B&W Photography

[danic]

Hi all,

I'm looking to improve my B&W photography, and I added a red filter to my Pentax K100D Super. Obviously the photo turned out really red, but all I did was desaturate the photo and I have the end result.

I understand that by leaving the red filter off, I'll let through more light and improve my range, but does anybody else experiment like this?

I've attached a photo for all to see.

Cheers,
Daniel

[Frog]

Why are you using a red filter on a digital camera?
Those filters are for film cameras.
Everything it does can be accomplished in post processing.

That being said, I like your photo because of the models pose.

[Wild Wassa]

In visible light the most sensitive hue to the human eye is the yellow reflectance of an object. Yellow object appear bright.

The most prolific hues seen in visible light (which is normally daylight) are the blue hues, which tend to be the darkest values. To convert visible light hues to the values that we recognize as being correct when shooting in b/w (or converting to b/w) a yellow filter over the lense is needed (or preferred) to set the tones.

This tends to be a yellow filter of a density of -1/2 stop. A pale yellow filter.

When b/w was the medium shot by most, photographers kept a pale yellow filter (permanently for some) on their lenses rather than UV filters that were used by photographers shooting in colour.

A yellow filter will negate the excessive blue radiation and will render the blue hues darker than a digital camera/or film will generally record them.

The value (the degree of darkness) of skin tones, is the most important value in an image to render (and what Ansel Adams called a density of Zone 5). Zone 5 if you look at the back of your hand is 1/2 a stop darker than the average skin tone reflectance, if you are Caucasian.

What is important in a b/w image are; the shadows, they should retain shadow detail. The highlights, they should have detail (or density above the background brightness) and the skin tones should be 1/2 a stop darker than the back of your hand,

Contrast, that is a different story. Contrast, is the brightnest range between the shadow detail and the brightest highlights of the image. This is somewhat subjective.

There is a thing called Gamma. Gamma is the contrast index between the last hint of shadow detail (that you want to show) and the first hint of highlight detail (above the base brightness) that you also want to show. Gamma should equate to the contrast of the real world (mostly) for real world correctness. This is where you as the artist will assign different values to what you view as important and want to emphasize.

The brightest highlights known, are the specular highlights in a chrome object, like bright sunlight reflected in a chrome bumper bar of an automobile. This will appear as pure white. Nothing else will be as bright as a specular highlight rendered in a image.

These values are a starting point for considering the tonalaties in your image.

Achieve a black, retain a white and let the rest of the values be a full range of gradations (grey scale), while having the skin tones (if there are skin tones) looking natural. Skin tones looking correct tend to be the most important values (degree of darkness) rendered in you image.

Also, what is important in the image, should be rendered as the most detailed tones (values). This is subjective, and I'd like to recommend that you read Ansel Adam's book called 'The Print'. This book should be readily available on Ebay and is well worth reading to help understand what tonalities could be assigned to what is most important to you in your image.

Warren.

[danic]

Cheers Frog,

I'm just trying different things and seeing what works.

Thanks for your post Warren, there seems to be some great info and I'll definitely have to get that book!

I'll persit with it for the moment and see what I can achieve.

Cheers,
Daniel

[AgingEyes]

Cheers Frog,

I'm just trying different things and seeing what works.

Thanks for your post Warren, there seems to be some great info and I'll definitely have to get that book!

I'll persit with it for the moment and see what I can achieve.

Cheers,
Daniel

Once you get that book, turn to the page that says something like a summary of what a good print is (it's a summary so it's like only a few lines short). Most of that books you may find useless, unless you're going to print in a darkroom. Then go out (or use the internet) and look at good b&w photos (don't just limited to commercial b&w photos). You have to know what a good b&w photos and prints look like before you know what you should be aiming for.

[Xia_Ke]

Warren's post is excellent. I would also recommend checking out "The Negative" along with "The Print". Granted these books are definitely geared towards the technical aspects of using film but, the principles can be applied to digital as well. One slight correction though is that Zone VI is regarded as being the normal value for caucasian skin. Fred Picker also recommends using this value as a quick metering option. Simply meter your hand in the same light as your subject and set the exposure to Zone VI. Works great in a pinch.

[another view]

Warren's post is excellent.

As usual! :thumbsup:

Really, you'll be farther ahead to convert to black and white in Photoshop (or other software). When you do this, you can add as little or as much red (or any other color) filter at this time - so you have complete control later.

I really have a ton of respect for the photographers who have mastered the "real" art of b&w. This involves knowing what film to use, how to expose (regardless of what the light meter says), what filters to use, what developer chemistry, etc. to get the perfect print. With digital, great results are possible but it's just not the same to me. I have done a little bit of film developing, but no printing (scanned my negs) and feel like it helped me understand what it's all about. I keep saying I'm going to do more of it, but it does take a lot of time...

[Asylum Steve]

Zone VI is regarded as being the normal value for caucasian skin...

This has nothing to with anything, but one thing I always hated about skin references made in most Zone System books and especially the basis for the Zone VI Studios name is that they all assumed the photographer's skin was white...

[Xia_Ke]

Steve, it was meant merely as a correction to Warren's statement of Ansel saying skin was Zone V when Ansel actually states Zone VI. I have fair, white skin and metering my hand for Zone VI works well in a pinch but if you have any sort of tan or colored skin, that value will not be an accurate representation.

[AgingEyes]

Warren's post is excellent. I would also recommend checking out "The Negative" along with "The Print". Granted these books are definitely geared towards the technical aspects of using film but, the principles can be applied to digital as well.

Granted. But if one simply wants to learn how to convert color photos into b&w using photoshop and the like, he/she may as well get one of those photoshop books that tell you how to do it. The Negative and the Print are no doubt go books, but for most people of today, many of the materials there don't have much use to their daily photographing and the use of photoshop. Besides, you don't need to know the Zone system to make good black and white photos. That's why I suggested reading the summary in the Print on what makes a good print rather than reading page after page of how to expose and develop your print, how to set up your darkroom, etc. Then actually look at good b&w photos and prints. IMO, this should be a more practical way for people who use digital camera and software these days to learn how to make black and white photos.

Ansel Adam also wrote a shorter version of the first of that three books (the second is The Negative and the third is The Print) series. I don't recall the name of the first book now but it is on photography, i.e., like introduction to photography in general. That shorter version was written for Hasselblad. If one can find it, it's a much easier read about his photography.

[Asylum Steve]

Steve, it was meant merely as a correction to Warren's statement of Ansel saying skin was Zone V when Ansel actually states Zone VI...

Oh, I realize that, Aaron. Like I said, this has nothing to do with the thread. I'm talking about back in the day.

It didn't annoy me from a technical standpoint (I never measured zone VI anyway), but from a racial standpoint.

Just one of those (I pressume) innocent assumptions. Kind of like the color flesh in art always being caucasian "flesh" as well...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the only connection I could make with the name Zone VI Studios (and workshops) was that zone VI was skin. And I always thought, "ah yes, but whose skin???"

Being white I felt a little guilty about this...

BTW, to keep this on-topic, I never understood using colored filters with digital, either! It is so ridiculously easy to experiment with and isolate tonality in photoshop (b&w or otherwise). Placing a strong color over the lens IMO simply eliminates many of your visual options and choices, and I feel one can never have enough of those...

[jgredline]

I like the end result.

[AgingEyes]

Some more info about skin tone and Zone VI. The following is from page 23 of Ansel Adams's Black & White Photography published by Hasselbald. My copy was printed in Sweden in 1980. This little book is based on Ansel's books in The Basic Photo Series (which originally consisted of five books). Here goes:

"...For establishing the norm, some definite recognizable subject value that is usually rendered of consistent value in the print should be chosen as a reference or "control". I select normal Caucasian skin value (in 45 degree angle of sun, or in full shade) as a universally recognizable value. Such subjects as blue sky, gray wood, white stone, are too variable - but everyone will recognize normal Caucasian skin tones as lying within a reasonably narrow range of values. Skin tones belong on about Zone VI of the exposure scale. This value, lying a little above the middle gray of the scale, may be used as the basic of the tests for the norm. The standard gray card (The Kodak Neutral Test Card), representing 18% reflectance, is now commonly used as the basic testing value."

Oh, by the way, the method of metering off your hand, my understanding is you get the exposure reading off your palm, not the back of your hand.
.

[Xia_Ke]

...Maybe I'm wrong, but the only connection I could make with the name Zone VI Studios (and workshops) was that zone VI was skin. And I always thought, "ah yes, but whose skin???"

Being white I felt a little guilty about this... ...

Could always use Minor White's version "Zone IV Toast"...LOL But then again is that white toast? Wheat? Pumpernickel? Is it lightly toasted or close to burned? :mad2:

Getting back to digital B&W, danic, what are you using for software to do your conversions? Conversion methods can vary A LOT depending on your software and preference. I did play around with using colored filters back when shooting digital and while it proved an interesting learning experience it does limit your options in the end. With digital you are much better off just shooting in full color as you will have more control over the B&W outcome. The only filters I would consider using would be either a polarizer or a neutral density filter as those can't be replicated in post processing.

Here's a few good articles worth reading:

Black & White Conversion Theory
Black and White Conversion
Digital Black and White

Hope these help and I look forward to seeing more pics

Aaron

[danic]

Cheers guys on the comments! I didn't think it would result in this much conversation.

I'll look at the local library for Ansel Adam books and see if I can read up on one. I did shoot some colour film on the weekend, but I thought it was B&W and had a red filter on the front :-( I'll pick up the cd today and convert to B&W and see how they turn out. I'll post up the shots if they are half decent.

[Greg McCary]

Gary Heller has a great section on his web site covering a couple of ways to convert to B&W. I would think a red filter would be to high of a contrast for a portrait shot, but I am no expert either. Gary's site is a nice quick study and easy to understand. Oh and the picture is great.

[photophorous]

... I did shoot some colour film on the weekend...

Now we're getting somewhere. I should warn you that I'm a film proponent, so I am biased. But seriously, don't make this harder than it has to be. If you want the look of B&W film, shoot B&W film. And start with out the filters. Don't use them until you have a specific reason. I've done digital B&W conversions with the channel mixer, I've developed my own B&W film, and I've shot C-41 B&W film and had it processed at a minilab. In my experience it's far easier to get good results doing it the straightforward way, with film, whether you develop the real deal or shoot the c-41 stuff. Great B&W can be made with digital, but it's a lot harder.

Paul

[danic]

Now we're getting somewhere. I should warn you that I'm a film proponent, so I am biased. But seriously, don't make this harder than it has to be. If you want the look of B&W film, shoot B&W film. And start with out the filters. Don't use them until you have a specific reason. I've done digital B&W conversions with the channel mixer, I've developed my own B&W film, and I've shot C-41 B&W film and had it processed at a minilab. In my experience it's far easier to get good results doing it the straightforward way, with film, whether you develop the real deal or shoot the c-41 stuff. Great B&W can be made with digital, but it's a lot harder.

Paul

I got the film back today, and it was absolutely horrid. None of the shots were in focus. Not to sure why, some of the shots were just plain wierd, maybe because the film had been in there since Feb.

I'm planing on finishing this roll of C-41 B&W this weekend, then get it developed.

[Wild Wassa]

Danic and Forumites, thanks for many good posts guys, it is well worth visiting for such good posts to think about.

Aaron, Aging Eyes and Gary, thanks for enhancing my post ... Superstars.

Aaron too sharp Mate, Aging Eyes the same Digger. I wish/hope for a memory as good as yours Aging Eyes. If you both, don't mind me saying so.

Anyway, back to the visual medium.

I notice the Moderators say, "The site is only as good as the reviews." I'd like to review b&w techniques then.

... and start with examples that describe what I've written about. 3 photos coming, I post in stages, so that I don't lose my posts because I drop out often.

Specular highlight, they can't be exposed for but they should be (well) considered. You can see that no matter how low key (or dark) I make the overall image below, a specular highlight stays bright.





Ultimate shadow detail, in the image below. Everything that you need to print, is in a well exposed image if the image is over exposed by half a stop. If you are shooting negative? ... then process your film to the lowest contrast index after slightly overexposing your negative, also known as processing to the low standard, which I think is a contrast index of 0.45. I say that because I haven't looked at a Kodak data sheet for over 19 years.





Mid tones below. Look at the outside of the tyre walls to see an equivalent range of tones which would average out to the approximate reflectance of that of an 18% grey card, that Aging Eyes mentioned in post #13. Wonderful detail in the tyre walls but that is about it. Nothing else works ... in the shadows
.





When you look at the posibilities that are printable(?) from this image, or from your negatives/images Danic, print what you feel is important, The three images above are not definitive examples of photography, far from it, they are examples of an extreme subject shot in extremely bright light ... images of a subject having the highest brightness range that I could photograph this afternoon.

When you can lower your brightnesss range to lower than 1200 :1 (the brightness between the brightest highlights and the deepest shadows) that I shot on this earth moving equipment, the range will be more sympathetic to you and easier to print/manipulate. I photographed the grader in the most extreme light possible today, about an 11 stop brightness range between the highlights and the deepest shadows.

Exposure, correct exposure, is the real issue though. The Print, The Negative and Exposure, the books enhance each other. The books are not about an old fashioned technique called shooting film and making paper prints, they are about understanding 'sensitivity', 'sensitometry'. I've not seen that in a book on Photoshop techniques ever. Adam's was a photographer, not a writer of computer program manuals.

Danic it would be nothing for me to spend a full day balancing the tones to make a high quality print from the 3 test images above ... it might only take an hour to make a good quality print with the tones well considered ... but I'd most likely spend much longer trying out many options.

Warren.

[Xia_Ke]

...Ultimate shadow detail. Everything that you need to print, is in a well exposed image if the image is over exposed by half a stop. If you are shooting negative? ... then process your film to the lowest contrast index also known as processing to the low standard ... Aaron (please correct me if I'm wrong) ... which I think is a contrasrt index of 0.34. I say that because I haven't looked at a Kodak data sheet for over 19 years. ...

You got me there...LOL I had just finished rereading "The Negative" and "The Zone VI Workshop" which is why I mentioned the skin thing. Hmmmm, now where's my Kodak B&W Data Guide at? I admittedly still have lots to learn and am always eager to learn more (especially when it comes to B&W film). Would very much be interested in hearing more if you care to elaborate :thumbsup:

[Wild Wassa]

Aaron, I looked it up. Low Standard (for processing) is a contrast index of 0.45 the High Standard giving a more contrasty negative has a contrast index of 0.54. Found on an old Kodak Data Sheet from aroll of Panatomic-X 32 ASA that I had in the freezer of my fridge.

Warren.

[Xia_Ke]

Warren, I haven't made the jump to sensitrometry yet since I'm only shooting roll film. Just didn't seem like it would be too worthwhile at a time where I can't control each individual shot. Is there any real practical application to it outside of LF?

[Wild Wassa]

The ultimate use of sensitometry Aaron is to know the characteristics of your film and its sensitivity to light (the film's correct ISO not just the ISO) which will determine what is correct exposure for the film (speed) that you are using. On bright days or in bright light, increasing the exposure by half a stop above normal and processing the film to the low contrast index will give a great latitude for extending your tones, where as in flatter light or subjects of narrow/low brightness ranges, processing film to the high contrast index will expend the values within your negative and so give an increased range of tones in the final print.

When you point your camera at a subject many things influence the exposure reading, as you know well. The position of the light source relative to both the subject and camera. Backlit subjects often are very difficult to expose correctly, because of the extreme brightness range influencing the exposure. Extraneous light hitting the camera lens causes flair and aberrations which degrade the image sharpness and overall contrast.

When spot metering,which cuts out the extreme range of the light, which can adversely influence the overall reading taken, we need to be sure that what was being metered will give a good overall exposure, that allows reproducable tones over the entire brightness range (for rendering in image) or especially in the important detail that was metered.

The two examples below are good examples. The camera's spot metre was good. I metred the brightest yellow hue but the brightness range being so extreme, blew out the highlights and turned the shadows into meaningless voids. This is just a straight shot showing what the camera saw with no manipulation.





The second shot is the above shot converted to b/w. Firstly I found the contrast that allowed the most number of tones from white to a retaining a black. Then the density of the overall image was set by sliding the tones up or down the scale and I then played with the printing tools to enhance as many tones as I could, within the editing program. Achieving a black and printing for maximum highlight detail in the windows of the cabin was the excersize in the above image. You will notice that lens flair has softened all of the shots and having the shots come through the Photobucket site to here, the shot has lost about 1/3 of a grade in contrast and now look somewhat muddy. That is something to note in my future postings.





Then I brought back the colour, changed the hue and played with the colour saturation. I like the hand coloured b/w look.





A well metered image will have everything in the shot that will allow this to happen, despite how ugly it may look initially.

It is interesting having these bits of equipment beside my home, they are perfect subjects for showing extreme metering conditions, that we can find ourselves having to cope with. I don't often get to see diggers. I'll photograph them many times while they build a new road.

By the way these shots are taken with my old point and shoot camera. The skill is in the photographer not in the camera ... or it should be. The bottom photograph I sharpened slightly, to cut the flair.

Warren.