[LJR69]

While I welcome comments on any aspect of the image I am most interested in feedback regarding the monochrome conversion. I appreciate that digital will never result in the same level of b&w that film can achieve but it is nonetheless something I am really keen on improving.

Below is the mono conversion of the colour image you see beneath it. I have used Aperture's monochrome mixer and so adjusted each of the RGB channels individually to get the 'balance' I thought looked best and then used levels and curves. I include a completely non-adjusted, export of the raw, colour version of the image in case you find it easier to show the results of your advice as opposed to trying to convey it in words.

Any tips, help, advice, words or wisdom on creating natural/stunning B&W's gratefully received

[fionaB]

ok hope u dont mind but i had a little playu as i do think its a much easier way to show what u mean, bear it in mind however that I do think mono is a subjective conversion as some like the softer flatter tones and others like a higher contrast.
i used black and white convertion in CS3 then tweaked contrast then a little tweak in levels to finish it off

[LJR69]

Hi fiona. I absolutely don't mind at all. Your conversion is definitely a lot brighter than mine and does make my one look a bit flat. I agree about the subjectivity and am interested in seeing the preference of other's. Your version is, for me, a tad too bright in the skin tones (whereas mine are a bit too muted), but I do like the contrast in your version!

Sorry to be a pain, but can I ask you for the RGB settings you've used in your channel mixer?

[fionaB]

i didint use the chaneel mixer. the black and white give you control over the red green blue yellow cyan and magenta.
I didint keep track of them unfortunately ( i never do ) its more a case of slide em and see what you like.
i did get a bit heavy handed on this but i was doing it for quickness. so yep i think a somwehere in between would probably be better

Fi

[LJR69]

Ah yes, I forgot CS3 has the B&W control for all channels. No problem on the settings. Thanks

[Dabhand16]

The fist thing that struck me was also the flatness of the first image. I think Fi has improved the shot, and I also do not use a fixed formula to do mono conversions. I find unless you have a series taken in identical conditions, they all need to be treated individually to get the best result.

I find it easier to start from scratch rather than to apply a mono pre-set and then try to tweak the settings.

[LJR69]

I'm going to tweak the image later and see if I can make it punchier. Thanks for the suggestions!

[LJR69]

Well I made some adjustments. I'm trying to keep those highlights from clipping too much and introduce some of the contrasting levels that Fiona did in hers. I think the image looks less flat but I think also it still needs some work.

[Dabhand16]

That is an improvement You might fins that some selective contrast boosting will make it better still.

[LJR69]

I thought the same actually but unfortunately selective anything in Aperture is not possible. I might export as a TIFF to Capture NX and touch it up in there.

[Charlotte]

I think your first version is just fine LJR69. I don't think it needs to be more punchy. (Without checking against the histogram) it looks to me like you have the full range of tones. The midtones look a little flat, so maybe a tweak in curves just in the midtones might improve it. BUT I think the other two versions here (Fiona's and your 2nd one) are too contrasty and have lost much of the atmosphere of the first one, which I think is far more important that a "correct" histogram.

Edit: But then I'm not a mono boffin

[streetfire]

Hi,

I still shoot B&W film so I am just going to chime in with my opinion. It is worth exactly what you are paying for it. The first version has a look similiar to Fuji 100 Acros, very silky smooth with good subdued tones. Your version is probably a bit more muted than the actual film shot would be. The version from FionaB is probably a little too contrasty and closer to what you might get from a high ISO film shot in good light or an overdeveloped film. The second version from LJR69 is just about right for a normal low ISO film. Of course it won't have the dynamic range and sharpness of film, but I think the tones are just about right.

In the end, it's just a matter of taste, which is why I still shoot B&W on film. Besides it's too much fun to stop.

Tim

[Rob Barron]

I can't agree with the point about film having a greater latitude. A good sensor has approximately 6 stops of dynamic range which is the same as film. The human eye has a range of between 8 and 10 stops which is why using the histogram and things is important to maximise the dynamic range without spilling outside its latitude.

Cheers,
Rob

[LJR69]

Firstly - big thank you to everyone who commented in this thread on my image. I really took a lot from them all! Thanks.

Secondly, Rob, I am as far from an expert as you will get on this matter but I do recall reading somewhere that the dynamic latitude of film refers primarily to the linear region where most difference between the tones can be seen (say -4 to +4 stops) but that there is information still registered at the toe and shoulder of that 'curve' (perhaps -7 to -4 and +4 to +6 for example) although this is very faint and quite difficult to distinguish. With digital the dynamic range is explicit in that once you reach it's stop range there's nothing either side of that. Some say it's this difference which makes B&W on film better. I am not concurring or refuting that but just thought I'd iterate what I once read somewhere. I'll try and find a link.