PDA

View Full Version : Feedback requested


Ween
01-02-2007, 02:01 AM
I'm looking to make prints of this shot in B&W, and just want some feedback on how it looks as far as the B&W goes:
http://paulhamus.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=614328

Thanks!

Callufrax
01-02-2007, 02:11 AM
I like it. Personally, I think it'd look good.

Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
01-02-2007, 02:37 AM
There is too much white for my liking. I am not sure exactly how you put the shot into B&W or if there is a slider that you can make the lead loco greyer (that a word?) assuming it was originally in color like the one in the DB, but I would try to change the amounts a bit. I understand that this is a black and white not a greyscale but an "Albino Pumpkin" isn't too appealing personally. I took the liberty of trying my hand at it (using the color version you have posted online) to show how I would enjoy seeing it. In "calculations" my version amounted to 55%. If you have questions about that you can PM me.

Now I know you asked for feedback on the B&W version and I guess this is relative, but I don't see it working as one. The version you link to has a perfect setting for it including the shrubbery, shadows, and different tones in the rock, but the BNSF leader clashes. I always assumed B&W's were easier to shoot or "convert" than color photos, but as I've practiced and "studied" them I realized I was WAY wrong. If you happen to catch a BN or H1 leader at this location with a few clouds (any kind) I think you'd have a stunning contestant for a B&W. Just my input. All in all, it's a great location and shot as I showed by leaving a comment. :-D

Ween
01-02-2007, 03:33 AM
If you happen to catch a BN or H1 leader at this location with a few clouds (any kind) I think you'd have a stunning contestant for a B&W.

[photoid=155136]

Little more clouds than the first photo. I could do a better job (I think) on this shot as I was experimenting with B&W conversions when I processed it.

But, yes, Andrew, you're right: the lead unit is too white. And for what it's worth, I'm just tinkering with B&W to make a 4x6" print, just to see what MPIX's 'Ture B&W' processing/paper looks like. I plan on getting a larger print of the color version of the shot.

Thanks for the feedback, fellas!

Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
01-02-2007, 03:48 AM
[photoid=155136]Thats a sweet B&W subject! I'm sorry I missed seeing that one in the past.

Just to see what MPIX's 'Ture B&W' processing/paper looks like. Let me know how you like it. I just got into printing my photos both for sale and to have a hard copy of, and I've been experimenting like crazy with different paper albeit color prints so far. I believe there is a thread similar to this idea but I may start a new one in the future.

Thanks for the feedback, fellas!
Anytime! As if I haven't said it enough in the forums or you haven't heard it enough today, Happy New Year!

Ween
01-02-2007, 04:01 AM
MPIX paper I did a 4x6" color version of the photo in question on their Kodak Professional Endura Metallic paper (it's a pearlescent surface), and man, it's different! It gleans, for sure, kinda hologram-like. I have an order in now for their traditional Kodak paper since I'm guessing this is what I'm going to go with. I can't print my own out, but MPIX is cheap & easy to use (obviously it's better to buy more prints to lower the per unit cost and not get raped on S&H, but I want to make sure the shot looks good on 4x6" before putting in a larger size print order).

alan-crotty
01-02-2007, 10:06 AM
Hi Ween,

If your going to have your prints made at a lab just remember to send them an RGB image (converted to mono of course), not a Greyscale.

If you send Greyscale your file size will only be 1/3rd of the RGB size and the print quality will be reduced.

Alan

BTW don't crop the shot, I like it as is.

ottergoose
01-22-2007, 10:17 PM
If your going to have your prints made at a lab just remember to send them an RGB image (converted to mono of course), not a Greyscale.

If you send Greyscale your file size will only be 1/3rd of the RGB size and the print quality will be reduced.

Is that true? I have a ton of respect for what you say, but that doesn't make any sense to me... does a monochrome image actually reduce the number of discrete colors, or is it merely a better way of storing the data? In grayscale the R, G, and B value of each pixel will be the same, so rather than storing three values for each pixel, a monochrome image stores one, which accounts for the size reduction...

I could very well be wrong, but that doesn't make sense to me.

PLEzero
01-23-2007, 12:19 AM
Turning an image to greyscale and making a B&W image aren't the same thing. I will create a new topic soon when I get a chance showing how to make a true B&W image using the calculations toolbar.

JRMDC
01-23-2007, 12:57 AM
I don't know whst you mean by calculations toolbar - what software does that refer to? In PS-speak, I think people use a channel mixer. I can talk about how to do it in PS Elements. I'll look for that thread.

Bill
01-23-2007, 01:24 AM
I did a 4x6" color version of the photo in question on their Kodak Professional Endura Metallic paper (it's a pearlescent surface), and man, it's different! It gleans, for sure, kinda hologram-like. I have an order in now for their traditional Kodak paper since I'm guessing this is what I'm going to go with. I can't print my own out, but MPIX is cheap & easy to use (obviously it's better to buy more prints to lower the per unit cost and not get raped on S&H, but I want to make sure the shot looks good on 4x6" before putting in a larger size print order).

I print all of my gallery images on the Kodak Metallic Finish paper. I use Millers Professional Imaging (parent co. of Mpix). The paper really resists fading. I had an exhibition downtown this past July, my images were in a window in the direct sunlight. The mats that I was using at the time faded, but the prints didn't fade a bit. I highly recommend the Kodak Endura paper (and Mpix / Millers).

jfusaro
01-23-2007, 02:27 PM
I like it. Personally, I think it'd look good.


new avatar?

fembots? :grin:

alan-crotty
01-24-2007, 11:50 AM
Hi Nick

"Is that true? I have a ton of respect for what you say, but that doesn't make any sense to me... does a monochrome image actually reduce the number of discrete colors, or is it merely a better way of storing the data? In grayscale the R, G, and B value of each pixel will be the same, so rather than storing three values for each pixel, a monochrome image stores one, which accounts for the size reduction..."

Try it your self:

I have a phot 11.68"x7.63" @ 300dpi RGB, it's 23.4mb, convert to grayscale and the same shot is now 7.79mb.

That means if you are making a large printthere's not much data for the lab to work with, small prints may look ok.

Convert to Monochrome in channel mixer or better still use Digidaans PS Action

http://www.digidaan.nl/indexframedigidaan.html?channelmixer/index2.html

which gives much greater control and you will have a full resolution image.

Alan

JRMDC
01-24-2007, 01:00 PM
Alan, your statement makes no sense to me either.

The way I see it, an original shot is taken in color, which has red, green, and blue information for each pixel. So you have a file of 24mb, say. If you convert to gray scale, you get 8mb. This file prints out with a given intensity of black for each dot on the print (zero intensity = pure white). I think the intensity is based on the average luminosity across the three colors.

Now, if you use channel mixer, you get to choose the balance between the luminosities of the three colors, and thus achieve different effects, different appearances. But once one has done so, the end result is still a given (but now different) intensity of black for each dot on the print. The file may be saved with 3x the information and be 24mb big, but if you are printing monochrome, the printer does not care about the extra information. All it cares about is how dark to make each spot of gray, and how many spots there are.

Also, keeping the RGB info in the file does not increase the number of pixels stored and thus cannot increase the resolution of the print.

alan-crotty
01-24-2007, 04:18 PM
Hi ,

My conclusions are based on something that happened whilst I was in a minilab last year, a friend of mine operates it.

A customer had a monochrome image that had been converted to greyscale, i.e. reduced by 1/3rd in pixel data, the result was awful.

We got into conversation and the lab operator suggested an RGB mono created in channel mixer.

The customer had a colour version of the image on his key drive, so the operator converted in PS using Channel Mixer.

When the print emerged a few minutes later it looked very good.

So my point is based on this experience. :-D


Alan

JRMDC
01-24-2007, 05:01 PM
Can anyone with real technical knowledge, instead of my gut scientific instincts, chime in? I'd love to know what is truly going on. What does a printer do when it prints BW?

alan-crotty
01-25-2007, 09:11 AM
Hi JRMDC,


Can I ask what method you are using to print your monochromes from digital files?

Today I will do two prints as a test, one will be an RGB file converted in channel mixer, the other will be the same file converted to greyscale.

I'll use a 23.4 mb file and print out a 100mm square section of an A3 size print.

I'll let you know the results.

This will be on an inkjet, Epson 1290. If I get time I'll get the same two files down to the minilab and see what that make of them.

One test is worth a thousand opinions :D

Talk to you soon.

Alan

alan-crotty
01-25-2007, 10:19 AM
Hi JRMDC,

I have completed the first part of the test with the 1290 inkjet.

1 print greyscale and sent to printer using all inks.

2 print RGB and sent to printer using all inks.

3 I also sent the greyscale to the printer "Black Ink Only".

Results:

1&2 are off the same image quality, but the greyscale print is flatter.

3 The black only print is very broken up and not of acceptable quality, the dot pattern is clearly visible.

I will report back on the minilab prints soon.

Meanwhile I have to say that there is (with an inkjet printer) little difference between Greyscale and RGB.

Alan

JRMDC
01-25-2007, 12:26 PM
Hi JRMDC,


Can I ask what method you are using to print your monochromes from digital files?

I don't! I guess I didn't make clear that I was making educated guesses, not speaking on the basis of experience. :) I will be doing so soon, however, and I will take a jpg down to the store that has one of those self-serve machines where you stick in your CF card and make prints.


One test is worth a thousand opinions :D


It's worth way more than my one!

Interesting test result.

alan-crotty
01-30-2007, 11:50 AM
Hi JRMDC,

I have just got the results of my test back from the minilab.

Since I last tried this test 2 years ago the lab has changed to a Fuji Frontier, I can't remember what the previous one was.

The results:

The RGB (converted to mono using Digidaan's action) file has produced a well balanced monochrome image with no colour cast, full detail is visible throughout the tonal range.

The Greyscale print, has also produced a well balanced mono image with no cast. However there is less detail in the shadow areas of the print when compared to the RGB one.

I have to say that the Fuji lab has down a good job on both files, much better than those I recall from the previous lab, the RGB one having retained the shadow detail is a winner.

Try the test your self sometime, another lab may produce a different result. :grin:


Alan

JRMDC
01-30-2007, 01:36 PM
Cool Alan, thanks. I might print a BW soon, it's on my list of things to do.

Congrats on the Top Shot, it's a beauty with the mud flats and boats.