That B&W look im after...

G

gpc1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,289
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Sure youve all seen Nick Danzigers B&W work on Africa on the news over the past couple of days.

Anyways, his photos are amazing. They really have impact. My questions is,

How to get that B&W look that he has captured?

Being new to photography and really liking B&W shots im after 'that' look. is it what you would call contrasty?

Most of my B&W images just seem to be grey and really lacking in depth/punch. How (using lightroom or Photoshop if need be) do i get that punch. Fair enough his subject probably adds to the wow factor but looking at the photo from a technical perspective how do you achieive such richness in the B&W.

Is it the light, technique, processing, cos he uses film, etc etc. And how would you replicate it using a 400D or 30D (or any digital camera). Im sure it can be done but how.

Bit of a broad, open question really but any tips, hints, discussion etc would be greatly appreciated.

Gpc
 
Just done a search for him and also I remeber reading an interview and from what I see he is still using film and a rather battered Olympus OM4 camera.

That is how he gets his impact in his pictures, plus he is very good.

To replicate in digital is not so easy, ther are several ways of converting images to mono, then it may be a case of fiddling whit curves and levels to get the result you are after.

Also having a good printer that can do B&W, basically a printer that has black and grey inks init, also print out on to the Harman paper that has banyata (think that is how you spell it) paper to give it a kind of silver geletin look
 
Worms can open.

Digital is not very good at black and white right out of the camera. Not compared to film. But there are a whole host of different methods for converting to black and white in photoshop and a lot of people employ their own methods. The convert to Black and White button is probably the worst and desaturating not much better, then there are channel mixers where moving the red and blue sliders can help a lot depending on the tones originally present in the image. And that's before you start on contrast!

Have a look on the net for converting to black and white and you'll find a host of different ways of doing it. Alternatively there are mags dedicated to B&W that have some really useful articles.

Sorry I can't give you a truly straight answer, other than it depends on the image which is the best method.
 
Thanks all

I think the 'cos he is good' is probably the most contributing factor lol!

Will do a search and take alook.
 
It may be a subconcious thing, we preceive B&W often as grainy with lots of defects in the photos a lot and often not pin sharp, digital is too clean in this respect and the noise it gives is not natual to the grain effect in that respect. I am sure with some skill you can recreate the contrast and levels of a B&W photo from a colour RAW original, but other aspect would take more skill to do.

That said, i am happy enough with the results.

img6989qb5.jpg
 
Theres a magazine out this month, it's slipped my mind which one, that I was having a nosey at whilst at Tescos (as you do), and there was a tutorial in there on how to convert to mono/B&W and get depth, punch, kick, contrast etc. Maybe it'd be worth having a read of if this is the kinda thing you're looking to achieve.

It MIGHT have been something like DigitalCamera magazine, something along those lines.
 
digital photo were doing something this month as a seperate pull out.
 
You might want to experiment with Duotoning in Photoshop (using two or more coloured inks to achieve a monochrome image).

A.
 
gpc1 said:
Hi all

Sure youve all seen Nick Danzigers B&W work on Africa on the news over the past couple of days.

Anyways, his photos are amazing. They really have impact. My questions is,

How to get that B&W look that he has captured?

Being new to photography and really liking B&W shots im after 'that' look. is it what you would call contrasty?

Most of my B&W images just seem to be grey and really lacking in depth/punch. How (using lightroom or Photoshop if need be) do i get that punch. Fair enough his subject probably adds to the wow factor but looking at the photo from a technical perspective how do you achieive such richness in the B&W.

Is it the light, technique, processing, cos he uses film, etc etc. And how would you replicate it using a 400D or 30D (or any digital camera). Im sure it can be done but how.

Bit of a broad, open question really but any tips, hints, discussion etc would be greatly appreciated.

Gpc
Click to expand...

In Lightroom, upping the exposure a stop or so (to get some white clipping) and then boosting the blacks slider (to get some black clipping) should give you a nice contrasty look.

Don't be scared of whites that are white and blacks that are black, they look great in B&W and are needed if you're going to avoid a mess of grey blandness.
 
It is digital camera magazine that has some good conversion tips. I have been using the Orton technique illustrated in the mag and it is really effective, it involves combining two copies of the same image, one sharp, one blurred and it gives nice diffused highlights.
 
sprog, that's harsh.
 
Although I have to say I actually agree with it!

I've got a MF film camera for just that reason. I develop the film and then scan it into photoshop so I retain some control over how it looks. Film does do blacks black and whites white though. It is different to digital.
 
256 levels of grey? Pah! A pox on those pixels.

There is another way: look at James Ravilious for low contrast B&W.

Some conversion techniques (specifically for PSP) are detailed here.
 
subseasniper said:
sprog, that's harsh.
Click to expand...

But true.

With film, you have an intrinsic artifact of the image you captured and it was a part of the sensory experience at the time it was taken. You also have control over it's final creation if you develop and print/scan yourself.

It's all just '0's and '1's with digital innit.;)
 
sprog said:
But true.

With film, you have an intrinsic artifact of the image you captured and it was a part of the sensory experience at the time it was taken. You also have control over it's final creation if you develop and print/scan yourself.

It's all just '0's and '1's with digital innit.;)
Click to expand...

It's chemical reaction to light, not 'sensory experience'. I do agree that film has a certain charm to it, just like records v cd.
 
B&W film currently has a greater dynamic range & resolution than a digital camera but the "contrasty" look is down a chemical reaction both in the camera & at the development stage.

Once you get the post-processing style you like with a digital camera you can repeat it , again & again & again. You can even give the action to somebody else & it will be exactly the same.
 
mrgubby said:
Once you get the post-processing style you like with a digital camera you can repeat it , again & again & again. You can even give the action to somebody else & it will be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

True, but you don't actually say whether that's a good or a bad thing.
 
I think the big advantage with digital B&W is that you have much greater latitude when it comes to the final look.

But it is an absolute devil to recreate that film "feel" for the end result.

It's so difficult to create an action to automate it as every pic has a different start point in terms of the tones present in the image and how much contrast and grain suits the subject. With those three variables and adding lightness to it it becomes difficult to get the right balance.

Drives me nuts, hence I still use film too :)
 
mrgubby said:
Once you get the post-processing style you like with a digital camera you can repeat it , again & again & again. You can even give the action to somebody else & it will be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

A fair point made.

However why?

The nice thing about doing film the old fashion way is that each image is unique, sometimes it is not about "press a button and repeat over and over again".

But each to there own.
 
mrgubby said:
*snip

Once you get the post-processing style you like .
Click to expand...

sprog said:
True, but you don't actually say whether that's a good or a bad thing.
Click to expand...

In My World of Photography TM , If I like it then it is a Good Thing :D

Knikki said:
A fair point made.

However why?
.
Click to expand...

Why not, I thought we were speaking about B&W from a Digital Camera, once I've got an action that appears to my biased eye that looks like Film why not use it repeatedly ?
 
Thanks for all the replies,
Looks like its a simple case of experimentation then.....


Much appreciated
Gpc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top