the high-pass layer may make perfectly good sense, for example.

FWIW.

Stustaff

Are you using CS2?

if so try image>adjustments>shadows/highlights and have a play That seems to do a good job at this sort of thing.

asamuel

AntoineD wrote:

On my calibrate screen, it does appear well, while the light is not the best it could have been at another time (I guess).:)

I guess it would have been helpful to include a picture of the original. Its not a great time of day, but not too bad. ( this has the automatic changes applied in RAW converter becuase I just dug it out).



I have also checked out your portfolio, on both screens I have and I think even my new screen is a bit harsh (its 2nd hand and unstable). that aside your work is great, wish I could read your entries (I have a degree in sociology and social anthropology). you've had good oppertunities and made them work. Your site has got me thinking

AntoineD

asamuel wrote:

I guess it would have been helpful to include a picture of the original. Its not a great time of day, but not too bad. ( this has the automatic changes applied in RAW converter becuase I just dug it out).

(iii)

I have also checked out your portfolio, on both screens I have and I think even my new screen is a bit harsh (its 2nd hand and unstable). that aside your work is great, wish I could read your entries (I have a degree in sociology and social anthropology). you've had good oppertunities and made them work. Your site has got me thinking

Thanks for the comment
Try to put my entries into google's translation tool... might be funny, at least Some page are translated in English, check the up-menu


By the way, if your screen is "harsh", be carefull with contrasts. you may want to buy a cheap calibration tool.



Let's talk about your image: I'm not sure of your reaction but... I really like the color picture. I think gettin' in to black and white is, hum, gratuitous (does this word exist? ). I think you'd better improve a little the color version instead of trying to get a black & white picture which will certainly look arty but definitely ain't logical (please don't hit me ).

asamuel

Yikes! Blinked and came back to a torrent. Will do to all the above. Hendrix is playing and Im ready to take it on again! Bring it on !

Bugger...have to go 'earn my crust'.

Stustaff

asamuel wrote:

Yikes! Blinked and came back to a torrent. Will do to all the above. Hendrix is playing and Im ready to take it on again! Bring it on !

Bugger...have to go 'earn my crust'.

run the shadows highlights on your colour image before a conversion to BW made a big difference to my conversion here - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41528

asamuel

AntoineD wrote:

Let's talk about your image: I'm not sure of your reaction but... I really like the color picture. I think gettin' in to black and white is, hum, gratuitous (does this word exist? ). I think you'd better improve a little the color version instead of trying to get a black & white picture which will certainly look arty but definitely ain't logical (please don't hit me ).

Antoine : Gratuitous is a word and........ I think you have a very good point.
this has occured to me (but not with this print). My main objective has been to get something comprehensive done and in my hands. I want it to fit and be a story and a beginning to my portfolio years. Hence the stipulation that I would convert all in the same style.

I wanted this to be objective to be BW and I dont think a few color can work (any examples were it does I would gladly look into). Having said this I may have enough to swell the project and split the group into a my BW portion and my colour portion......but will they fit? This I do not know yet.

Certainly food for thought and do not fear physical retribution. this is invaluable CONSTRUCTIVE criticisim, thats a great help.

AntoineD

asamuel wrote:

I wanted this to be objective to be BW and I dont think a few color can work (any examples were it does I would gladly look into). Having said this I may have enough to swell the project and split the group into a my BW portion and my colour portion......but will they fit? This I do not know yet.

Well, I think it can fit, yes. It all depends on what you're saying. There some good example but I cannot figure which at the very moment. But great photographers did mix both color and black & white so it ain't a problem in itself. I wish I could give you some example right now but...

EDIT: by the way, anytime I needed to "translate" a picture into b&w, I've always used the channel mixer

asamuel

I have tried to follow some of the suggestions above. Is it progress?

A. The original shot ( with ACR auto changes).


B. The shot converted by eye on my LCD monitor (now scrapped)


C. The shot reworked on a CRT monitor some changes made in Shadow/highlits. Curves on the hands and the sky burnt in.


D. The same shot after a highpass filter


E. The same shot but instead of highpass, just unsharp mask


My thoughts on this particular shot is that the best is with the highpass filter. I have been careful with the contrast because of the harsh monitor. However, I am eagar to here others thoughts on where to make changes and with which one. Thanks again

Stustaff

I think its a nice conversion with the highpass but it doesnt look particularly "Black" and white to my eye more like an aged Black and white?

heres my version from your colour, using just channel mixer and curves and a touch of burn on the clouds.

asamuel

Stustaff wrote:

I think its a nice conversion with the highpass but it doesnt look particularly "Black" and white to my eye more like an aged Black and white?

heres my version from your colour, using just channel mixer and curves and a touch of burn on the clouds.

yeah. should have said my examples are groman duotone prints, with a kind of choclately brown. I do like your conversion though. Nice and clear. the sky is a better burn I think.

you would have hd even more range if you had the functions of ACR.

rutt

1. New layer. Apply image, green, 100% normal.
2. Apply image, background layer, red, 100% darken
3. HIRALOM sharpening + conventional USM
4. shadow/HIGHLIGHT

AntoineD

I really like the B picture: high contrast, I like it.

Meanwhile, yes, the high-passed image looks good. Rutt's work seems fair ok, too.