Digital BW, The Print

Hello all,

It is interesting to try all these methods to convert color scans 
into b&w (split channel, etc) However, there doesn't seem to be 
an effort to tie in the information that is available in the 
histograms.  Does anyone look at individual channels and say, " 
well that hump in the 200zone of the blue  channel is the sky" ?  
Or that  hump in the 100zone of the green channel is the lawn" ? 
and that  50 zone hump of the red channel is the trunk of the 
trees", and so on...?"

I ask these questions because converting to b&w doesn't seem 
to have any logical approach.  I find myself moving the sliders 
around without really understanding how I arrived at the image 
that I finally choose. 

Does anyone have a method for this "madness"?

                                  Lincoln

I too struggled with this same issue.

I suppose if you are careful and take really good notes you can 
eventually get pretty good at predicting how any of the B&W conversion 
methods will affect an image. My advise is to pick one horse and run 
with it. practice with it for a while and you'll figure it out.. it's 
not unlike learning how to play a musical instrument.

My horse is the Russell Preston Brown technique.

Click this link for the PDF file, if you're not familiar with it.
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/pdf/colortoB&W.pdf

I have found that by modifying the "color" layer using the 
Hue/Saturation controls, I can easily dial up or dial down any part of 
the image by just selecting the appropriate color in the dropdown menu 
on the Hue/Saturation dialog box and adjusting its saturation and lightness.

If more overall contrast is needed, I just create a 3rd Adjustment Layer 
(Brightness/Contrast) and dial that in. In 2 weeks of practising this 
technique for about 1 hour a day, I'm very comfortable converting any image.

m

outdoornm wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It is interesting to try all these methods to convert color scans
> into b&w (split channel, etc) However, there doesn't seem to be
> an effort to tie in the information that is available in the
> histograms.  Does anyone look at individual channels and say, "
> well that hump in the 200zone of the blue  channel is the sky" ? 
> Or that  hump in the 100zone of the green channel is the lawn" ?
> and that  50 zone hump of the red channel is the trunk of the
> trees", and so on...?"
>
> I ask these questions because converting to b&w doesn't seem
> to have any logical approach.  I find myself moving the sliders
> around without really understanding how I arrived at the image
> that I finally choose.
>
> Does anyone have a method for this "madness"?
>
>                                   Lincoln
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
> AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Lincoln,

the approach I take does take this into account.

I first set up a curves adjustment layer, then a channel mixing 
adjustment layer (and a final curve adjustment layer just for good 
measure).  You will quickly come up with your own starting values in 
the channel mixer layer (ie. then put it into an action).  Now you go 
into your first curve adjust and tweak your individual channel cuves 
to adjust for sky and stuff.  I generally rely more on dropper 
information than histograms, but either will get you there.  For me 
this approach is totally intuitive and logical since I understand how 
the color channels are affected by the curve adjustments and channel 
mixer.  Your sky example is exactly why you want to control your 
curves locally since, in general, you don't mix very much blue 
channel into your b&w image and you often start out with dark and 
noisy skies (from digital cameras).  If you just bump up your blue 
curve in the sky region you fix this without negatively impacting 
your image elsewhere.

I agree that you want to pick one approach and fully understand how 
it works and what you are doing when you play with curves or sliders.

mark

> > Hello all,
> >
> > It is interesting to try all these methods to convert color scans
> > into b&w (split channel, etc) However, there doesn't seem to be
> > an effort to tie in the information that is available in the
> > histograms.  Does anyone look at individual channels and say, "
> > well that hump in the 200zone of the blue  channel is the sky" ? 
> > Or that  hump in the 100zone of the green channel is the lawn" ?
> > and that  50 zone hump of the red channel is the trunk of the
> > trees", and so on...?"
> >
> > I ask these questions because converting to b&w doesn't seem
> > to have any logical approach.  I find myself moving the sliders
> > around without really understanding how I arrived at the image
> > that I finally choose.
> >
> > Does anyone have a method for this "madness"?
> >
> >                                   Lincoln

Hi Mike,

Russel's method looks pretty exciting. I like the extra control by 
using the diff' layers.  The holidays will allow me some time to 
experiment with this.

I was looking for a logical correllation between histograms and 
conversion methods, but this doesn't seem to exist.   I guess you  
eventually get a feel for what does or doesn't work.


Thanks!

                       Lincoln 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mike 
Sommers <mike@s...> wrote:
> I too struggled with this same issue.
> 
> I suppose if you are careful and take really good notes you can 
> eventually get pretty good at predicting how any of the B&W 
conversion 
> methods will affect an image. My advise is to pick one horse 
and run 
> with it. practice with it for a while and you'll figure it out.. it's 
> not unlike learning how to play a musical instrument.
> 
> My horse is the Russell Preston Brown technique.
> 
> Click this link for the PDF file, if you're not familiar with it.
> http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/pdf/colortoB&W.pdf
> 
> I have found that by modifying the "color" layer using the 
> Hue/Saturation controls, I can easily dial up or dial down any 
part of 
> the image by just selecting the appropriate color in the 
dropdown menu 
> on the Hue/Saturation dialog box and adjusting its saturation 
and lightness.
> 
> If more overall contrast is needed, I just create a 3rd 
Adjustment Layer 
> (Brightness/Contrast) and dial that in. In 2 weeks of practising 
this 
> technique for about 1 hour a day, I'm very comfortable 
converting any image.
> 
> m

Lincoln,

since you are trying these different approaches, consider this: Make a grayscale file in 
which you layer several conversions that are duped/flattened/converted to gray from 
your RGB file. You may choose different areas of the final picture to come from 
different  gray-conversion layers by simply using masks. When you are happy with 
the look, simply dupe and flatten again and there is your printing file. 

And don't forget that any conversion to grayscale is affected by your settings in the 
color spaces of Photoshop (it's easy to forget because they are not visible when you 
simply choose "grayscale"). You can save a whole lot of histo-wrecking by choosing a 
gray space close to your printing space.

good luck-


Antonis

<and for even more  tweaks, consider making your RGB channels into layers - or 
making channels into masks for layers etc...  loads of holiday fun there!>


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "outdoornm" <linc@z...> 
wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> Russel's method looks pretty exciting. I like the extra control by 
> using the diff' layers.  The holidays will allow me some time to 
> experiment with this.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis 
Ricos" <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Lincoln,
> 
> since you are trying these different approaches, consider this: 
Make a grayscale file in 
> which you layer several conversions that are 
duped/flattened/converted to gray from 
> your RGB file. You may choose different areas of the final 
picture to come from 
> different  gray-conversion layers by simply using masks. When 
you are happy with 
> the look, simply dupe and flatten again and there is your 
printing file. 
> 
> And don't forget that any conversion to grayscale is affected by 
your settings in the 
> color spaces of Photoshop (it's easy to forget because they are 
not visible when you 
> simply choose "grayscale"). You can save a whole lot of 
histo-wrecking by choosing a 
> gray space close to your printing space.

Hello Antonis,

Your  "histo-wrecking" comment makes me wonder if it is not 
better to back up and do things in the color channels before I 
convert to greyscale.   I recently tried to make "improvements" in 
the Tone Curves of my scanner prescans, but only managed to 
change my beautifully smooth r, g's and bees into  storm 
wreckage. :-(  This learning curve gets steeper by the day.  :-)

I think the secret is to "just do it" until I get a feel for what works. 
My only fear is that I will lose a lot of info in the process.  Those 
wrecked histograms don't necessarily show in the monitor 
image, but I can imagine that a large print  will bring any 
weaknesses into view.

    Happy Holiday!

                                            Lincoln 
 
> good luck-
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> <and for even more  tweaks, consider making your RGB 
channels into layers - or 
> making channels into masks for layers etc...  loads of holiday 
fun there!>
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"outdoornm" <linc@z...> 
> wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > Russel's method looks pretty exciting. I like the extra control 
by 
> > using the diff' layers.  The holidays will allow me some time 
to 
> > experiment with this.

> Your  "histo-wrecking" comment makes me wonder if it is not 
> better to back up and do things in the color channels before I 
> convert to greyscale. 


Lincoln,

if you start with rgb scans, and follow proper color management, you have the option 
of doing a lot of work in that mode before dropping to gray. My point was to make 
you aware that going from rgb to gray is essentially a profile-to-profile conversion, 
and choosing each profile carefully (in the color settings of PS)  can improve the histo 
of the final file.

You don't _have_ to work in rgb of course, and people have preference for other 
options such as 16 bit gray (dropping into 8 eventually), or picking one of the rgb 
channels etc.



  I recently tried to make "improvements" in 
> the Tone Curves of my scanner prescans, but only managed to 
> change my beautifully smooth r, g's and bees into  storm 
> wreckage. :-( 

Starting with a good scan is essential. Depending on the scanning software you use, 
you may be better off scanning in 16bit and taking any corrections into Photoshop. 
Often the problem is poor or not color-managed preview in the scanning s/w. If you 
can get a correct preview (i.e. a big enough image on screen that looks identical 
between the scanner s/w and Photoshop), you can do all the main adjustments there 
and get away with 8bit grayscale scans. As an example, Imacon or Linocolor software 
allows for that. If not, you are best to go to plan B and get a high-bit scan into 
Photoshop and work from there.


Those 
> wrecked histograms don't necessarily show in the monitor 
> image, but I can imagine that a large print  will bring any 
> weaknesses into view.


The monitor is a poor judge of final print quality. At best it gives you a preview of 
how your overall tones will reproduce (in brightness and contrast). All else is mostly 
left to your experienced judgment, eyedropper "reality check", histo display 
(preferably of selected sensitive areas), views at different magnification % etc. 
We only wish we could see on the monitor what something will look on paper. Even 
with the best of color management and the most expensive of Barco monitors, our 
eyes will simply never see a phosphorescent white as being the same as a piece of 
paper, even if they are technically matched. Hence the need for actual proofs - the 
more experienced the user the fewer needed, because the real "match" happens in 
our brains.

And, you are right, you've got to try things out for yourself and see what works best - 
just be methodical about it because it's easy to get lost in a whole bunch of variables.

Happy Holidays to you too!

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis 
Ricos" <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
>  > Your  "histo-wrecking" comment makes me wonder if it is 
not 
> > better to back up and do things in the color channels before I 
> > convert to greyscale. 
> 
> 
> Lincoln,
> 
> if you start with rgb scans, and follow proper color 
management, you have the option 
> of doing a lot of work in that mode before dropping to gray. My 
point was to make 
> you aware that going from rgb to gray is essentially a 
profile-to-profile conversion, 
> and choosing each profile carefully (in the color settings of PS)  
can improve the histo 
> of the final file.

Antonis,

I go out of my way to get the best scan I can wring from my 
scanner. I scan at 16 bits/2880 res. and save in Adobe RGB.  It 
has been suggested by other BO printers that retaining Adobe 
RGB 1998 throughout, allows  the best print results.   
Sometimes the nature of my slides do not allow for good focus 
in the default center and I rescan  with a selected focus point.

 PS 7 does not allow me to use layers in 16 bits .  Some of the 
B&W conversion methods force me to use  8bit layer channels 
for ultimate control.  I try to do what I can in 16 bits , and will not 
change to 8 bits unless I have to use a layer or jaypeg the image. 
It may not make any diff' but I want to save as much info as 
possible.  If I can get the effect I want with a simple channel mix, I 
stay in 16 bit mode.  

I'm beginning to "see" the b&w image in the color image and I 
am starting to tweak the color settings to take advantage of the 
effect I like best.  Looking at the last histos', I can find no clipping 
or "picket fences".  It is interesting to note that manipulation that 
make a color image look good  very often helps the resulting BO 
image.  I guess  colors are not a complete distraction; we really 
see the underlying composition and structure :-)

If I just print what I like on my monitor, my BO prints with 
Eboni/1280 are a little washed out.  So, I do a little "front end"  
tweaking by increasing the contrast about +15 and USM at 200. 
This usually gives me a very good "pre-tweak"  likeness. 

Thanks for you informative remarks!

                         Lincoln