B/W conversion..different for portraits than architecture?

Jaraviss

i've seen threads in here about b/w conversion and they're mostly focusing on portraits...and some landscape..i guess.

are there "different rules" or "types" of b/w conversions for different image types?

p.s. what is the basic goal of a b/w conversion?
a range of tones from white white to black black? and all tones in the middle?

or is it something so "personal" that someone can make an image b/w and it's "good"

are there examples of bad b/w conversions?

anyway...as of late i've been on an architectural photograph jag.
edited this to straighten it out a bit and changed it to b/w.

not sure if it's good or not.....posting for your comments.

THanks!
-G

Jaraviss

p.s. i just printed this out at 4x6 on high glossy photo paper on a canon something or another printer...

in the image onscreen..the closest planter (lower right on photo) is visible and the ledgestone (or whatever the stonework is) is clearly visible as a horizontal bond.

on the print however, the face of the planter is a black box.


hmmmm maybe this is a test as to what is a good b/w conversion?

-G

OsirisPhoto

Jaraviss wrote:

p.s. i just printed this out at 4x6 on high glossy photo paper on a canon something or another printer...

in the image onscreen..the closest planter (lower right on photo) is visible and the ledgestone (or whatever the stonework is) is clearly visible as a horizontal bond.

on the print however, the face of the planter is a black box.


hmmmm maybe this is a test as to what is a good b/w conversion?

-G

I can see some detail there on my display, but not much. More of a profiling issue perhaps?

colourbox

It may have nothing to do with the conversion. It will happen with color too. The dynamic range of paper is far smaller than the screen, so tones appearing separate on the screen may mush together on paper. That's what soft-proofing is for, to preview the print so you can push tones far enough apart for the print.

Granted, that's what a good B&W conversion gets you too...if you have a dark green and dark granite, they will appear to be the same gray tone and you won't be able to tell the shapes apart. I think that is what is happening with the planter boxes and the trees in the example photo. I would take it into Photoshop CS3 or Lightroom and use their BW converter to maybe lighten the green, so that the trees can be lighter than the planter but still darker than the sky, and no longer be one blob. The reason I don't think this conversion issue is related to the print is that it's observable on screen.

A good way to learn about B&W conversions is to find an old book about how to shoot black and white film with color filters on the camera lens to alter the final tonal response. That's the origin of the new B&W conversion tools in Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom.

pathfinder

I think this image suffers, slightly, because the white point - 248,248,248 - or thereabouts - is only seen in the light filiaments themselves - there is no real white anywhere other than in the lights or their reflections, and this then limits the tonal range available for the rest of the image.

I would let the lights be blown completely, and use the increased tonal range to give more contrast to the remaining image.