Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

photos by Jean-Michel Berts

photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Jacob

In the latest "LensWork" there are pictures of French photographer Jean-Michel Berts. I never heard his name before, never saw his pictures and I'm really impressed by them and puzzled.
The pictures look very unusual - very dark with all details clearly visible. I've scanned one of them just to see the histogram. The histogram is shifted to the left, almost all tones are in the left part but the line goes down right before the left edge so no blacks are clipped.
If you never seen his pictures you can see them here:
http://marcozna.wordpress.com/category/berts/

Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this look?
The guy shoots film using zone system - he exposes for shadows and under develops his negatives. I can't do it with digital. Lightroom manipulation don't give this effect.
May be HDRI? 
Also I can't imagine how did he print it - to get such details in the shadows on inkjet printer close to impossible. Probably he makes platinum prints.

What do you think?

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com

Re: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by C D Tobie

On Nov 15, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Jacob wrote:

> Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this  
> look?

Looks rather like typically overdone HDR to me... A highbit scan would  
offer all thats needed to get that effect digitally... if you care for  
that effect. Is suspect is something that photographers are far more  
fond of than the photo-buying public.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

Re: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Robert Johnston

No, it is not HDR, his photos are full range zone system shots.  Look in a library for Ansel Adams book on "The Zone System" then practice what it teaches in Digital.  
Check these links to see a few shots of mine using the zone system with a digital camera, all were single exposures.  Even the darkest ones have all ten zones, they just have a dominant shadow areas.  But they can go the other way also, with more highlight area dominating the image.  It depends on what you like to shoot, what dominates the image in detail.  But, all of these images have all ten zones included in them.  Even when it looks as if shadows dominate.

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/87647-sedona-bw.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/92884-hot-air-balloon.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/83433-beach-oregon.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/92881-grand-canyon.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/92666-arizona.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/88294-flower-wildlife-image-bw.html

http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/87911-joshua-tree-national-park-ca.html

Ive been shooting for over 73 years now, most of that time with BW and since attending a seminar with Ansel Adams, using the Zone System.  When he published his book, it made it easier, as I could not remember all he covered in the seminar...

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/

   







________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Jacob <jacob@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 6:35:28 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
In the latest "LensWork" there are pictures of French photographer Jean-Michel Berts. I never heard his name before, never saw his pictures and I'm really impressed by them and puzzled.
The pictures look very unusual - very dark with all details clearly visible. I've scanned one of them just to see the histogram. The histogram is shifted to the left, almost all tones are in the left part but the line goes down right before the left edge so no blacks are clipped.
If you never seen his pictures you can see them here:
http://marcozna. wordpress. com/category/ berts/

Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this look?
The guy shoots film using zone system - he exposes for shadows and under develops his negatives. I can't do it with digital. Lightroom manipulation don't give this effect.
May be HDRI? 
Also I can't imagine how did he print it - to get such details in the shadows on inkjet printer close to impossible. Probably he makes platinum prints.

What do you think?

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com


 

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

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by andre1moreau

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@...> wrote:
> Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this    > look?

Hello Jacobs,

It seems that the photos you are refering to are shown at the following site:

http://www.jeanmichelberts.com/index_en.html

Hover your mouse on the homepage pic and choose the "The Technical Pan" link: I think you'll get the info you're looking for.

Cheers,
Andre

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Jacob

Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to reproduce this effect. 
I tried HDRI processing using Photomatix. I usually bracket, so I shoot 3 times which is what needed for Photomatix. I had to convert images to B&W before exporting them to tiff because Photomatix reads original raw without Lightroom adjustmetns.
Then I've made different HDRI images using different tome mapping, imported them back to Lightroom. After some adjustments (like fill light, blacks, clarity) I've got better images than before, smoother tones. 
They still don't look like Berts' but may be because he shoots at dawn  and his images are pretty dark.

It's amazing that with digital I need to shoot 3 times and HDRI processing to get little bit close to what he gets with one shot and special processing.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "andre1moreau" <andre1moreau@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@> wrote:
> > Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this    > look?
> 
> Hello Jacobs,
> 
> It seems that the photos you are refering to are shown at the following site:
> 
> http://www.jeanmichelberts.com/index_en.html
> 
> Hover your mouse on the homepage pic and choose the "The Technical Pan" link: I think you'll get the info you're looking for.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
>

photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Larry Heath

Aaaahh, now that is B&W photography. There is a reason that the B comes 
before the W in B&W, at least in my unwashed opinion. I don't much care for 
staring at a white page with a few smudges of pseudo darkness on it, and 
calling it a B&W photograph. But each to their own.

Later Larry

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by andre1moreau

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@...> wrote:
>
> Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to reproduce this effect. 
> 
Jacob,
I really have to wonder if using digital camera one achieve b&w prints such as the those shown on Jean Michel Berts website.

I've tried it many times and my prints usually have what CD Tobie said in a previous post: "Looks rather like typically overdone HDR to me"

If someone knows how to pull such b&w prints from digital cameras I'd really like to know also.

Cheers,
Andre

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Steve Woolfenden

I've tried it many times and my prints usually have what CD Tobie said in a
previous post: "Looks rather like typically overdone HDR to me"

I dunno what HDR even is , but it looks like "typically overdone dodging and
burning to me"  - reasonably effective here in a Gotham City kinda way...
But maybe I've  just been out in the sun too long
Steve[from where the real Rhinos roam]
 


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

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by pr_roark

"Jacob" <jacob@...> wrote:
>
> ... I'm not going back to film just to reproduce this effect.

Nor am I.

But, there is no magic in Tech Pan plus Technidol developer.  I used it for years -- until I bought the Canon 5d2.  (And TP is the only film left in my freezer.)  Tech Pan is mostly known for its ultra fine grain, not it's dynamic range.  TP is, by nature, a high contrast film.  The Technidol developer just allowed us to get normal B&W range from it.  But, that "normal" B&W range is way more than digital.  Digital is closer to slide film than B&W negative film.

Still, with TP I occasionally used 2 frames and stitched them together.  My Grand Teton, where the sun is virtually in the frame (see http://www.paulroark.com/GrandTeton.html) is an example of that.

> I tried HDRI processing ... They still don't look like Berts' ...

I think its the dodging and burning style that we're seeing.  These images have been worked up for the artistic effects.

> It's amazing that with digital I need to shoot 3 times and HDRI processing to get little bit close to what he gets with one shot and special processing.

Any dilute, compensating development B&W processing technique can match TP + Technidol.  So, I would not call what he did particularly special processing.  Also, we can do this with digital, but it's more work to have to shoot and deal with multiple frames.  I'm not impressed with the automated HDR, but the tools are there, one way or the other, if we've captured the information adequately. 

I think what we're seeing is normal B&W with very nice, artistic printing.  

But, it does take very good dynamic range to do this.  Our digital dynamic range -- or lack thereof -- is just awful compared to standard old B&W, and it's the main thing I miss with the Canon 5d2.  The MPs are OK, but the dynamic range is not close to B&W film. 

I'm still sticking with digital, but due to its other attributes, even despite the sad DR.  Digital needs a major breakthrough with respect to dynamic range to get to where it ought to be for the best B&W.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Tony Wells

Whilst this may be considered heresy here, this is why some of us still like to indulge with our film cameras, and not just for nostalgia or to give our antique cameras an airing every now and then! One of the reasons why I joined this group was to learn how to create GOOD digital B&W (and also why have been a lurker since I did so), but like Andre here I am still struggling alas ....

TonyW.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: andre1moreau 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:57 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts


    


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@...> wrote:
  >
  > Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to reproduce this effect. 
  > 
  Jacob,
  I really have to wonder if using digital camera one achieve b&w prints such as the those shown on Jean Michel Berts website.

  I've tried it many times and my prints usually have what CD Tobie said in a previous post: "Looks rather like typically overdone HDR to me"

  If someone knows how to pull such b&w prints from digital cameras I'd really like to know also.

  Cheers,
  Andre



  

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

Re: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by CorrPro96@aol.com

For another take on this effect/technique, see W. Eugene Smith's essay on  
Pittsburgh... I believe he shot Tri-X.
 
I like Gene's work much better.... 
 
Rich
_www.rmassiephotography.com_ (http://www.rmassiephotography.com) 


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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Robert Johnston

You can always get the detail in the area you want with correct exposure.  In RAW, you can get more than you can use in Lightroom or Print.  And proper post processing can compress zones to show all important detail in a long zone.  

Aim to print from no detail in zone 0 to no detail in zone 10 or put ONLY important detail in those areas.  One key is not trying to show detail in all these areas.  It gives you pure black in zone 0 and specular highlights in 0, with all other detail spread through the other zones.

It has appeared to me in a lot of BW work Ive seen, too many are attempting to get all the detail available in blacks even that which is not important.  That makes for a lot of flat images.  Allowing any detail to go black which is not important to the image makes for a better or more interesting image.  

One of my favorites is the one of the beach in my previous message.  With a long tonal range.  Not all images of a beach can look like this, but in this image the sand is actually Black volcanic sand which really shows of the zone system. 

It is not necessary to make HDR images to get a broad range.   In Lightroom you can use all sliders to place important detail in the zones where you want it.  Just learn to use ALL the features in Lightroom, beginning with WB and working your way down to HSL with individual colors, placing them wherever appropriate to get what you want.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams

Learn your camera and composition like you know how to walk, and you will keep improving.  When you were a baby, you could not stand.  But, no one could tell you that you could not learn.  You practiced, fell, pulled yourself up, and kept practicing no matter how many times you fell.  You learned to walk, run, ride a bike, press a shutter, and much more.  Never let anyone convince you that you can not learn to make pictures like Ansel Adams or Edward Weston and those who followed them.  Only those who quit before they learn ever fail.  Before long, you will learn all you need.

Ye Old Codger



 


________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Jacob <jacob@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 7:40:13 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to reproduce this effect. 
I tried HDRI processing using Photomatix. I usually bracket, so I shoot 3 times which is what needed for Photomatix. I had to convert images to B&W before exporting them to tiff because Photomatix reads original raw without Lightroom adjustmetns.
Then I've made different HDRI images using different tome mapping, imported them back to Lightroom. After some adjustments (like fill light, blacks, clarity) I've got better images than before, smoother tones. 
They still don't look like Berts' but may be because he shoots at dawn  and his images are pretty dark.

It's amazing that with digital I need to shoot 3 times and HDRI processing to get little bit close to what he gets with one shot and special processing.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com

---

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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by E.Neilsen

Jacob, There are some things that film does that just happens - well sort of
: ) . And that while digital can get close, film just does it so much
better. It is that paradigm that kept me away from digital for so long. I
grew up and went to school out in the Santa Clara Valley, now know the world
over as Silicon Valley. Starting back in 1979 ,I watched and waited as the
digital image replaced film.  You can come close to technidol with a dilute
HC 110 about 1:25 or higher.  Until digital can provide for the common man -
read that as affordable - a way to take both low light and long exposures
without excessive noise, film will still be king in the long night shot. I
don't think that this is HDR over done looking and while it is an acquired
taste for some, these look well done to me. I still have a bulk roll of TP
and a few boxes of 4x5 in the freezer. Great stuff. Think of all that you
are doing to your digital image; that is special processing or just what is
required? Simple film processing is not something special, just matched to
the imaging needs. 

 

Perhaps you should look else where to make images like these in a digital
workflow than Lightroom as a image processing tool. It is really great for
average processing but still lacks the high end noise reduction and specific
masking tools for high end output.     

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:40 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but
it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to
reproduce this effect. 
I tried HDRI processing using Photomatix. I usually bracket, so I shoot 3
times which is what needed for Photomatix. I had to convert images to B&W
before exporting them to tiff because Photomatix reads original raw without
Lightroom adjustmetns.
Then I've made different HDRI images using different tome mapping, imported
them back to Lightroom. After some adjustments (like fill light, blacks,
clarity) I've got better images than before, smoother tones. 
They still don't look like Berts' but may be because he shoots at dawn and
his images are pretty dark.

It's amazing that with digital I need to shoot 3 times and HDRI processing
to get little bit close to what he gets with one shot and special
processing.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "andre1moreau" <andre1moreau@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@> wrote:
> > Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this >
look?
> 
> Hello Jacobs,
> 
> It seems that the photos you are refering to are shown at the following
site:
> 
> http://www.jeanmich <http://www.jeanmichelberts.com/index_en.html>
elberts.com/index_en.html
> 
> Hover your mouse on the homepage pic and choose the "The Technical Pan"
link: I think you'll get the info you're looking for.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
>





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

RE: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by E.Neilsen

Another great photographer for sure :W. Eugene Smith

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

For another take on this effect/technique, see W. Eugene Smith's essay on 
Pittsburgh... I believe he shot Tri-X.

I like Gene's work much better.... 

Rich
_www.rmassiephotography.com_ (http://www.rmassiep
<http://www.rmassiephotography.com> hotography.com) 

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





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

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Jacob

I'm not saying that Mr. Berts is a great photographer,
I'm not sure that snapping buildings at dawn constitutes great photography. But I'd love to be able to produce images with his dynamic range.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Another great photographer for sure :W. Eugene Smith
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> CorrPro96@...
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> For another take on this effect/technique, see W. Eugene Smith's essay on 
> Pittsburgh... I believe he shot Tri-X.
> 
> I like Gene's work much better.... 
> 
> Rich
> _www.rmassiephotography.com_ (http://www.rmassiep
> <http://www.rmassiephotography.com> hotography.com) 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Cdtobie

Digital work can be from digital scanners as well as from digital  
cameras; the source is up to the individual.

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:41 AM, "Tony Wells" <oaksfield@...>  
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Whilst this may be considered heresy here, this is why some of us  
> still like to indulge with our film cameras, and not just for  
> nostalgia or to give our antique cameras an airing every now and  
> then! One of the reasons why I joined this group was to learn how to  
> create GOOD digital B&W (and also why have been a lurker since I did  
> so), but like Andre here I am still struggling alas ....
>
> TonyW.
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: andre1moreau
>  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:57 PM
>  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
>
>
>
>
>
>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob"  
> <jacob@...> wrote:
>>
>> Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical  
>> info but it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going  
>> back to film just to reproduce this effect.
>>
>  Jacob,
>  I really have to wonder if using digital camera one achieve b&w  
> prints such as the those shown on Jean Michel Berts website.
>
>  I've tried it many times and my prints usually have what CD Tobie  
> said in a previous post: "Looks rather like typically overdone HDR  
> to me"
>
>  If someone knows how to pull such b&w prints from digital cameras  
> I'd really like to know also.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Andre
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Cdtobie

Selective dodging and burning is localized contrast enhancement; large  
doses of that, on a more global level, to a highbit file or multiple  
files, would be my definition of HDR. I'm a big fan of localized  
contrast enhancement; I just find most HDR to be overdone; like  
makeup, if tou can see it, there's too much. But there are others who  
like visible makeup; and visible HDR.

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:09 AM, "Steve Woolfenden" <swoolf@...>  
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I've tried it many times and my prints usually have what CD Tobie  
> said in a
> previous post: "Looks rather like typically overdone HDR to me"
>
> I dunno what HDR even is , but it looks like "typically overdone  
> dodging and
> burning to me"  - reasonably effective here in a Gotham City kinda  
> way...
> But maybe I've  just been out in the sun too long
> Steve[from where the real Rhinos roam]
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-15 by Tony Wells

Which is what I am doing at the moment ...

TonyW
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cdtobie 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts


    
  Digital work can be from digital scanners as well as from digital 
  cameras; the source is up to the individual.

  C. D. Tobie
  Global Product Technology Mngr.
  Digital Imaging & Home Theater
  Datacolor.com
  CDTobie@...

  On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:41 AM, "Tony Wells" <oaksfield@...> 
  wrote:

  > Whilst this may be considered heresy here, this is why some of us 
  > still like to indulge with our film cameras, and not just for 
  > nostalgia or to give our antique cameras an airing every now and 
  > then! One of the reasons why I joined this group was to learn how to 
  > create GOOD digital B&W (and also why have been a lurker since I did 
  > so), but like Andre here I am still struggling alas ....
  >
  > TonyW.
  >
  >


  Reply to sender | Reply to group 
  Messages in this topic (14) 
  Recent Activity: a.. New Members 13 
  Visit Your Group Start a New Topic 
  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
   Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use.
   
  

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by mike-theprint@waspfactory.org

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:29:47PM -0000, pr_roark wrote:

> I think its the dodging and burning style that we're seeing.  These
> images have been worked up for the artistic effects.

Yeah, I don't think this is just film development. Look at the diamonds
in the railing in the image on the home page. He's lightened the insides
to show the wire mesh, but left the outsides alone, and the result is
that two parts of the scene which should be the same tone are not. Look
also at Paris image 23 - somehow the fog lightens the rock behind it.

I think the photos look unnatural as a result.

I have to say I'm kind of disappointed by LensWork - after being
subscribed for about 4 years I feel like I'm seeing the same portfolios
over and over.

-- 
  | Mike Acar |                                | mike at waspfactory dot org |

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by E.Neilsen

Ye Old Codger, Your opening statement is provocative  but so very close to
false as to be incorrect. RAW does not give you anything. It is a file
format of the exposure and if your exposure is crap so will the file be. A
bad exposure is a bad exposure. It is true more can be done with it, but
garbage is still garbage.  We can all agree that,  intent and vision,  pre
and post exposure control, are important to good imagery. Lightroom can not
create detail where there is none, even though it can reveal some that might
otherwise be lost. 

 

Lightroom is but one of many RAW processors, and much like Kodak, Agfa,
Ansco, Fuji et la are to the aqueous based images; a means to an end that
has certain predispositions to that end. Full toned images are not so much
flat as expanded to a point that much more is visible producing lower
localized contrast throughout the entire image.  

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Johnston
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

You can always get the detail in the area you want with correct exposure. In
RAW, you can get more than you can use in Lightroom or Print. And proper
post processing can compress zones to show all important detail in a long
zone. 

Aim to print from no detail in zone 0 to no detail in zone 10 or put ONLY
important detail in those areas. One key is not trying to show detail in all
these areas. It gives you pure black in zone 0 and specular highlights in 0,
with all other detail spread through the other zones.

It has appeared to me in a lot of BW work Ive seen, too many are attempting
to get all the detail available in blacks even that which is not important.
That makes for a lot of flat images. Allowing any detail to go black which
is not important to the image makes for a better or more interesting image. 

One of my favorites is the one of the beach in my previous message. With a
long tonal range. Not all images of a beach can look like this, but in this
image the sand is actually Black volcanic sand which really shows of the
zone system. 

It is not necessary to make HDR images to get a broad range. In Lightroom
you can use all sliders to place important detail in the zones where you
want it. Just learn to use ALL the features in Lightroom, beginning with WB
and working your way down to HSL with individual colors, placing them
wherever appropriate to get what you want.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
-- Ansel Adams

Learn your camera and composition like you know how to walk, and you will
keep improving. When you were a baby, you could not stand. But, no one could
tell you that you could not learn. You practiced, fell, pulled yourself up,
and kept practicing no matter how many times you fell. You learned to walk,
run, ride a bike, press a shutter, and much more. Never let anyone convince
you that you can not learn to make pictures like Ansel Adams or Edward
Weston and those who followed them. Only those who quit before they learn
ever fail. Before long, you will learn all you need.

Ye Old Codger

________________________________
From: Jacob <jacob@photo3dart. <mailto:jacob%40photo3dart.com> com>
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 7:40:13 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

Andre, thanks for showing this site. It does give some technical info but
it's all relevant to the film processing. I'm not going back to film just to
reproduce this effect. 
I tried HDRI processing using Photomatix. I usually bracket, so I shoot 3
times which is what needed for Photomatix. I had to convert images to B&W
before exporting them to tiff because Photomatix reads original raw without
Lightroom adjustmetns.
Then I've made different HDRI images using different tome mapping, imported
them back to Lightroom. After some adjustments (like fill light, blacks,
clarity) I've got better images than before, smoother tones. 
They still don't look like Berts' but may be because he shoots at dawn and
his images are pretty dark.

It's amazing that with digital I need to shoot 3 times and HDRI processing
to get little bit close to what he gets with one shot and special
processing.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com

---

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





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

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by laraley2001

some of the images to which you refer look to be processed with lucis arts. it has a unique look, different than HDR and actually prints up quite nicely, opening up shadow areas. properly done it is a nice tool. overdone and it is just downright ugly. and screams "LUCIS!"


lara


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "andre1moreau" <andre1moreau@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob@> wrote:
> > Now I'd like to know - how did he do it and how to reproduce this    > look?
> 
> Hello Jacobs,
> 
> It seems that the photos you are refering to are shown at the following site:
> 
> http://www.jeanmichelberts.com/index_en.html
> 
> Hover your mouse on the homepage pic and choose the "The Technical Pan" link: I think you'll get the info you're looking for.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by C D Tobie

On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:07 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> RAW does not give you anything.

Actually RAW gives you high bit, which is the whole value of it. But  
if there is a high bit file behind the visible veil of 8 bits per  
channel (all that you can actually see of any file, high bit or not),  
then its the adjustments you can make to the RAW, high bit file,  
without it breaking up as an 8 bit per channel file will, that is the  
value of RAW. So yes, HDR-like capabilities are one form of taking  
advantage of RAW; as is opening the shadows and finding more shadow  
detail instead of just noise, or salvaging highlights without creating  
problems elsewhere. So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to  
false as to be incorrect.. ;-)

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by E.Neilsen

David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be maintained but
it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your exposure it
is still screwed. The information hitting the sensor is of course maintained
in the file and compared to a JPEG there is so much more to work with it is
crazy not to use it, but I stand by my answer in that RAW gives you nothing,
but rather you give yourself data to work with when you make a proper
exposure and use a RAW processor. 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  


On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:07 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> RAW does not give you anything.

Actually RAW gives you high bit, which is the whole value of it. But 
if there is a high bit file behind the visible veil of 8 bits per 
channel (all that you can actually see of any file, high bit or not), 
then its the adjustments you can make to the RAW, high bit file, 
without it breaking up as an 8 bit per channel file will, that is the 
value of RAW. So yes, HDR-like capabilities are one form of taking 
advantage of RAW; as is opening the shadows and finding more shadow 
detail instead of just noise, or salvaging highlights without creating 
problems elsewhere. So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to 
false as to be incorrect.. ;-)

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor. <mailto:CDTobie%40datacolor.com> com

----------

Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3

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





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by C D Tobie

On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:17 AM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be  
> maintained but
> it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your  
> exposure it
> is still screwed

If you blow out the highlights, RAW will offer modest improvements in  
other areas when you attempt to patch of that lack of data at the very  
top. But for any other exposure issue, say underexposing, RAW offers  
(depending on the camera and settings) anywhere from a minor to a  
major amount of extra data, and can allow corrections of as much as  
three stops worth of exposure compensation. Thats a pretty big  
advantage; but only advantageous if you actually make adjustments to  
the highbit file.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by E.Neilsen

David, That's true, but it all starts with exposure. Without out an exposure
there is nothing. So while RAW allows you to make a better image than JPEG,
which I am not suggesting as a format to use, the exposure is where it all
starts; that gives you some data to work with. Exposure compensation is
nothing more than the Zone system.  Having made wonderful prints for years
from all sorts of negatives and digital files, a properly exposed file will
print with very little effort. On the other hand, one that is far less than
perfect can still produce prints that the average person will not be able
see the tremendous amount of effort used to fix it. Nor will they ever know
that there was a difference between the two.

 

If you want to equate RAW with a recoverable file that the viewer can't tell
you spend great effort to fix with giving you something, than fine. But I'll
take a properly made capture any day over the information given to me that
needs fixing.  

 

Also the part about more than you can use in LR, suggest that LR has good
noise handling which those that have spent anytime with noise reduction
software would admit that several noise reduction software that are superior
to LR's noise reduction. And it is the low exposure values that film is
still better at than most digital cameras being used. 

 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:26 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  


On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:17 AM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be 
> maintained but
> it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your 
> exposure it
> is still screwed

If you blow out the highlights, RAW will offer modest improvements in 
other areas when you attempt to patch of that lack of data at the very 
top. But for any other exposure issue, say underexposing, RAW offers 
(depending on the camera and settings) anywhere from a minor to a 
major amount of extra data, and can allow corrections of as much as 
three stops worth of exposure compensation. Thats a pretty big 
advantage; but only advantageous if you actually make adjustments to 
the highbit file.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor. <mailto:CDTobie%40datacolor.com> com

----------

Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3

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





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by C D Tobie

On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:46 AM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> If you want to equate RAW with a recoverable file that the viewer  
> can't tell
> you spend great effort to fix with giving you something, than fine.

Fair enough, in darkroom terms, but a couple of slider adjustments, or  
a preset to apply them, in Lightroom is not a great effort. I  
regularly underexpose to avoid blowing out the highlights, then open  
the shadows etc... to compensate. Thats the beauty of RAW.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

[Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Iric S

I joined PhotoCamel to look at your work.  Very nice indeed.  You have the transition from film Zone System to Digital that I am trying to reproduce.  Also, PhotoCamel looks to be the type of forum that I have been looking for, so thank you for that as well.

Iric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Johnston <e_5th_rct@...> wrote:
>
> You can always get the detail in the area you want with correct exposure.  In RAW, you can get more than you can use in Lightroom or Print.  And proper post processing can compress zones to show all important detail in a long zone.  
> 
> Aim to print from no detail in zone 0 to no detail in zone 10 or put ONLY important detail in those areas.  One key is not trying to show detail in all these areas.  It gives you pure black in zone 0 and specular highlights in 0, with all other detail spread through the other zones.
> 
> It has appeared to me in a lot of BW work Ive seen, too many are attempting to get all the detail available in blacks even that which is not important.  That makes for a lot of flat images.  Allowing any detail to go black which is not important to the image makes for a better or more interesting image.  
> 
> One of my favorites is the one of the beach in my previous message.  With a long tonal range.  Not all images of a beach can look like this, but in this image the sand is actually Black volcanic sand which really shows of the zone system. 
> 
> It is not necessary to make HDR images to get a broad range.   In Lightroom you can use all sliders to place important detail in the zones where you want it.  Just learn to use ALL the features in Lightroom, beginning with WB and working your way down to HSL with individual colors, placing them wherever appropriate to get what you want.
> 
> "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams
> 
> Learn your camera and composition like you know how to walk, and you will keep improving.  When you were a baby, you could not stand.  But, no one could tell you that you could not learn.  You practiced, fell, pulled yourself up, and kept practicing no matter how many times you fell.  You learned to walk, run, ride a bike, press a shutter, and much more.  Never let anyone convince you that you can not learn to make pictures like Ansel Adams or Edward Weston and those who followed them.  Only those who quit before they learn ever fail.  Before long, you will learn all you need.
> 
> Ye Old Codger
.
.
Earlier posts deleted

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

Yep, it is actually _very_ easy to make adjustments to create BW in Lightroom.   Unfortunately like Ive been aware of ever since the 30's many just do not read manuals for cameras or since the 70's, they do not read documentation enough to really learn how to get the best out of computer equipment and that can change.

Fortunately for me, my grandfather taught me to read.  He gave me a book, put a bunch of drops of honey on the cover.  Told me to lick it off, as I did he said, "what you read will be sweeter than honey."   Became an obsessive reader, reading two to four books every week of my life.  By the time I was in the 9th grade when tested had the education equal to a 2nd year college student.

We can read ONE book, and learn what too the author 10 years to a lifetime to learn.  The more books we read, the more it reinforces that learning, even if we only learn 2-10 new things from a new book.

When I read a manual, I first read all Chapter headings, and subheadings.  While your eyes see them the brain also records much of the Chapter.  Then all bold face type.  Then I read it fast, picking out the paragraphs I feel are most important. Then read the parts more slowly which are most important to me.

Highlighting the first sentence with a marker, when important. 

Then, when I need to refresh memory I go back and read only the first line of those paragraphs. In a well written book the first sentence should contain all that is important in the paragraph. This makes it easy to go back and review important things when I need them.  When going to school, Id just review the sentences that Id marked before a test.  By doing this it made it really easy to review quickly and get good grade.  Have met many who have never been taught to do this.   When you do it, many times you know more about using programs like Lightroom than those using it for months or years.

Today, when we study things WE are really interested in learning, it is even more important to review or learn materiel.  And to get rid of feelings of resentment about being forced to study things we were not interested in learning.

Photography is really easy to learn, when we allow ourselves the proper amount of time to learn.  We learned to walk one step at a time, we can learn anything easy, one step at a time.
Quote from the following link:

Believe it or not, exposure skills 
DO NOT COMEwith it!

When you buy an expensive GUITAR, you KNOW that playing skills 
DO NOT COMEwith it!
When you buy an expensiveCAR, you KNOW that driving skills 
DO NOT COME with it!
When you buy an expensiveCAMERA, why, then, 
do youNOT KNOW that exposure skills 
DO NOT COME  with it?
http://http://simplifiedzonesystem.com/



We have available the entire Internet where a search will turn up valuable information we need.  Yet people keep asking the same questions in forums, instead of taking three minutes to search.  Then, like some here who provide answers, _you_ can prove things you find.  If only a dozen readers did this, this forum could be a lot more valuable to every one....  Even at 80 years, Ive learned new things here, and all over the Internet, we can all contribute or "pay it forward" or find things we know will help.  


http://http://simplifiedzonesystem.com/


Learn to use the Zone system, your images can be as good or  better than mine and you can produce work better than you dreamed, in the future.

Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

You say "Raw gives you nothing."   BUT, it DOES give you a lot more than JPG, so that is not a true statement.  

The person who decides to use RAW instead of JPG is the person who is more interested in producing a better image.  Because of the ability of lightroom to compensate for poor exposure, they still get a better print, than with JPG.  Then, that person will learn more about exposure than the person who insists on using JPG, as time passes, and do better in the future.

Plus, because Lightroom does not modify the original JPG.  Even if the camera they use only makes JPGs, as they learn about exposure or use Lightroom and their camera  better, they can go back to produce better prints.  Thus it is best to encourage everyone to use RAW if they possibly can.  Get them to use it, and then teach them how to use it properly by leading them to the zone system.

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob




________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: E.Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 5:17:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be maintained but
it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your exposure it
is still screwed. The information hitting the sensor is of course maintained
in the file and compared to a JPEG there is so much more to work with it is
crazy not to use it, but I stand by my answer in that RAW gives you nothing,
but rather you give yourself data to work with when you make a proper
exposure and use a RAW processor. 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphot ography.com

skype me with ejprinter

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:07 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> RAW does not give you anything.

Actually RAW gives you high bit, which is the whole value of it. But 
if there is a high bit file behind the visible veil of 8 bits per 
channel (all that you can actually see of any file, high bit or not), 
then its the adjustments you can make to the RAW, high bit file, 
without it breaking up as an 8 bit per channel file will, that is the 
value of RAW. So yes, HDR-like capabilities are one form of taking 
advantage of RAW; as is opening the shadows and finding more shadow 
detail instead of just noise, or salvaging highlights without creating 
problems elsewhere. So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to 
false as to be incorrect.. ;-)

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor. <mailto:CDTobie% 40datacolor. com> com

----------

Datacolor
www.datacolor. com/Spyder3

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

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


 

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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by E.Neilsen

Perhaps the "RAW gives" presumption is where I just had to say let's stop
and talk here. I don't think you should be thinking that I am supporting
Jpeg over raw. A developer can ONLY give you something if there is something
to work with. There were on the B&W side many choices to be made when it
came to a developer. RAW allows you one to explore. It is the program that
gives that file life. And still as you point out, there does need to be
someone behind the process. 

 

The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW
gave you. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not
gone down the path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame.    

 

 "So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to false as to be incorrect..
;-)   David Tobie" 

 

context, context, context.


I would not include a Jpeg in a workflow that would render from such a long
exposure as the photos sited nor would ye, Ol Codger Bob. RAW is presumed.
Since RAW is presumed it can give me no more than the exposure I give it.
The program that processes the RAW file can do no more than it can do with
the exposure that I give it. Both file and program can only act as devices
to hold that which is given even if they present the information
differently. The aqueous to digital can only go so far with just a simple
film developer, because as LR processes the image, it starts to add the
aqueous print side including toning, etc. Which is not meant to be included
in the give side : )  

 

I didn't see on Berts' site discussion of output of his files, just original
capture. Perhaps his site needs an additional visit. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Johnston
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:08 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

You say "Raw gives you nothing." BUT, it DOES give you a lot more than JPG,
so that is not a true statement. 

The person who decides to use RAW instead of JPG is the person who is more
interested in producing a better image. Because of the ability of lightroom
to compensate for poor exposure, they still get a better print, than with
JPG. Then, that person will learn more about exposure than the person who
insists on using JPG, as time passes, and do better in the future.

Plus, because Lightroom does not modify the original JPG. Even if the camera
they use only makes JPGs, as they learn about exposure or use Lightroom and
their camera better, they can go back to produce better prints. Thus it is
best to encourage everyone to use RAW if they possibly can. Get them to use
it, and then teach them how to use it properly by leading them to the zone
system.

Ye Ol' Codger Bob

________________________________
From: E.Neilsen <e.neilsen2@att. <mailto:e.neilsen2%40att.net> net>
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 5:17:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be maintained but
it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your exposure it
is still screwed. The information hitting the sensor is of course maintained
in the file and compared to a JPEG there is so much more to work with it is
crazy not to use it, but I stand by my answer in that RAW gives you nothing,
but rather you give yourself data to work with when you make a proper
exposure and use a RAW processor. 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphot ography.com

skype me with ejprinter

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of C D
Tobie
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:07 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> RAW does not give you anything.

Actually RAW gives you high bit, which is the whole value of it. But 
if there is a high bit file behind the visible veil of 8 bits per 
channel (all that you can actually see of any file, high bit or not), 
then its the adjustments you can make to the RAW, high bit file, 
without it breaking up as an 8 bit per channel file will, that is the 
value of RAW. So yes, HDR-like capabilities are one form of taking 
advantage of RAW; as is opening the shadows and finding more shadow 
detail instead of just noise, or salvaging highlights without creating 
problems elsewhere. So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to 
false as to be incorrect.. ;-)

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor. <mailto:CDTobie% 40datacolor. com> com

----------

Datacolor
www.datacolor. com/Spyder3

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

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

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





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

Eric, 
You can believe what you want to believe, but opinion is not fact. 
My statement must not be taken out of context or twisting my words into what you want for your purposes, whatever they may be does not work.  Read what I say, not what you want to read into it.

My motto is "Keep Implimenting Simple Solutions."  

 I said, "You can always get the detail in the area _you want_ with correct exposure.  In RAW, you can get more than you can use in Lightroom or Print."  And BOTH sentences apply to what I said.

You can make your print to show more detail in the highlights or in the shadow areas as you have it ALL....  I've never had a shot where the highlights were blocked in RAW, because I learned how to expose correctly in 1936, and became a professional in 1942.

With RAW in Lightroom, you have more data than you can Print.
If in doubt in questionable situations, bracket and you have even more than you ever need to make any Print You Want.  

Some people attempt to make photography sound much more difficult than necessary.  I taught 4H Clubs and Scouts photography for decades, in a manner which made it easy.   With one lesson a week, in 4-6 weeks they were developing their own film. Composing images better.  Making prints which were better than many amateurs who had been taking pictures for decades.

When you can get more detail in RAW, than JPG which is the only thing you can compare it with in Digital and this is a forum discussing Digital BW, not film, which we all know is not comparable.  You can make a better PRINT, than you can with JPG which in its very nature deletes detail.... Then proper post processing can produce the range of zones you want to include, to show all important detail.  


You said, "garbage is still garbage" is true.  EVEN with perfect exposures, technical ability does not equate to creativity.

Photographers take pictures. 
Artists create the Image in their mind, and complete it in a Darkroom or  Photoshop.

When attending Ansel Adams seminars he said,
"Over 80 percent of my images are created in the darkroom." --  Ansel Adams

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: E.Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...>

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 7:07:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
Ye Old Codger, Your opening statement is provocative  but so very close to
false as to be incorrect. RAW does not give you anything. It is a file
format of the exposure and if your exposure is crap so will the file be. A
bad exposure is a bad exposure. It is true more can be done with it, but
garbage is still garbage.  We can all agree that,  intent and vision,  pre
and post exposure control, are important to good imagery. Lightroom can not
create detail where there is none, even though it can reveal some that might
otherwise be lost. 

Lightroom is but one of many RAW processors, and much like Kodak, Agfa,
Ansco, Fuji et la are to the aqueous based images; a means to an end that
has certain predispositions to that end. Full toned images are not so much
flat as expanded to a point that much more is visible producing lower
localized contrast throughout the entire image. 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

___ 

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

"The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW gave you. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not gone down the path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame."

Eric,
Maybe what is confusing me, is why there is even a discussion about "film vs digital" in a forum about "Digital BW."  There are many other locations for such a discussion.  There is no comparison, its talking apples and oranges.  Both are fruit, you may have a preference, but they will never taste the same.  

After using film for 72 years and digital for one, will never go back to film. Doubt any discussion it would convince anyone, who chooses to use digital...  When I can get what is desired in a finished print from digital, that is all that counts. Went to your website, both of them.  If those images are shot with film, am not convinced that you are doing better with film, than can be done with digital.

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

Once Id been taking most Photography magazines for 4-5 years always got
the feeling that Id seen all the articles over and over.   Many seemed
like re-writes of the same materiel, however at times there was new
information of value.  SO had to decide if it was worth a subscription,
to get the new things. 





________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "mike-theprint@..." <mike-theprint@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 5:12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:29:47PM -0000, pr_roark wrote:

> I think its the dodging and burning style that we're seeing.  These
> images have been worked up for the artistic effects.

Yeah, I don't think this is just film development. Look at the diamonds
in the railing in the image on the home page. He's lightened the insides
to show the wire mesh, but left the outsides alone, and the result is
that two parts of the scene which should be the same tone are not. Look
also at Paris image 23 - somehow the fog lightens the rock behind it.

I think the photos look unnatural as a result.

I have to say I'm kind of disappointed by LensWork - after being
subscribed for about 4 years I feel like I'm seeing the same portfolios
over and over.

-- 



_,__
OOncen_ 

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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by E.Neilsen

Rob, I am not meaningfully trying to bend your words, but just put them in
context. Film vs. digital is based on context of images being discussed; HDR
look and Mr. Berts use of TechPan and technidol. Digital did not rise out of
a vacuum so I am just adding to the discussion about the connection between
those points, and for those on the list that have never used Techpan. Also,
since the digital B&W group is the deal, and scanning is part of the process
to acquire files, any and all discussion that includes information pertinent
to  capture on film, the scanning and processing of files works for me. 

 

Images on my web sites contain images from original film formats from 110,
127, 2 1/4 and 4x5 as well as scanned prints. Images also include direct
digital capture. Images appearing on my sites have been there from as early
1994 to present. So without a direct reference, I have no idea as to which
images you refer. Scans have been made by me, for me and over many years.
There even be some there that are not much more than unedited scans with
their flaws of dust etc. 

 

I took a quick peek at your site, and quite a few images have what appears
to be excessive amounts of color noise. Perhaps due to over use of clarity,
fill, or just format of images to web. If those are all digital, you might
want to pick back up the Graphic and load a few sheets of 4x5 and have some
fun : )     

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Johnston
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  


"The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW
gave you. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not
gone down the path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame."

Eric,
Maybe what is confusing me, is why there is even a discussion about "film vs
digital" in a forum about "Digital BW." There are many other locations for
such a discussion. There is no comparison, its talking apples and oranges.
Both are fruit, you may have a preference, but they will never taste the
same. 

After using film for 72 years and digital for one, will never go back to
film. Doubt any discussion it would convince anyone, who chooses to use
digital... When I can get what is desired in a finished print from digital,
that is all that counts. Went to your website, both of them. If those images
are shot with film, am not convinced that you are doing better with film,
than can be done with digital.

Ye Ol' Codger Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston. <http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/> zenfolio.com/

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





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by CorrPro96@aol.com

This thread is turning into a pissing contest.... Time to let it go??

Rich
www.rmassiephotography.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Johnston <e_5th_rct@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts




The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW gave 
ou. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not gone down 
he path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame."
Eric,
aybe what is confusing me, is why there is even a discussion about "film vs 
igital" in a forum about "Digital BW."  There are many other locations for such 
 discussion.  There is no comparison, its talking apples and oranges.  Both are 
ruit, you may have a preference, but they will never taste the same.  
After using film for 72 years and digital for one, will never go back to film. 
oubt any discussion it would convince anyone, who chooses to use digital...  
hen I can get what is desired in a finished print from digital, that is all 
hat counts. Went to your website, both of them.  If those images are shot with 
ilm, am not convinced that you are doing better with film, than can be done 
ith digital.
 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine
Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
ttp://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they 
re 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 
nsubscribe, 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 
hort.
 Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, 
ggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without 
otice.
 Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
rinting. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the 
embership.
 By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, 
nd to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See 
Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
ttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! 
ROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF 
IGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, 
NDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT 
OT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
NTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
ESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
AHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
ATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP.
ahoo! Groups Links
   Individual Email | Traditional
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-16 by Robert Johnston

Used a Speed Graphic in Combat, have no desire to use one again.

Like you, have used many, many cameras over the years, with over 2000 images on the website, many came from scans made from 4x6" prints which had faded badly.  My first camera was a used/broken bellows Kodak made in 1928.  It was given to me to play with, took it apart and put the bellows back on the track.  Then used it for about ten years.

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/




________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: E.Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 11:06:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  

I took a quick peek at your site, and quite a few images have what appears
to be excessive amounts of color noise. Perhaps due to over use of clarity,
fill, or just format of images to web. If those are all digital, you might
want to pick back up the Graphic and load a few sheets of 4x5 and have some
fun : ) 

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

[Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-17 by Jacob

I've spent last days trying to figure out secret of Mr. Berts (by the way pictures of Ansel Adams have similar quality).
First of all - it's not dynamic range. If anything he uses smaller dynamic range then I do, only the left part of it, no clipped pixels.
He actually uses all dynamic range on the left (dark tones) very carefully approaching the edge without loosing dark pixels. And he uses right part very little so his pictures don't have a lot of light tones.
Zone 10 he may not use at all (the lightest tones), so he doesn't use all dynamic range.
I think what make his pictures are amazing details in the black. He uses big camera and tripod, low grain film and long exposure, exposed by shadow and under developed. This all gives amazing resolution in the shadows.   
We can also use tripod if situation permits, low ISO but avoid long exposures. What we also can do is try different plugins to enhance details. One of them was mentioned in this thread - lucis. 
Yes it may work. After the picture is prepped in Lightroom I've exported it on PS3 and enhanced details with lucis. The picture got very nice details in blacks looking much nicer.
So may be this is it?
We shoot picture exposing by shadows which I believe moves histogram to the right (which is common technique because the right side of the histogram preserves more details). 
In Lightroom we move histogram to the left, usually I add fill light and darks and clarity, convert to black and white, adjust colors as needed
Export to PS3 and add details with lucis - very carefuly
Print without loosing details in the shadows

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-19 by Tony Wells

Hello Jacob,

While I have been following this thread with interest, I would like to take the opportunity to say how much I enjoyed perusing YOUR site, as well as Mr Berts'! As you seem to have gotten the exposure metering for B&W spot on, without resorting to the heavy dodging and burning so obvious on other B&W photographs, do you convert digital photographs to B&W, adjusting the exposure through the use of the histogram which you mention both here and previous posts, or scan in B&W films or prints, either before or after dodging and burning to produce a Fine Print though please? Although being a "soot and white wash" man, I am still striving to produce a GOOD (rather than acceptable) digital B&W print from a digital camera, so find myself still using one of my film cameras and scanning the negatives in, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts!

TonyW.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jacob 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:08 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts


    


  I've spent last days trying to figure out secret of Mr. Berts (by the way pictures of Ansel Adams have similar quality).
  First of all - it's not dynamic range. If anything he uses smaller dynamic range then I do, only the left part of it, no clipped pixels.
  He actually uses all dynamic range on the left (dark tones) very carefully approaching the edge without loosing dark pixels. And he uses right part very little so his pictures don't have a lot of light tones.
  Zone 10 he may not use at all (the lightest tones), so he doesn't use all dynamic range.
  I think what make his pictures are amazing details in the black. He uses big camera and tripod, low grain film and long exposure, exposed by shadow and under developed. This all gives amazing resolution in the shadows. 
  We can also use tripod if situation permits, low ISO but avoid long exposures. What we also can do is try different plugins to enhance details. One of them was mentioned in this thread - lucis. 
  Yes it may work. After the picture is prepped in Lightroom I've exported it on PS3 and enhanced details with lucis. The picture got very nice details in blacks looking much nicer.
  So may be this is it?
  We shoot picture exposing by shadows which I believe moves histogram to the right (which is common technique because the right side of the histogram preserves more details). 
  In Lightroom we move histogram to the left, usually I add fill light and darks and clarity, convert to black and white, adjust colors as needed
  Export to PS3 and add details with lucis - very carefuly
  Print without loosing details in the shadows

  Jacob Mann
  http://www.photo3dart.com



  

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

Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-20 by Don

Interesting work I suppose, but in all honesty his website is one of the worst I've tried to navigate - a total pain in the ass.

Don Bryant
>
> In the latest "LensWork" there are pictures of French photographer Jean-Michel Berts.

[Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-20 by Jacob

Thank you Tony. 
I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon 17-35mm lens. I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in exposure using evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.

I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or dark shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using 'recovery' slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open shadows. I may also use brush for local changes.

If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to Photoshop and join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can use highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed image.
It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if highlights are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will give you just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise and not enough details.

Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful images with digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and doing all technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.

One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in Lightroom after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local changes without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it works on raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while shooting - you can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue in it) or lighten the leaves with 'green' slider. 

So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard work, we have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way around weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me either on the group or directly.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Wells" <oaksfield@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Hello Jacob,
> 
> While I have been following this thread with interest, I would like to take the opportunity to say how much I enjoyed perusing YOUR site, as well as Mr Berts'! As you seem to have gotten the exposure metering for B&W spot on, without resorting to the heavy dodging and burning so obvious on other B&W photographs, do you convert digital photographs to B&W, adjusting the exposure through the use of the histogram which you mention both here and previous posts, or scan in B&W films or prints, either before or after dodging and burning to produce a Fine Print though please? Although being a "soot and white wash" man, I am still striving to produce a GOOD (rather than acceptable) digital B&W print from a digital camera, so find myself still using one of my film cameras and scanning the negatives in, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts!
> 
> TonyW.
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Jacob 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:08 PM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
>   I've spent last days trying to figure out secret of Mr. Berts (by the way pictures of Ansel Adams have similar quality).
>   First of all - it's not dynamic range. If anything he uses smaller dynamic range then I do, only the left part of it, no clipped pixels.
>   He actually uses all dynamic range on the left (dark tones) very carefully approaching the edge without loosing dark pixels. And he uses right part very little so his pictures don't have a lot of light tones.
>   Zone 10 he may not use at all (the lightest tones), so he doesn't use all dynamic range.
>   I think what make his pictures are amazing details in the black. He uses big camera and tripod, low grain film and long exposure, exposed by shadow and under developed. This all gives amazing resolution in the shadows. 
>   We can also use tripod if situation permits, low ISO but avoid long exposures. What we also can do is try different plugins to enhance details. One of them was mentioned in this thread - lucis. 
>   Yes it may work. After the picture is prepped in Lightroom I've exported it on PS3 and enhanced details with lucis. The picture got very nice details in blacks looking much nicer.
>   So may be this is it?
>   We shoot picture exposing by shadows which I believe moves histogram to the right (which is common technique because the right side of the histogram preserves more details). 
>   In Lightroom we move histogram to the left, usually I add fill light and darks and clarity, convert to black and white, adjust colors as needed
>   Export to PS3 and add details with lucis - very carefuly
>   Print without loosing details in the shadows
> 
>   Jacob Mann
>   http://www.photo3dart.com
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-20 by E.Neilsen

Jacob, You said, "And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise
and not enough details." You do mean dodge here right? 

I would also caution user that use the luminance tool in Lightroom to darken
a color, specifically skies, that an increase in noise can be a problem. I
find that I have just one filter with me when I shoot digital; a polarizer.
The fill light to open shadows is the biggest culprit to un wanted noise. 

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:48 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  



Thank you Tony. 
I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon 17-35mm lens.
I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in exposure using
evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.

I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or dark
shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using 'recovery'
slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open shadows. I
may also use brush for local changes.

If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to Photoshop and
join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can use
highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed image.
It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if highlights
are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will give you
just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise
and not enough details.

Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful images with
digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and doing all
technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.

One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in Lightroom
after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of
different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local changes
without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it works on
raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while shooting - you
can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue in it) or
lighten the leaves with 'green' slider. 

So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard work, we
have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way around
weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me either on
the group or directly.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com




.

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
=98236/stime=1258724911/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5689698> 





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-20 by Derek Hamlet

At 05:47 20/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Thank you Tony.
>I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon 
>17-35mm lens. I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop 
>difference in exposure using evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.

etc. <snip>
I am always amazed and gratified by the generosity to share 
techniques and "secrets" by the members of this list.  It indeed 
increases opportunities for all of us to try and create art and beauty.
Thanks to all of you.


Derek
Papoucanada on skype

[Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-20 by Jacob

Eric,

you are right. I'm still not used to the difference between negative processing and positive one.

We used to burn shadows when we had dark spots on the negative and we covered all picture leaving open the dark spots to allow more light there. In Photoshop we dodge shadows because it's positive process like slide. I actually never used this tool.

Sure any exposure manipulation increases noise which brings us back to bracketing. But if you do it in Lightroom (especially in new beta version which is so good in noise reduction and sharpening) the penalty is not so bad.

I've printed size 30"x40" from a picture taken with ISO 800 and with exposure correction 1 stop and the quality (noise and sharpness) is pretty good.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3dart.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Jacob, You said, "And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise
> and not enough details." You do mean dodge here right? 
> 
> I would also caution user that use the luminance tool in Lightroom to darken
> a color, specifically skies, that an increase in noise can be a problem. I
> find that I have just one filter with me when I shoot digital; a polarizer.
> The fill light to open shadows is the biggest culprit to un wanted noise. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:48 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Tony. 
> I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon 17-35mm lens.
> I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in exposure using
> evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.
> 
> I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or dark
> shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using 'recovery'
> slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open shadows. I
> may also use brush for local changes.
> 
> If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to Photoshop and
> join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can use
> highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed image.
> It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if highlights
> are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will give you
> just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise
> and not enough details.
> 
> Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful images with
> digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and doing all
> technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.
> 
> One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in Lightroom
> after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of
> different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local changes
> without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it works on
> raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while shooting - you
> can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue in it) or
> lighten the leaves with 'green' slider. 
> 
> So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard work, we
> have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way around
> weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.
> 
> I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me either on
> the group or directly.
> 
> Jacob Mann
> http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> =98236/stime=1258724911/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5689698> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-21 by E.Neilsen

Jacob,  It sounds to me that you are really confused. Burn is to darken,
dodge is to lighten. Whether you are in PS or the darkroom, a burn makes
what your working on darker, and a dodge makes it lighter. I don't think the
noise reduction in LR is still adequate and many of the plug in are still
superior to Adobe in either LR or PS. Bracketing in digital is NOT the same
as zone system in film  as the sensor doesn't really change. The film is a
real hard object with real changes built into it. Digital sensors change the
interpretation of the data, but the sensor does not really change. Sure
there are differences in it, but they are not like film.  

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

 <http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com> www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

Eric,

you are right. I'm still not used to the difference between negative
processing and positive one.

We used to burn shadows when we had dark spots on the negative and we
covered all picture leaving open the dark spots to allow more light there.
In Photoshop we dodge shadows because it's positive process like slide. I
actually never used this tool.

Sure any exposure manipulation increases noise which brings us back to
bracketing. But if you do it in Lightroom (especially in new beta version
which is so good in noise reduction and sharpening) the penalty is not so
bad.

I've printed size 30"x40" from a picture taken with ISO 800 and with
exposure correction 1 stop and the quality (noise and sharpness) is pretty
good.

Jacob Mann
http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Jacob, You said, "And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of
noise
> and not enough details." You do mean dodge here right? 
> 
> I would also caution user that use the luminance tool in Lightroom to
darken
> a color, specifically skies, that an increase in noise can be a problem. I
> find that I have just one filter with me when I shoot digital; a
polarizer.
> The fill light to open shadows is the biggest culprit to un wanted noise. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:48 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Tony. 
> I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon 17-35mm
lens.
> I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in exposure using
> evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.
> 
> I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or dark
> shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using 'recovery'
> slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open shadows. I
> may also use brush for local changes.
> 
> If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to Photoshop and
> join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can use
> highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed image.
> It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if
highlights
> are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will give you
> just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot of noise
> and not enough details.
> 
> Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful images with
> digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and doing
all
> technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.
> 
> One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in
Lightroom
> after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of
> different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local changes
> without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it works on
> raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while shooting - you
> can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue in it)
or
> lighten the leaves with 'green' slider. 
> 
> So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard work, we
> have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way around
> weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.
> 
> I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me either on
> the group or directly.
> 
> Jacob Mann
> http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com>
rt.com> rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> <http://geo.yahoo.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> =98236/stime=1258724911/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5689698> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-22 by Dave

It's easy to see how anyone can be confused. We're using terminology  
that's appropriate for film and paper, but entirely inadequate for  
digital processing.

When we burned in the darkroom, we were increasing exposure to the  
paper. When we dodged, we were lessening, or holding back exposure to  
the paper. In a program like Lightroom, the terminology just doesn't  
work because in effect, we're working on a direct positive. Applying a  
local adjustment that's meant to darken an area requires the user to  
select a lower exposure value for that tool, whereas lightening an  
area is done by increasing the exposure value.

For those of us that spent a good part of our lives locked in a little  
room, working on our images far from the light of day, the transition  
comes a little easier - exposure control became an innate skill. We  
thought about lightening and darkening by using our timers, our hands,  
and whatever scraps of cardboard or paper were laying around the  
darkroom at the time. There were no menus - no digital burning and  
dodging tools to pick from a palette. We just did what we did - words  
really didn't enter into it.

For my part, I think we need to drop the old terminology. Burning and  
dodging don't exist outside of the darkroom - we need to talk about  
local darkening and lightening.

Just my $0.02.

All best,
Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/



On Nov 21, 2009, at 4:55 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> Jacob, It sounds to me that you are really confused. Burn is to  
> darken,
> dodge is to lighten. Whether you are in PS or the darkroom, a burn  
> makes
> what your working on darker, and a dodge makes it lighter. I don't  
> think the
> noise reduction in LR is still adequate and many of the plug in are  
> still
> superior to Adobe in either LR or PS. Bracketing in digital is NOT  
> the same
> as zone system in film as the sensor doesn't really change. The film  
> is a
> real hard object with real changes built into it. Digital sensors  
> change the
> interpretation of the data, but the sensor does not really change.  
> Sure
> there are differences in it, but they are not like film.
>
> Eric
>
> Eric Neilsen
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> <http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> skype me with ejprinter
>
> _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
> Jacob
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
>
> Eric,
>
> you are right. I'm still not used to the difference between negative
> processing and positive one.
>
> We used to burn shadows when we had dark spots on the negative and we
> covered all picture leaving open the dark spots to allow more light  
> there.
> In Photoshop we dodge shadows because it's positive process like  
> slide. I
> actually never used this tool.
>
> Sure any exposure manipulation increases noise which brings us back to
> bracketing. But if you do it in Lightroom (especially in new beta  
> version
> which is so good in noise reduction and sharpening) the penalty is  
> not so
> bad.
>
> I've printed size 30"x40" from a picture taken with ISO 800 and with
> exposure correction 1 stop and the quality (noise and sharpness) is  
> pretty
> good.
>
> Jacob Mann
> http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> >
> > Jacob, You said, "And if you burn dark shadows they will have a  
> lot of
> noise
> > and not enough details." You do mean dodge here right?
> >
> > I would also caution user that use the luminance tool in Lightroom  
> to
> darken
> > a color, specifically skies, that an increase in noise can be a  
> problem. I
> > find that I have just one filter with me when I shoot digital; a
> polarizer.
> > The fill light to open shadows is the biggest culprit to un wanted  
> noise.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen
> >
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> >
> >
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > skype me with ejprinter
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
> > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:48 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Tony.
> > I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon  
> 17-35mm
> lens.
> > I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in  
> exposure using
> > evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.
> >
> > I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or  
> dark
> > shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using  
> 'recovery'
> > slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open  
> shadows. I
> > may also use brush for local changes.
> >
> > If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to  
> Photoshop and
> > join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can  
> use
> > highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed  
> image.
> > It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if
> highlights
> > are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will  
> give you
> > just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot  
> of noise
> > and not enough details.
> >
> > Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful  
> images with
> > digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and  
> doing
> all
> > technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.
> >
> > One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in
> Lightroom
> > after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of
> > different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local  
> changes
> > without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it  
> works on
> > raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while  
> shooting - you
> > can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue  
> in it)
> or
> > lighten the leaves with 'green' slider.
> >
> > So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard  
> work, we
> > have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way  
> around
> > weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.
> >
> > I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me  
> either on
> > the group or directly.
> >
> > Jacob Mann
> > http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com>
> rt.com> rt.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> > <http://geo.yahoo.
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> > com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> > =98236/stime=1258724911/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5689698>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-22 by E.Neilsen

Dave, Digital photography is just going to have to learn how to deal with
hold over terms. How does unsharpmask work? That's right it makes things
sharper. Why use that term? It comes from the darkroom workflow. Dodge is
"to keep from hitting" so if you look at it as density, and building density
gets your numbers going towards 0, which is the dmin or black, it still
makes sense. Black is NOT a higher number but a lower number in RGB and that
is the most commonly used numbers by photographers. However black can be 100
with white 0. What scale or representation of a color value are you going to
use? Burn = blackened, soot, etc. However burn thing well like wood and wood
turns white ash : ) 

In Lightroom, while you are looking at the image represented as a positive,
you are still working on your DNG/RAW file (for the most part as you can
still work on JPEGs too). The image on your screen is what your image would
look like after the wet process. 

If you want to really mess with an industry already messed up from
processing to capture and the rest, start dropping terms that are
established photographic terms and lose context to it all. Big mistake. 

What is a mask? Perhaps, As I started teaching my platinum students, it is
nothing more than a layer; your set of instructions for a particular effect.
Each new layer, grade 00 to grade 5 burn or dodge is your layer set. 

Lightening an area is NOT only done with exposure. It is done with black
point, contrast, brightness, fill and exposure. These are all done in
combination. If you chose to allow Adobe to set your values, that is OK. It
works many times. The listings of profile in LR is already a slipper slope
in many respects.

Expecting the old terms to be retired is a bad idea. 
   

Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 7:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

It's easy to see how anyone can be confused. We're using terminology  
that's appropriate for film and paper, but entirely inadequate for  
digital processing.

When we burned in the darkroom, we were increasing exposure to the  
paper. When we dodged, we were lessening, or holding back exposure to  
the paper. In a program like Lightroom, the terminology just doesn't  
work because in effect, we're working on a direct positive. Applying a  
local adjustment that's meant to darken an area requires the user to  
select a lower exposure value for that tool, whereas lightening an  
area is done by increasing the exposure value.

For those of us that spent a good part of our lives locked in a little  
room, working on our images far from the light of day, the transition  
comes a little easier - exposure control became an innate skill. We  
thought about lightening and darkening by using our timers, our hands,  
and whatever scraps of cardboard or paper were laying around the  
darkroom at the time. There were no menus - no digital burning and  
dodging tools to pick from a palette. We just did what we did - words  
really didn't enter into it.

For my part, I think we need to drop the old terminology. Burning and  
dodging don't exist outside of the darkroom - we need to talk about  
local darkening and lightening.

Just my $0.02.

All best,
Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/



On Nov 21, 2009, at 4:55 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> Jacob, It sounds to me that you are really confused. Burn is to  
> darken,
> dodge is to lighten. Whether you are in PS or the darkroom, a burn  
> makes
> what your working on darker, and a dodge makes it lighter. I don't  
> think the
> noise reduction in LR is still adequate and many of the plug in are  
> still
> superior to Adobe in either LR or PS. Bracketing in digital is NOT  
> the same
> as zone system in film as the sensor doesn't really change. The film  
> is a
> real hard object with real changes built into it. Digital sensors  
> change the
> interpretation of the data, but the sensor does not really change.  
> Sure
> there are differences in it, but they are not like film.
>
> Eric
>
> Eric Neilsen
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> <http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> skype me with ejprinter
>
> _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
> Jacob
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
>
> Eric,
>
> you are right. I'm still not used to the difference between negative
> processing and positive one.
>
> We used to burn shadows when we had dark spots on the negative and we
> covered all picture leaving open the dark spots to allow more light  
> there.
> In Photoshop we dodge shadows because it's positive process like  
> slide. I
> actually never used this tool.
>
> Sure any exposure manipulation increases noise which brings us back to
> bracketing. But if you do it in Lightroom (especially in new beta  
> version
> which is so good in noise reduction and sharpening) the penalty is  
> not so
> bad.
>
> I've printed size 30"x40" from a picture taken with ISO 800 and with
> exposure correction 1 stop and the quality (noise and sharpness) is  
> pretty
> good.
>
> Jacob Mann
> http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com> rt.com
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> >
> > Jacob, You said, "And if you burn dark shadows they will have a  
> lot of
> noise
> > and not enough details." You do mean dodge here right?
> >
> > I would also caution user that use the luminance tool in Lightroom  
> to
> darken
> > a color, specifically skies, that an increase in noise can be a  
> problem. I
> > find that I have just one filter with me when I shoot digital; a
> polarizer.
> > The fill light to open shadows is the biggest culprit to un wanted  
> noise.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen
> >
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> >
> >
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > skype me with ejprinter
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
> > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:48 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Tony.
> > I do only digital. My current camera is Nikon D700 with Nikon  
> 17-35mm
> lens.
> > I use bracketing shooting 3 times with 1 stop difference in  
> exposure using
> > evaluative metering. I shoot in uncompressed raw.
> >
> > I don't do any dodging and burning. If I get blown highlights or  
> dark
> > shadows I will try to save the image first in Lightroom using  
> 'recovery'
> > slider to save highlights and 'fill light' and 'blacks' to open  
> shadows. I
> > may also use brush for local changes.
> >
> > If it's still not enough I will take my bracketing shots to  
> Photoshop and
> > join them as layers in one image using layer masks. This way I can  
> use
> > highlights from underexposed image and shadows from overexposed  
> image.
> > It gives much better quality than dodging and burning because if
> highlights
> > are blown there is just no information captured and dodging will  
> give you
> > just gray area. And if you burn dark shadows they will have a lot  
> of noise
> > and not enough details.
> >
> > Tony, at this point there is no question you can get beautiful  
> images with
> > digital camera, just make sure you have a good camera and lens and  
> doing
> all
> > technical stuff right: exposure, focusing, ISO.
> >
> > One more advise: shoot in color - not in black and white. Then in
> Lightroom
> > after converting to b&w you can use color sliders to adjust tones of
> > different colors. This is very powerful tool, you can make local  
> changes
> > without selections. And this tool has incredible range because it  
> works on
> > raw data. It makes it also unnecessary to use filters while  
> shooting - you
> > can always darken the sky with blue slider (if it has enough blue  
> in it)
> or
> > lighten the leaves with 'green' slider.
> >
> > So Tony, there are no secrets to good digital pictures, just hard  
> work, we
> > have to learn to use strong points of digital and to find our way  
> around
> > weak points, develop a workflow specific to our needs.
> >
> > I hope this helps. If you have more questions please contact me  
> either on
> > the group or directly.
> >
> > Jacob Mann
> > http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3da <http://www.photo3dart.com>
> rt.com> rt.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> > <http://geo.yahoo.
>
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> > com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
> > =98236/stime=1258724911/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5689698>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 



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



------------------------------------

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-22 by Dave

My point Eric, was that Jacob is doing digital photography. It's easy  
to see how a photographer with little or no experience in a wet  
darkroom can misunderstand terminology that was coined for that  
process. Fortunately, the designers at Adobe have seen the potential  
for confusion and they've avoided using those terms in Lightroom,  
opting for words that are specific to the digital process or identical  
in both processes.

As for the retirement of old terms, we'll just have to agree to  
disagree. New technology deserves its own terminology, especially in a  
area like photography, where the older methods are still very much in  
use.

All best,
Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/

On Nov 22, 2009, at 11:41 AM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> Dave, Digital photography is just going to have to learn how to deal  
> with
> hold over terms. How does unsharpmask work? That's right it makes  
> things
> sharper. Why use that term? It comes from the darkroom workflow.  
> Dodge is
> "to keep from hitting" so if you look at it as density, and building  
> density
> gets your numbers going towards 0, which is the dmin or black, it  
> still
> makes sense. Black is NOT a higher number but a lower number in RGB  
> and that
> is the most commonly used numbers by photographers. However black  
> can be 100
> with white 0. What scale or representation of a color value are you  
> going to
> use? Burn = blackened, soot, etc. However burn thing well like wood  
> and wood
> turns white ash : )
>
> In Lightroom, while you are looking at the image represented as a  
> positive,
> you are still working on your DNG/RAW file (for the most part as you  
> can
> still work on JPEGs too). The image on your screen is what your  
> image would
> look like after the wet process.
>
> If you want to really mess with an industry already messed up from
> processing to capture and the rest, start dropping terms that are
> established photographic terms and lose context to it all. Big  
> mistake.
>
> What is a mask? Perhaps, As I started teaching my platinum students,  
> it is
> nothing more than a layer; your set of instructions for a particular  
> effect.
> Each new layer, grade 00 to grade 5 burn or dodge is your layer set.
>
> Lightening an area is NOT only done with exposure. It is done with  
> black
> point, contrast, brightness, fill and exposure. These are all done in
> combination. If you chose to allow Adobe to set your values, that is  
> OK. It
> works many times. The listings of profile in LR is already a slipper  
> slope
> in many respects.
>
> Expecting the old terms to be retired is a bad idea.
>
>
> Eric Neilsen
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> skype me with ejprinter
>
>
>
> 



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

Is Terminology, was Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-22 by Tony Wells

To agree with Dave here, let's be honest - how long will it be until there aren't any of we wet darkroom bods left! When I retired some 13 years ago, I did a night school photography course, and only two of us, the lecturer and myself, had had any previous darkroom experience, with none of the others having any intention of repeating the experience. Should Adobe therefore do the same as Microsoft and say enough is enough, and stop this pseudo backwards compatibility, albeit just in terminology? As I said in my previous post (and thanks for the answer, btw - it is trapped on a very unhappy PC and so I have not been able to reply directly!), I still use film, but then scan the negs in for printing. I would be happy to use modern terminology for what to me is a completely new process, carried out in daylight!

TonyW.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts


    
  My point Eric, was that Jacob is doing digital photography. It's easy 
  to see how a photographer with little or no experience in a wet 
  darkroom can misunderstand terminology that was coined for that 
  process. Fortunately, the designers at Adobe have seen the potential 
  for confusion and they've avoided using those terms in Lightroom, 
  opting for words that are specific to the digital process or identical 
  in both processes.

  As for the retirement of old terms, we'll just have to agree to 
  disagree. New technology deserves its own terminology, especially in a 
  area like photography, where the older methods are still very much in 
  use.

  All best,
  Dave

  http://davereichertphoto.com/



  Reply to sender | Reply to group 
  Messages in this topic (47) 
  Recent Activity: a.. New Members 14 
  Visit Your Group Start a New Topic 
  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.



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

Re: Is Terminology, was Re:PC Problems and Restore

2009-11-22 by Robert Johnston

TonyW,

Have you tried a restore on your PC to see if that will fix it.
Often going back to the day the problem began or the day before will fix it.
Some stuff we install or uninstall interferes with other programs.

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/




________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Tony Wells <oaksfield@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 22, 2009 12:11:04 PM
Subject: Is Terminology, was Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

  
As I said in my previous post (and thanks for the answer, btw - it is trapped on a very unhappy PC and so I have not been able to reply directly!)
TonyW.

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

Digital Terms, was ....

2009-11-23 by E.Neilsen

So then, does the brightness slider make one smarter? 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Debbi
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Gosh Darn!!! was Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

Geeze guys I'm so sick of deleting this tired thread.
Maybe you could change the subject line
Debbi





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

Re: [Digital BW] Digital Terms, was ....

2009-11-23 by Dave

By itself, no.
You need to add Sharpness and Clarity.


On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:34 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> So then, does the brightness slider make one smarter?



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

Gosh Darn!!! was Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

2009-11-23 by Don

And how about trimming your posts! There is not need to include the entire body of the message you are replying to.

Don

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Debbi <corkie@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Geeze guys I'm so sick of deleting this tired thread.
> Maybe you could change the subject line
> Debbi
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.