Black and White photography

[RDM]

Just wanted to get opinions on a B/W shot I took since I'm slowly trying it out. The following are the same shot, just with different treatments. I wanted to see which one you would consider an authentic "black and white" shot or which one you like better overall.

Again I don't have much of a clue on what I'm trying to achieve so any tips would also be appreciated.


Number 1:





Number 2:

[BK1017]

First off, great shot. Nice perspective on an otherwise mundane subject. I like elements from both treatments:
- from the first, I like the greater tonal range of the clouds, which give them a 3-D feel
- from the second, I like the gritty texture and greater tonal range of the area under the bridge. The gradual tone shift works nicely with the large swooping arc of the bridge.
In summary, if you could combine the clouds from the 1st and bridge from the 2nd, that would make a better image, in my humble opinion.

[hafbreed76]

Ditto...nice !

[jeffkohn]

I like the second one better, more midtone contrast and deeper blacks which are what I prefer in monochrome images. Nice shot.

[jerrykr]

I also like the composition on your test run.

In PS / Levels / select the "black point" eye dropper and touch it to something in the image the should be Black. see if that gives you the B&W contrast that you want. If not Edit/Undo.

Look closely at your second image. what-ever you did, it produced a visible artifact halo on the thin light poles on the bridge. The first one does not have the halos. Maybe too much sharpening, I dunno. I have done this to way too many of my images, so don't worry about it, just learn.

[brianmcho]

ditto the comment regarding the contrast of the 2nd one.

[shutterdrone]

I think the best result is somewhere between the two. They both are artificial to a degree, there's a halo around the entire bridge in the first, which I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but almost seems to give away dodging under the bridge to bring the brightness up; you want to avoid general indicators of your work, unless you desire that artificial look. (I've seen a lot of 'building halos' recently, which makes me think this is a new trend?) The second is an example of VERY high contrast, but only in some areas? You've got a good tonal quality on this one (much less 'flat' than the first in the shadow regions), but the shoulder seems a bit abrupt - b&w film has a softer shoulder and can bring out some details in that pure black area, i.e., there would be some subtle toning in the shadow there. (Although, admittedly, this LCD is very high contrast and I might be missing some detail here.)

Another trick you might do, if you notice your levels/curves/channel mixer causing high noise in sky scenes like that, esp. after applying sharpening, it can be fixed without recognizable artifacts by something like noise ninja after all other processing has been done. I use this on my skies about 90% of the time when I'm not going for a 'grainy' look. Make sure you flatten the image first, then dupe the layer, run your noise reduction across it, and mask out anything that isn't sky. Your skies will end up properly smooth (but not too smooth), without losing detail on cloud fringes.

Here's an example of doing so:
http://shutterdrone.wordpress.com/20...reef-cabin-ii/

And here's an example of not masking out the water after applying the NN filter:
http://shutterdrone.wordpress.com/20...ehabilitation/
(Mind you, I've since fixed the water in this image and the blown cloud, but I try not to be too 'revisionist' about blog postings.)

If you'd like, I'd be happy to share a step-by-step detailed process of how I go about this. Maybe some extra tricks to add to your arsenal?

In truth, there's nothing "right" about how to do it, there're simply objectives and a handful of strategies for obtaining each. My process is intended to emulate pink-filtered acros 100 film, which is what I shot before going digital. Either way, you're very much on the right path.

!c

[rjwarren]

Roland

You're asking about creating an "authentic" b&w image - which makes me think this is digital? Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's not "authentic." I could go into the darkroom with a negative of your image and create either version depending on my choice of paper, filters, and chemistry.

I prefer the second image because I like a more neutral b&w. That's a personal preference. Feel free to express your personal esthetic on the image!

Keep shooting!
Bob

[darock]

I like the second photo best. The detail in the bridge, which I feel is the focus point is more detailed. Photo #2 could have a little more detail in the clouds, but that is not as important to me. In my opinion the clouds/sky in photo #1 looks better than in photo #2. In my opinion if you could adjust both areas it would look best.

Ansel Adams I'm not.

[RDM]

Thanks for the critique everyone! I was on vacation so I didn't have time to reply.

I posed the question because I kept hearing about photos that looked more "Grayscale" rather than "Black and White". So with that, what's the difference then? Grayscale? Monochrome? Neutral BW?

BK1017/hafbreed76/darock: I've asked some family and friends and they shared the same sentiment. The loved the clouds in the first but loved everything else in the second.

jeffkohn: monochrome... same as bw or grayscale?

jerrykr: Thanks for the PS tip, I'll have to try that out. Yeh, the halo effect is very visible on the poles in the 2nd pic due to sharpening. Learning as usual :)

shutterdrone: In all respects I'm trying to stay away from the halo effect, but you're right it's pretty noticeable in the first one around the bridge. I'd be more than happy to learn your version. Love the pics btw.

rjwarren: I guess when I mean "authentic" I think of sepia like old photos, to which I was trying to aim for with the 2nd one. I've also seen high contrast portrait shots of people that I also want to achieve. In that I mean sharply seeing nearly EVERY pore on their face. What's your definition of neutral b&w?



Overall, my favorite in this test bed would be the 2nd one. I don't know why, but there's something interesting about the "grittiness" of it.