Re: some B&W landscape conversions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > * Mark McDougall wrote :
    >
    > > FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
    > > portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
    > > landscapes... I don't don't see it.

    >
    > 2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)



    If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
    printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
    Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
    afraid.

    ( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
    similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
    bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)

    While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
    people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
    "artistic" :-(

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr.T

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:28:08 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

    >
    >"Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> * Mark McDougall wrote :
    >>
    >> > FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
    >> > portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
    >> > landscapes... I don't don't see it.

    >>
    >> 2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

    >
    >
    >If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
    >printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
    >Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
    >afraid.


    Whoa! Troy was not, in any way, comparing his shots to those of
    Ansell Adams. He was noting, appropriately, that black and white can
    be a very effective treatment for landscape photographs. Adams used
    it, so why shouldn't Troy try his hand at it?

    >While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
    >people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
    >"artistic" :-(


    I have yet to see a photograph done in "HD" where I think the
    treatment makes the image better. In most cases, the result is
    grotesque.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Oct 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.T

    Bruce Guest

    Mark McDougall <> wrote:
    >On 13/10/2010 9:28 PM, Mr.T wrote:
    >
    >> If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
    >> printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
    >> Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
    >> afraid.

    >
    >I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.



    No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
    either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
    desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
    quality that Ansel Adams produced.

    If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
    go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.
    Bruce, Oct 13, 2010
    #3
  4. On 10/13/10 PDT 4:28 AM, Mr.T wrote:
    > "Troy Piggins"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> * Mark McDougall wrote :
    >>
    >>> FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
    >>> portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
    >>> landscapes... I don't don't see it.

    >>
    >> 2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

    >
    >
    > If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
    > printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
    > Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
    > afraid.
    >
    > ( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
    > similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
    > bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)
    >
    > While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
    > people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
    > "artistic" :-(


    Troy is not among those peeving persons.

    And excellent results can be achieved with out firing up the enlarger
    and mixing chemicals- but not on one's ordinary inkjet. (And no,
    monitors will never compare directly to a print, color or mono.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 13, 2010
    #4
  5. Mr.T

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-10-13 09:04:56 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >> Mark McDougall <> wrote:
    >>> I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

    >>
    >> No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
    >> either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
    >> desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
    >> quality that Ansel Adams produced.
    >>
    >> If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
    >> go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

    >
    >Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
    >difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
    >is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
    >desaturating.



    I think that was exactly Mr.T's point, and if so, we all agree.


    >There are many ways of getting to a pleasing B&W result in PP without
    >resorting to desaturation. It is quite possible to work a pseudo "zone"
    >system. Here are a few variations I had been playing with for
    >comparison. Just an ongoing experiment.
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/MSM-BW-Comp-s.jpg >



    Interesting results.


    >...and then there is also the NIK Silver Effects Pro plugin
    >< http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php?tab=0 >



    Thanks.

    The main limitation, which should not be too difficult to remove, is
    the Bayer pattern primary colour filters over the digital sensor.

    There have been several DSLR manufacturers who have announced their
    intention to make a DSLR that omits these filters, and does only black
    and white, but I think only one delivered. That was Kodak (or someone
    will be along in a minute to correct me!) but it was some years ago.

    I would probably be more inclined to experiment with digital black and
    white if I had difficulty selling traditional 'wet darkroom' prints,
    or didn't enjoy producing them. The darkroom is a particular pleasure
    at this time as my ability to travel is still limited.
    Bruce, Oct 13, 2010
    #5
  6. On 10/13/2010 11:04 AM, Bruce wrote:

    >
    > If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
    > go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.
    >


    I seriously doubt that. With enough pixels ... and we are getting up there
    into 4x5 B&W pixel density just about now ... digital will be
    enormously superior. That is, of course, with Ansel Adam's esthetic
    skills, trained to use Photoshop, and printing on an art-grade silver print paper.

    Of course, the problem with this idea is that one the AA clone person
    finished with the Photoshopping, an infinite number of perfect and
    identical prints could be reproduced. This is not conducive to
    the idea of "art prints".

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Oct 13, 2010
    #6
  7. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have yet to see a photograph done in "HD" where I think the
    > treatment makes the image better.


    I sure have, mine :)

    >In most cases, the result is grotesque.


    Agreed. I never use an automatic program for that reason, all done with
    manual masking in photoshop. But then everybody has their own ideas about
    what looks good or not. However sometimes it is simply not possible to get a
    sartisfactory result any other way. You of course may simply choose to
    ignore that subject, the choice is yours.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #7
  8. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Allen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Goodbye.


    Was there a point to your post?

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #8
  9. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

    >
    > No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
    > either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
    > desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
    > quality that Ansel Adams produced.
    >
    > If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
    > go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.



    Gee I'm glad someone got it. I thought it was clear enough when read in
    full. Obviously not for some.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #9
  10. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010101310412680979-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
    > difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
    > is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
    > desaturating.


    Of course there is, I was using the channel mixer in Photoshop 2!
    But how do YOU print them?


    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #10
  11. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:i951vm$tfk$-september.org...
    > I seriously doubt that. With enough pixels ... and we are getting up there
    > into 4x5 B&W pixel density just about now ... digital will be
    > enormously superior. That is, of course, with Ansel Adam's esthetic
    > skills, trained to use Photoshop, and printing on an art-grade silver

    print paper.

    And there's the problem, how many here use a printer with multiple grey inks
    for printing their B&W on high quality paper?
    If I had enough reason to invest in the right equipment, I might change my
    mind. Or if a local lab did. The last time I tried one I was unimpressed
    with the results however. That was a couple of years ago I admit.


    > Of course, the problem with this idea is that one the AA clone person
    > finished with the Photoshopping, an infinite number of perfect and
    > identical prints could be reproduced. This is not conducive to
    > the idea of "art prints".


    Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original data
    files as he does over his negatives?

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #11
  12. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:i94lrb$am7$-september.org...
    > And excellent results can be achieved with out firing up the enlarger
    > and mixing chemicals


    Possibly, but I have yet to see them. There just doesn't seem to be enough
    demand to spend the necessary capital for most people. IF I was a
    millionaire I might think differently of course :) Since my investment in
    darkroom equipment would otherwise go to waste, I guess I'll stick with
    that. Unfortunately that option is rapidly disappearing with the necessary
    supplies :-(


    > but not on one's ordinary inkjet.
    >(And no, monitors will never compare directly to a print, color or mono.)


    Exactly.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 13, 2010
    #12
  13. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I didn't simply "remove the colour". I carefully selected colour
    > ranges/hues/channels etc to get the contrast where I wanted it,
    > where I thought it looked best. It was much more thought out
    > than simply clicking "desaturate" or "grayscale".


    Sure, but you can't tell that from the jpeg however. How did you print it?


    > And I don't think my results are "artistic" and are far from
    > perfect. That's why I made the original post. Asking for
    > critique, to help me improve.


    And I gave mine for what was presented. Since it was purposely converted to
    monochrome, the other comments mostly about composition seem irrelevant to
    me. I simply didn't see a photo that was transformed into a work of art by
    making it monochrome, no matter how you did it.

    (And for the record I was using at least the channel mixer, adjustment
    layers, and layer masks to convert to monochrome 15 years ago. That is NOT
    the big problem in producing quality B&W from digital IMO)

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 14, 2010
    #13
  14. Mr.T

    Bruce Guest

    "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> >I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

    >>
    >> No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
    >> either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
    >> desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
    >> quality that Ansel Adams produced.
    >>
    >> If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
    >> go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

    >
    >
    > Gee I'm glad someone got it. I thought it was clear enough when read in
    >full. Obviously not for some.



    Some people prefer to provide a knee-jerk reaction to something they
    have only briefly scanned.

    Welcome to Usenet! ;-)
    Bruce, Oct 14, 2010
    #14
  15. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:201010131748271393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >> Agreed. Inkjets for B&W have not provided me B&W prints I, or anybody

    else
    > >> in this thread, would be satisfied with.

    > >
    > > Lots of people claim to be happy with the Epson 2400, while others claim
    > > improvements by using dedicated inks.
    > >
    > > The experience here is that even the R800 produces very nice B&W

    prints*.
    >
    > I have a Canon i9900 which does just fine for color, but is very hit
    > and miss when it comes to B&W.
    > I just could not justify the cost of replacing it right now, based on
    > its poor B&W performance.



    Yes that's my problem, and the local print places I tried a while back were
    underwhelming.


    > ...and from time to time I get what amounts to a magnificent accident.


    > Agreed. Ultimately it is always the photographer.


    Not so. Sure you can't make a good print from a bad photo, but you CAN make
    a bad print from a good photo.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 15, 2010
    #15
  16. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've seen guys trying HDR for macro, but they soon give up. I
    > wouldn't have thought dynamic range is an issue either if you can
    > use a flash.


    Are your sure they were actually doing HDR and not image stacking for
    increased depth of field? That's what I do for macro.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 15, 2010
    #16
  17. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Troy Piggins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Sure, but you can't tell that from the jpeg however. How did you print

    it?
    >
    > What is this "printing" of which you speak? :) It's 2010 baby,
    > get with the times. We only save for web these days. :)


    OK, how many people are using a monochrome monitor on the web, hands up? :)
    Try looking at Ansell Adams pictures on your computer if you want to see why
    there is no competition with real prints.


    > Sorry. Seriously, though, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm an
    > amatuer who only photographs for my own pleasure. I have very
    > little experience printing for high quality prints.



    Sure, and I said right from the start I wasn't attacking you, just pointing
    out my opinion.


    > You're really hung up on this monochrome conversion thing, aren't
    > you. You don't think composition, exposure, textures, leading
    > lines, subject matter, appeal, movement, whatever are important
    > for monochrome images?


    Sure they are, but they apply exactly the same whether you remove the color
    from the original image or not, (IMO of course)


    > I never expected the shot to be transformed into a work of art
    > because I converted it. I just thought it suited monochrome
    > better. A final touch. That's all.



    OK, that's your right. And mine to think it didn't really work surely?


    > I'm probably more interested in comments about those items
    > mentioned above moreso than telling me that digital photos will
    > never turn out the same as monochrome film shots. Of course they
    > won't. But I'm living in 2010, not last century.


    In that case shouldn't you be making color 3D images rather than B&W? Surely
    thats SOO last century, or the one before in fact! :)

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 15, 2010
    #17
  18. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Welcome to Usenet! ;-)


    Yeah if only, 20 years and counting! :)

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 15, 2010
    #18
  19. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    "Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:i97f0v$go8$...
    > > Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original

    data
    > > files as he does over his negatives?

    >
    > Yes, but in Art, the mere ability to make more reduces monetary value.
    >
    > Adam's own prints were of course unique productions.


    No, he could always make more from his negatives, the same as you can from
    data files. What makes them valuable is to number and sign each one with a
    guarantee no more will be made. If you break that guarantee then your future
    work becomes worth-less.
    The only real difference is that few could reproduce the quality of Adams
    work after he died, even given the negatives. Whereas anyone can reprint a
    digital file after the photographer dies. Simply destroying all data files
    relating to the image after the print run is done will solve that problem of
    course. Something not even Adams did with his negatives.

    Frankly the idea of simply making art only something for speculators doesn't
    appeal to me however.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Oct 15, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce wrote:
    > "Mr.T"<MrT@home> wrote:
    >> "Bruce"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

    >>
    >> Yeah if only, 20 years and counting! :)

    >
    > I'm something of a novice ... only 15 years. ;-)


    27 years.

    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
    - KRudd at his finest.

    "The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
    - Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

    "This is the recession we had to have!"
    - Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

    "Silly old bugger!"
    - Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
    responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

    "By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
    - Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

    "A billion trees ..."
    - Borke, pissed as a newt again.

    "Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
    general!"
    - Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
    appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

    "SHUT THE **** UP YOU DUMB ****!"
    - FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

    "I don't care what you fuckers think!"
    - KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.

    "We'll just change it all when we get in."
    - Garrett the carrott
    Dr Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF, Oct 15, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wheaty

    Mail database conversions?

    Wheaty, Aug 6, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    546
    Doug G
    Aug 7, 2005
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    495
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 14, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    543
  4. Ronnie G

    5.5 in floppy conversions

    Ronnie G, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    679
    philo
    Sep 12, 2004
  5. Noons

    Re: some B&W landscape conversions

    Noons, Oct 13, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    280
    John McWilliams
    Oct 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page