some B&W landscape conversions

[Troy Piggins]

Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
New Zealand last year.

These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.

I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
comes to mind.

1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
this:
Loading Image...

2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead. Same comment about the water:
Loading Image...

3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:
Loading Image...

[Paul Furman]

Post by Troy Piggins
Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
New Zealand last year.
These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.
I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
comes to mind.
1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg

This one had a weaker composition if you want brutal, the log is kind of
awkward. The other two are stunning. Do you have them all as a set on
flickr? or any link to the rest. I'm still sorting pics from a 2-week
road trip from a week ago's return... argh, so hard to cull!!!

Nice foregrounds for the superwide shots :-) I think the last portrait
shot has the most charm for me.

Post by Troy Piggins
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 18 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Troy Piggins
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg

This one had a weaker composition if you want brutal, the log is kind of
awkward. The other two are stunning. Do you have them all as a set on
flickr? or any link to the rest. I'm still sorting pics from a 2-week
road trip from a week ago's return... argh, so hard to cull!!!
Nice foregrounds for the superwide shots :-) I think the last portrait
shot has the most charm for me.

Thanks mate, and totally agree with your comments. I do have
them on Flickr, but still going through them.

PS - You have a new Flickr contact ;)

[Joe Makowiec]

Post by Troy Piggins
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

I think it may be the centered reflection. Try cropping it just below
the top (bottom?) of the reflection:

Loading Image...

The sky is still kind of uninteresting, but I like the balance better.
Other than that, I agree with Paul Furman - the other two shots are
great.

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Joe Makowiec

Post by Troy Piggins
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

I think it may be the centered reflection. Try cropping it just below
http://makowiec.net/test/piggo_cropped.jpg
The sky is still kind of uninteresting, but I like the balance better.
Other than that, I agree with Paul Furman - the other two shots are
great.

Thanks mate. I'll have a play with some crops and see what I can
come up with.

[Elliott Roper]

In article <***@usenet.piggo.com>, Troy Piggins
<usenet-***@piggo.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Troy Piggins
1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Oh yes. The first one is ripper. I'm glad you had no tripod to cheese
up the water. The way the waves drag your eye to the far shore and the
hills back down to what looks like a perfectly placed person, standing
just so. He/she/it plays excellent scale games with that fabulous NZ
rock heap foreground. I'm not that keen on the sky. It's lensbaby'd. I
guess that's what a wide angle lens does, but it looks like a cartoon
sky. It works better for me with less sky, cropped to 560 pixels high
from the original bottom. I could look at those rocks for hours! Where
is it? Lake Coleridge?

The second one, I agree with you. Less lensbaby sky. I'm not sure, but
I think the log spoils it. I would have liked seeing how the left hand
shoreline hit the distant hills.

The third one -- sorry, I kept looking for the right hand part of the
picture. The rocks and dead tree on the left, not to mention the
closest hill, act like an intro to the two thirds of the picture that
isn't there. I wanted to see how the reflections worked. Look at the
sky in the water. Boring it ain't. Look how the clouds play with the
shit in the water in the foreground. I would have loved to have seen
more of that to the right.

OK, a bit picky, and yes, my suggestions might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional. I would have been immensely proud
of all three if it were me setting them up and pressing the button.

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Elliott Roper
<snip>

Post by Troy Piggins
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Oh yes. The first one is ripper. I'm glad you had no tripod to cheese
up the water. The way the waves drag your eye to the far shore and the
hills back down to what looks like a perfectly placed person, standing
just so. He/she/it plays excellent scale games with that fabulous NZ
rock heap foreground. I'm not that keen on the sky. It's lensbaby'd. I
guess that's what a wide angle lens does, but it looks like a cartoon
sky. It works better for me with less sky, cropped to 560 pixels high
from the original bottom. I could look at those rocks for hours! Where
is it? Lake Coleridge?

I'm embarrassed to admit that I can't recall the name of the
lake. It wasn't Lake Coleridge. We passed it on the way from
Fox Glacier down to Te Anau and Milford Sound. Not sure if it
was Lake Wakatipu or Lake Te Anau, or one of the smaller ones.

Thanks for the detailed comments. Glad you noticed my wife in
the shot. Wasn't sure if I should clone her out, but decided to
keep the photo untouched. Prefer it that way.

Post by Elliott Roper
The second one, I agree with you. Less lensbaby sky. I'm not sure, but
I think the log spoils it. I would have liked seeing how the left hand
shoreline hit the distant hills.

Mmm. Agreed.

Post by Elliott Roper
The third one -- sorry, I kept looking for the right hand part of the
picture. The rocks and dead tree on the left, not to mention the
closest hill, act like an intro to the two thirds of the picture that
isn't there. I wanted to see how the reflections worked. Look at the
sky in the water. Boring it ain't. Look how the clouds play with the
shit in the water in the foreground. I would have loved to have seen
more of that to the right.

Aah, I think I see what you're saying. Might have done a
landscape orientation shot of this scene, or close to it. I'll
have another look at that shot.

Post by Elliott Roper
OK, a bit picky, and yes, my suggestions might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional. I would have been immensely proud
of all three if it were me setting them up and pressing the button.

Don't apologise. That critique was awesome. Thought about.
Thankyou so much for that. It's exactly what I'm after.

As an Aussie, and having a few close Kiwi mates, we do give them
a hard time. Usually joshing about sport (rugby, netball,
cricket). But having been there, it really is the most beautiful
country and scenery. And the people there are unbelievably
friendly and laid back. We'll definitely be going back. Several
times.

[Elliott Roper]

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Elliott Roper
<snip>

<snip>

Post by Troy Piggins
As an Aussie, and having a few close Kiwi mates, we do give them
a hard time. Usually joshing about sport (rugby, netball,
cricket). But having been there, it really is the most beautiful
country and scenery. And the people there are unbelievably
friendly and laid back. We'll definitely be going back. Several
times.

Yeah, you probably caught the rising tone at the end of each sentence
of mine. It /is/ un-Australian to miss a chance to give 'em heaps, but
you are so right about the place and the people. Even their wine is
almost drinkable these days. Work used to take me over there a bit, and
one glorious season untold years ago, I took the family ski-ing at Mt
Hutt. One day when the road up was closed by wind we moseyed round a
few lakes nearby. Coleridge probably was one of them. I thought your
shot looked familiar, and guessed wrong with the aid of some Google
Earth fu.

I think I'll have to greyscale a few landscapes. I'll post a couple if
any turn out half as good as yours.

[David J. Littleboy]

Post by Elliott Roper
<snip>

Post by Troy Piggins
1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Oh yes. The first one is ripper. I'm glad you had no tripod to cheese
up the water. The way the waves drag your eye to the far shore and the
hills back down to what looks like a perfectly placed person, standing
just so. He/she/it plays excellent scale games with that fabulous NZ
rock heap foreground. I'm not that keen on the sky. It's lensbaby'd. I
guess that's what a wide angle lens does, but it looks like a cartoon
sky. It works better for me with less sky, cropped to 560 pixels high
from the original bottom. I could look at those rocks for hours! Where
is it? Lake Coleridge?
The second one, I agree with you. Less lensbaby sky. I'm not sure, but
I think the log spoils it. I would have liked seeing how the left hand
shoreline hit the distant hills.
The third one -- sorry, I kept looking for the right hand part of the
picture. The rocks and dead tree on the left, not to mention the
closest hill, act like an intro to the two thirds of the picture that
isn't there. I wanted to see how the reflections worked. Look at the
sky in the water. Boring it ain't. Look how the clouds play with the
shit in the water in the foreground. I would have loved to have seen
more of that to the right.
OK, a bit picky, and yes, my suggestions might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional. I would have been immensely proud
of all three if it were me setting them up and pressing the button.

I wrote up a response and didn't send because it was, in the end, "too picky
... and might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional."

Those last three lines you wrote nail it. And you are right about the water:
it would have just been a meaningless smear. The waves need to be rendered
as waves. Three good photographs.

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 39 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Elliott Roper
more of that to the right.
OK, a bit picky, and yes, my suggestions might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional. I would have been immensely proud
of all three if it were me setting them up and pressing the button.

I wrote up a response and didn't send because it was, in the end, "too picky
... and might have made those shots
less wonderful and more conventional."
it would have just been a meaningless smear. The waves need to be rendered
as waves. Three good photographs.

Thanks mate. You're too kind. :)

[Nervous Nick]

Post by Troy Piggins
Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
New Zealand last year.
These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.
I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
comes to mind.
1.  This is my fav of the set.  Feels nicely balanced to me.  Bit
of FG interest, nice sky.  As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
this:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2.  In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead.  Same comment about the water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3.  This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me.  Not sure why.  Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Maybe it's my monitor, or my retina, or my brain, but from here I see
tonally flat, generic images.

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 20 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Troy Piggins
FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead.  Same comment about the water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3.  This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me.  Not sure why.  Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Maybe it's my monitor, or my retina, or my brain, but from here I see
tonally flat, generic images.

Any suggestions on how to improve them then?

[Noons]

Post by Troy Piggins
1.  This is my fav of the set.  Feels nicely balanced to me.  Bit
of FG interest, nice sky.  As mentioned above, still cursing I
left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
this:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
2.  In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead.  Same comment about the water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3.  This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me.  Not sure why.  Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

You got these in dA as well, haven't ya?

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Troy Piggins
FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead.  Same comment about the water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3.  This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me.  Not sure why.  Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

You got these in dA as well, haven't ya?

Ya.

[Noons]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]

FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead. Same comment about the water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

You got these in dA as well, haven't ya?

Ya.

Thought I'd seen them somewhere.
Excellent for the first one. Second one needs definitely a different framing, if
that is 1/3 sky 2/3 ground, dunno: something dosn't play well there, and I'm not
convinced it's the log.
Third one I'd have done as landscape rather than portrait, too late now! ;)
Still good stuff and thanks for sharing.

[John McWilliams]

Post by Noons

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]

FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead. Same comment about the
water:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
overcast, bit blown, and
boring:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

You got these in dA as well, haven't ya?

Ya.

Thought I'd seen them somewhere.
Excellent for the first one. Second one needs definitely a different
framing, if that is 1/3 sky 2/3 ground, dunno: something dosn't play
well there, and I'm not convinced it's the log.
Third one I'd have done as landscape rather than portrait, too late now! ;)
Still good stuff and thanks for sharing.

I agree with this post. The last one is very interesting, and I hope you
shot also some landscape oriented ones of the scene. Nitpick: The
horizon is off by a degree or less, perhaps not noticeable to any but
sailors or marine photographers.....

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 19 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Noons
Excellent for the first one. Second one needs definitely a different
framing, if that is 1/3 sky 2/3 ground, dunno: something dosn't play
well there, and I'm not convinced it's the log.
Third one I'd have done as landscape rather than portrait, too late now! ;)
Still good stuff and thanks for sharing.

I agree with this post. The last one is very interesting, and I hope you
shot also some landscape oriented ones of the scene. Nitpick: The
horizon is off by a degree or less, perhaps not noticeable to any but
sailors or marine photographers...

Thanks mate. I think I do have some similar shots in landscape
orientation. Will did it out and play with it.

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 9 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Noons
You got these in dA as well, haven't ya?

Ya.

Thought I'd seen them somewhere.
Excellent for the first one. Second one needs definitely a
something dosn't play well there, and I'm not convinced it's
the log.
Third one I'd have done as landscape rather than portrait, too
late now! ;)
Still good stuff and thanks for sharing.

Thanks mate.

[Mark McDougall]

Post by Troy Piggins
I'd really appreciate your comments and critique.

FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

Having said that, these pictures make me want to see the colour versions. I
think I'd rather like them!

A comment on #2, I think the log right across the line of the lake's horizon
is a problem.

Regards,

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Mark McDougall

Post by Troy Piggins
I'd really appreciate your comments and critique.

FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

Post by Mark McDougall
Having said that, these pictures make me want to see the colour versions. I
think I'd rather like them!

Here's colour versions of all 3. For the first 2, I kinda liked
the slightly desaturated look anyway.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Post by Mark McDougall
A comment on #2, I think the log right across the line of the lake's horizon
is a problem.

Totally agree. Thanks for the comments.

[Mark McDougall]

Post by Troy Piggins
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/5073835117_b99e18c2d5_b_d.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/5074091211_980aa4a498_b_d.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/5074689364_d0d7a17e8d_b_d.jpg

To me, so much more pleasing to the eye! :)

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
A comment on #2, I think the log right across the line of the lake's horizon
is a problem.

Totally agree. Thanks for the comments.

Pity, it would've been the pick of the bunch if the log was slightly lower
in the photo...

Regards,

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Mark McDougall

Post by Troy Piggins
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/5073835117_b99e18c2d5_b_d.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/5074091211_980aa4a498_b_d.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/5074689364_d0d7a17e8d_b_d.jpg

To me, so much more pleasing to the eye! :)

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
A comment on #2, I think the log right across the line of the lake's horizon
is a problem.

Totally agree. Thanks for the comments.

Pity, it would've been the pick of the bunch if the log was slightly lower
in the photo...

Not sure about pick of the bunch, but certainly would have
improved it. That's what I meant.

[Mr.T]

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)

While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
"artistic" :-(

MrT.

[Mark McDougall]

Post by Mr.T
If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

Regards,

[Bruce]

Post by Mark McDougall

Post by Mr.T
If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
quality that Ansel Adams produced.

If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

[Savageduck]

Post by Bruce

Post by Mark McDougall

Post by Mr.T
If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
quality that Ansel Adams produced.
If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
desaturating.
There are many ways of getting to a pleasing B&W result in PP without
resorting to desaturation. It is quite possible to work a pseudo "zone"
system. Here are a few variations I had been playing with for
comparison. Just an ongoing experiment.
< Loading Image... >

...and then there is also the NIK Silver Effects Pro plugin
< http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php?tab=0 >

[Bruce]

Post by Savageduck

Post by Bruce

Post by Mark McDougall
I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
quality that Ansel Adams produced.
If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
desaturating.

I think that was exactly Mr.T's point, and if so, we all agree.

Post by Savageduck
There are many ways of getting to a pleasing B&W result in PP without
resorting to desaturation. It is quite possible to work a pseudo "zone"
system. Here are a few variations I had been playing with for
comparison. Just an ongoing experiment.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/MSM-BW-Comp-s.jpg >

Interesting results.

Post by Savageduck
...and then there is also the NIK Silver Effects Pro plugin
< http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php?tab=0 >

Thanks.

The main limitation, which should not be too difficult to remove, is
the Bayer pattern primary colour filters over the digital sensor.

There have been several DSLR manufacturers who have announced their
intention to make a DSLR that omits these filters, and does only black
and white, but I think only one delivered. That was Kodak (or someone
will be along in a minute to correct me!) but it was some years ago.

I would probably be more inclined to experiment with digital black and
white if I had difficulty selling traditional 'wet darkroom' prints,
or didn't enjoy producing them. The darkroom is a particular pleasure
at this time as my ability to travel is still limited.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Bruce
...

Post by Savageduck
There are many ways of getting to a pleasing B&W result in PP without
resorting to desaturation. It is quite possible to work a pseudo "zone"
system. Here are a few variations I had been playing with for
comparison. Just an ongoing experiment.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/MSM-BW-Comp-s.jpg>

Interesting results.

Post by Savageduck
...

The main limitation, which should not be too difficult to remove, is
the Bayer pattern primary colour filters over the digital sensor.
There have been several DSLR manufacturers who have announced their
intention to make a DSLR that omits these filters, and does only black
and white, but I think only one delivered. That was Kodak (or someone
will be along in a minute to correct me!) but it was some years ago.
...

Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for large
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.

Discussion:
http://stargazerslounge.com/archive/index.php/t-94814.html

High end product:
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=15110
$5,000
4008 x 2672 (11MP)
37 x 26mm sensor

[David J. Littleboy]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Bruce
...

Post by Savageduck
There are many ways of getting to a pleasing B&W result in PP without
resorting to desaturation. It is quite possible to work a pseudo "zone"
system. Here are a few variations I had been playing with for
comparison. Just an ongoing experiment.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/MSM-BW-Comp-s.jpg>

Interesting results.
The main limitation, which should not be too difficult to remove, is
the Bayer pattern primary colour filters over the digital sensor.

See below for a conversion link. But it's not all that much of a limitation.
I've found that the red channel in 5D and 5D2 images is _much_ better than I
expected, and shooting in color gives a lot of flexibility in conversion
(although landscape types usually just take the red channel).

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Bruce
There have been several DSLR manufacturers who have announced their
intention to make a DSLR that omits these filters, and does only black
and white, but I think only one delivered. That was Kodak (or someone
will be along in a minute to correct me!) but it was some years ago.
...

Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for large
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.
http://stargazerslounge.com/archive/index.php/t-94814.html
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=15110
$5,000
4008 x 2672 (11MP)
37 x 26mm sensor

Or you can get an existing camera converted. Maxmax can remove the Bayer
filters from some cameras.

http://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm

The 3rd through 6th shots here are 5D shots with the RGB filters still in
place, but the IR cut filter replaced with a deep IR pass filter (830nm) by
maxmax.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/peso_2010

[Paul Furman]

Post by David J. Littleboy

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Bruce
...
The main limitation, which should not be too difficult to remove, is
the Bayer pattern primary colour filters over the digital sensor.

See below for a conversion link. But it's not all that much of a limitation.
I've found that the red channel in 5D and 5D2 images is _much_ better than I
expected, and shooting in color gives a lot of flexibility in conversion
(although landscape types usually just take the red channel).

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Bruce
...

Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for large
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.
http://stargazerslounge.com/archive/index.php/t-94814.html
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=15110
$5,000
4008 x 2672 (11MP)
37 x 26mm sensor

Or you can get an existing camera converted. Maxmax can remove the Bayer
filters from some cameras.
http://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm

Interesting. I see the microlenses are lost, which presumably would be a
problem for wide angle lenses but the effective ISO increase must be
amazing... or perhaps dynamic range, and it seems the AA filter is gone
too so much sharper (with the risk of aliasing artifacts).

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 15 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Bruce
There have been several DSLR manufacturers who have announced their
intention to make a DSLR that omits these filters, and does only black
and white, but I think only one delivered. That was Kodak (or someone
will be along in a minute to correct me!) but it was some years ago.
...

Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for large
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.
http://stargazerslounge.com/archive/index.php/t-94814.html
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=15110
$5,000
4008 x 2672 (11MP)
37 x 26mm sensor

Stop it. You're making me drool. Soon as I save up the dough,
I'm getting a CCD astro camera.

FWIW I think they'd be horrible for terrestrial photography.
They need to be tethered to a computer (as you mentioned), often
require separate power supply. You can get adapters to fit SLR
lenses to them, though. But usually that's for widefield astro
imaging still.

They're awesomely (is that a word?) sensitive (ie high quantum
efficiency), very low noise, and have much larger well depths (so
can take on more photons before saturation).

[Paul Furman]

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Paul Furman
...
Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for large
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.

...
FWIW I think they'd be horrible for terrestrial photography.

Yeah, it would compare with a large format camera with black cloth for
ease of use, or worse. I wonder about something like that for stacked
macro shooting... the dynamic range can be useful there.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Paul Furman
...
Astro cameras are available with monochrome but very expensive for

large

Post by Paul Furman
sensors and only work tethered to a laptop, no viewfinder, etc.

...
FWIW I think they'd be horrible for terrestrial photography.

Yeah, it would compare with a large format camera with black cloth for
ease of use, or worse. I wonder about something like that for stacked
macro shooting... the dynamic range can be useful there.

Frankly, HDR would be a lot easier. Pretty darn limited use now that I
think about it.

[Troy Piggins]

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Troy Piggins
FWIW I think they'd be horrible for terrestrial photography.

Yeah, it would compare with a large format camera with black cloth for
ease of use, or worse. I wonder about something like that for stacked
macro shooting... the dynamic range can be useful there.

Frankly, HDR would be a lot easier. Pretty darn limited use now that I
think about it.

I've seen guys trying HDR for macro, but they soon give up. I
wouldn't have thought dynamic range is an issue either if you can
use a flash.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Troy Piggins

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Troy Piggins
FWIW I think they'd be horrible for terrestrial photography.

Yeah, it would compare with a large format camera with black cloth for
ease of use, or worse. I wonder about something like that for stacked
macro shooting... the dynamic range can be useful there.

Frankly, HDR would be a lot easier. Pretty darn limited use now that I
think about it.

I've seen guys trying HDR for macro, but they soon give up. I
wouldn't have thought dynamic range is an issue either if you can
use a flash.

Actually an astro cam might work well for stacked microscopy type work,
I was thinking more about normal terrestrial photography where it would
have almost no benefit at all. Who needs high ISO on a tripod?

Lighting can be difficult for extreme macro and the subjects can be
super-reflective like insects and glass-like plant hairs. Also noise and
contrast can get multiplied when stacking. I'm still weird about not
wanting to use flash... I can't see what's going on and it would drive
me nuts to do stacks of hundreds of frames with flash. DSLR mirrors are
a huge annoyance for stacking. With microscope objectives, it's really
hard to fill an FX 35mm sensor so a smaller one with super noise
performance and dynamic range would be sweet. Something like APS or 4/3
with 20MP would be ideal but that spec doesn't seem to exist:
http://www.optcorp.com/productList.aspx
(hard to sort through the specs tho)

[Mr.T]

Post by Troy Piggins
I've seen guys trying HDR for macro, but they soon give up. I
wouldn't have thought dynamic range is an issue either if you can
use a flash.

Are your sure they were actually doing HDR and not image stacking for
increased depth of field? That's what I do for macro.

MrT.

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins
I've seen guys trying HDR for macro, but they soon give up. I
wouldn't have thought dynamic range is an issue either if you can
use a flash.

Are your sure they were actually doing HDR and not image stacking for
increased depth of field? That's what I do for macro.

Yes. I know the difference between HDR and focus stacking.

[Mr.T]

Post by Savageduck
Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
desaturating.

Of course there is, I was using the channel mixer in Photoshop 2!
But how do YOU print them?


MrT.

[Savageduck]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Savageduck
Certainly we don't have a digital Adams darkroom yet, and it is
difficult to think reproducing any of his work digitally. However there
is more to digital B&W conversion than just going to gray scale or
desaturating.

Of course there is, I was using the channel mixer in Photoshop 2!
But how do YOU print them?
MrT.

Agreed. Inkjets for B&W have not provided me B&W prints I, or anybody
else in this thread, would be satisfied with.

It might be worth trying one of the profesional printing services such
as MPix < http://www.mpix.com/ > and Bay Photo <
http://www.bayphoto.com/ >

[David J. Littleboy]

Agreed. Inkjets for B&W have not provided me B&W prints I, or anybody else
in this thread, would be satisfied with.

Lots of people claim to be happy with the Epson 2400, while others claim
improvements by using dedicated inks.

The experience here is that even the R800 produces very nice B&W prints*. So
far here, it's the photographer not the printer that's the weak link in the
chain. When I see a B&W photo that knocks my socks off, it seems more the
photo than the printing technology.

*: I don't know where the problems that people have come from: I print from
Qimage, and B&W just looks good.

[Savageduck]

Post by David J. Littleboy

Agreed. Inkjets for B&W have not provided me B&W prints I, or anybody else
in this thread, would be satisfied with.

Lots of people claim to be happy with the Epson 2400, while others claim
improvements by using dedicated inks.
The experience here is that even the R800 produces very nice B&W prints*.

I have a Canon i9900 which does just fine for color, but is very hit
and miss when it comes to B&W.
I just could not justify the cost of replacing it right now, based on
its poor B&W performance.
...and from time to time I get what amounts to a magnificent accident.

Post by David J. Littleboy
So far here, it's the photographer not the printer that's the weak link in the
chain. When I see a B&W photo that knocks my socks off, it seems more the
photo than the printing technology.

Agreed. Ultimately it is always the photographer.
BTW: those were some nice IR shots.

Post by David J. Littleboy
*: I don't know where the problems that people have come from: I print from
Qimage, and B&W just looks good.

I

[Mr.T]

Post by Savageduck

Post by David J. Littleboy

Agreed. Inkjets for B&W have not provided me B&W prints I, or anybody else
in this thread, would be satisfied with.

Lots of people claim to be happy with the Epson 2400, while others claim
improvements by using dedicated inks.
The experience here is that even the R800 produces very nice B&W prints*.

I have a Canon i9900 which does just fine for color, but is very hit
and miss when it comes to B&W.
I just could not justify the cost of replacing it right now, based on
its poor B&W performance.

Yes that's my problem, and the local print places I tried a while back were
underwhelming.

Post by Savageduck
...and from time to time I get what amounts to a magnificent accident.
Agreed. Ultimately it is always the photographer.

Not so. Sure you can't make a good print from a bad photo, but you CAN make
a bad print from a good photo.

MrT.

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Bruce
If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

I seriously doubt that. With enough pixels ... and we are getting up there
into 4x5 B&W pixel density just about now ... digital will be
enormously superior. That is, of course, with Ansel Adam's esthetic
skills, trained to use Photoshop, and printing on an art-grade silver print paper.

Of course, the problem with this idea is that one the AA clone person
finished with the Photoshopping, an infinite number of perfect and
identical prints could be reproduced. This is not conducive to
the idea of "art prints".

Doug McDonald

[Mr.T]

Post by Doug McDonald
I seriously doubt that. With enough pixels ... and we are getting up there
into 4x5 B&W pixel density just about now ... digital will be
enormously superior. That is, of course, with Ansel Adam's esthetic
skills, trained to use Photoshop, and printing on an art-grade silver print paper.

And there's the problem, how many here use a printer with multiple grey inks
for printing their B&W on high quality paper?
If I had enough reason to invest in the right equipment, I might change my
mind. Or if a local lab did. The last time I tried one I was unimpressed
with the results however. That was a couple of years ago I admit.

Post by Doug McDonald
Of course, the problem with this idea is that one the AA clone person
finished with the Photoshopping, an infinite number of perfect and
identical prints could be reproduced. This is not conducive to
the idea of "art prints".

Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original data
files as he does over his negatives?

MrT.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by Doug McDonald
I seriously doubt that. With enough pixels ... and we are getting up there
into 4x5 B&W pixel density just about now ... digital will be
enormously superior. That is, of course, with Ansel Adam's esthetic
skills, trained to use Photoshop, and printing on an art-grade silver

print paper.
And there's the problem, how many here use a printer with multiple grey inks
for printing their B&W on high quality paper?
If I had enough reason to invest in the right equipment, I might change my
mind. Or if a local lab did. The last time I tried one I was unimpressed
with the results however. That was a couple of years ago I admit.

I thought lightjet prints on photographic paper are excellent, though I
haven't tried B&W that way, I know a guy who does. Last I checked they
didn't have real silver process...

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by Doug McDonald
Of course, the problem with this idea is that one the AA clone person
finished with the Photoshopping, an infinite number of perfect and
identical prints could be reproduced. This is not conducive to
the idea of "art prints".

Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original data
files as he does over his negatives?
MrT.

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Mr.T
Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original data
files as he does over his negatives?

Yes, but in Art, the mere ability to make more reduces monetary value.

Adam's own prints were of course unique productions.

Doug McDonald

[Mr.T]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by Mr.T
Surely the photographer should have the same control over his original data
files as he does over his negatives?

Yes, but in Art, the mere ability to make more reduces monetary value.
Adam's own prints were of course unique productions.

No, he could always make more from his negatives, the same as you can from
data files. What makes them valuable is to number and sign each one with a
guarantee no more will be made. If you break that guarantee then your future
work becomes worth-less.
The only real difference is that few could reproduce the quality of Adams
work after he died, even given the negatives. Whereas anyone can reprint a
digital file after the photographer dies. Simply destroying all data files
relating to the image after the print run is done will solve that problem of
course. Something not even Adams did with his negatives.

Frankly the idea of simply making art only something for speculators doesn't
appeal to me however.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

Post by Bruce

Post by Mark McDougall
I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
quality that Ansel Adams produced.
If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

Gee I'm glad someone got it. I thought it was clear enough when read in
full. Obviously not for some.

MrT.

[Bruce]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Bruce

Post by Mark McDougall
I don't think he was comparing himself to Ansell Adams.

No, he wasn't. But I don't think Mr.T was accusing him of doing that
either. I think Mr.T was saying that no-one should try to compare a
desaturated digital image with traditional black and white work of the
quality that Ansel Adams produced.
If so, then I agree. Digital black and white has a very long way to
go before it can compete with traditional film and paper.

Gee I'm glad someone got it. I thought it was clear enough when read in
full. Obviously not for some.

Some people prefer to provide a knee-jerk reaction to something they
have only briefly scanned.

Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

[Mr.T]

Post by Bruce
Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

Yeah if only, 20 years and counting! :-)

MrT.

[Bruce]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Bruce
Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

Yeah if only, 20 years and counting! :-)

I'm something of a novice ... only 15 years. ;-)

[Dr Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF]

Post by Bruce

Post by Mr.T

Post by Bruce
Welcome to Usenet! ;-)

Yeah if only, 20 years and counting! :-)

I'm something of a novice ... only 15 years. ;-)

27 years.
--

- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.

"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott

[tony cooper]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

Whoa! Troy was not, in any way, comparing his shots to those of
Ansell Adams. He was noting, appropriately, that black and white can
be a very effective treatment for landscape photographs. Adams used
it, so why shouldn't Troy try his hand at it?

Post by Mr.T
While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
"artistic" :-(

I have yet to see a photograph done in "HD" where I think the
treatment makes the image better. In most cases, the result is
grotesque.

[Mr.T]

Post by tony cooper
I have yet to see a photograph done in "HD" where I think the
treatment makes the image better.

I sure have, mine :-)

Post by tony cooper
In most cases, the result is grotesque.

Agreed. I never use an automatic program for that reason, all done with
manual masking in photoshop. But then everybody has their own ideas about
what looks good or not. However sometimes it is simply not possible to get a
sartisfactory result any other way. You of course may simply choose to
ignore that subject, the choice is yours.

MrT.

[Allen]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.
( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)
While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
"artistic" :-(
MrT.

Goodbye.

[Mr.T]

Post by Allen
Goodbye.

Was there a point to your post?

MrT.

[John McWilliams]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.
( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)
While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
"artistic" :-(

Troy is not among those peeving persons.

And excellent results can be achieved with out firing up the enlarger
and mixing chemicals- but not on one's ordinary inkjet. (And no,
monitors will never compare directly to a print, color or mono.

[Mr.T]

Post by John McWilliams
And excellent results can be achieved with out firing up the enlarger
and mixing chemicals

Possibly, but I have yet to see them. There just doesn't seem to be enough
demand to spend the necessary capital for most people. IF I was a
millionaire I might think differently of course :-) Since my investment in
darkroom equipment would otherwise go to waste, I guess I'll stick with
that. Unfortunately that option is rapidly disappearing with the necessary
supplies :-(

Post by John McWilliams
but not on one's ordinary inkjet.
(And no, monitors will never compare directly to a print, color or mono.)

Exactly.

MrT.

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mark McDougall
FWIW, B&W landscapes have never appealed to me. I can appreciate B&W
portraits, street photography, perhaps even some architecture, but
landscapes... I don't don't see it.

2 words, 1 name. Ansell Adams. :)

If you think these (or any monochrome photo shown on a computer monitor, or
printed on an inkjet or other color printer) can ever compare to Ansell
Adams photo's and proper silver halide prints, you are sadly deluded I'm
afraid.

I'm not sadly deluded, and I don't think anything I have ever
shot and will shoot can compare. I was directly responding to
the comment, quoted above, about B&W landscapes not appealing to
someone.

Post by Mr.T
( I still have my darkroom, and do wish there was some way to achieve
similar B&W results from digital photo's. On the other hand I wouldn't
bother making color prints with chemicals any more!)
While not wishing to attack you personally Troy, a pet peeve of mine is
people who think simply removing the color from a photo somehow makes it
"artistic" :-(

You're allowed to have your peeves. Please allow me to respond.

I didn't simply "remove the colour". I carefully selected colour
ranges/hues/channels etc to get the contrast where I wanted it,
where I thought it looked best. It was much more thought out
than simply clicking "desaturate" or "grayscale".

And I don't think my results are "artistic" and are far from
perfect. That's why I made the original post. Asking for
critique, to help me improve.

[Mr.T]

Post by Troy Piggins
I didn't simply "remove the colour". I carefully selected colour
ranges/hues/channels etc to get the contrast where I wanted it,
where I thought it looked best. It was much more thought out
than simply clicking "desaturate" or "grayscale".

Sure, but you can't tell that from the jpeg however. How did you print it?

Post by Troy Piggins
And I don't think my results are "artistic" and are far from
perfect. That's why I made the original post. Asking for
critique, to help me improve.

And I gave mine for what was presented. Since it was purposely converted to
monochrome, the other comments mostly about composition seem irrelevant to
me. I simply didn't see a photo that was transformed into a work of art by
making it monochrome, no matter how you did it.

(And for the record I was using at least the channel mixer, adjustment
layers, and layer masks to convert to monochrome 15 years ago. That is NOT
the big problem in producing quality B&W from digital IMO)

MrT.

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins
I didn't simply "remove the colour". I carefully selected colour
ranges/hues/channels etc to get the contrast where I wanted it,
where I thought it looked best. It was much more thought out
than simply clicking "desaturate" or "grayscale".

Sure, but you can't tell that from the jpeg however. How did you print it?

What is this "printing" of which you speak? :) It's 2010 baby,
get with the times. We only save for web these days. :)

Sorry. Seriously, though, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm an
amatuer who only photographs for my own pleasure. I have very
little experience printing for high quality prints.

Post by Mr.T

Post by Troy Piggins
And I don't think my results are "artistic" and are far from
perfect. That's why I made the original post. Asking for
critique, to help me improve.

And I gave mine for what was presented. Since it was purposely converted to
monochrome, the other comments mostly about composition seem irrelevant to
me. I simply didn't see a photo that was transformed into a work of art by
making it monochrome, no matter how you did it.

You're really hung up on this monochrome conversion thing, aren't
you. You don't think composition, exposure, textures, leading
lines, subject matter, appeal, movement, whatever are important
for monochrome images?

I never expected the shot to be transformed into a work of art
because I converted it. I just thought it suited monochrome
better. A final touch. That's all.

I'm probably more interested in comments about those items
mentioned above moreso than telling me that digital photos will
never turn out the same as monochrome film shots. Of course they
won't. But I'm living in 2010, not last century.

Post by Mr.T
(And for the record I was using at least the channel mixer, adjustment
layers, and layer masks to convert to monochrome 15 years ago. That is NOT
the big problem in producing quality B&W from digital IMO)

I'm sure it's not. But that's not something I can fix. Let's
just stick with comments that I can do something about.

[Mr.T]

Post by Troy Piggins

Post by Mr.T
Sure, but you can't tell that from the jpeg however. How did you print it?

What is this "printing" of which you speak? :) It's 2010 baby,
get with the times. We only save for web these days. :)

OK, how many people are using a monochrome monitor on the web, hands up? :-)
Try looking at Ansell Adams pictures on your computer if you want to see why
there is no competition with real prints.

Post by Troy Piggins
Sorry. Seriously, though, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm an
amatuer who only photographs for my own pleasure. I have very
little experience printing for high quality prints.

Sure, and I said right from the start I wasn't attacking you, just pointing
out my opinion.

Post by Troy Piggins
You're really hung up on this monochrome conversion thing, aren't
you. You don't think composition, exposure, textures, leading
lines, subject matter, appeal, movement, whatever are important
for monochrome images?

Sure they are, but they apply exactly the same whether you remove the color
from the original image or not, (IMO of course)

Post by Troy Piggins
I never expected the shot to be transformed into a work of art
because I converted it. I just thought it suited monochrome
better. A final touch. That's all.

OK, that's your right. And mine to think it didn't really work surely?

Post by Troy Piggins
I'm probably more interested in comments about those items
mentioned above moreso than telling me that digital photos will
never turn out the same as monochrome film shots. Of course they
won't. But I'm living in 2010, not last century.

In that case shouldn't you be making color 3D images rather than B&W? Surely
thats SOO last century, or the one before in fact! :-)

MrT.

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:48:34 +1000, Troy Piggins <usenet-***@piggo.com>
wrote:
: Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
: landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
: New Zealand last year.
:
: These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
: I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
: nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.
:
: I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
: can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
: and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
: and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
: comes to mind.
:
: 1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
: of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
: left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
: this:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
:
: 2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
: FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead. Same comment about the water:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
:
: 3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
: for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
: overcast, bit blown, and boring:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Why can't I see the first picture (the one that everybody seems to like)? All
I see is a note that it is "currently unavailable".

Bob

[N]

"Robert Coe" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:48:34 +1000, Troy Piggins <usenet-***@piggo.com>
wrote:
: Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
: landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
: New Zealand last year.
:
: These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
: I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
: nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.
:
: I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
: can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
: and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
: and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
: comes to mind.
:
: 1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
: of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
: left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
: this:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
:
: 2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
: FG 2/3 and the sky 1/3 instead. Same comment about the water:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
:
: 3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
: for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
: overcast, bit blown, and boring:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg

Why can't I see the first picture (the one that everybody seems to like)?
All
I see is a note that it is "currently unavailable".

Bob
========================

From memory the first one was the Lake Manapouri shot. If I'm right, it now
has a different jpg file name.

Loading Image...

--
N

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:21:48 +1100, "N" <***@onyx.com> wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: Why can't I see the first picture (the one that everybody seems to like)?
: All
: I see is a note that it is "currently unavailable".
:
: Bob
: ========================
:
: From memory the first one was the Lake Manapouri shot. If I'm right, it now
: has a different jpg file name.
:
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_3dfce7a0d7_b.jpg

Much better. Thanks!

Bob

[Troy Piggins]

Post by Robert Coe
: Been tidying up my photo library and decided to repro some
: landscapes into B&W conversions. These were taken on our trip to
: New Zealand last year.
: These were all hand-held. Wish I hadn't left my tripod at home.
: I'd have loved to be able to do longer exposures to get the water
: nice and smooth, and use smaller aperture.
: I'd really appreciate your comments and critique. Be brutal. I
: can take it. I love viewing top notch quality landscape photos,
: and I know what I like to see. But it's harder to take the shot
: and process your own. Exposure, composition, processing, whatever
: comes to mind.
: 1. This is my fav of the set. Feels nicely balanced to me. Bit
: of FG interest, nice sky. As mentioned above, still cursing I
: left my tripod in Oz, would love to have had 30s exposure of
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5070563395_632d06ac37_b.jpg
: 2. In hindsight I think this would have worked better with the
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5071170306_83167e5890_b.jpg
: 3. This shot looked promising in-camera, but just doesn't do it
: for me. Not sure why. Definitely not happy with the sky -
: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5073736224_b89d1b6128_b.jpg
Why can't I see the first picture (the one that everybody seems to like)? All
I see is a note that it is "currently unavailable".
Bob

Sorry mate. I uploaded another version with a little more
contrast in the FG. When I did that, it seems to rename the JPG
filename. I think "N" pointed you in the right direction.