[spacepacker]

I like B/W. I used to shoot a lot in B/W film. I still have my old prints which are " juicy and punchy". I cannot get the same results with digital, especially from colour conversion.
This is my best so far!.
So, fire away; I look forward to your comments...Kenny

[WOODY]

KENNY, AS A GREAT B / W FAN MYSELF, I REALLY LIKE THIS.

[spacepacker]

Thank you Woody. I've done a print and to other people it looks good but I'm not satisfied. I've tried different papers still not satisfied!.

[Larne]

I used to do a lot of B&W, including my own developing and printing. I am also struggling to get B&W images from my colour digital shots that I am entirely happy with. However, I am taking the view that it's just a matter of time. It took many months of trial and error before I could consistently produce B&W prints that I was happy with, my guess is that it will be a similar process of exploration with Photoshop before I can produce something I am happy with.

One thing I am experimenting with at the moment is messing with the colour channels before I convert to B&W. For example I might often shoot B&W with a red or green filter so I am removing all the red (or green) from the image before I convert it into B&W to try and duplicate the effect that I might have had with film.

I haven't got there yet, but the good images have got to be in the data somewhere. It's just a case of how to get them out. Let's face it, other people on here produce good B&W images from digital.

Keep it up!

[Boofers]

Larne, are you using a custom white balance? I am pretty sure it is the only way to make filters do their thing or other wise the metering will change the white balance with those colors applied. or is this what you want? I am interested as I have been fooling around a great deal with this kind of white balance control.

[Larne]

The messing about I was referring to takes place in Photoshop, not in the camera. I just leave the camera on auto WB and shoot in RAW.

[lifethrualens]

i still shoot in film as well as digital, i do all my darkroom work, including E6 on slide. i can tell you now you will not get the same results on digial as you do on film, im not saying better, just not the same, in a lot of pro photographers opinions that i have met the only way you will surpass film is to use a Hasselblad H3D 29, i think that the model anyway, if not im sure someoinbe will put me right, anyway you are talking around £20,000, but in time who knows, after all we are at a very important time in photography, we are all at the birth of digital photography.

[Markulous]

Problem is that digital doesn't have as much dynamic range as film, so I find it needs to be helped along - it's the attraction of the Fuji S5 Pro (and the reason it's suggested for wedding 'togs) due to it's 'doubled up' sensor. I find I'm struggling far more with the Canon 350D than I am with the Sigma SD10 to pull out detail in the shadow. As suggested above, you'll find altering the colour channels seperately will achieve a certain benefit



Not too sure if I haven't overdone this, but:
Gradient layer, dodge detail in dark trees on RHS, Curves

[spacepacker]

Thanks to all for your input. I'm left with the thought; good B/W on B/W fine grain film and printed on true photographic paper is still the only way.
Just as I did in the old days!
I've seen good B/W on this forum but none can compete to what I have said above.
However, I'm sure digital could catch up if the demand was there...Kenny