Digital BW, The Print

After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am still 
not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
I am familiar with the red filter / polariser filters on film 
capture, but my efforts to successfully replicate this digitally 
have never been particularly fruitful.  I have tried many channel 
mixer, hue/sat methods to convert my digital colour images to B&W 
but all result in some sort of posterisation or noise in the sky.  I 
cannot get a smooth dark sky.  Selective darkening also is very 
difficult if you are really trying to go dark, the halos/  edges are 
almost impossible to avoid.
Even after running neat image or selective bluring to remove sky 
noise I end up with clear banding in the sky as it gets darker.

Anyone want to share how you get those really dark / black skies 
with me, any real way of doing this from a digital colour file?  

I know this is slightly of topic but most of the 'retouching' or 
editing forums are populated by colour gurus, this is really the 
knowledge base for B&W.

Thanks
Steve

scrber writes:

> After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am still 
> not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.

Take a snapshot, adjust curves to make the sky as dark as you require,
take another snapshot, switch back to the first snapshot, then use the
history brush or equivalent tool to brush the darkened sky back in.
This has to be done by hand, unless the transition line between sky and
the rest of the image is smooth and regular enough to allow you to apply
a mask.

> I am familiar with the red filter / polariser filters on film
> capture, but my efforts to successfully replicate this digitally 
> have never been particularly fruitful.

It cannot be replicated digitally, because the necessary information is
missing from the RGB image.  You need to use filters at the time of
image capture.  Red filters can be partially simulated, although it may
produce noise or posterization.  Polarization can only be simulated by
modifying the image pixel-by-pixel.

> I have tried many channel mixer, hue/sat methods to convert
> my digital colour images to B&W but all result in some sort
> of posterisation or noise in the sky.  I cannot get a smooth
> dark sky.

If the image has had less then 16 bits per channel at any time, you may
see posterization if you make large modifications to the image.  This
cannot be avoided.  You need adequate bit depth to avoid posterization.

> Selective darkening also is very difficult if you are
> really trying to go dark, the halos/  edges are almost
> impossible to avoid.

Nevertheless, that's the way it is done.  Sometimes, if there is a sharp
color or luminosity difference demarcating the transition to sky, you
can use other tools to speed up the process, but it's still mostly long
work by hand if you want the best results.

> Even after running neat image or selective bluring to remove sky 
> noise I end up with clear banding in the sky as it gets darker.

You may have to manually smear and clone to reduce banding.  It will be
hard to hide completely.

> Anyone want to share how you get those really dark / black skies
> with me, any real way of doing this from a digital colour file?

Image files don't contain enough information for many types of
filtering.  The best way is to use something like a polarizing filter at
the moment of capture.  If you are lucky, there may be shortcuts for a
given image, but very often it is a lot of hard work.

> I know this is slightly of topic but most of the 'retouching' or
> editing forums are populated by colour gurus, this is really the 
> knowledge base for B&W.

The principles are the same for both B&W and color, except that
obviously any manipulations based on color are impossible in B&W (as
opposed to merely difficult and often unsatisfactory in color), and
there may be more of a tendency to posterization in B&W because you have
only one channel instead of three (but if you work with 16-bit channels
and the original image is clean, this should not be a problem).
Isolating the sky with shortcuts is far harder in B&W, since intensity
is the only possible clue for transitions, and sometimes not even that.

Very informative post, thank you.
But basically, no easy way right?

1. Use a polariser
2. Use hue/sat / whatever conversion methods appropriate to get dark 
skies without posterisation
3. Darker (is PAINT) manually to darken

Right?  Pretty much what I've been doing, but its so da*n slow and 
I'm naff at it!

Oh well, practive makes and all that....

Steve



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> scrber writes:
> 
> > After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am 
still 
> > not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
> 
> Take a snapshot, adjust curves to make the sky as dark as you 
require,
> take another snapshot, switch back to the first snapshot, then use 
the
> history brush or equivalent tool to brush the darkened sky back in.
> This has to be done by hand, unless the transition line between 
sky and
> the rest of the image is smooth and regular enough to allow you to 
apply
> a mask.
> 
> > I am familiar with the red filter / polariser filters on film
> > capture, but my efforts to successfully replicate this digitally 
> > have never been particularly fruitful.
> 
> It cannot be replicated digitally, because the necessary 
information is
> missing from the RGB image.  You need to use filters at the time of
> image capture.  Red filters can be partially simulated, although 
it may
> produce noise or posterization.  Polarization can only be 
simulated by
> modifying the image pixel-by-pixel.
> 
> > I have tried many channel mixer, hue/sat methods to convert
> > my digital colour images to B&W but all result in some sort
> > of posterisation or noise in the sky.  I cannot get a smooth
> > dark sky.
> 
> If the image has had less then 16 bits per channel at any time, 
you may
> see posterization if you make large modifications to the image.  
This
> cannot be avoided.  You need adequate bit depth to avoid 
posterization.
> 
> > Selective darkening also is very difficult if you are
> > really trying to go dark, the halos/  edges are almost
> > impossible to avoid.
> 
> Nevertheless, that's the way it is done.  Sometimes, if there is a 
sharp
> color or luminosity difference demarcating the transition to sky, 
you
> can use other tools to speed up the process, but it's still mostly 
long
> work by hand if you want the best results.
> 
> > Even after running neat image or selective bluring to remove sky 
> > noise I end up with clear banding in the sky as it gets darker.
> 
> You may have to manually smear and clone to reduce banding.  It 
will be
> hard to hide completely.
> 
> > Anyone want to share how you get those really dark / black skies
> > with me, any real way of doing this from a digital colour file?
> 
> Image files don't contain enough information for many types of
> filtering.  The best way is to use something like a polarizing 
filter at
> the moment of capture.  If you are lucky, there may be shortcuts 
for a
> given image, but very often it is a lot of hard work.
> 
> > I know this is slightly of topic but most of the 'retouching' or
> > editing forums are populated by colour gurus, this is really the 
> > knowledge base for B&W.
> 
> The principles are the same for both B&W and color, except that
> obviously any manipulations based on color are impossible in B&W 
(as
> opposed to merely difficult and often unsatisfactory in color), and
> there may be more of a tendency to posterization in B&W because 
you have
> only one channel instead of three (but if you work with 16-bit 
channels
> and the original image is clean, this should not be a problem).
> Isolating the sky with shortcuts is far harder in B&W, since 
intensity
> is the only possible clue for transitions, and sometimes not even 
that.

scrber writes:

> Very informative post, thank you.
> But basically, no easy way right?

No easy way that I know of.  Basically, anything that requires human
intelligence, such as recognizing pimples on a face or selectively
correcting for color balance errors in mixed lighting, is going to
require a lot of hand work.  The only things that can be automated to
any extent are those that can be done on the basis of pixel colors
alone.  In digital retouching, there aren't that many things that can be
automated.  Even sky modifications, as simple as they might seem from a
human standpoint, are often impossible to automate to any extent.

> 1. Use a polariser

Yes.

> 2. Use hue/sat / whatever conversion methods appropriate to get dark 
> skies without posterisation

Yes, although 8-bit data may posterize if you have to make a sharp
change.  No way to avoid that.

> 3. Darker (is PAINT) manually to darken

Yes.  And posterization may still be a problem for 8-bit data.

> Right?  Pretty much what I've been doing, but its so da*n slow and
> I'm naff at it!

You get faster in time, but it is never quick and easy.

I spend a lot of time on night shots, for example, because varied light
sources always mess up the color balance, and because sharp contrasts
make some sort of adjustment to recover detail in highlights and shadows
necessary.  Both of these always involve lots and lots of time spent
brushing over the image by hand.  The results can be pretty impressive.

It's best to have a deep, high-resolution image to work with.  That
means a deep scan (10 bits, 12 bits, or however many you can get) at
high resolution, or a digicam image with the same characteristics.  It's
extremely difficult and often disappointing to try to adjust 8-bit data,
and low resolution also can turn an image to mud if you have to retouch
anything.

One of the things I like about shooting Portra 400BW is its range; the
film is low contrast, but for night shots that is an advantage.  See

http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs.jpg

This image had a _lot_ more contrast originally, with nearly blocked
shadows and seemingly blown highlights.  But a deep scan revealed lots
of detail in the shadows and highlights, and a lot of burning and
dodging in the digital realm reduced the contrast and restored good
detail from corner to corner.  Shadows on the dark surface of the water
were preserved by the film, as were details in the bright spot on the
wall near the lamppost.

This image was a similar case

http://www.mxsmanic.com/artists.jpg

The original was a lot more contrasty.  But the film had actually
recorded a lot of shadow and highlight detail, even though it wasn't
initially obvious.  Extensive dodging and burning brought out this
detail, so that virtually no part of the image has that ugly featureless
black or white look of an image with blown highlights and shadows.

Color and slide film are much more difficult.  For example:

http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/display.php?picfile=PlaceVendome&picwidth=800&picheight=600

This image was dramatically retouched.  The colors were all over the
place in the original, and the contrasts were frightening.  I must have
spent an hour or more trying to get this one to look okay.  The result
still isn't ideal, but it looks a thousand times better than the
original, believe me!  At least the final version kinda sorta resembles
what I actually saw in person.

One of the nice things about B&W is that you don't have to worry about
color balance.

  -- AA

> From: scrber [mailto:stephen.bate@...]
>
> After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am still
> not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
> I am familiar with the red filter / polariser filters on film
> capture, but my efforts to successfully replicate this digitally
> have never been particularly fruitful.  I have tried many channel
> mixer, hue/sat methods to convert my digital colour images to B&W
> but all result in some sort of posterisation or noise in the sky.  I
> cannot get a smooth dark sky.  Selective darkening also is very
> difficult if you are really trying to go dark, the halos/  edges are
> almost impossible to avoid.
> Even after running neat image or selective bluring to remove sky
> noise I end up with clear banding in the sky as it gets darker.

It's true that extreme color shifts prior to grayscale conversion can
amplify noise or introduce posterization. The two are to some extent
mutually exclusive, in that noise breaks up posterization--which is why
NeatImage on an 8-bit image can turn noise into posterization. This is a
good reason to use the new PS CS, which supports 16-bit mode for most
operations.

When I shoot with my 10D at ISO100, the noise level seems quite low after
using the Channel Mixer to get a really dark sky. Is it possible that your
original source is just too noisy? Or maybe you have a lower tolerance for
noise than I do.

I put a 1:1 crop from a B&W image in http://www.pbase.com/image/24112078.
This isn't a "finished" picture, in that all I did with it was use Channel
Mixer and Levels, so it has plenty of flaws. But is this sky too noisy for
you? Not dark enough?

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> I put a 1:1 crop from a B&W image in
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24112078.
> This isn't a "finished" picture, in that all I did with it was use Channel
> Mixer and Levels, so it has plenty of flaws. But is this sky too noisy for
> you? Not dark enough?

It looks good, although there is some noise in the sky.  Is this
electronic capture or film?

Anthony:

Here's a variant method that might work also: create a duplicate layer
and invert it, then use curves or levels to darken to taste. Still need
to work on the delete the bottom of the image on the duplicate layer and
work in detail on the transition, but this might get you to a darker sky
faster and with less potential for degradation.

Bernie

> > After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am still
> > not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
>
> Take a snapshot, adjust curves to make the sky as dark as you require,
> take another snapshot <snip>
>

Or duplicate the sky portion of the image and set blending mode of that
layer to multiply, then dial down layer opacity to where it looks right.
Also a good way to build up detail in overexposed images.

Isn't that the great thing about Photoshop--there are always a million ways
to skin any particular cat....

Doug 

> 
> Here's a variant method that might work also: create a duplicate layer
> and invert it, then use curves or levels to darken to taste. Still need
> to work on the delete the bottom of the image on the duplicate layer and
> work in detail on the transition, but this might get you to a darker sky
> faster and with less potential for degradation.
> 
> Bernie
> 
>>> After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am still
>>> not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
>> 
>> Take a snapshot, adjust curves to make the sky as dark as you require,
>> take another snapshot <snip>
>>

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> It looks good, although there is some noise in the sky.  Is this
> electronic capture or film?

This is a Canon 10D DSLR at ISO100. Yes, there's some noise, and it's a tad
more noticeable than it was before I darkened it. I think it's gentle enough
that I could probably reduce it to insignificance with NeatImage. What I've
done a couple times, since NI became available as a PS plugin, is to do the
noise filtering, then use Fade to cut its effect roughly in half, so that I
don't wind up with the obvious filtered effect that NI can give you
full-strength.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> scrber writes:
> 
> > Very informative post, thank you.
> > But basically, no easy way right?
> 
> No easy way that I know of.  Basically, anything that requires 
human
> intelligence, such as recognizing pimples on a face or selectively
> correcting for color balance errors in mixed lighting, is going to
> require a lot of hand work.  The only things that can be automated 
to
> any extent are those that can be done on the basis of pixel colors
> alone.  In digital retouching, there aren't that many things that 
can be
> automated.  Even sky modifications, as simple as they might seem 
from a
> human standpoint, are often impossible to automate to any extent.
> 
> > 1. Use a polariser
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > 2. Use hue/sat / whatever conversion methods appropriate to get 
dark 
> > skies without posterisation
> 
> Yes, although 8-bit data may posterize if you have to make a sharp
> change.  No way to avoid that.
> 
> > 3. Darker (is PAINT) manually to darken
> 
> Yes.  And posterization may still be a problem for 8-bit data.
> 
> > Right?  Pretty much what I've been doing, but its so da*n slow 
and
> > I'm naff at it!
> 
> You get faster in time, but it is never quick and easy.
> 
> I spend a lot of time on night shots, for example, because varied 
light
> sources always mess up the color balance, and because sharp 
contrasts
> make some sort of adjustment to recover detail in highlights and 
shadows
> necessary.  Both of these always involve lots and lots of time 
spent
> brushing over the image by hand.  The results can be pretty 
impressive.
> 
> It's best to have a deep, high-resolution image to work with.  That
> means a deep scan (10 bits, 12 bits, or however many you can get) 
at
> high resolution, or a digicam image with the same 
characteristics.  It's
> extremely difficult and often disappointing to try to adjust 8-bit 
data,
> and low resolution also can turn an image to mud if you have to 
retouch
> anything.
> 
> One of the things I like about shooting Portra 400BW is its range; 
the
> film is low contrast, but for night shots that is an advantage.  
See
> 
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs.jpg
> 
> This image had a _lot_ more contrast originally, with nearly 
blocked
> shadows and seemingly blown highlights.  But a deep scan revealed 
lots
> of detail in the shadows and highlights, and a lot of burning and
> dodging in the digital realm reduced the contrast and restored good
> detail from corner to corner.  Shadows on the dark surface of the 
water
> were preserved by the film, as were details in the bright spot on 
the
> wall near the lamppost.
> 
> This image was a similar case
> 
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/artists.jpg
> 
> The original was a lot more contrasty.  But the film had actually
> recorded a lot of shadow and highlight detail, even though it 
wasn't
> initially obvious.  Extensive dodging and burning brought out this
> detail, so that virtually no part of the image has that ugly 
featureless
> black or white look of an image with blown highlights and shadows.
> 
> Color and slide film are much more difficult.  For example:
> 
> http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/display.php?
picfile=PlaceVendome&picwidth=800&picheight=600
> 
> This image was dramatically retouched.  The colors were all over 
the
> place in the original, and the contrasts were frightening.  I must 
have
> spent an hour or more trying to get this one to look okay.  The 
result
> still isn't ideal, but it looks a thousand times better than the
> original, believe me!  At least the final version kinda sorta 
resembles
> what I actually saw in person.
> 
> One of the nice things about B&W is that you don't have to worry 
about
> color balance.
> 
>   -- AA


Thanks, pretty much sums it up. 
Night shots dont bother me so much because you can bleed to black 
and mask so easily as the rest of the shot is normally inherantly 
dark.
I struggle with simple blue cloudy skies and getting them 'ansel 
adams' dark.  I do capture digitally and therefore my films days are 
gone.
This is the kind of image I mean :

http://www.hang-up.co.uk/Images/brochure/full%20jpegs/020706%
20panorama%20crummock%20B&W%20copy.jpg

Using channel mixer to darken it generates awful noise, I can smooth 
it out (generating banding) and add noise back in but I just 
wondered if this workflow really made sense to the experts.

Thanks again for your feeback.

Love the stairs picture by the way, saw it before a long time ago...!

Steve.

http://www.hang-up.co.uk/Images/brochure/full%20jpegs/020706%
20panorama%20crummock%20B&W%20copy.jpg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. 
DeRocco" <pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: scrber [mailto:stephen.bate@m...]
> >
> > After 2-3 years of digital darkrooming and B&W printing I am 
still
> > not happy with my methods to darken blue skies.
> > I am familiar with the red filter / polariser filters on film
> > capture, but my efforts to successfully replicate this digitally
> > have never been particularly fruitful.  I have tried many channel
> > mixer, hue/sat methods to convert my digital colour images to B&W
> > but all result in some sort of posterisation or noise in the 
sky.  I
> > cannot get a smooth dark sky.  Selective darkening also is very
> > difficult if you are really trying to go dark, the halos/  edges 
are
> > almost impossible to avoid.
> > Even after running neat image or selective bluring to remove sky
> > noise I end up with clear banding in the sky as it gets darker.
> 
> It's true that extreme color shifts prior to grayscale conversion 
can
> amplify noise or introduce posterization. The two are to some 
extent
> mutually exclusive, in that noise breaks up posterization--which 
is why
> NeatImage on an 8-bit image can turn noise into posterization. 
This is a
> good reason to use the new PS CS, which supports 16-bit mode for 
most
> operations.
> 
> When I shoot with my 10D at ISO100, the noise level seems quite 
low after
> using the Channel Mixer to get a really dark sky. Is it possible 
that your
> original source is just too noisy? Or maybe you have a lower 
tolerance for
> noise than I do.
> 
> I put a 1:1 crop from a B&W image in 
http://www.pbase.com/image/24112078.
> This isn't a "finished" picture, in that all I did with it was use 
Channel
> Mixer and Levels, so it has plenty of flaws. But is this sky too 
noisy for
> you? Not dark enough?
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...

Can't wait for a B&W digital camera / back.  The noise you are 
getting is similar to mine (S2), but I wanted BLACK skies, really 
dark stuff - like this one of Pauls :

http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/JumboBoulders.jpg

Closest I can get without getting real messy is something like this:

http://www.hang-up.co.uk/Images/brochure/full%20jpegs/020706%20lakes%
20view%20from%20cottage%20window%20B&W%20copy.jpg

May just be an inherant limit of capturing in colour  :-(

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug I." 
<puzzolente@s...> wrote:
> Or duplicate the sky portion of the image and set blending mode of 
that
> layer to multiply, then dial down layer opacity to where it looks 
right.
> Also a good way to build up detail in overexposed images.
> 
> Isn't that the great thing about Photoshop--there are always a 
million ways
> to skin any particular cat....
> 
> Doug 
> 


YEP, best yet!  I tried it on some rich blue skies and it looks 
great, little posterisation and adding a little noise kills the 
banding.  Retains the original balance pretty well too!
Thanks, I will give this an extended trial on some more complicated 
skies - ie ones with a dead tree smack in the middle, I've always 
found these next to impossible to get right.

Steve

The best technique I've found to darken skies and reducing grain at the
same time is to use the Burn tool to manually burn in the areas I want
darker.

Choose the Burn tool with really large brush size (I often use sizes as
large as of 500-1500), and use caps-lock so you can see the brush
outline. Use it at opacities of 10-30% and "Range: Midtones". Don't
worry too much about darkening clouds and such too much, you can bring
them back later on by using the Dodge tool with the highlight setting.
Remember that "Range: Midtones" retains shadow detail, while "Range:
Shadows" quickly blocks them up.

I find that this will actually reduce the grain significantly. I think
it was Nick Brandt who posted this technique here a while ago.

I use a pressure sensitive Wacom tablet, that makes any kind of brush
work in Photoshop much easier. With a mouse you will have to be more
careful with the opacities and brush sizes you use.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Um...Sorry for asking this..

Why not simply shoot with a polarizer? It's really a lot simpler..  
Sometimes, as others have already noted during other threads, one needs 
to do more than simply accept whatever RGB data a digicam shovels out.. 
Filters make as much sense in the digital age as they did pre-PhotoShop 
in many cases..  Sometimes the data you need just is available if you 
leave all the filtering until post image capture.. You can't ask 
software to polarize the sky for you.. How would it know which angle 
from the vertical  light waves were at?  Not to mention, it can't 
suddenly add detail that was obscured by other data - like removing the 
reflection from a water surface so you can see below..

Assuming you are capturing digitally or from an RGB scan of a color 
slide/neg, after starting with that cobalt blue sky,  use the channel 
mixer to move the really dark blue sky you should now have to black..  
or use Convert to B&W Pro or a Silver Oxide filter for whatever film 
type you want and just select a red-filter for pre-filtering?

Heck, nothing prevents you from shooting through a red filter with a 
polarizer onto  even a digital back or digicam - not to mention onto any 
B&W film.. 

Then you'd have those black skies you want to start out with..

BTW: That boulder shot of Paul's,  looks to be from Joshua tree and shot 
with a deep red filter (both the boulders and the sky seem to have that 
look to them).  The skies there can be cobalt blue with not a hint of 
clouds, so that deep blue sky is a great starting point.  And certainly 
more likely than in the village scene you compared it to.  With clouds 
in your sky, and given the likely climatology, that village scene had a 
sky about as dark as one might expect..


To illustrate what I'm talking about, and not just sound like I'm 
throwing rocks.. Here's something that took me significantly less than 
five minutes.

Here's the detail of a color slide I shot at Joshua Tree (using a 
polarizer):
http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/start.jpg

next converted by Convert to B&W Pro with no pre-filtering:
http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/unfiltered.jpg

next converted by Convert to B&W Pro with Red pre-filtering:
http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/prefiltered.jpg

a "final" version, with the levels tweaked a bit (I could have lightened 
the boulders more in levels or used curves to really lighten them to 
match Paul's image more):
http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/final.jpg

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

I couldn't leave well enough alone.. Here's a version where I added a 
red tint to JUST the rocks (simply by selecting the color range of the 
sky, inverting the selection, then pulling up "hue/saturation" and 
colorizing the rocks a bit into the red), then ran Convert to B&W Pro 
with Red Pre-filtering...

http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/redtintedrocks.jpg


Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"

> From: scrber [mailto:stephen.bate@...]
>
> I struggle with simple blue cloudy skies and getting them 'ansel
> adams' dark.  I do capture digitally and therefore my films days are
> gone. This is the kind of image I mean :
>
> http://www.hang-up.co.uk/Images/brochure/full%20jpegs/020706%
> 20panorama%20crummock%20B&W%20copy.jpg
>
> Using channel mixer to darken it generates awful noise, I can smooth
> it out (generating banding) and add noise back in but I just
> wondered if this workflow really made sense to the experts.

I'd be curious to see a 1:1 crop showing some sky area, since the size
reduction averages out much of the noise.

Also, what camera or scanner are you using?

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Really excellent example.
With regards to the polariser, I do often use one.  But I was 
refering to going from the blue to the black, not how to get the 
blue in the first place.
Your Joshua tree rock is perfect, just what I am trying to achieve 
(I don't have any decent examples loaded up, but I have a bunch of 
similar stuff, dead trees, rocks etc from the Setti Valley in 
Morocco - also cobalt blue).  When I try to get it that dark, the 
posterisation that results is awful, really unacceptable.  I spent 
days playing with red filters, B&W vs colour modes (with custom 
WBs..) polarisers on and off trying to get the capture as good as 
possible and I've just not managed it.
I guess it is my digital file.  I need to be using 12bit capture and 
being extremely careful with how I process I guess.
I was just looking for tips from those that are evidently getting 
much better results and have more experience than me - you are on 
that list looking at the Joshua tree example.

Thanks for the help
Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> Um...Sorry for asking this..
> 
> Why not simply shoot with a polarizer? It's really a lot 
simpler..  
> Sometimes, as others have already noted during other threads, one 
needs 
> to do more than simply accept whatever RGB data a digicam shovels 
out.. 
> Filters make as much sense in the digital age as they did pre-
PhotoShop 
> in many cases..  Sometimes the data you need just is available if 
you 
> leave all the filtering until post image capture.. You can't ask 
> software to polarize the sky for you.. How would it know which 
angle 
> from the vertical  light waves were at?  Not to mention, it can't 
> suddenly add detail that was obscured by other data - like 
removing the 
> reflection from a water surface so you can see below..
> 
> Assuming you are capturing digitally or from an RGB scan of a 
color 
> slide/neg, after starting with that cobalt blue sky,  use the 
channel 
> mixer to move the really dark blue sky you should now have to 
black..  
> or use Convert to B&W Pro or a Silver Oxide filter for whatever 
film 
> type you want and just select a red-filter for pre-filtering?
> 
> Heck, nothing prevents you from shooting through a red filter with 
a 
> polarizer onto  even a digital back or digicam - not to mention 
onto any 
> B&W film.. 
> 
> Then you'd have those black skies you want to start out with..
> 
> BTW: That boulder shot of Paul's,  looks to be from Joshua tree 
and shot 
> with a deep red filter (both the boulders and the sky seem to have 
that 
> look to them).  The skies there can be cobalt blue with not a hint 
of 
> clouds, so that deep blue sky is a great starting point.  And 
certainly 
> more likely than in the village scene you compared it to.  With 
clouds 
> in your sky, and given the likely climatology, that village scene 
had a 
> sky about as dark as one might expect..
> 
> 
> To illustrate what I'm talking about, and not just sound like I'm 
> throwing rocks.. Here's something that took me significantly less 
than 
> five minutes.
> 
> Here's the detail of a color slide I shot at Joshua Tree (using a 
> polarizer):
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/start.jpg
> 
> next converted by Convert to B&W Pro with no pre-filtering:
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/unfiltered.jpg
> 
> next converted by Convert to B&W Pro with Red pre-filtering:
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/prefiltered.jpg
> 
> a "final" version, with the levels tweaked a bit (I could have 
lightened 
> the boulders more in levels or used curves to really lighten them 
to 
> match Paul's image more):
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/images/joshtest/final.jpg
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

scrber wrote:

>polarisers on and off trying to get the capture as good as 
>possible and I've just not managed it.
>I guess it is my digital file.  I need to be using 12bit capture and 
>being extremely careful with how I process I guess.
>I was just looking for tips from those that are evidently getting 
>much better results and have more experience than me - you are on 
>that list looking at the Joshua tree example.
>
>  
>
Why don't you try the free download of Convert to B&W Pro.. 

http://www.theimagingfactory.com/download/001CBWP/cbwp.htm

Anything I'm doing is replicable by anyone else willing to invest the time..

Feel free to use my Joshua tree shot as a test image.

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

To reduce some of the noise in the blue parts of the sky, before 
converting to B&W, you might want to try simply  using the earlier 
mentioned technique of layers and multiply to darken it up..  That 
should also lower some of the  relative difference between the various 
blues (since blackest blue remains fixed while all the blues will move 
towards it.)   You may also want to try using the same selection mask to 
shift the blues into a less cyan part of the spectrum (towards a more 
cobalt blue) before converting..

Basically, the opposite of what I did to lighten the rocks in the 
follow-up version..


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

One last comment Steve,

There's definitely noise, or an artifact, in my original color image as 
well.. It's a lozenge shaped artifact in the triangular "window" created 
by the boulders. 

The trick is that I just darkened the sky so much when converting to B&W 
that the noise is effectively lost or swamped in the depths of the  
"blackened"  sky.


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Paul,

If you use the History brush and the NI plug-in, you get complete control
and can vary it in different parts of the image.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>

What I've
done a couple times, since NI became available as a PS plugin, is to do the
noise filtering, then use Fade to cut its effect roughly in half, so that I
don't wind up with the obvious filtered effect that NI can give you
full-strength.

Here's that message again

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
> 
> Why don't you try the free download of Convert to B&W Pro.. 
> 
> http://www.theimagingfactory.com/download/001CBWP/cbwp.htm
> 
> Anything I'm doing is replicable by anyone else willing to invest 
> the time..
> 
> Feel free to use my Joshua tree shot as a test image.

I can't find the message with the link to the Convert to BW plug-in. 
Could somebody please help me out?

Thanks,
Barbara White
http://www.worldartphotographs.com

I have had some success in getting the dark skies I was craving, 
thanks to everyone that helped.  Most items, used in comination were 
very useful.
Workflow was as follows.
- narrow band cyan selection in hue/sat of sky, shift colour to a 
more cobalt blue.
- Reselect this colour range and copy it to a new layer.
- Noise reduction of this layer.
- Set to darken mode, around 80% opacity.
- Russel Brown style conversion from colour, with hue slider at 
around a quarter in from the LHS.
Bingo.  relatively noise free, dark skies.
Only thing I had to be careful of is making sure the copied layer is 
a good mask and doesnt encroach into foliage or other detail.

Thanks again.
Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> To reduce some of the noise in the blue parts of the sky, before 
> converting to B&W, you might want to try simply  using the earlier 
> mentioned technique of layers and multiply to darken it up..  That 
> should also lower some of the  relative difference between the 
various 
> blues (since blackest blue remains fixed while all the blues will 
move 
> towards it.)   You may also want to try using the same selection 
mask to 
> shift the blues into a less cyan part of the spectrum (towards a 
more 
> cobalt blue) before converting..
> 
> Basically, the opposite of what I did to lighten the rocks in the 
> follow-up version..
> 
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"