DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> B&W I just can't get it right.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/23/2006 04:28:49 AM · #1
I have so much trouble getting the tonal range right in my post processing. I know what I like to see but with my images they seem to fall flat.

So I have read and researched and tried various techniques on a number of images and would love some critique on all or any of the images from anyone on what they think regarding the black and white qualities of these images.

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

I know number two is more of a duotone but it is the technique I like.

Thanks in advance.
 02/23/2006 05:20:34 AM · #2
I would suggest taking a good look at your white point - where you put the brightest area of the image. In some of these shots the brightest tones are actually darker than the standard dpc background, so you have some distance to go. Some examples of the kind of feel you're actually aiming for would help in giving guidance.

I process all my stuff into black and white with the RAW processor - that way one's working with 16-bit information until the last minute; jpeg, limited to 8-bit colour, obviously is much more restrictive when you go into B&W.

e
 02/23/2006 05:29:06 AM · #3
Left comment on #6
 02/23/2006 05:43:26 AM · #4
Can you send me the original, color version of 5 and/or 1 for me to take a look at? Prferably as a tiff if you started from RAW, otherwise the jpg. I'd be interested in having a crack at these.

Robt.
 02/23/2006 05:48:16 AM · #5
I've included part of a thread on B&W and a method I use. It gives me results I am very happy with. Here is an example of what's achievable: //dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=293045

A general comment on your B&W conversions would be that they don't seem to be 'pushing the histogram' to the limits. For the real punch out of B&W the shadows and highlilghts need to be taken to the edge (0-255).

Originally posted by front_element:

A very powerful way to convert to Monochrome is to use two Hue/Saturation layers in Photoshop:

1. Create new H/S layer
2. Set mode to 'color'
3. Set saturation to '0'
4. Create another H/S layer
5. Ensure it in 'underneath' the first H/S layer
6. Open the 'bottom, H/S and adjust the hue slider to alter and accentuate the tones of the image.

It's worth noting that this method would fall foul of the 'basic' editing rules (if I understand them correctly) as it uses a layer set to other than 'normal'
 02/23/2006 06:06:40 AM · #6
G'day Tim,
A B&W tutorial with both e301 and Bear involved; I'll be watching this thread!
I like all the shots in the OP, by the way. They're terrific photographs and will be even better with a bit more life in the processing. My own modest offering is to experiment with the RGB channels to obtain a bit more tonal separation between adjacent elements. But that's subordinate to Ed's suggestion about white point. Please make sure you post any revised versions with their relevant processing notes.
Cheers,
Paul
 02/23/2006 06:24:42 AM · #7
Thanks everyone for the great advice.

I have just tried setting the white point as e301 has suggested and that has made a big difference, amazing how the simple things work. But too me I seem to blowing out the highlights especially in the first one.

Bear these images are from long ago when I only shot jpegs but I will send them to you anyway, I would love for you to have a crack at them.

One again thanks everyone for the help.
 02/23/2006 06:35:18 AM · #8
Originally posted by keegbow:
Thanks everyone for the great advice.

I have just tried setting the white point as e301 has suggested and that has made a big difference, amazing how the simple things work. But too me I seem to blowing out the highlights especially in the first one.


Not sure what type of program you are using but if you're using photoshop use an adjustment layer when you correct the white point. That way you can scale back the effect on the highlights by using the eraser tool on the adjustment layer.
 02/23/2006 06:43:22 AM · #9
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Thanks everyone for the great advice.

I have just tried setting the white point as e301 has suggested and that has made a big difference, amazing how the simple things work. But too me I seem to blowing out the highlights especially in the first one.


Not sure what type of program you are using but if you're using photoshop use an adjustment layer when you correct the white point. That way you can scale back the effect on the highlights by using the eraser tool on the adjustment layer.


Yes I have been doing that in photoshop CS but in the first one I still seem to blow out the highlights, maybe a masking layer ?

Anyway here is my latest attempts.





I have played around with gradient layers with these.
 02/23/2006 06:50:44 AM · #10
That first pic is 1000000% better! Good work!
 02/23/2006 06:57:57 AM · #11
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Thanks everyone for the great advice.

I have just tried setting the white point as e301 has suggested and that has made a big difference, amazing how the simple things work. But too me I seem to blowing out the highlights especially in the first one.


Not sure what type of program you are using but if you're using photoshop use an adjustment layer when you correct the white point. That way you can scale back the effect on the highlights by using the eraser tool on the adjustment layer.


Yes I have been doing that in photoshop CS but in the first one I still seem to blow out the highlights, maybe a masking layer ?

Anyway here is my latest attempts.





I have played around with gradient layers with these.


That's what I meant. If you use an adjustment layer for the white point correction and then erase the parts of the photo that have the blown highlights in the the adjustment layer you can undo the white point correction in those areas. If you do it on the adjustment layer you would be creating a mask.

ETA: Your photos are looking much better.

Message edited by author 2006-02-23 06:58:44.
 02/23/2006 07:23:57 AM · #12
I had a quick play with your edit of the first one as I felt it needed more depth to it
=>
I just played with dodge and burn
working on the hills between the rock and tree I lightened the far range and darkened the closest one
bit of playing with the clouds
darkened the foreground then darkened the top of the sky to give 3d lighting getting brighter as you head out to the hills
 02/23/2006 07:27:47 AM · #13
Great job on #5!! Much better range there now.
 02/23/2006 10:26:11 AM · #14
Another approach to the white point thing - somewhat easier than layers, but less un-doable - is to do most of the work in Levels; just pull the top point down to get the highest levels closer to the top, and then moving the mid-point to put the interest in the shot, and the low point to effectively control contrast: it's quite amazing how powerful that very simple tool is.

Raw Shooter Essentials has a lovely combination levels and curves tool which is what I use 100% of the time now - usually only making slight adjustments for web display as opposed to print.

You're obviously heading in the right direction though ;-)

e
 02/23/2006 12:39:58 PM · #15
Here's my quick shot at 'em, working from color jpeg's sent by keegbow:



The lighthouse is VERY difficult to work with, oddly not because of the bright side (that's easy) but trying to bring life to the dark side and especially at the top.

R.
 02/23/2006 12:42:25 PM · #16
Originally posted by Firsty:
I had a quick play with your edit of the first one as I felt it needed more depth to it
=>
I just played with dodge and burn
working on the hills between the rock and tree I lightened the far range and darkened the closest one
bit of playing with the clouds
darkened the foreground then darkened the top of the sky to give 3d lighting getting brighter as you head out to the hills


Nice improvement!
 02/23/2006 02:21:47 PM · #17
Originally posted by yanko:
Not sure what type of program you are using but if you're using photoshop use an adjustment layer when you correct the white point. That way you can scale back the effect on the highlights by using the eraser tool on the adjustment layer.

I've been studying layer masks lately and find the suggestion to use the eraser tool on an adjustment layer fascinating.

When you read about the eraser tool it is usually to discouraged its usage because it is "destructive" and go on to describe how you can do things "better". In this case, however, it is being used to do exactly what the experts are telling you to do for "non-destructive" editing by using layer masks. That is funny! The difference is they always say to use the paint brush tool instead. Both tools work.

In an adjustment layer the eraser tool does not erase! It paints in the layer mask with black. Black painted in a layer mask makes that layer transparent. In this case the eraser tool is really just a special case of a regular paint brush tool. Switch the brush color to white and the eraser tool will actually unerase! Try that in a data layer and see what you get. LOL!
 02/23/2006 03:34:34 PM · #18
Originally posted by Firsty:
I had a quick play with your edit of the first one as I felt it needed more depth to it
=>
I just played with dodge and burn
working on the hills between the rock and tree I lightened the far range and darkened the closest one
bit of playing with the clouds
darkened the foreground then darkened the top of the sky to give 3d lighting getting brighter as you head out to the hills


I like what you have achieved simply with dodge and burn. I didn't do any dodge and burn with mine, I'll go back and play some more.
 02/23/2006 03:36:41 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's my quick shot at 'em, working from color jpeg's sent by keegbow:



The lighthouse is VERY difficult to work with, oddly not because of the bright side (that's easy) but trying to bring life to the dark side and especially at the top.
R.


Thanks bear they look much better can you give us a quick workflow on these images ?
02/24/2006 01:47:04 AM · #20
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's my quick shot at 'em, working from color jpeg's sent by keegbow:



The lighthouse is VERY difficult to work with, oddly not because of the bright side (that's easy) but trying to bring life to the dark side and especially at the top.
R.


Thanks bear they look much better can you give us a quick workflow on these images ?


Both of these were converted using two stacked hue/saturation layers, one in normal mode and the other in color mode. There's a link on how to use that technique earlier in the thread.

In both cases, work was done to the color original before making the conversion. Both images went through a contrast-masking workflow, using cntrl-alt-tilde and a mix of multiply and screen modes. This can be done in CS2 with the shadow/highlight dialogue box, but in 7.0 I do it manually. The lighthouse was worked to bring up the values on the dark side of the tower, the tree was worked to enhance local contrast, in both cases with the same shadow-masking workflow.

After conversion to monotone with the double-hue/sat technique (making the lighouse "cool" and the tree "warm"), the image was flattened and further work was done.

On the lighthouse shot I made a selection of the sky on the right side and applied a right-to-left dark-to-transparent gradient to contain the sky, which was fading off to the right where I wanted it to be darkening. I also applied a very faint gradient up from the bottom to keep the image from bleeding off in the foreground. After all THAT, I ran a second, much more subtle, set of contrast masks, flattened again, then zoomed in on the top of the lighthouse and used the dodge tool in the "shadow" mode to get better definition of the detail up there.

On the tree shot I ran dark-to-transparent gradients from the top down and on a slight diagonal from lower left as well. Each of these gradients was faded immediately after application using the "edit/fade" command. The gradients on both, incidentally, were applied on an empty layer above the base layer, so I could play with the blending mode and the opacity after laying them down. Finally, on the tree image, I used the dodge tool set in "highlights" mode to brighten up the lighter bits of the foregroudn rocks, and I used the dodge tool in the "shadow" mode to bring out a tad more detail in the tree trunk itself.

That's how I remember it, anyway :-)

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 03:54:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 03:54:31 AM EDT.