| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2004 11:53:34 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
But right at the heart of this - it really depends on the type of scene you've shot, and if you want to vary the tonal relationships between the colors or not - e.g., a sky shot were you could change it from an almost light sky to an almost completely dark sky, as you vary the blue component.
|
After a quick toy with the channels, I seem to struggle to get a dark sky from an otherwise everyday bland sky without darkening the earth area.
Plus it seem to add an awful amount of noise.
However I have seen a few images where they have black skies in challenges which i presume are legal as far as editing goes - is there a more detailed way to achieve this?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:55:56 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
After a quick toy with the channels, I seem to struggle to get a dark sky from an otherwise everyday bland sky without darkening the earth area. |
In general you'll want a blue sky.
A grey/ white sky is going to contain equal amounts of red, green and blue, so channel mixing isn't going to help much at all.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:58:23 AM · #28 |
burning a grey sky would probably work to make it quite a deep grey.
using the hue/saturation adjustment layer method will also allow you to deepen the tones - but over the entire image, and not just the sky as you are asking.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:58:56 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
However I have seen a few images where they have black skies in challenges which i presume are legal as far as editing goes - is there a more detailed way to achieve this? |
If they are in an Advanced editing challenge you can do it by creating a mask for the sky area to apply the adjustment, or do it manually with the burn tool.
If it's in Basic editing, I try to isolate the tonal values in the sky and use a Curve on the Blue channel to affect those pixels as selectively as I can. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:59:18 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jonpink:
After a quick toy with the channels, I seem to struggle to get a dark sky from an otherwise everyday bland sky without darkening the earth area. |
In general you'll want a blue sky.
A grey/ white sky is going to contain equal amounts of red, green and blue, so channel mixing isn't going to help much at all. |
Bue sky was my base photo.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 12:00:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jonpink:
However I have seen a few images where they have black skies in challenges which i presume are legal as far as editing goes - is there a more detailed way to achieve this? |
If they are in an Advanced editing challenge you can do it by creating a mask for the sky area to apply the adjustment, or do it manually with the burn tool.
If it's in Basic editing, I try to isolate the tonal values in the sky and use a Curve on the Blue channel to affect those pixels as selectively as I can. |
Will give that a go!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 12:12:16 PM · #32 |
I feel like Gordon has provided some great advice, which is to actully split the channels to see what you will be getting beforehand. To that end, try this with a few different pics and see what you think:
(Sorry, I only know the steps to make it work in PS. I have version 5.0, but it may work for other versions.)
Open an small image in PS and then copy it. Now open the copied version so they are side by side. Convert one to Greyscale (or desaturate, or whatever you want to compare it too). For the other go to your Layers palette (if its not open, open it from Window....Show Layers) Then select the channels tab and hit the little arrow pointer thingy in the top right of the palette. From the options list that comes up, select Split Channels. Now you have all three channels, R, G and B, and a Greyscaled version for comparison on your desktop.
The differences can subtle, depending on the pic. Sometimes, though, they can be quite dramatic. My point is that you really can get results through using the channel mixer that you can't through using the other methods. I'm not saying its better, just different. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 12:36:12 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Use less of the blue channel, more of the red & green channels, and make sure the %'s add up to around 100%. Don't use the constant adjuster, have monochrome checked.
The blue channel is usually far and away the noisiest part of the image, particularly on portraits. |
that's interesting about the total equalling 100%. I guess when I drop the constant and increase the other values I'm doing that...I just never thought of it that way.
P |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 12:54:45 PM · #34 |
Funnily enough I have been looking at this recently too.
I usually use the regular desaturate method but I was working on some images where I liked the info in the red channel and green channel and they weren't quite the same and I wasn't happy with the default I was getting.
Gordon talked me through the channel mixer (as well as subsequent greyscale, duotone and reconvert to RGB) and I am much happier.
On some images I have found that a setting of 95-100% for the red channel and 5-10% for the green (zero for blue) gives me the high contrast image I'm looking for. It just pops from the page more than a standard desat or a red channel only one.
Since it hardly takes very long I think it's worth playing with.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:15:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
I still love the non destructiveness and control of DigiDan's Conversion the best. |
Russell Brown has a very good tutorial document in PDF as well as a Quicktime video describing the technique of using two layers (one for desaturation and another to control color) in Black and White conversion.
The PDF is especially well organized, and is a good handy print-out. The video is like Russell Brown's other videos - he is quite a character. He calls the process "The Patented Russell Preston Brown Tonal Conversion Technique" :-), but if you can get past the corny delivery this and many of his other tutorials are worth watching and very informative. Seeing in Black and White is the fourth tutorial down the page: Russell Brown Tips
Edit: Russell Brown's main page is at //www.russellbrown.com - the link above goes directly into his archived tips.
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 20:26:27. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:22:32 PM · #36 |
i'll check that out tomorrow.
looks like a decent link - the main one.
thanks.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 08:30:16 PM · #37 |
I've been using Johny's B&W package for my conversions lately. I really like it.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 09:41:01 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by General:
I used to do Channel mixer method, results were quite flat, I was reading book on BW photography, one that changed my life was how some Photographer Print Fine BW using DUTONE and from that point my WORK flow is as Follow's
Image>Gradient Map>Convert Image to gray scale ( using Image Mode) > than convert into Dutone> there adjust the two curve.
Results are very crisp |
Biggest problem with this is ou have to go to 8-bit. I want 16-bit as long as possible...if not the whole thing. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 10:02:20 PM · #39 |
right - no image mode adjustments from me.
grayscale i dont' like too much.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 10:37:22 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I feel like Gordon has provided some great advice, which is to actully split the channels to see what you will be getting beforehand. To that end, try this with a few different pics and see what you think:
(Sorry, I only know the steps to make it work in PS. I have version 5.0, but it may work for other versions.)
Open an small image in PS and then copy it. Now open the copied version so they are side by side. Convert one to Greyscale (or desaturate, or whatever you want to compare it too). For the other go to your Layers palette (if its not open, open it from Window....Show Layers) Then select the channels tab and hit the little arrow pointer thingy in the top right of the palette. From the options list that comes up, select Split Channels. Now you have all three channels, R, G and B, and a Greyscaled version for comparison on your desktop.
The differences can subtle, depending on the pic. Sometimes, though, they can be quite dramatic. My point is that you really can get results through using the channel mixer that you can't through using the other methods. I'm not saying its better, just different. |
I'm trying to play with this, but when I get the channel drop down menu, split channels is dimmed out. What am I doing wrong?
Oh and I usually use the digidan method myself...
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 12:41:34 AM · #41 |
| Tray this site //silveroxide.com/ |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:14:47 PM · #42 |
anyone tried using curves instead of duotones ?
particularly these ?
Message edited by author 2004-08-17 23:44:29. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:28:09 PM · #43 |
I used to use the "convert to grayscale" then I realized that the tonal balance is way off not to mention loss of details. Then I went to the Epson Print Academy and I discovered nik multimedia and Color Efex Pro 2.0 and its wonderful abilities. I toyed around with the idea of using the channel mixer method while at the Print Academy but then I thought I'd probably forget how to do that and just wanted the easy way to get a proper black and white and duotones. It's very nice software and I believe they have downloadable demos (//www.nikmultimedia.com).
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:32:51 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I always just use image >> desaturate. |
John, do you do anything after you use desaturate, such as play with Levels of Curves? I find I always have to tweak after having converted whatever technique I use.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:39:30 PM · #45 |
CM gives you the opportunity to do things you would ordinarily do with filter in mono photography: try a partly cloudy sky with RGB set to 100, 100, -100 and you'll get a near-black sky. Likewise, lowering red levels in portraits can help clean up skin blemishes without producing PS-type effects.
I absolutely agree that it is more useful in landscape work - but in your own kind of closely focussed work, John - the trains, the tools and so on, I would have thought you would find it useful.
The trick is entirely in those negative values though, to my mind - and this is not something that the split to RGB will show you.
Obviously, if your orignal scene is of muted colours, or only very subtle tonality, then there simply isn't the range of primaries to play with. This is why it works so well for landscape - there's often very strong blue and green elements.
Ed
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:46:38 PM · #46 |
Here's a quick and dirty adjustment layer approach from Adobe.com...
//www.adobe.com/tips/phs8colorbw/main.html
I found the use of two adjustment layers an interesting technique. He uses the Hue/Saturation adjustment, but mentions that the Channel mixer can be used "for more sophisticated results." |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 03:56:35 PM · #47 |
Anyone experienced in printing B&Ws and getting
Good tonal reproduction
Good detail in particularly the shadow detail
using fine art papers
I'm mainly doing this on an R800, with the standard inkset. I'm not too interested in going for an all grey inkset, but wondered if there were good pointers or articles on the details of preparing an image to print well, particularly on textured or watercolour papers.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 11:44:43 PM · #48 |
Just tried these this evening - a lot more interesting than using duotones and I can keep it all 16 bit which appeals too. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 12:22:39 AM · #49 |
I never follow any recipees or patterns mine or anyone elses. Conversion from color to b/w I feel is a verry delicate matter and it should differ from one image to another. As the colors always differ due to camera over/under saturation, withe ballance, colorcasts and such, the b/w conversion results differs too. The b/w of a undersaturated red for example will differ alot from the b/w of a oversaturated one... This is why I always adjust the image in color until I feel good about all colors, and then I try all the diferent conversion methods I know about until I find the one that I feel is best for that specific image. Sometimes I want images to gave a grunge heavy contrasts look, other times I whant them softer with less contrasts, so for me there never is a recipee, everything I do to any image is specific of that image. Most of the times I do such a huge amount of small adjustments and readjustments that on many of my shots if you ask me to convert it again I doubt I can follow my own steps back and do it again.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 04:09:32 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by e301:
CM gives you the opportunity to do things you would ordinarily do with filter in mono photography |
Yeah it reminds me of deliberately using the filters that come with multigrade paper not to get a balanced and true contrast but to play with contrast a little.
|
|
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: 08/09/2025 09:41:35 AM EDT.
