AG Schnozz wrote:
>I think the noisiness in the image was mostly artifacts in
>processing for the web image... resizing, usm, jpeg...
>
>This does bring up a rather important discussion about
>converting digital files to monochrome. This is something that
>is as much an art form as it is a science.
>
Sure enough. And as a result, there are lots and lots of techniques
proposed as THE answer.
>I definitely do not
>profess to have arrived yet, but I continue to attack it like a
>viscious (or is that viscous) dog.
>
>I've gotten my best results from in-camera RAW files. Primarily
>because of JPEG artifacts and the ability to keep the bulk of
>the tonal editing in 48-bit/16-bit mode.
>
Crucial. Same thing with scans - 16 bit.
>JPEG's 8-bit mode
>causes you to lose the ability to radically change brightness
>levels.
>
>1. Think film. Make your entire process mimick the film realm
>as much as possible. What works in the analog world does work
>in the digital world.
>
>
Tough! I haven't done B&W darkroom work in something like 25 years.
>2. Think flat. Keep the contrast of the image as low as
>possible when working in color.
>
Agree again. In fact, good advice for color too. Keep all that tonal
detail until you are ready to mess with it.
><snip>
>3. Think color response characteristics of film. <snip>
>
>4. Think color filters. <snip> If noise is not an issue, feel free to use
>red, green and blue.
>
You mean if you have a Can*n? :-)
>However, read the next note carefully.
>
>4a. Red isn't red. A red lens filter will not give the same
>response as a red filter applied during color-monochrome
>conversion. The red filter on the lens isn't 100% effective,
>whereas the red filter in the digital editor is.
>
Are you talking PSCS+ here? I thought their photographic filters were
supposed to mimic the actual spectral response of the various physical
filters. I've only used a couple of the 8x series, and they seem to be
right.
>To counteract
>this, take the color balance of the entire image and skew it
>slightly towards the red side. And I mean slightly. It should
>have a hint of red hue everywhere. What this does is reduce the
>total effect of the red digital filter and keeps the shadows
>from blocking up. This is true for all of the colors. Whatever
>color filter you use, give the image a slight hint of that prior
>to conversion. Overly contrasty and obviously digital images
>result if you are not careful at this stage.
>
Again, the filters in PSCS allow infinite variation of density, so I
don't think all this is needed there, just adjust the filter to get the
effect you want.
>4b. Convert to monochrome. Most editors now have the convert to
>monochrome function which allows you to select the color filter.
> Convert to a 16-bit tiff.
>
Here I like the technique Harald Johnson outlines in Mastering Digital
Printing. It allows one to play interactively with the balance of RG&B
by sliding a pointer. It is more an artist's than a tech's technique, as
it doesn't try to match the spectral response characteristics of film.
Rather, it is a process of seeing what "looks right"
>5. Open up the levels dialog box and "top and tail" the
>histogram by moving the black and white points to the outer
>edges of the "hills".
>
I don't like this with any subject where tonal detail in highlights
and/or shadows is important. I'll only clip when the histogram doesn't
go all the way to top or bottom or I intentionally want to lose some
shadow detail.
>Adjust the mid-point (gamma) to get the mids where you want them.
>
Yup
>This is quick, simple and gets you
>90% of the way there. Or, if you are a wiz, use the curves
>dialog box to accomplish the same thing. With the curves dialog
>box, you can also push up the high levels a little, pull down
>the low levels and mimick a toe and shoulder.
>
Curves is my general tool of preference. The ends can be compressed a
bit without simply clipping. In color, I've run into rare images where a
reverse curve improves them. Curves don't have to be symmetrical either,
Sometimes only the top or bottom needs adjustment. I simple boost or
drop in the middle does wonders for some images that Levels can't do.
>6. When you are happy with the overall tonal curves, finish up
>with localized dodging and burning. Don't get too crazy with
>Ansel Adams' edge burn. You can't be subtle enough for it to
>really work and overdone is worse than not doing it at all.
>
Creating a Mask layer on an overall brighter or darker version of
original layer may be easier for some. It puts a limit on how far one
can go and makes treating large areas evenly easy for those, like me,
who aren't perfect at dodge/burn technique. Brushing in "black" reveals
the lighter/darker layer. Brushing in white (or flipping a Wacom pen
over.) hides it again. Partial brush tranparency can make the effect
cumlative. Sept. Pop Photo has an interesting example of using this
technique to create the effect of shallow DOF where there is too much in
the original image. Very impressinve results!
>7. Sharpen. If the image is too grainy/noisy, you can apply a
>noise-removal algorithm, but that's another subject for another
>day. We'll talk grain emulation later.
>
>8. Save as 16-bit tiff to preserve your hard work.
>
>
YES! (Except as a 16 bit PSD file for me.)
>9. Scale to desired size. If there is a pattern in the scene,
>you may need to multi-step the scaling process using odd amounts
>of resizing to get there. For example, instead of reducing an
>image to 25% in one step, you can reduce by 31%, 22%, etc., to
>get to your final size. Sharpen occasionally. This will keep
>aliasing artifacts to a minimum. Especially grain/noise
>artifacts that bloom when scaled.
>
>
Fred Miranda WP Pro does this very well for most images. Automatic and
quick step downsizing, with or without sharpening. Only drawback for me
is that I sometimes want sharpening someshere between None and Light.
Just downsize once each way, copy sharper one as layer on top of other,
adjust transparency, flatten layers and save.
>10. Sharpen.
>
>
Very seldom necessary by this point for me.
>11. Convert to 8-bit BW or 24-bit RGB. Save as JPEG for web.
>
>12. Enjoy.
>
>The key here is trying to duplicate the film process as much as
>possible to achieve a film-like image. Digital monochrome is
>usually very ugly. Even with the above steps (of which I'm
>still developing and adapting), it's difficult to match the
>qualities of a decently processed and printed roll of Tri-X.
>
>
Acrylics aren't oils, aren't pastels, aren't........ either.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|