Color to black and white conversion in Photoshop - best way?

[claudiocambon]

Hi folks,

I wanted to ask folks for their advice on the best techniques on converting color files to black and white ones in Photoshop primarily (and in other programs, although I may not be buying any new software anytime soon, or at least, before I have to do this job in the next week to 10 days).

Any info on best techniques, as well as on warm toning images would be very welcome too.

I know that the grayscale button was modeled on PlusX, a look I don't care for, and the desaturate function doesn't do it for me either.

My knowledge of this is very limited, and to date I have used the aforementioned only for reference purposes, but now I need to do some serious conversions for a job this week, and I want to get a sense of what the best way(s) is/are to proceed. Any referrals to on-line tutorials and such would be great as well. (I also did a brief search on the forum, but didn't find anything; if I missed that, and you know of threads, and can link them here, that would also be mightily appreciated.)

Greetings to all from the Mexico City Airport, en route from Cuba to LA. Cheers!

Claudio

[Ash]

I can't remember the version of PS where it came into effect, but there is a dedicated "Black and White" plugin that allows you to control each colour channel for the best b&w image, just like having a filter on the lens. If your version doesn't have it, then not sure what to suggest!

[z_photo]

i tend to use the channel mixer. adjustment layer/channel mixer and as a starting point i set the red channel to +72 and the other channels to 0. then i slide the g and b up into approximately 16 units, picking the best look of the conversion as the final set points. i will sometimes also use a cuves layer to optimize the appearance. i think there are a couple examples on my lame web site

[Stephen Best]

I can't remember the version of PS where it came into effect, but there is a dedicated "Black and White" plugin that allows you to control each colour channel for the best b&w image, just like having a filter on the lens. If your version doesn't have it, then not sure what to suggest!

Black & White appeared in CS3 and it's not a plug-in but a regular Adjustment (can be an Adjustment Layer). This supersedes previous methods such as changing to Grayscale mode (which does a colorimetric conversion to whatever Gray space you have set in Color Settings), setting Saturation to zero, Channel Mixer, or taking the Lightness channel from a Lab conversion.

[Peter De Smidt]

I really like the BW adjustment layer feature introduced in CS3. Not only does it work very well for bw, the ability to adjust opacity can work wonders with color images. For example, let's say that your color image is losing detail someplace. Do a bw adjustment layer that puts more detail in the area. (This works as long as there's detail in one of the color channels.) Then lower the opacity of the BW layer to get the look you'd like. Of course you can make masks and all the other things you can do with adjustment layers.

[Mark Stahlke]

Take a look at Silver Efex Pro (http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php) from Nik Software. It's a Photoshop plugin. You can download a 15 day trial version.

I recently started using several plugins from Nik and I've been very impressed by all of them.

[Frank Petronio]

Use the CS3 B&W adjustment along with a strong curve adjustment.

The older Channel Mixer will do nearly the same thing as the B&W adjustment, from what I remember...

[z_photo]

Use the CS3 B&W adjustment along with a strong curve adjustment.

The older Channel Mixer will do nearly the same thing as the B&W adjustment, from what I remember...

pretty similar but i have been getting decent results with the channel mixer. after more playing with the new feature i may change my opinion

[Gordon Moat]

Channel Mixer is a good choice, depending upon which version of PhotoShop you are using. You could also simply view each channel individually, and turn off one or two channels to see the result. Then delete the one or two channels you are not going to use, and the end result is a single channel image. Depending upon which camera, scanner, digital back you are using, sometimes the Green Channel can give a cleaner and nicer result than either Red or Blue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Ron Marshall]

What I do is duplicate the image and then copy the three color channels to the original image as separate layers. I adjust each of the RGB layers with layer masks and curves. Sometimes I will also convert a copy to LAB and strip out the luminance layer. It gives very selective control. Not time consuming since I recorded an action to strip out the channels.

[Marko]

Another way to do it, the least intuitive but paradoxically, the most similar to shooting b&w once you get a hang of it:

1. Create a Color Fill Adjustment layer and fill it with black. At this point, you only see black.

Change the blending mode of this layer to Color and you will see a b&w image. If you are happy with the way it looks, you're done.

2. If you want to tweak the colors - add filtration to the original scene, if you will - create a Hue/Saturation Adjustment between the original image and the Color Fill layer.

Play with the sliders until you get the desired tonality.

3. Proceed with the usual Contrast, Dodge and Burn methods of your choice.

Once you're done, save the layered original, create a flattened b&w copy (but still in RGB mode!) and inspect each of the channels, as Gordon suggested. Green layer usually has the least noise and most details.

Have fun!

Marko

[claudiocambon]

Folks, this is great. Another example of why I love this forum!! If I am successful, I will post some results. Thanks!!!

[Lenny Eiger]

Folks, this is great. Another example of why I love this forum!! If I am successful, I will post some results. Thanks!!!

As usual, with PShop, there are many ways to accomplish this. However, most of the suggestions that were made - I would not do.

Many of the posters are doing this from the point of view of what they want things to ultimately look like. This is not the correct way to approach a conversion. The correct way is to look at the individual channels to see the structure of the grain that they represent. Curves can accomplish any kind of "filtering" that the b&w conversion in Photoshop represents.

If you look individually at the red, green and blue channels, up at 100% magnification, you will see that usually the red is contrasty, but very grainy. The Green is usually the best, the blue is sometimes smoother, but usually has a little less detail.

Sometimes I take 100% green and sometimes I do a mix with the blue. I use the channel mixer to do this. It isn't the only way, there are a few, but most of the bad noise one gets is in the Red, so why keep it? That means desaturating isn't the best. Keeping 72% Red isn't the right way, either. There are a few other choices, but the channel mixer is handy, and the easiest. When you are done select the right "scan samples" by choosing the right channel, then you can curve it to look the way you want it to.

Lenny

[Stephen Best]

Many of the posters are doing this from the point of view of what they want things to ultimately look like. This is not the correct way to approach a conversion. The correct way is to look at the individual channels to see the structure of the grain that they represent. Curves can accomplish any kind of "filtering" that the b&w conversion in Photoshop represents.

To me, the real power of B&W conversion is to be able to precisely tune filtration post exposure. You can't filter if you've knocked the channel on the head because you don't like its grain structure (or, more specifically, noise characteristics).

[Daniel_Buck]

personally, I find that just taking out the color (there are various ways to do this) and then a well adjusted curve on a curves layer (usually above my desaturation, but sometimes below to play with the color values) is usually enough for 90% of my photos, both B&W scans and color digitals.

[Lenny Eiger]

personally, I find that just taking out the color (there are various ways to do this) and then a well adjusted curve on a curves layer (usually above my desaturation, but sometimes below to play with the color values) is usually enough for 90% of my photos, both B&W scans and color digitals.

Yes, but as I stated, just taking out the color doesn't take into account what the different channels have. They are really quite different.

Lenny

[z_photo]

Lenny makes a good point. i start using the red channel but for some images other channels are a better starting point. my final choice is often dictated by the image content. other times it is driven by what i want the final image to look like. while i accept the point of 'correctness', i interpret the word as the final product looking the way i want it to look. and i guess the answer to why keep red is because in some images the red tones are more dominant than in others. sometimes using a substantial percentage of the red content gives me what i consider a more pleasing result

[Marko]

Yes, but as I stated, just taking out the color doesn't take into account what the different channels have. They are really quite different.

Lenny

Yes, but if you want to do apply the color filtration to your b&w as you would in-camera with b&w film, you need to do this on RGB, before final flattening. You can pick your channel after flattening.

[Daniel_Buck]

Yes, but as I stated, just taking out the color doesn't take into account what the different channels have. They are really quite different.

Lenny

you can do curves (or whatever else) on the color image underneath your desaturation, so you can do whatever you want with the channels.

[bob carnie]

Converting colour to black and white is the ability to render the original colour tones to a possible corresponding tonality in black and white, the frustrating part of this is that once converted similar tones will convert to the same density and therefore not supply the separation we need to see.

All the above comments are viable methods of achieving a black and white conversion.

Something I have been working on in large part to Dan Margulis teachings is a move to LAB and making a curve adjustment in the A B channel, in some cases quite massive, and using the opacity slider to reduce a massive change if I have gone to far.
Basically this drives the colours apart and creates a hyper scene of tonalities that we may not accept if it was a colour final print.

I will then convert back to RGB and use the BW conversion tool and look at the filters, Usually the green is the best and convert.
Once this is done as others suggest look into the channels and possibly drop a bad channel or use curves to adjust contrast to my liking.

What I feel happens here is the colours separate more than normal and then once the conversion is done there is a better chance of seeing a tonal difference in similar tones, which adds a sparkle to every image.

lots of experimentation is required with method but as we say in Toronto.
It may be worth the drive to Acton.

I have met with workers that use this thinking in RGB as well to create false colours that then prepare a more expanded pallete for the conversion to happen.
Lab workers will concur that massive moves in LAB are less prone to artifacting in the final prints than those same massive moves in RGB.

Remember the old days of making black and white prints from colour negs, very painful and contrasty, one of the reasons Kodak made Panalure.
I think that by providing a more meaty original with an expanded range is the way to go.
I would be interested in hearing others thought on this approach. I have been using this method for a year now and though there are some glitches to get around it really is a method to consider.

[Lenny Eiger]

you can do curves (or whatever else) on the color image underneath your desaturation, so you can do whatever you want with the channels.

Daniel,

Good point.

My point was merely to suggest that while Adobe apparently wants you to use the conversion utility as a way to curve things (make the image look different) I say that instead one wants to get the best channel one can when making a top level print.

Lenny

[SAShruby]

Aah, isn't it nice to print analog? ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

Aah, isn't it nice to print analog? ;)

I'm happy you like your darkroom. I spent enough time in the dark to last me, thank you. I have some darkroom prints here that I am reprinting for a client in b&w inkjet on great, fine art paper. Boy, do the darkroom prints pale in comparison.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Lenny

[Frank Petronio]

Bob Carnie's post has a lot of good ideas. I've been noticing that I get better B&W conversions from digital when I boost the color saturation in Adobe Camera Raw, then use the Black and White adjustment in CS3, probably because the more saturated colors separate better. I will also go into the ACR controls and adjust the saturation and luminance of the individual colors to further separate them.

I just did this instinctively but now that he put a name on it, it makes sense.

No reason the same technique couldn't be applied to scans, using the Hue/Saturation (and/or curves) adjustment on individual colors or channels prior to the Black and White conversion.

[SAShruby]

I'm happy you like your darkroom. I spent enough time in the dark to last me, thank you. I have some darkroom prints here that I am reprinting for a client in b&w inkjet on great, fine art paper. Boy, do the darkroom prints pale in comparison.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Lenny


It was a joke

[Lenny Eiger]

It was a joke

Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you...

Lenny

[Stephen Best]

Something I have been working on in large part to Dan Margulis teachings is a move to LAB and making a curve adjustment in the A B channel, in some cases quite massive, and using the opacity slider to reduce a massive change if I have gone to far.
Basically this drives the colours apart and creates a hyper scene of tonalities that we may not accept if it was a colour final print.

Actually, it drives some colours apart (those nearer to neutral) and some colours coalesce (those pushed near/outside the destination RGB space boundary). The conversion back to RGB is colorimetric and all colours outside the destination RGB space will be mapped to its gamut boundary. Think about it. I'd be careful with taking everything Margulis claims as fact.

[bob carnie]

Frank
This technique I describe is basically the Man From Mars method of colour correction in LAB that Dan Margulis talks of.
Basically the method is to posterize the image with the A B curves and then with the opacity slider bring in the colour to taste.
Your method in camera raw will certainly work and is what I think is critical for a good conversion.
You are right this will work with any scans , and in fact is part of our workflow when converting any colour image to black and white.

be warned, the man from mars method can create unwanted artifacts which you can get rid of with a brush but be observant of this.


Bob Carnie's post has a lot of good ideas. I've been noticing that I get better B&W conversions from digital when I boost the color saturation in Adobe Camera Raw, then use the Black and White adjustment in CS3, probably because the more saturated colors separate better. I will also go into the ACR controls and adjust the saturation and luminance of the individual colors to further separate them.

I just did this instinctively but now that he put a name on it, it makes sense.

No reason the same technique couldn't be applied to scans, using the Hue/Saturation (and/or curves) adjustment on individual colors or channels prior to the Black and White conversion.

[bob carnie]

Stephen
Actually I have spent quite a few days with Mr Margulis, and I do not take everything as fact. But I will say that I have worked for many years making prints and after spending time with him I am a convert. In fact two more sessions this coming month and also another in March.
Dan comes from a different school than I but spending time with him and then applying his methods have worked for me.
It should be noted that I have done over a thousand conversions using this method and I am not relying on someones word but rather than practical usage.
Have you tried this method? If not I would consider giving it a go and see for yourself, I would be interested in your observations.
I also think that what this method offers is a small overall improvement which may not be obvious to some eyes but enough to make this trip worthwhile . All the colour's that are being driven apart are well within the RGB colour gamut so I understand what you are saying but since I am not talking about out of gamut colours here, rather than those within I feel this method creates more colour separation to give a better BW conversion.
Bob


Actually, it drives some colours apart (those nearer to neutral) and some colours coalesce (those pushed near/outside the destination RGB space boundary). The conversion back to RGB is colorimetric and all colours outside the destination RGB space will be mapped to its gamut boundary. Think about it. I'd be careful with taking everything Margulis claims as fact.

[Frank Petronio]

Back in the old pre-press days before color profiles were fully worked out and integrated into the workflow Margulis's techniques made a lot of sense, i.e. color correcting by numbers, not by eye. In fact I still do that. I haven't read anything from him lately but I respect someone who does rather than theorize....

[bob carnie]

Stephan

As well , I should add that this method is not one Margulis teaches at least in my first two sessions and I have not seen it in his books , It is something that I have tried as our lab is in the business of converting to black and white as we are one of six labs worldwide with this harmon wet fibre paper that works from digital files.
The man from mars technique is in his books and is a wicked method for colour work , and I have applied it to BW.
As I am in Chicago with him next week on another three day marathon, I will show him this method and get his feedback.

Bob

[bob carnie]

Working with the numbers is the cats ass, once you get it everything falls into place.
In fact LAB density runs from 0-100 which taken in steps of 10 works perfectly for those use to the Zone System.
Zero A Zero B cannot be any easier.
Nuetralizing colours is IMHO the first and most important step in the PS workflow and this is where Dan is insistant to look at the numbers and I believe he is right.
Today we use Lightroom 2 for a white balance before we open in PS , but we still check key points to see if everything is balanced.
After Lightroom we are very close and getting dead nuetral is easy if that is required, than move on to all the other steps.





Back in the old pre-press days before color profiles were fully worked out and integrated into the workflow Margulis's techniques made a lot of sense, i.e. color correcting by numbers, not by eye. In fact I still do that. I haven't read anything from him lately but I respect someone who does rather than theorize....

[Stephen Best]

It should be noted that I have done over a thousand conversions using this method and I am not relying on someones word but rather than practical usage.
Have you tried this method? If not I would consider giving it a go and see for yourself, I would be interested in your observations.

Personally, I no longer go anywhere near Photoshop's Lab mode. It has holes you can drive a truck through, but if it's working for you well and good.

Dan is one of the sharpest guys around when it comes to colour (as opposed the most of the dullards that write books on Photoshop) but the problem is that he's in pre-retirement mode and will do whatever it takes to cover up Lab's holes so he can go on teaching his classes without dissent. I made the mistake of thinking that his colortheory group was for the discussion of advanced techniques when in reality it exists for the promotion of the Margulis brand. That said, his fundamental thinking is sound, it's just that his techniques have shortcomings.

We're getting pretty off-topic here, but Lab's main problem (other than large-space-itis) is that the results are totally dependent on the final RGB space and inevitably you'll be doing a colorimetric conversion back to this. If this is different to your monitor space, basically you're working blind. Increasing colour variation is a great idea but, as I noted above, in reality you're getting increased variation in some parts of the space, but decreased variation in others ... not the desired effect.

If you're interested though in handling tonality and colour separately, check out Lobster (http://www.freegamma.com). An updated CS4 compatible version is available on request. This is what I use. To increase colour variation with this, apply an S-curve to the Chromaticity component.

[bob carnie]

Working with Dans methods can be the most difficult and hard to understand, but I am constantly checking my numbers when in RGB and when in Lab, I do not find variations as you may be suggesting.
Dan will say himself that working with LAB is like using a sledge hammer to put in a finishing nail and at other times the only mode one should be working in.
Personally I am using LAB curves to separate the colours and not to correct colour.. for that I convert back to RGB for any final colour tweaks or adjustments.
But for separating complimentary colours, sharpening, contrast control I think there is no better place to be in my opinion , but backed up by many , many clients whose work has been improved by very simple LAB moves.
Back to the OP request, I strongly believe a move to LAB before any conversion will give pleasant suprises and possibly some unpleasant but that is the fun.
My only hope is that when I reach Dans age , I am as sharp and competent as he is. I have never gone on those discussion groups that you refer to as each session is enough for me to walk away and practice , practice , practice.



Personally, I no longer go anywhere near Photoshop's Lab mode. It has holes you can drive a truck through, but if it's working for you well and good.

Dan is one of the sharpest guys around when it comes to colour (as opposed the most of the dullards that write books on Photoshop) but the problem is that he's in pre-retirement mode and will do whatever it takes to cover up Lab's holes so he can go on teaching his classes without dissent. I made the mistake of thinking that his colortheory group was for the discussion of advanced techniques when in reality it exists for the promotion of the Margulis brand. That said, his fundamental thinking is sound, it's just that his techniques have shortcomings.

We're getting pretty off-topic here, but Lab's main problem (other than large-space-itis) is that the results are totally dependent on the final RGB space and inevitably you'll be doing a colorimetric conversion back to this. If this is different to your monitor space, basically you're working blind. Increasing colour variation is a great idea but, as I noted above, in reality you're getting increased variation in some parts of the space, but decreased variation in others ... not the desired effect.

If you're interested though in handling tonality and colour separately, check out Lobster (http://www.freegamma.com). An updated CS4 compatible version is available on request. This is what I use. To increase colour variation with this, apply an S-curve to the Chromaticity component.

[Stephen Best]

But for separating complimentary colours, sharpening, contrast control I think there is no better place to be in my opinion , but backed up by many , many clients whose work has been improved by very simple LAB moves.

If you're comfortable with Lab, you'll find Lobster very similar. But without the side effects. You can also retain your layer stack from start to finish.

[bob carnie]

Thanks Stephen
I will look into this, retaining layer stack? I take it then that Lobster is a all RGB workflow space then? Can I go into a Luminosity channel to do specific tasks?
Does sound interesting
Bob

If you're comfortable with Lab, you'll find Lobster very similar. But without the side effects. You can also retain your layer stack from start to finish.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . Lab's main problem (other than large-space-itis) is that the results are totally dependent on the final RGB space and inevitably you'll be doing a colorimetric conversion back to this. . . . . . . . .

Dan Margulis use to write about this in a now defunct publication called Electronic Publishing. One other interesting method involving LaB was to create imaginary colours, which would then be converted to a CMYK space for final printing.

Dan was a big proponent of CMYK and advancing press and pre-press techniques. That was when PhotoShop was largely a tool for graphic designs (not web guys). Unfortunately as graphic design became more a temporary employment realm, pay levels went down, and every weekender got a copy of PhotoShop, the market for teaching CMYK based techniques faltered, and seminars dwindled.

RGB largely was pushed by a new group, though partially the background criticism was that photographers were not sharp enough to understand CMYK properly (you should hear how often I heard that comment (and still do) at printing industry trade shows). So teaching RGB methods is now quite big in seminars and the photo-educator market. Dan can differentiate himself from the crowd by offering LaB techniques. These are interesting directions, but as anyone who has worked with PhotoShop on a daily basis for more than ten years knows: there is no one method in PhotoShop that is always the best choice.

Seriously, look at the Channels, and understand what you are viewing. Then combine whatever comfortable and repeatable method you can find to best exploit your starting file state (scan or capture). The final goal is the printed results, so your choices need to consider how an image is printed. Ideally, I would advocate that photographers learn more about CMYK, but that often seems to fall on deaf ears.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

P.S. - Parts of this post are quite obviously my opinion. I have a great deal of respect for Dan Margulis' knowledge and teaching; he is one of the few truly knowledgeable printing gurus left.

[Stephen Best]

Thanks Stephen
I will look into this, retaining layer stack? I take it then that Lobster is a all RGB workflow space then? Can I go into a Luminosity channel to do specific tasks?
Does sound interesting
Bob

Yes, all RGB. As such it avoids the vagaries you get with the choice of RGB space when converting out of Lab. This is an area Dan totally ignores in his Canyon Conundrum book. Lobster's Luminosity component can be used for the same things you use Lab's Lightness channel for (tonality adjustments, sharpening, dodging/burning etc). Many (most?) Lobster users are Lab refugees ...

Getting back to the subject at hand, you could place a B&W adjustment on top of the Lobster layer stack. This way, you've got the Chromaticity component for increasing colour variation, Luminosity for final tonality and the B&W layer for choice of filtration. You've also got the individual colour channels available for blurring noise (if required). It's hard to envisage any permutation of the B&W conversion process that the above doesn't encompass.

[Kirk Gittings]

At Stephens suggestion a few weeks back I downloaded Lobster. I really have not had time to use it much, but it looks very promising.

[bob carnie]

I get the chance to be with Dan twice this coming month, I will bring up Lobster and get his viewpoints, I hope he dosen't smash my monitor on my head.
It could be much like asking him what he thinks about histograms, don't even go there.
I too am going to give Lobster a go and as Gordon says work with whatever suits the image. I have been learning cmyk workflow, as I plan to separate colour images with bwcontone film on my lambda for alternative negs and am getting very excited about all the possibilities.

[D. Bryant]

I have been learning cmyk workflow, as I plan to separate colour images with bwcontone film on my lambda for alternative negs and am getting very excited about all the possibilities.

That might be a shrewd move if Bostick & Sullivan introduces their tri-color carbon tissue.

Don Bryant

[bob carnie]

Well I am really hoping they do, but I do have a back up plan in place in the short term. It is one of the most exciting projects that I have ever worked on and plan to make quite a few of those suckers, with a K mask to boot for density and contrast.


That might be a shrewd move if Bostick & Sullivan introduces their tri-color carbon tissue.

Don Bryant

[Stephen Best]

I get the chance to be with Dan twice this coming month, I will bring up Lobster and get his viewpoints, I hope he dosen't smash my monitor on my head.

I think an expression about old dogs and new tricks applies. Dan has invested a lot of thought and energy into Lab and his Canyon Conundrum book is a marvel of intellectual rigour. I highly recommend it even if I don't recommend adoption of his practices (a contradiction I know). Dan still lives in the small gamut world of offset and, when you compare modern inkjets to SWOP/GRACol it's a marvel what has been/can be achieved with such a limited palette. There's a lot to learn here, especially by those who think that just by using something like ProPhoto RGB they're guaranteed satisfying colour.

I know in advance the arguments he'll use against Lobster. Firstly that Lab adds more colour to highlights. This is actually a byproduct of the Lab to RGB conversion step and is highly dependent on the destination RGB space you use. So if you're working outside his small gamut world of sRGB and CMYK (which most targeting inkjet are) you won't get the same results. The second is a manifestation of the same cause, namely that sharpening Lightness and Luminosity gives different results, in Dan's eyes in favour of Lightness. That LESS sharpening is required with Luminosity for the same effect doesn't seem to have occurred to him.

Really, Lab and Lobster are addressing the same fundamentals. If Lobster was around when Dan invested so much energy into Lab I'm sure his arguments would be very different. At the end of the day though, you have to evaluate and use what best fits your workflow.

[D. Bryant]

Well I am really hoping they do, but I do have a back up plan in place in the short term. It is one of the most exciting projects that I have ever worked on and plan to make quite a few of those suckers, with a K mask to boot for density and contrast.

What would be the targeted media for the CMYK seps?

Don Bryant

[bob carnie]

Tri Colour Carbon with a black kicker for density and contrast. Printed on rag material which is mounted to a lightweight aluminum mount which is to be punched for register and not have the paper shrink through the multiple steps.
I am aware of a lab in Europe that is indeed doing this , I am not sure how far down the pipeline they are as in being able to sell their product.
I am targeting a select group of clients that are not happy with inkjets or RA4's archival capabilities.*myself included and indeed my wife who wants to produce large negs from her infared work*
We have a couple of friends with great experience in the field, willing to help troubleshoot, as well others that would invest $$ to purchase materials. I think that the Lambda, basically a huge , high resolution imagesetter is a perfect vehicle for this.
A company in New Jersey is interested in producing a couple of roller processors much like a monster Jobo to produce the high quality film.
I will probably start a blog on www.elevatordigital.ca in 2009 to describe in detail what I am very eager to start.


What would be the targeted media for the CMYK seps?

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Tri Colour Carbon with a black kicker for density and contrast. Printed on rag material which is mounted to a lightweight aluminum mount which is to be punched for register and not have the paper shrink through the multiple steps.

This is an approach that I've been interested in attempting myself for printing tri-color gum bichromate. Currently I eyeball the inkjet seps on a light table but would rather punch register them to allow for larger prints. Even though the paper is pre-shrunk twice prior to sizing there is always some degree of paper contraction or expansion making alignment less than perfect. Ditto with gum over palladium.

I do know that Keith Taylor who does masterful tri-color gum work dry mounts his paper to aluminum sheets with Seal Fusion dry mount tissue and punch registers the color separation negatives to provide virtually perfect alignment.

So my question for you is how does one allow for registration pins when using a vacuum frame or convention contact printing frames without risking damage to the glass or air bladder in the case of a vacuum easel?

Also do you plan on using a color managed work flow for the tri-color carbon? Using Keith Taylor as an example again I know from visiting his web site he employed a color management specialist to assist him implement CM.



I am aware of a lab in Europe that is indeed doing this , I am not sure how far down the pipeline they are as in being able to sell their product.
I am targeting a select group of clients that are not happy with inkjets or RA4's archival capabilities.*myself included and indeed my wife who wants to produce large negs from her infrared work*
We have a couple of friends with great experience in the field, willing to help troubleshoot, as well others that would invest $$ to purchase materials. I think that the Lambda, basically a huge , high resolution imagesetter is a perfect vehicle for this.
A company in New Jersey is interested in producing a couple of roller processors much like a monster Jobo to produce the high quality film.
I will probably start a blog on www.elevatordigital.ca in 2009 to describe in detail what I am very eager to start.

I look forward to your blog and reading about your efforts.

Don Bryant

[Stephen Best]

So my question for you is how does one allow for registration pins when using a vacuum frame or convention contact printing frames without risking damage to the glass or air bladder in the case of a vacuum easel?

You'll need my Kodak Register Punch, just listed in For Sale/Wanted:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42355

[bob carnie]

Hi Don

In my past life I worked at a large photolab doing image montage with film and ruby, this was before the days of PS. very complicated masks were involved and lots of vacumn registration. We would image onto 16 x20 E6 sheets, tungston and daylight. Anywhere from one single montage to multiples of 50 or more laying on top of each other.* These images were then sent to separation houses for cataloque, magazine and editorial purposes.
I used the Strosser system for registration as it had a circle center tab with two rectangular tabs at the end with also a availability for far side punching and connectionn. This system though expensive at the time was first rate for register work.
As well a humidity and climate controlled room is very helpful for this kind of work.
The vacumn easals I used as well as the NuArc 30x40 flip top I have now allows for the pins and material that is being exposed to sink into the rubber. You would be suprised at how much drop can be supported once the vacumn is on. We never had any problem with the pins creating problems on the glass..

I used a lexan material for support back then which is very stable and could indeed be my support for the paper. I have heard of the aluminum users,*maybe Keith Taylor* I am not sure , who use this approach which allows for multiple hits.
My negs that I will produce for my wife's infared work will indeed be multiple hits on platinum,
We have a cold laminator onsite to mount the paper to the lexan or tissue*** here lies a problem that maybe you have insight into. Though described as acid free , inert, the cold adhesive is a worriesome component in this application, I have considered stripping the paper final off the support when completed, I think I would then be looking for a fairly thick paper . any thoughts???

It took me quite a while to find a supplier to get me with roll BW film that will fit on my lambda , and there certainly will be glitches along the way to make this a reality.

A few of my current clients are eager to support this project with cash to get tissue , the rest I think I have.
The plan is to have a first show put together by fall 09, of colour archival nature.

I apologize to the original poster as our discussions have seemed to hi jacked the thread and it was not my intention, Maybe Don send me a email and we can take this discussion elsewhere.


This is an approach that I've been interested in attempting myself for printing tri-color gum bichromate. Currently I eyeball the inkjet seps on a light table but would rather punch register them to allow for larger prints. Even though the paper is pre-shrunk twice prior to sizing there is always some degree of paper contraction or expansion making alignment less than perfect. Ditto with gum over palladium.

I do know that Keith Taylor who does masterful tri-color gum work dry mounts his paper to aluminum sheets with Seal Fusion dry mount tissue and punch registers the color separation negatives to provide virtually perfect alignment.

So my question for you is how does one allow for registration pins when using a vacuum frame or convention contact printing frames without risking damage to the glass or air bladder in the case of a vacuum easel?

Also do you plan on using a color managed work flow for the tri-color carbon? Using Keith Taylor as an example again I know from visiting his web site he employed a color management specialist to assist him implement CM.




I look forward to your blog and reading about your efforts.

Don Bryant

[rjbrine]

My method in CS2 is to switch to monochrome in a channel mixer layer and key in R:66 G:24 B:10 as a starting point and adjust accordingly making sure not to exceed a total of 100%. Then use a simple levels layer to set the black and white points. Finally use an RGB curve layer to alter contrast. Not the most sophisticated technique but it works for me. Good luck with the job.

[Lenny Eiger]

My method in CS2 is to switch to monochrome in a channel mixer layer and key in R:66 G:24 B:10 as a starting point and adjust accordingly making sure not to exceed a total of 100%. Then use a simple levels layer to set the black and white points. Finally use an RGB curve layer to alter contrast. Not the most sophisticated technique but it works for me. Good luck with the job.

If you simply convert to gray, Photoshop will do about the same. The red channel is usually the most noisy, the green is the preferred channel. You could also forego the Level layer, and just do it in Curves. More more sensitive tool...

Lenny

[r.e.]

This issue comes up regularly on this and other fora. It would be great if someone would post a scan of a colour negative or transparency and if the proponents of the various approaches would post their conversion and explain how they did it. If posting conversions is misleading due to web degredation, then perhaps conversions exchanged as prints, together with an explanation of how the conversion was done, would help.

I think that getting to the bottom of this issue (on the big assumption that there is a bottom) would also make a great article for the site.

Cheers.

[D. Bryant]

I apologize to the original poster as our discussions have seemed to hi jacked the thread and it was not my intention, Maybe Don send me a email and we can take this discussion elsewhere.
My apologizes as well. Bob I'll contact you via e-mail soon.

Don Bryant

[Don Hayes]

I have a photoshop plug in that works like a dark room. You can work in a very simple version or go to the expert mode and really control your output. Expert mode lets you change the paper types, filters, exposure, times grain and development time etc. The plug in is called B/W Styler 1.0 by Photo Wiz.

[ignatiusjk]

I simply use the "convert to B&W" setting in editor in photoshop.Once you click "OK" you can treat it like a regular B&W print.

[Lenny Eiger]

I simply use the "convert to B&W" setting in editor in photoshop.Once you click "OK" you can treat it like a regular B&W print.

This really isn't the way to do it, I'm afraid. It doesn't take into account the type of quality found in different channels.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

It also negates other methods which give one expressive tools for conversion.

[C. D. Keth]

I use the action talked about in this PDF (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phs8bwconversion.pdf). It's worked well for me and gives a lot of options for controlling the virtual spectral sensitivity of your "film" by mixing the RGB channels just so.

[Ron Marshall]

I use the action talked about in this PDF (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phs8bwconversion.pdf). It's worked well for me and gives a lot of options for controlling the virtual spectral sensitivity of your "film" by mixing the RGB channels just so.

That is precisely the method I use also, although I wrote my own action. It gives the most precise control over the conversion.

[Lenny Eiger]

That is precisely the method I use also, although I wrote my own action. It gives the most precise control over the conversion.

Chris and Ron,

Some people want to use the b&w conversion method to do things they don't do with curves. Others do it by looking at the channels at 100% and using it to control the noise, which is different in the different channel. Red is usually the worst.

Take a look. Then decide...

Lenny

[sanking]

There are many ways to convert color to B&W but in doing so people are usually looking for one of two things: tonal control and/or noise reduction. In earlier versions of PhotoShop the channel mixer was the main method to control tonal values. In CS3, however, the best way IMO is to set up a B&W adjustment layer. The procedure is fairly routine.

1. Add an adjustment layer, then choose B&W.
2. When the layer opens default setting will appear.
3. Adjust the color slides to darken or lighten individual colors. For example, you can easily darken a blue sky by applying negative values for blue and cyan.

The important thing is to understand that when adjusting the color setting you are controlling the tonal values more or less as you might do when using color filters in exposing a B&W negative.

Remember, if you just convert the color image to B&W without using the color adjustments you will have thrown away a fair amount of tonal manipulation that will be difficult to achieve later on with curves alone.

Noise reduction can be achieved in several ways, most importantly blurring and/or reducing opacity of the channel(s) that has the most noise, usually the blue.


Sandy King

[Tyler Boley]

I agree, the introduction of the B&W image adjustment has superseded most earlier methods. Most of them are working similarly, but the level of control now is much greater. You can also use it locally, differently, with masks on the adjustment layers Sandy recommends. Noise is till an issue, but careful monitoring at 100% will keep you on top of that..
Tyler

[DrPablo]

Here is a very long tutorial I wrote a while back on making B&W conversions using several different methods, and including pictures. You may need to create a logon to see it.

http://www.lightcafe.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=332

[Wayne Crider]

Well that was quite a head spinner, but then I knew that someone asking that question was going to get more answers then one could imagine. Too bad the PS B&W Button hasn't been invented yet to provide the absolute best conversion available. Maybe in PS "Imagine" Ver XS 9.2 circa 2025 (tongue in cheek). I'd like to say thanks for the insights on a topic that I and probably many of us have been intrigued with. Now I will certainly carry that extra film holder loaded with b&w, or conversely color material. :p Maybe this topic tho should be a new Large Format How to Series with print and file instructions. Just reading some of the responses was too much info in a short space. I think a progressive, Do This, Do This Next online manual on all b&w color conversion disciplines would be the cat's meow for so many of us.

[yamunatri]

Hello everyone, I am looking for inkjet printer. There are so many printer models that are on display in computer stores and on manufacturer sites. I want to know when (the year) a particular inkjet model was placed on the market so that I can only select from the more recent models. How would you know when (the year) an inkjet printer was placed on the market?