Grandchildren - the B&Ws

Ann McRaeAnn McRae Registered Users Posts: 4,584 Major grins
edited August 25, 2007 in People
I do not do alot of B & W, but I do enjoy a good portrait that way. I decided to invest a bit of time and try some of the tips about b&w conversions from this thread

I played a bit too with some filters offered by PSPXI. Let me know what you think:

186917629-M.jpg

186917663-M.jpg

186920049-M.jpg

186921680-M.jpg

Comments

  • TristanPTristanP Registered Users Posts: 1,107 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    Looks to me like most of the skin is blown in these. Maybe ratchet down your action or method a tad.
    panekfamily.smugmug.com (personal)
    tristansphotography.com (motorsports)

    Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
    Sony F717 | Hoya R72
  • Ann McRaeAnn McRae Registered Users Posts: 4,584 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    Hi Tristan

    They do look really blown on this laptop too.
    These are the ones I pushed trying for a high contrast feel. When I edited them, I ran the eye dropper over the 'hot' places and they all measured less than 255....however on this monitor they appear way off the scale. Interesting, and I'd enjoy some discussion on why that is likely.

    ann



    TristanP wrote:
    Looks to me like most of the skin is blown in these. Maybe ratchet down your action or method a tad.
  • TristanPTristanP Registered Users Posts: 1,107 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    I pulled the second pic off real quick and sampled the hot areas. His cheeks, nose, and chin, plus right arm all measure 255 for the most part. I did a quick Shadows/Highlights adjustment (50% on the highlights) and that gives it more of a high contrast look, because it pulls some detail back into the "blown" areas. I looked at the Threshold (Image | Adjustments | Threshold) and at 253 there are large blown areas. Even at 255, significant areas are still blown. I would guess it may be that your monitor settings aren't quite right (they certainly don't seem to match each other). Do you have any sort of calibration set up? Even just Adobe Gamma? Weird ambient lighting conditions?
    panekfamily.smugmug.com (personal)
    tristansphotography.com (motorsports)

    Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
    Sony F717 | Hoya R72
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2007
    They look blown on my monitor as well ne_nau.gif
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • Ann McRaeAnn McRae Registered Users Posts: 4,584 Major grins
    edited August 24, 2007
    Okay - I have realized my error here - these are the ones that I converted and then changed (shortened) the curve on - to blow the skin and to make high contrast.

    I take it that it is not pleasing.

    So maybe take a look at one that has only the conversion to it:
    186917678-M.jpg

    Collection is here:
    http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com/gallery/2543641#186917678

    Hubby doesn't like the b&w either....is it a bad technique that I've used or just not suited for BW?

    ann
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited August 25, 2007
    Ann, i think this one looks very good, no harsh light, and pleasing to the eyes. thumb.gif
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
Sign In or Register to comment.