How to get good black & white from digital?

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
?

Oh, you were expecting *me* to supply some tips..? No, I'm a no-talent
loser in this area!

I was hoping to hear from those who have tried, successfully or
otherwise, to get high quality black and white results from a digital
workflow. I think it's a given that the printer is a big issue, and
that you need a lot of resolution (eg 200 ppi is probably not going to
suffice!). But I would like to concentrate on the *capture stage* -
what is it that makes a superb b&w image?

A great b&w has a 'look' to it that is often referred to, but rarely
is an attempt made to explain *what gives it that quality* - is it the
tone curve, the dynamic range, the nature of the media, ... I'm a bit
sick of hearing "you just can't do quality b&w with digital" - while I
agree that seems to be mostly true, I want to know *exactly why*...!!!

Seems to me that if the issues can be defined, then maybe there are
some workarounds and techniques that will help to let us digital-geeks
begin to explore the final frontier... If the issues *can't* be
defined, then that also tells me something.. (O;

If I've missed a good site on this topic, *please* enlighten me!!

PS - The answer "use film" - while technically correct - is not quite
the answer I seek...
PPS - Any attempts to answer this thread concentrating specifically on
the issues while avoiding personality clashes, will be greatly
appreciated. (O:

 

I don't agree with this at all.
It is very possible to get quality B&W from a digital capture.
So the question becomes, "Why can't you?"

 

Mark

Black and white looks "snapier" (nothing to do with photo snaps) becuase the
toneal contrast can be adjusted in grays that are difficult to adjust with a
colour shot without distorting the colour.

Better digital black and white prints can be made from a colour digital
image than can be made in the wet darkroom from black and white film. To
learn converting colour digital to black and white there are many books
available which contain a wide range of information (too much to give a
quick reply in a network news reply) - I suggest you do a search on Amazon
for black and white photography.

A poor printer will give poor colour as well as black and white prints

Malcolm
..

 

I used black and white 35mm film for years. Now I use digital b&w and
I find it so much more convenient. For one, I don't have to keep
changing filters on the lens, which incidently takes away the quality
of the glass you spent so much on. But the main point is I love the
results with digital. They are very sharp with as much contrast and
tonal range as you want. I've pretty much had it with most labs. They
have screwed up my film more than I care to think about. There is an
excellent one here in Toronto that specializes in b&w, but it can get
expensive. I have done extensive comparisons with 35mm b&w film and
digital and I believe that you can get the same great contrast with
beautiful tonal range with either. It depends a lot on the quality of
your printer as well. Of course the best black and white is large
format.
Helen

 

Fair question. And I'll probably never be a good b&w imager - I just
don't readily see scenes in b&w... I tend to experiment with images I
have already taken, and (more by accident than design), 'discover'
those that look good (or at least better than they did in colour...)
in b&w.

But I don't often see striking b&w images that have been *captured* in
digital, and often my results have the boring 'look' that I got with a
recent SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/86568468
or, say, from this portrait:
http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.jpg
neither of which is quite what I wanted - plus with the first one I
ran into posterisation problems (granted, it was not shot raw..).

And I often hear comments about the difficulty in getting the quality
achieved from a good b&w film and them legendary platinum prints...
here are a few examples of the 'look' I mean - of course you could
(accurately) say these images are more about the image content and how
they were lit. But any tips on how to approach this sort of tonality
(for want of a better word) would be appreciated.

http://archives.imaginginfo.com/article/photos/1121184096970_Lyson.jpg
http://a4.vox.com/6a00d10a7a1eb08bfa00d4142fc0b46a47-500pi
http://www.chroniclebooks.com/Chronicle/catalog/0811843548/coltrane.jpg
http://www.thespiderawards.com/images/01_clement_michele_009.jpg
http://lakarita.bravehost.com/Karita_Mattila_by_Richard_Avedon.jpg

Anwyay, I'm sure I've heard you say that b&w is mostly a waste of
time! Are you turning? (O:

 

He can't Bret, because he piles rubbish, scorn and insults on those
most able to help then expects he'll just blather in and ask for help!
It's a bit like the dog who bites his master and still expects to be
fed. I second your opinion (for once). I've been doing it for years as
no doubt, you have too.

Doug

 

I'll ignore the insults and simply ask him to show some of these
successful images he has created, in the spirit of educating the
lesser mortals such as myself.

I've posted a couple of bad ones of mine - so why not, Doug?

 

That's encouraging to hear, Helen - thanks! I guess it boils down to
two areas - one is of visualising what will work in b&w, and then how
to achieve the perfect spread of grey tones, along with nailing the
black and white points.

I tend to avoid complex curves (I prefer just tweaking the sliders in
Levels) when adjusting my images - maybe I need to spend more time on
that area. If your capture seems flat or uninteresting, what approach
do you use to get the tonality right?

cheers, mt

 

Just to add a bit of a partially relevant story to this post.. here's
a b&w image I took that I'm a little happier with:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1910545

This rather ugly looking tree trunk has quite a history - a famous
image was taken of it back in the 1930's by Harold Cazneaux, who
called the image "Spirit of Endurance" - see here:
http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/caz/spirit.html
and click on the first image to see it (it hasn't survived the years
very well..).

I tried to emulate that image with my shot, as a bit of a tribute to
Harold and to show the effect of the passing years on this beautiful
tree - my shot was taken a few years ago (yes, digital..!).

This tree forms a majestic marker to the Wilpena Pound/Flinders Ranges
in South Australia, and in the early 70's it still looked like this:
http://www.marktphoto.com/landscape/slides/cazneaux.htm *

Since then the tree has lost some of its beauty (having lost a lot of
the crown and with the lower trunk covered in regrowth as shown in my
b&w shot) but it is still an awesome sight.

* - I have a b&w version of this image somewhere, too, if anyone is
interested, but the original was shot on colour film (K64).

 

I'm not exactly sure why he thought we needed a new thread..

For the sake of completeness, Doug has posted an example of his b&w
work here:
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/portfolio/mono-colour.htm

He has obviously used a 100% red channel mix. Imo (which isn't worth
much), the image could use a bit less red channel with green added, to
avoid the ghostly IR appearance of the woman, and a little blue so the
car isn't quite so blackened. Take a look at the various channels -
which looks more natural? What would others have done?

(and I know this isn't about composition, but the cut off arm and the
burnt foreground areas (surely not flash!) are pretty distracting..)

Thanks, Doug. (O;

 

I don't have Photoshop. All I have is Microsoft Picture Manager. If
I need to "tweak" the contrast or even adjust the tonality I can do it
there. I have nothing against people using Photoshop. It's no
different than when someone does burning, dodging, etc. in a
darkroom.
For digital, when I set the camera in b&w I always make sure I've set
the yellow filter on as well.
Helen

 

That's an excellent black and white shot Mark! Well done!
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1910545

Thanks for sharing the history of that tree. It's very interesting.
Helen

 

This article might be helpful.

<http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3366/how-to-get-real-b-w-look-from-color-photos.html>

SW

 

no neg, no silver, no paper, no chemicals, you're prolly not going to get
any kind of quality print. Machine prints on plastic paper are the norm, so
people accept that. Bob Hickey

 

By Michael Freeman: " Mastering Digital Black and White Photography "
ISBN-13: 978-1-57990-707-5
ISBN-10: 1-57990-707-5

....which I am currently reading. Mostly related to Photoshop and it's most basic legacy tools,
the_later_the_version_the_better of course but this book contains method_after_method_after_
method for genuine conversion to beautiful mono. There's all kindza ways to do it in this book.
Some methods may be used in the GIMP too, no doubt.

No film camera required!

But: scanned medium or large format film is still the best way to attain a HI_REZ digital image.
Somtimes you get a neighbor that bought a Nikon D200 and matching lenses... get a 6x7, lenses,
and the bigger Nikon (9000?) scanner, and shoot color negative films in order to get awesome
results with the methods in the book. It's always color to begin with. You can also use an older
Umax or Epson or Microtek flatbed with a light lid or film drawer for film, I use a Umax
Powerlook III and it's TMA lid, and it's FAR cheaper than a 9000.

Printing is yes, quite another issue, but you can dedicate an Epson printer such as a 1280 silver to
B&W inks by Lyson. If you do, use the ink maker's papers and use their color spaces (color profiles)
for both their papers and inks.

 

I don't swing that way.

Anyway, the images you linked to looked to be more
about excellent lighting than anything having to do with
B&W vs. color. And that's what B&W is all about ...
light and shadows.

 

I see nothing really wrong with that conversion. However, I don't
think that was the best image to choose as an example. In the
original, the color was actually the subject. All that is lost in the
B&W version.

I've heard many B&W shooters say they prefer it because the color
distracts from the image. In Doug's example, I think the color makes
the image.

 

Helen Helen HELEN! Download the GIMP! http://www.gimp.org/ it is a free
image editor of good repute. News group: comp.graphics.apps.gimp

 

Thank you for that link.

 

What I remember Bret saying is that b&w in not good in many cases.
And I agree. For his type of photography, such a wildlife, macro
shots of insects and flowers, and panos of those gorgeous places in
the area that he lives, are definitely best done in color. (I do love
those IR panos though). I use b&w to mainly tell a story, such as in
portraits of people or a street scene.....I guess it's best described
as photojournalism.
Helen