4 B&W's - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

07/31/2005 03:20:01 AM · #1

Four B&W's taken between Otay Lakes and Campo, CA.

Comments welcome!

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 03:34:57.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

07/31/2005 06:39:34 AM · #2

I'm such a sucker for B&W shots that I'd love to offer my comments (for what they're worth):

Very fine shot. I especially love the marvellous (raking?) light on the dead tree branches. The reeds in the foreground also look striking. A very effective composition, great lighting, & nicely processed.

Same as the first shot, but not quite as arresting for me. Has all the same technical qualities. but a little less impact, I guess because of the less bold composition.

My favourite. I love road shots & this is a good one. They have so much potential for interest and intrigue. Sky looks terrific, the detail in the road surface is really good. Also a great detail is the little road sign visible in the distance. And it is a simple but appealing composition, processed for real impact. I'd hang it on my wall. At least a 9 for me!

Interesting. Love the strange sign. However, the composition doesn't appeal to me as much as the other three; just a little too "busy" for my taste.
Overall a fine group of B&W's that you should be very proud of. I would be.

Links 2 3 4

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2005 07:32:16 AM · #3

All four pictures are very good, but my favorite is the third one, well done.

07/31/2005 10:18:23 AM · #4

The first one (to which I commented under the image) is an exceptionally nicely-processed shot:

I made a couple suggestions, and then decided to play with it myself. Note leveling of horizon, addition of gradient to sky, and a slight bump in luminance through levels. The wider white border also helps it pop against this gray background...

What do you think?

Robt.

07/31/2005 10:18:42 AM · #5

black and white pix need to have pure black and whites to be considered a good...black and white.

The 'Road to Nowhere' is the best example of this rule, the other three the whites are impure and need work.

Nice job, but come on San Diego, you put these mentorships together, and your pix don't show the basics.

I am just going to go get hammered now because of this. I need a hug.

07/31/2005 10:29:24 AM · #6

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

Nice job, but come on San Diego, you put these mentorships together, and your pix don't show the basics.

I am just going to go get hammered now because of this.

Silly rabbit! I put the mentorship thing together because I am a poor photographer who wants to be great, not a great photograher who can teach the poor! I was looking for a mentor!

So which shall it be? Hammer or hug?

07/31/2005 10:31:54 AM · #7

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

Jaysus, Johnson... You can have a hug (bear hug) but give the poor guy a break. Whjatever flaws his conversions have, they are not "basic flaws", and he anyway just spearheaded the concept of mentorships; he never claimed he was an authority in each topic being addressed.

I's also take issue with your blanket statement that you need pure white and pure black to have a "good" BW print. It's a good rule of thumb, but it's not absolute.

R.

07/31/2005 11:02:59 AM · #8

In my editing app, I adjusted the whites, and blacks so that i would get some details within those colors.

When I say 'pure', I do not mean without detail. But, also, whites need to look white and not grayish, or impure.

However, on both ends of the spectrum, blacks and whites should have parity, with all the midtones in between.

I have noticed that alot of people don't understand that to have a good b&w, you need blacks and whites. I am giving an oppinion on my ovservation that 3 out of 4 of his pix need improvement on the whites. They are not pure.

If a silver look is what is after, then, ok. But, I thought this was about blacks and whites.

Bear, I respect your oppinion, but, if you take issue, then that is something you and I don't see eye to eye. With all of your good advice, this one I don't agree with.

Your turn.

07/31/2005 11:10:41 AM · #9

There's another issue at work with these particular photos:

That is the fact that the highlights are already close to pure white. I've posted pics before with pure white highlights and gotten comments along the lines of "nice photo, too bad the highlights are blown out". So it's kinda hard to win, here. If I raise them, someone doesn't like it. If I mute them, someone doesn't like it.

I thought the black/white ratio was just fine in the first tree pic (the one where it dominates the frame). In the second one, (with the tree on the bottom right), I was specifically going for a muted, soft tone. I tried giving the whites a little more punch, as you suggested, and here is the result:

You might have to refresh for the photo to update, as it's the same photo, just modified.

Perhaps you could show me your own interpretation of them? How would you improve them (and post the results)?

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 11:17:10.

07/31/2005 11:28:17 AM · #10

Originally posted by aboutimage:

This is my point, exactly.

I am on a differant monitor to look at your stuff again.

TOO pure, is bad. Without detail is bad. You don't want a white or black that is just a white or black blob, you want detail. On the same point, you want white to be white, and blacks black, but with a touch of detail.

That is why I adjusted my editing apps preferances in the color adjustments tool to make my whites and blacks no so white, or black.

Am I making sense, or am I making a mess.

Besides the drink, there is a reason why I am not a teacher.

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 11:30:47.

07/31/2005 11:30:38 AM · #11

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

Bear, I respect your oppinion, but, if you take issue, then that is something you and I don't see eye to eye. With all of your good advice, this one I don't agree with.

Your turn.

I don't think we're disagreeing. You original statement implies that ALL B/W images need to include "pure" blacks & whites, and this is not true. A more muted tonal range may be exactly what the pohotographer was after, especially in such shots as a misty landscape. Also, high-key B/W shots may contain no pure blacks at all and be very succesful. These are just two examples.

However, it is true (and I think based on your second post that this is what you meant) that "classic" full-tone shots, especially landscapes, will almost always benefit from the fuller expression of those tonalities. Indeed, this is what I was shooting for with my reworking of the "lone tree" shot.

R.

07/31/2005 11:33:59 AM · #12

Of equal imprtance to the full expression of the tonal range, in the example I posted, is the use of a gradient in the sky. This is something we'd accomplish through careful burning of the top of the image in BW film photography, and it's a hallmark of Ansel-type shots. Photoshop gives us a more sophisticated way of doing it, by setting a black-to-transparent (or plue-to transparent, in color) gradient overlay on a duplicate layer, then fading the layer so the effect looks natural.

Robt.

07/31/2005 11:40:36 AM · #13

OK, well, my apologies. I'm reverting that pic back to original. I really don't like the brightness. Muted is what I was looking for and I need to go back to that.

Bear, I don't see your examples...

07/31/2005 11:46:55 AM · #14

I didn't post any; I meant, "these are just two examples/types of situations where..." and was referring to the CONCEPT, not an actual image.

R.

07/31/2005 11:56:01 AM · #15

this sample of what I am talking about is a very quick, down and dirty edit.

I did not burn.
I did not grade.
I did not do anything fancy.

I did use curves.
I did use the sampling technique in levels, and not the sliders.
I did add contrast.
I did sharpen using the High Pass technique, which I like to do for B&W.

My objective is to get some detail on the lake, and the tree. But, since this is down and dirty, the sky is blown out a bit, and some of the limbs on the tree lost detail.

THIS IS NOT WHAT I WOULD DO NORMALLY, SO AGAIN THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE, AND NOT WORK I WOULD CONSIDER ENTERING BECAUSE IT NEEDS MORE WORK.

07/31/2005 12:04:23 PM · #16

I see what you meant, now.

I really like my muted tones (on this particular image), so I'm going to stick with that, but I value your input and opinion. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.

07/31/2005 12:38:40 PM · #17

OK Abbey and Robert,

I have taken some advice from both of your opinions and came up with a rework of the original.

What I did: Boosted contrast (a tiny bit), created a dodge layer to bring out selected highlights, created a gradient across the top.

<-- Original

<-- Rework

Opinions?

P.S. I DO think the rework is better, and thank both of you.

Message edited by author 2005-07-31 12:54:31.

07/31/2005 12:58:38 PM · #18

Much, much better. Nice subtle work with the gradient. You learn fast, grasshopper...

R.

07/31/2005 01:05:42 PM · #19

Not bad.

Now, add Godzilla, and you have something.

Do I get that hug now?

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

07/31/2005 01:07:42 PM · #20

Yeah, where's kpriest when you need him? HEY, WE NEED A GODZILLA OVER HERE!!!

I dunno about that hug. SD is having their gay pride parade. I don't know if my manly manliness could take any more touchy feely stuff right now...

j/k ;-)

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

07/31/2005 08:06:18 PM · #21

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

black and white pix need to have pure black and whites to be considered a good...black and white. .....

Very interesting thread, following the "johnson" comment quoted above. If the same commenters come across this thread again, I'd appreciate some help with this ...

If you can force yourself to ignore the presence of some selective desat (which was just me playing the fool), I was not happy with the result from a B&W point of view. I liked the composition, but it did not convert to B&W as well as I'd hoped. Any suggestions?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/31/2005 08:16:04 PM · #22

Originally posted by ubique:

I liked the composition, but it did not convert to B&W as well as I'd hoped. Any suggestions?

as with everything else in PS there are a few differant techniques to convert to B&W.

One of the best ways is to put your RGB into seperate layers (red in a layer, Green in another, Blue in another) and then use color correction tool to desat each layer giving you more control over midtones.

David.C

07/31/2005 08:31:20 PM · #23

Originally posted by ubique:

I liked the composition, but it did not convert to B&W as well as I'd hoped. Any suggestions?

What were you hoping for? If not able to express in words, similar images would help.

David

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

07/31/2005 09:10:52 PM · #24

Originally posted by Britannica:

Originally posted by ubique:
I liked the composition, but it did not convert to B&W as well as I'd hoped. Any suggestions?

What were you hoping for? If not able to express in words, similar images would help.
David

I wanted it richer & stronger (sounds like coffee). More definition of the detail at all points on the tonal scale. Like this:

I know that's a quite different subject and a much better photograph, but it's one of the best B&W's I've seen lately, and it IS rich and dark (like the Aga Khan). Mine seems very thin and washed out by comparison.