Digital Darkroom Assignment for the Week: 4/16-4/23

[cletus]

Color to Black and White

This assignemt is designed to complement fish's current photo assignment (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1060).

Use the photo editing software of your choice to convert a color image to black and white. The point of this challenge is to find a method of going from color to black and white that you feel comfortable with and gets you consistent results. If you already have a favorite method for converting to black and white, try to discover a new method!

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.

Advanced Spin: Feel free to add toning or other special effects to your image. The only requirement is that the entire image must be monochromatic. No mixing color and black and white in the final image... We'll save that for another day!

[cletus]

I haven't had a chance to go out and shoot fish's new assignment, but here are some example conversions. To provide a little help for those that might need it, I've provided a vauge description of the method for each of the conversions.

Here is the original:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3426618-M.jpg (http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3426618-O.jpg)

#1) Change the mode
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517810-M.jpg

#2) Map the gradient
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517811-M.jpg

#3) Adjust the hue & saturation twice
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517812-M.jpg

#4) Mix the channels
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517813-M.jpg

[lynnma]

I haven't had a chance to go out and shoot fish's new assignment, but here are some example conversions. To provide a little help for those that might need it, I've provided a vauge description of the method for each of the conversions.

Here is the original:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3426618-M.jpg (http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3426618-O.jpg)

#1) Change the mode
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517810-M.jpg

#2) Map the gradient
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517811-M.jpg

#3) Adjust the hue & saturation twice
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517812-M.jpg

#4) Mix the channels
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3517813-M.jpgCool! it may take a day or so to get a good response to this great new challenge as we have quite a lot of work to do... or at least I have...:D looking forward to seeing some great black and whites..

[lynnma]

Heres my original with a little glamour blur...

[lynnma]

heres my black and white...

Cranked up the green first.. then adjustment layer-channel mix. played with the levels.. sharpened and dodged the eyes a bit.

[cletus]

heres my black and white...

Cranked up the green first.. then adjustment layer-channel mix. played with the levels.. sharpened and dodged the eyes a bit.
Very, very nice lynn :thumb

[rutt]

heres my black and white...

Cranked up the green first.. then adjustment layer-channel mix. played with the levels.. sharpened and dodged the eyes a bit.
You lost a lot of detail when you converted to B+W. Did you mean to? Pam's face is flat and blown out in the B+W version, but there is lots of detail in the color.

What do you think about the following version?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3521213-O.jpg

This was very quick and dirty. The red channel had very little facial detai. Both the green and blue channel were better, but the green channel looked better for the jacket. I applied the green channel to the red channel before desaturating and then sharpened the result. Probably an even better result is possible. I didn't explore the otehr color spaces or think very hard about it.

I did remember that Dan Margulis' "Professional Photoshop" has a chapter, "Friend and Foe In Black and White" devoted to converting color to B+W. Dan goes into a lot of detail about how to get the best possible results and I didn't have time to read very deeply. But quick and dirty, the problem with a naive conversion is that although the face has color contrast. it doesn't have luminosity contrast. Each L pixel gets a value equal to 70% of its green component, 30% of its red component, and 10% of its blue component. In this case, most of the cheek highlight is very bright in green channel and blown all the way in the red channel. So red isn't adding anything. The green channel of the face is also bright, but it has detail. By substituting it for the red channel before the conversion, we avoid the loss of detail.

As I said, Dan goes into a lot of detail. I think this chapter would be good reading for people who want to make great B+W images from color ones.

[rutt]

Reading Dan a little more deeply -- The red channel is a foe in this picture because it blows out the detail in the other two channels. Dan's quick and dirty rule of thumb with faces - discard the other two channels and just use the green channel, assuming the color original is has good contrast and color. In effect I did this by duplicating the green into the red. Blue only counds for 10% in the conversion, so leaving it alone didn't really matter.

[pathfinder]

Reading Dan a little more deeply -- The red channel is a foe in this picture because it blows out the detail in the other two channels. Dan's quick and dirty rule of thumb with faces - discard the other two channels and just use the green channel, assuming the color original is has good contrast and color. In effect I did this by duplicating the green into the red. Blue only counds for 10% in the conversion, so leaving it alone didn't really matter.
Isn't much of the noise in the blue channel also? I know when I try to photograph old B&Ws with a digital camera, frequently the blue channel has a lot more noise than the red or green channels.

[cletus]

Isn't much of the noise in the blue channel also? I know when I try to photograph old B&Ws with a digital camera, frequently the blue channel has a lot more noise than the red or green channels.
:nod

Another reason to stay away from the red channel when dealing with portraits is that it tends to empasize blemishes.

[rutt]

Isn't much of the noise in the blue channel also? I know when I try to photograph old B&Ws with a digital camera, frequently the blue channel has a lot more noise than the red or green channels.
This may be true, but it doesn't matter because blue counts for so little in the conversion.

[pathfinder]

You lost a lot of detail when you converted to B+W. Did you mean to? Pam's face is flat and blown out in the B+W version, but there is lots of detail in the color.

What do you think about the following version?

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3521213-O.jpg

This was very quick and dirty. The red channel had very little facial detai. Both the green and blue channel were better, but the green channel looked better for the jacket. I applied the green channel to the red channel before desaturating and then sharpened the result. Probably an even better result is possible. I didn't explore the otehr color spaces or think very hard about it.

I did remember that Dan Margulis' "Professional Photoshop" has a chapter, "Friend and Foe In Black and White" devoted to converting color to B+W. Dan goes into a lot of detail about how to get the best possible results and I didn't have time to read very deeply. But quick and dirty, the problem with a naive conversion is that although the face has color contrast. it doesn't have luminosity contrast. Each L pixel gets a value equal to 70% of its green component, 30% of its red component, and 10% of its blue component. In this case, most of the cheek highlight is very bright in green channel and blown all the way in the red channel. So red isn't adding anything. The green channel of the face is also bright, but it has detail. By substituting it for the red channel before the conversion, we avoid the loss of detail.

As I said, Dan goes into a lot of detail. I think this chapter would be good reading for people who want to make great B+W images from color ones.
Rutt - I like your version of the face better than Lynn's - sorry Lynn - you definitely have more detail in the face, but your jacket is TOO bright - I prefer the darker tone of the jacket as in Lynn's picture ( Hooray for Lynn!!http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif)

I think the big bright area in the lower right distracts the eye from the center of interest - the face. That is why I would burn in the jacket to lower its tonality. But I kind of like darker borders to keep the eye from wandering.... wandering eyes will always get you in trouble.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/lickout.gif

[dkapp]

Color to Black and White

This assignemt is designed to complement fish's current photo assignment (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1060).

Use the photo editing software of your choice to convert a color image to black and white. The point of this challenge is to find a method of going from color to black and white that you feel comfortable with and gets you consistent results. If you already have a favorite method for converting to black and white, try to discover a new method!

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.

Advanced Spin: Feel free to add toning or other special effects to your image. The only requirement is that the entire image must be monochromatic. No mixing color and black and white in the final image... We'll save that for another day!

I was pretty excited when I saw the topic. I've gotten more into B&W over the last few weeks, and my favorite photos seem to have a little color in them.

Hopefully I will be getting a Nikon D70 tonight & I will be able to get out this weekend and get some photos for the two new challenges.

If you want to see my most recent B&W work w/ a splash of color, it can be found here:
http://dkapp.smugmug.com/gallery/97307

I can't wait to see what people come up with.

Dave

[hutchman]

Cletus,

This is tough! I am out in a field I know nothing about with this one. I have tried several conversions and have not been happy with them at all. I took a pic of a bald tree against the sky one day thinking there might be picture in it somewhere. After playing with the image, I decided that it pretty much sucked. Then I tried to convert it for this project. It did not come out too bad, but I would like some critique.

The original.........


http://hutch.smugmug.com/photos/3526188-L.jpg


The transformation...........


http://hutch.smugmug.com/photos/3526189-L.jpg



I changed the image to grayscale.
Opened an adjustment layer for levels until I achieved the desired look.
Opend another adjustment layer for brightness and contrast (really bumped the contrast).
I then sharpened the original with unsharp mask - 0 threshold, 2 pixel radius, and 70%.

The unsharp mask seemed to really make it jump.

I kink of like it, but I don't really know what it "is supposed" to look like. Enquiring minds want to know.

Hutch

[rutt]

Rutt - I like your version of the face better than Lynn's - sorry Lynn - you definitely have more detail in the face, but your jacket is TOO bright - I prefer the darker tone of the jacket as in Lynn's picture ( Hooray for Lynn!!http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif)

I think the big bright area in the lower right distracts the eye from the center of interest - the face. That is why I would burn in the jacket to lower its tonality. But I kind of like darker borders to keep the eye from wandering.... wandering eyes will always get you in trouble.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/lickout.gif
No need to burn, just use better color theory. This time I understood what was going on a little better:

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

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3526240-O.jpg

[Deacon]

Playing around,

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3527033-M.jpg

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3527031-M.jpg

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3527034-M-1.jpg

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3527032-M-1.jpg

Deacon

[rutt]

Here is a very simple color to b+w excercise.

Consider this image:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527184-M.jpg

Here's what happens when PS converts it to grayscale:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527244-M.jpg

Not very nice, eh? What's going on? Although the colors of the stripes are very different, I chose them carefully to have identical luminosity, using photoshop's luminosity formula: L = 60% G + 30% R + 10% B.

So, in this case, we have to do something before we convert to grayscale. Once we convert, the information we need to distinguish the strips is gone and there really is no good way to recover it.

Perhaps we can use one of the channels for the b+w image?

Red:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527183-M.jpg

Green:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527182-M.jpg

Blue:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527181-M.jpg

So no single channel offers us a nice contrast between the colors. Notice that the blue strip has faded to white in the blue channel, but the red and green have not faded to white in their channels. This is because I needed to choose a green and a red with the same luminosity as 255 blue in order to make this example work. But that means (according to the formula) I needed to make the red strip 3 times darker than the blue stripe and the green stripe 2 times darker than the red stripe.

I used the channel mixer to produce a b+w version that distinguishes the colors:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527254-M.jpg

This blend was 126% R, 92% G, 4% B. Other blends can get the colors into different luminosity orders. Here is 92% R, 34% G, 64% B:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3527908-M.jpg

This was just a little study to see if I could get my feet on the ground about the basic theory behind color->b+w conversion. Hope someone else found it interesting. I'm working my way through the chapter "Friend and Foe in Black and White" in Professional Photoshop Dan Margulis. Dan has lots more detail and lots more practical information as well. But there's only so much I can absorb at a time.

[cmr164]

The original shot was pre-race as the runner read through her paperwork.
ISO Speed: 400
Aperture: f8.0
Shutter: 1/500
Focal Length (mm): 400

Note the long focal length. As usual click the image for the larger version.

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018.JPG)


Now converted in 'xv' but dropping saturation on RGB channels

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw.JPG)

And then after listening to the chatter here, taking only the G channel and reducing the saturation.

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw1_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw1.JPG)

[rutt]

I'd like to add another parameter to this assignment. Discuss the pros and cons of converting the image to black and white. What was gained and what was lost? Is the image actually better in black and white than it was in color? If so, why?

In the good old days, black and white was cheaper than color, and in fact sometimes color just wasn't possible at all. But today, even newspapers can print color photos and black and white prints can even be more expensive then color. So the reason for b+w has to be aesthestic. Let's try to understand that as part of the assignment.

[cletus]

I changed the image to grayscale.
Opened an adjustment layer for levels until I achieved the desired look.
Opend another adjustment layer for brightness and contrast (really bumped the contrast).
I then sharpened the original with unsharp mask - 0 threshold, 2 pixel radius, and 70%.

The unsharp mask seemed to really make it jump.

I kink of like it, but I don't really know what it "is supposed" to look like. Enquiring minds want to know.

Hutch
Hutch, I think it looks pretty good! I tried working with your orignal, but the JPEG artifacts keep making things look funky.

Here is something you might want to try. This is the technique I used in conversion #3 in my earlier example. If you like this technique, be sure to thank zero-zero for bringing it to dgrin!



Create a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, but don't make any adjustments right now.
Change the blending mode of your Hue/Saturation layer to Color
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3527940-M.jpg


Add a second Hue/Saturation adjustment layer above the first. Set Saturation to -100
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3527941-M.jpg


Now go back to your first Hue/Saturation layer and start playing around with the sliders. The Hue slider will make the biggest impact. The Saturation and Lightness sliders can then be used to fine tune things.
I hope this helps!

[pathfinder]

No need to burn, just use better color theory. This time I understood what was going on a little better:

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
http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3526240-O.jpg
Like you I would liked to have the full file rather than the 800 pixel size here, but I just did a little dodging and burning - not too sophisticated - and then a duplicate layer with Gaussian blur at 2, and then overlay blending mode - How does it look?


http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/3528615-L.jpg

[cletus]

I'd like to add another parameter to this assignment. Discuss the pros and cons of converting the image to black and white. What was gained and what was lost? Is the image actually better in black and white than it was in color? If so, why?

In the good old days, black and white was cheaper than color, and in fact sometimes color just wasn't possible at all. But today, even newspapers can print color photos and black and white prints can even be more expensive then color. So the reason for b+w has to be aesthestic. Let's try to understand that as part of the assignment.
Great idea rutt!!!

In this case, B&W helps to reinforce the mood of the image. The color image shows a stark, desolate place. The change to black and white helps to make those feelings even stronger.
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/2631363-S.jpg

http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/2636247-S.jpg

[cletus]

The original shot was pre-race as the runner read through her paperwork.
ISO Speed: 400
Aperture: f8.0
Shutter: 1/500
Focal Length (mm): 400

Note the long focal length. As usual click the image for the larger version.

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018.JPG)


Now converted in 'xv' but dropping saturation on RGB channels

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw.JPG)

And then after listening to the chatter here, taking only the G channel and reducing the saturation.

http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw1_s.JPG (http://www.iisc.com/dgrin/NbryPrt2003race018bw1.JPG) Great shot Charles. I think this is one of the best you've posted here! The conversions look really good too, but I think it might work best in color :dunno

[lynnma]

I can see this is going to be a very interesting forum... some great input and stuff to learn.. looks like I'm gonna have to print out the whole darn thing:rofl Part of my problem with Pam was that I gaussian blured before I converted.... flattened everything out too much.. some nice changes guys, thanks :)

[rutt]

Like you I would liked to have the full file rather than the 800 pixel size here, but I just did a little dodging and burning - not too sophisticated - and then a duplicate layer with Gaussian blur at 2, and then overlay blending mode - How does it look?


http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/3528615-L.jpg
To my eye, I got a little better detail around that highlighted cheek. You did get the jacket darker. You can get that same effect with blending. I stopped short because I didn't want to lose detail in the shadow around her throat. But now that you went there, I have to admit it works.

[rutt]

I thought I'd try out Eric's most recent image to test the understanding I'm beginning to develop.

Here is Eric's conversion:

http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/2636247-L.jpg

and here is mine:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3534531-L.jpg

I think I got better detail in the sky, deeper color in the ground, and better contrast all around. What to do you guys think?

Apply Image -> red channel to blue channel, darken mode, 100%. Now we have the best of the sky (from red) and everything else.
Duplicate Image, convert to grayscale
Apply Image -> red channel from 1 to duplicate
Curves -> steepen a little at both ends (we dont care if we loose a little detail in the window in favor of improved contrast. There really is no white point, so we can tighten up a little in the highlights.
Sharpen
The whole point of 2&3 was just to discard the red and green channels and move the red channel to greyscale. There must be a more elegant way to do this. Anyone know?

[rutt]

I thought I'd take a stab at the steeple; it seems like a good excercise because of the detail in the brick work.

Here is my result:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3535393-L.jpg


The blue channel had beautiful brick detail, which a naive conversion would lose because the red channel overwhelms it (our foe). On the other hand, the clouds live in the red channel.

Careful sharpening is going to be improtant to this image. We want the brick pattern to come out, but we don't want moire patterns or loss of detail due to light halos.




Apply image -> red into blue, darken, 100%
Discard red, green channels, convert red to grayscale
Create 2 duplicate layers
Blending options for top layer -> lighten, 50% opacity. Sharpen this layer conservatively for light halos.
Blending options for middle layer -> darken, 100% opacity. Sharpen this layer aggressively for dark halos.
The trick for separate light and dark sharpening is due to Dan Margulis' book.

[cletus]

The blue channel had beautiful brick detail, which a naive conversion would lose because the red channel overwhelms it (our foe). On the other hand, the coulds live in the red channel.

Careful sharpening is going to be improtant to this image. We want the brick pattern to come out, but we don't want moire patterns or loss of detail due to light halos.




Apply image -> red into blue, darken, 100%
Discard red, green channels, convert red to grayscale
Create 2 duplicate layers
Blending options for top layer -> lighten, 50% opacity. Sharpen this layer conservatively for light halos.
Blending options for middle layer -> darken, 100% opacity. Sharpen this layer aggressively for dark halos.
The trick for separate light and dark sharpening is due to Dan Margulis' book.

rutt,



Your conversion looks really good!


Although I haven't done it yet, I think this image would be a perfect application of masking. The edge between the foreground and background is very well defined, which should make coming up with a mask fairly straigt forward. Also because the foreground/background boundray is almost entirely straight edges, it should be fairly easy to make a vector mask.


Once the mask is made, the foreground and background could be optimized independent of each other.

[lynnma]

I started again from scratch with this... any improvement??? critique away, it's all a learning curve...

What would you have done..

[lynnma]

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...
:huh

[rutt]

rutt,

Although I haven't done it yet, I think this image would be a perfect application of masking. The edge between the foreground and background is very well defined, which should make coming up with a mask fairly straigt forward. Also because the foreground/background boundray is almost entirely straight edges, it should be fairly easy to make a vector mask.


Once the mask is made, the foreground and background could be optimized independent of each other.
Because the edge is so clear and because the values are so different, no mask is really required. That's the beauty of plate blending. You can use the blend if option to decide which layer is chosen. The result looks much more natural than any selection or other local enhancement, IMHO. In this case, I basically achieved this by blending in the red channel darken-only. It didn't have any effect on the building which was already darker than the in the red.

[rutt]

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...
:huh

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?

[lynnma]

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?

[lynnma]

Hi Rutt, I used your formula.. I think this is as far as I can go... what do you think..

[rutt]

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).

[fish]

b&w'd from this week's photo assignment. http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3537989-L.jpg

[fish]

Silver Koala?

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3546079-L.jpg

[pathfinder]

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 -http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif I did the glammd version http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/lickout.gif -

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....http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/cool2.gif

[pathfinder]

b&w'd from this week's photo assignment. http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3537989-L.jpg
Fish, I am wearing ths watch - Great minds think alike I guess.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/smooch.gif But where does the little row of hatch marks from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock come from?

[cletus]

Silver Koala?

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3546079-S.jpg
fish,

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.

[fish]

Fish, I am wearing ths watch - Great minds think alike I guess.http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/smooch.gif But where does the little row of hatch marks from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock come from?
Second hand ticks. :super

[fish]

fish,

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. :rofl

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3547970-L.jpg

Okay...I'm done with the watch.

[fish]

And now some high-contrast coins. Better than color? What do you think?

http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3547211-L.jpg


http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3547213-L.jpg

[cletus]

And now some high-contrast coins. Better than color? What do you think?

Yes
http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3547211-S.jpg

and

No
http://fish.smugmug.com/photos/3547213-S.jpg

by the way, you might want to jump over to the other side of the street and check out some of kbasa (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39483)'s (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39483) work. He got some pretty cool stuff today!

[fish]

Yes
by the way, you might want to jump over to the other side of the street and check out some of kbasa (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39483)'s (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39483) work. He got some pretty cool stuff today!

I've been trying to avoid it. My liver needs a break. :rofl

[rutt]

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.

[rutt]

John, You noticed - I am so pleased -http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif I did the glammd version http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/lickout.gif -

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....http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/cool2.gif
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.

[Deacon]

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.

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3549205-M.jpg

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3549196-M.jpg

Deacon

[fish]

http://Deacon.smugmug.com/photos/3549196-M.jpg

Deacon
Brilliant!

[lynnma]

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.

[rutt]

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.

[GREAPER]

Original

[GREAPER]

Conversion

Adjustments to color balance to increase red, then desaturated, adjusted contrast.

[cletus]

Conversion

Adjustments to color balance to increase red, then desaturated, adjusted contrast.
:thumb

[ian408]

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/3566062-M.jpg

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/3544441-M.jpg

Increased red a bit
Convert to BW.
Adjust Contrast Slightly.
Frame and title.

[gypsy77360]

(BTW , thanks for arena to learn this complicated software)
original
http://gypsy77360.smugmug.com/photos/3569091-M.jpg
then:
1.Image - Equalize
2.Enhance - Adj. Br./Cont. - Levels - RGB - Red - Green - Blue
http://gypsy77360.smugmug.com/photos/3570190-M.jpg
then:
3. Image- Mode - Grayscale
http://gypsy77360.smugmug.com/photos/3570426-M.jpg

same original pic - done in iPhoto - 1 click
http://gypsy77360.smugmug.com/photos/3569500-M.jpg

[hutchman]

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.

http://hutch.smugmug.com/photos/3573574-L.jpg
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.

http://hutch.smugmug.com/photos/3573573-L.jpg

Done!

Hutch

[rutt]

I put Hutch's conversion and mine side by side:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3577673-L.jpg

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.

[rutt]

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.

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3578013-M.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3578010-M.jpg

[AltPro]

Heres my original with a little glamour blur...
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

[AltPro]

[QUOTE=cletus][b]Color to Black and White


[/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.
[color=White]

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

[cletus]

Here's a one I shot for this week's Photo Assignment (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1060):
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3584489-M.jpg

B&W:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3584477-M.jpg



Duplicated the image onto a new layer.
Changed the blending mode of the new layer to Overlay
Ran a gausian blur
Channel Mixer

[wkwork]

Here's one you guys can help with.

The original:
http://wkwork.smugmug.com/photos/3590351-L.jpg

Here I used channel mixing - red 35, green 75, blue 10. I think I got a good "dynamic" look but I wanted the white trim and glass to 'pop' more. Tried softening to make the white trim shine a bit but only got really artificial looking effects. I ended up just toning down the letters on the sign to highlight the upper building:

http://wkwork.smugmug.com/photos/3590935-L.jpg

Any other ideas? Thx.

Keith

[Shakey]

That is a tough one.I made a mistake on the left window please ignore that.

[cletus]

Here's one you guys can help with.

The original:
http://wkwork.smugmug.com/photos/3590351-S.jpg

Here I used channel mixing - red 35, green 75, blue 10. I think I got a good "dynamic" look but I wanted the white trim and glass to 'pop' more. Tried softening to make the white trim shine a bit but only got really artificial looking effects. I ended up just toning down the letters on the sign to highlight the upper building:

http://wkwork.smugmug.com/photos/3590935-S.jpg

Any other ideas? Thx.

Keith I don't know if this is any closer to what you had in mind:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3592671-L.jpg

I basically did the same thing that I did to my image.



Opened your color image
Duplicated the background layer
Gausian blurred the new layer @ 4 pixels
Changed the blending mode to Soft Light
Added a Channel Mixer adjustment layer (R:35,G:75,B:10:C:-20)

http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3592815-M.jpg

Be sure to try different blending modes for the blurred layer.
I hope this helps!

[rutt]

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3592820-L.jpg

Here is an attempt.


Apply image red to blue, darken mode
Keep only blue channel, convert to gray scale.
Curves, move the light point toward the middle
2 duplicate layers
Sharpen middle layer very aggressively, blending option darken
Sharpen top layer a little less aggressively, blending option lighten, opacity < 30% (suit your taste.)

[hutchman]

I put Hutch's conversion and mine side by side:


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 agree John. As to the sharpening, it is a fault of mine that I really have to watch when manipulating an image. I really do not like soft images. Never have, never will. I have tried some soft focus portraits and just cannot make myself stay away from the unsharp mask!

Me bad!

Hutch

[rutt]

I agree John. As to the sharpening, it is a fault of mine that I really have to watch when manipulating an image. I really do not like soft images. Never have, never will. I have tried some soft focus portraits and just cannot make myself stay away from the unsharp mask!

Me bad!

Hutch
I have the same tendency. I'm really liking the trick with the separate layers for dark and light sharpening halos that I got from Dan's book and used for the two brkck buildings. I wonder how this would work with the trees...

[lynnma]

[QUOTE=cletus][b]Color to Black and White


[/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.
[color=White]

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 CHi Ginette, nice shot.. sorry I have'nt gotton back to you.. I've been straight out.. I will though :D

[rutt]

Pathfinder and Lynn, please post details of the glamour blur technique. I've been trying to reproduce, but I think I'm missing something.

I think that you both want to blur this shot because you don't like the shadows under Pam's eyes. Is that true? On the other hand, I think you both probably agree with me that it would be good to have some detail in the cheek. Is that true? Whatever happens under the eyes, I think it would be good to retain the sharpness in the hair, jacket, eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. Is that true?

It would be good to have a clear set of goals for this image.

By the way, why is this a good candidate for conversion to B&W? Is it because something is missing from the color version? We can use some plate blending to restore the cheek detail in color:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-L.jpg (http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-O.jpg)




Make a duplicate layer
Apply image green channel to duplicate layer RGB
Blending options -> luminosity
Now we may need some more adjustments to restore nice color balance, but we have much more facial detail to work with. I'm thinking this might also be a better place to start with the black and white conversion. Perhaps if you start here, when you blur, the cheek detail will survive better.

[lynnma]

Pathfinder and Lynn, please post details of the glamour blur technique. I've been trying to reproduce, but I think I'm missing something.

I think that you both want to blur this shot because you don't like the shadows under Pam's eyes. Is that true? On the other hand, I think you both probably agree with me that it would be good to have some detail in the cheek. Is that true? Whatever happens under the eyes, I think it would be good to retain the sharpness in the hair, jacket, eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. Is that true?

It would be good to have a clear set of goals for this image.

By the way, why is this a good candidate for conversion to B&W? Is it because something is missing from the color version? We can use some plate blending to restore the cheek detail in color:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-L.jpg (http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-O.jpg)



Make a duplicate layer
Apply image green channel to duplicate layer RGB
Blending options -> luminosity
Now we may need some more adjustments to restore nice color balance, but we have much more facial detail to work with. I'm thinking this might also be a better place to start with the black and white conversion. Perhaps if you start here, when you blur, the cheek detail will survive better.
Hi Rutt, Yes I think you are right... I'm straight out working right now but would like to have another go at it later. The reason I thought it might make a nice b&w was because of the sad and rather haunting look in her eyes.. I thought b&w would look more dramatic. The blur I like for the misty romantic tone...

My blur technique is:(link from Waxy)
http://info.zavalaphotography.com/tutsoft.html
duplicate my layer
on the dup. hefty dose of gaussian blur (around 7 for a large meg pic).
then with a soft brush I brush off the blur with a 50% opacity brush.

Then I use a small brush and remove the blur 100% from eyes, teeth, jewelry.
Sometimes I dodge the white parts a tad, and sharpen the eyes a tad to make them glitter. Then I lower the opacity of the blur layer to where I want the finished shot to be. I don't always like too much sharpening in the hair either, I feel it can look too...... sharp.. If it's a male I sharpen much more. Bear in mind I'm practising for glamour look here.

I like the fact that there is not much detail, should be a little more in the cheeks granted but I'm looking for a slightly surreal look. Looking at the photos again, I think the detail around her eyes detracts from the expression in them... but there again.. I might be totally losing it..
Back to you later.
Lynn

[wkwork]

I don't know if this is any closer to what you had in mind:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3592671-L.jpg

I basically did the same thing that I did to my image.


Opened your color image
Duplicated the background layer
Gausian blurred the new layer @ 4 pixels
Changed the blending mode to Soft Light
Added a Channel Mixer adjustment layer (R:35,G:75,B:10:C:-20)


http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3592815-M.jpg



Be sure to try different blending modes for the blurred layer.

I hope this helps!
Nice job Cletus. I like the soft windows against the craggy facade. I'll have to figure out your method in the poor man's Photoshop (PSP).

Keith

[cletus]

Nice job Cletus. I like the soft windows against the craggy facade. I'll have to figure out your method in the poor man's Photoshop (PSP).

Keith Keith,

Here is my Photoshop version again:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3592671-L.jpg

and here is the version I did in PSP:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3616961-L.jpg

I just loaded PSP on my machine to see what it was like, and see if I could duplicate the effect I got in Photoshop.

I found I was able to do the exact same steps that I did in Photoshop.



Opened the color image in PSP
Right-clicked on the background layer in the layers palette, selected Duplicate
Right-clicked on the new background copy layer in the layers palette and selected Properties. In the Layer Properties dialog I changed the Blend Mode to Soft Light.
Found Gaussian Blur under Adjust > Blur. Ran the Gaussian blur at 4 pixels
Right clicked in the layers palette and selected New Adjustment Layer > Channel Mixer. Set the values in the channel mixer, clicked Monochrome and I was done!

[pathfinder]

Pathfinder and Lynn, please post details of the glamour blur technique. I've been trying to reproduce, but I think I'm missing something.

I think that you both want to blur this shot because you don't like the shadows under Pam's eyes. Is that true? On the other hand, I think you both probably agree with me that it would be good to have some detail in the cheek. Is that true? Whatever happens under the eyes, I think it would be good to retain the sharpness in the hair, jacket, eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. Is that true?

It would be good to have a clear set of goals for this image.

By the way, why is this a good candidate for conversion to B&W? Is it because something is missing from the color version? We can use some plate blending to restore the cheek detail in color:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-L.jpg (http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/3605406-O.jpg)



Make a duplicate layer
Apply image green channel to duplicate layer RGB
Blending options -> luminosity
Now we may need some more adjustments to restore nice color balance, but we have much more facial detail to work with. I'm thinking this might also be a better place to start with the black and white conversion. Perhaps if you start here, when you blur, the cheek detail will survive better.
I agree that your image to the right above has much more facial detail. I just finished reviewing the use of the cyan channel in portraits.

I stole the glamor treatment from a post on dpreview at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=8378036

which references this site http://www.dustylens.com/glamour_look.htm


Actually www.dustylens.com (http://www.dustylens.com) is a an interesting site with several interesting pages - worth a look............

[wxwax]

Brilliant work in this thread! It's a keeper.

My weak efforts. I shall try the blur etc. stuff at a later date. This time around I only did Pathfinder's silver, platinum trick, plus lots of heavy levels and contrast.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/3572136-M.jpg
http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/3572343-M.jpg





http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/3571689-M.jpg http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/3571909-M.jpg

[cletus]

Ok, so maybe you don't have Photoshop... If you have Matlab (http://www.mathworks.com) (with the Image Processing Toolbox (http://www.mathworks.com/applications/imageprocessing/)) you can use it to do color to black and white conversions!
>> A = imread('wall.jpg');
>> a = double(A)/255;
>> H = fspecial('gaussian',8,4);
>> b = imfilter(a,H);
>> m = a.*b;
>> s = 0.5 - (1-a).*(1-b);
>> o = m;
>> idx = find(a > 0.5);
>> o(idx) = s(idx);
>> o = o*2;
>> r = o(:,:,1); g = o(:,:,2); b = o(:,:,3);
>> z = 0.35 * r + 0.75*g + 0.1*b - 0.2;
>> imwrite(z,'wallbw.jpg','JPEG');
Original:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3631639-M.jpg

black and white:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3631640-M.jpg

[AltPro]

Ok, so maybe you don't have Photoshop... If you have Matlab (http://www.mathworks.com) (with the Image Processing Toolbox (http://www.mathworks.com/applications/imageprocessing/)) you can use it to do color to black and white conversions!

[/indent] Original:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3631639-M.jpg

black and white:
http://ab0wa.smugmug.com/photos/3631640-M.jpg

Here's my try at converting the color image to B&W.... Done in Photoshop 7

Adj Levels
Curves
Convert in Mode to B&W
Re-Adj Levels
Curves
Contrast
Converted to DuoTone
Black
PANTONE Warm Gray 8 CVC
Coverted to RBG Color

I wanted to see the bricks a bit more...