How to have the widest and the richest grayscale ?

[Fabrizio]

Hey all,

That's my first official post ! Hello RetouchPro Community !

I read a lot of methods about how to turn a RGB picture in a B&W one but I'm still not convinced. This question is simple, the methods (like BW functionnality in PS) seem simple but a good result is very hard to have.

One year ago, I visited the exposition of Patrick Demarchelier in Paris, and I never saw B&W pictures with a such rich and wide gray scale. (I know, I know, shooting with a Hasselblad can help ;-)

http://k53.pbase.com/o3/50/833250/1/...9Na_rPBase.jpg

So my question is : on Photoshop, according to you, which method is the best one to have a very rich grayscale ? Do you use the B&W basic functionnality of PS, did you find an another way to make a beautiful B&W...? Is the D&B method is mandatory to have a good result ?

Thanks in advance !

Have a nice week,

Cheers

[pixelzombie]

if you want rich grayscale, i suggest you look into getting a dedicated printer that only prints black and white..i recall my days of scanning for conde nast, they would always want a 4 color black and white over just a grayscale image...

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl;js...c=362672&sc=15

[0lBaldy]

Fabrizio, Welcome to RetouchPRO Hope you enjoy your stay here and make lots of friends. Poke around, ask questions, offer help, have fun!

As Danny Raphael has stated in previous threads "A boatload of Information here":
Tutorial 05: Converting a Color Image to Black and White grayscale BW

A nice discussion here:
Actions: Black and white B&W BW (Bill Miller)

And a tutorial discussing the various methods:
Some techniques for converting a color image to black and white

As you alluded to it is always best if you start with a nice, crisp, high dynamic range image..

My personal best method is to try a combination of all the methods I am familiar with and blend together the best areas of each

[namphoto]

Lambda printer.

[Quantum3]

I use a Nikon D700, which is quite the same than the Hasselblad quality. In some aspects it's the same thing but somehow, the hasselblad produces better images. Comparisson here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...d2)/Hasselblad

I do love gray scale too, but I don't think the example you posted fits under the richest grey scale image. I have seen better images taken with verym, very cheapers cameras than a Hasselblad. I think it's in the process more than in the camera used. I have seen stunning gray scale pictures taken with a Canon 300D! Unbelievable...

HEre you have some examples of gray scale images: http://mart1980.deviantart.com/favou...-Scale-Process

The best way is analyzing and viewing lot of grayscale images in order to understand how they become the way they look. What is the essence of that looking and how to achieve the same thing by using software. D&B is a good technique to clean out posterization or using the HP technique also helps. It's a work of hours.

[Mikefive]

Originally Posted by Quantum3

I use a Nikon D700, which is quite the same than the Hasselblad quality... Comparisson here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...d2)/Hasselblad

HAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
These all tests make me laugh... hahahahaha

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by Mikefive

HAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
These all tests make me laugh... hahahahaha

Would love to see better ones. Have some?

[Fabrizio]

Hey all,

Thanks for your answers.
@olbaldy Thanks. To be honnest, after having read some thread, I 'm very impressed by the quality of members, and the high level of skills here... My search on forum was not accurate enough !
@namphoto and pixelzombie : I've the best Lab of Paris just next to my apartment, I think I will let them to do the job ;-)
@Quantum3 : this test is surprising...except the resolution, where the hasselblad is better ? Because, when you talk with Fashion professional Hasselblad seems unavoidable... For the pic I posted, I agree...but I swear, the original one is just unbelievable... Regarding the pic you posted, it is excellent, it's this kind of grayscale I'm looking for.

Thanks again !

[Mikefive]

Originally Posted by Quantum3

Would love to see better ones. Have some?

I don't do tests... I just take pictures

Here is why tests suck:
Take Hassie, take D700
Look at the Raw files and "tadaaaaam".... and then you see the difference.
Anyway In my personal test I'm giving "my own" camera 100 everywhere

[Quantum3]

mmmmhhhh.... Do you have RAW from Hassleblad or some test?

[Mikefive]

Nop, I personally don't own one yet. But for sure you can find some RAWs over the internet.

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by Mikefive

Nop, I personally don't own one yet. But for sure you can find some RAWs over the internet.

I already tried, got tons of RAW from different cameras, but impossible to find something from Hasselblad.

[Mikefive]

You have samples on hasselblad website
http://www.hasselblad.se/downloads/images.aspx
(I didn't personally download this files but hope it's what you are looking for)

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by Mikefive

You have samples on hasselblad website
http://www.hasselblad.se/downloads/images.aspx
(I didn't personally download this files but hope it's what you are looking for)

Thanks a super lot man! It works!!!!

[pixelzombie]

these are .fff files..i can't open them with cs4 or cs3

[Quantum3]

I have downloaded these already

[snapperanton]

just to butt in a little. You can probably download Phocus from Hasselblad to trial, which will open your .fff files.
On the subject of Nikon v Hasselblad, in my mind their is no comparison file wise. I used a canon eos1ds mark 2 and mark 3 for quite a while. I then upgraded to a phase one p30+. The files are much easier to work with retouch wise and have a beautiful feel, especially when processed with CaptureOne software. Amazing quality ... if exposed correctly... this is extremely important !! Saying that, I still love to shoot 6 x7 neg (RZ67) and scan now and again.

/Anthony

[Mikefive]

Originally Posted by snapperanton

... The files are much easier to work with retouch wise and have a beautiful feel...

That is exactly how it is

[Quantum3]

Well... most cameras will work right if the illumination of the scene falls into the camera's dinamyc range.

[snapperanton]

exactly, but so much emphasize (from the start of digital shooting) has been put on not blowing out the highlights, that most people tend to underexpose too much..... a mistake! A quick look at the histogram (whilst shooting) will save a lot of time in post production. As a retoucher (Quantum3) you have to help educate the photographers, then obviously you're job will be easier and the results better. I notice this happening more and more now. In London, one retouch house has recommended ISO lightmeter settings to help their clients produce better files. ie Rate camera at 100, rate meter at 50asa.

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by snapperanton

As a retoucher (Quantum3) you have to help educate the photographers.

Yes, I do that as far as the photographer is open to listen. Sometimes photographers don't listen or they think they're right. For example, since Canon released 5DMKII most photographers bought it because the picture size and you can tell them not to buy that camera because lot of reasons and examples found in the web and through experience and study and photographers will argue with lot of stuborness that that camera is great because X whatever said it. So many photographers are not open to listen, think and talk about a given topic. Same happens when talkin about dynamic range, bit of depth, histograms, and so on. Most photographers have not concerns about the technical stuff involved inside the camera and how it interacts with a given enviroment so even more impossible opening a talk about these things when the other party ignores lot of this technical stuff and even worst, when they're driven by their ego.

I'm always open to listen and to talk, but you know, sometimes people is too susceptible and they feel they're are being criticized instead helped, so this should be handled with care.

PS: I?m also a hobby photographer

[snook305]

Shoot medium format digital backs with true 16 bit....

Snook

[Andrew Lawrence]

Yeah, I've seen some piezography prints and they looked great. Probably your best bet if your going to be printing them....

When using digital, a lot of people tend to think they can just "tweak" the exposure later in photoshop, so they get a little on the lazy side with their exposures.... but this isn't the case, and if you want a very high quality image I'd suggest making sure your exposure is spot on, and you might want to bracket to make sure if you're having any doubts about a shot.

Traditionally, as I understand it, (I would appreciate it if someone could correct me here if I'm wrong or inaccurate) the size of the actual sensor's individual pixels has a lot to do with what you're talking about in respects to DSLR vs. medium format backs.... So a really small point and shoot will have a smaller sensor size than your normal 35 mm frame, so in order to fit all of those 12 megapixels into that small area you have to fit in a bunch of smaller photosites, where as a larger sensor size allows for the same 12 megapixels to have larger photosites that have a larger capacity for more photons of light and therefore greater dynamic range.

The smaller the size of the individual photosites the camera has, the faster those photosite cavities will overflow with photons of light and blow out that pixel. The larger the cavity of the individual photosites, the more tonal range you will have.
So naturally, everything else held constant, a medium format back will have more dynamic range than a 35 mm DSLR with the same number of megapixels

Also take into the consideration of more expensive lenses and crazy quality all around.
All that said,
If you buy some decent glass for your DSLR, learn about exposure and post processing, and print your black and whites right, you'll have some amazing images....

[Chaibolna]

HI guys

The Richest and The Longest Life Ink Set Ever Produced You can choose from the widest Pallet of inks from our Photographic Series to The OEM inks have focused mostly on gloss media falling short on other less reflective material.We had proven that we could accomplish a perfect gray scale with just one.


Thanks










Volet piscine - Style de vie

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by Fabrizio

(I know, I know, shooting with a Hasselblad can help ;-)

Actually... the Hasselblad alone does very little for you. I've retouch some pretty crappy files shoot with a Hasselblad and some great files done with a medium format camera...

Originally Posted by Fabrizio

http://k53.pbase.com/o3/50/833250/1/...9Na_rPBase.jpg

That has been heavily retouched. So if you want to get to that... learn how to retouch

x

[insmac]

Also look at the EXIF metadata. For what it says it wasn't even a fullframe dslr that took the picture.
Last but not least a heavy retouch done wrong may lower the quality of the print and a hires version of the image respectively.

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

Traditionally, as I understand it, (I would appreciate it if someone could correct me here if I'm wrong or inaccurate) the size of the actual sensor's individual pixels has a lot to do with what you're talking about in respects to DSLR vs. medium format backs.... So a really small point and shoot will have a smaller sensor size than your normal 35 mm frame, so in order to fit all of those 12 megapixels into that small area you have to fit in a bunch of smaller photosites, where as a larger sensor size allows for the same 12 megapixels to have larger photosites that have a larger capacity for more photons of light and therefore greater dynamic range.

The smaller the size of the individual photosites the camera has, the faster those photosite cavities will overflow with photons of light and blow out that pixel. The larger the cavity of the individual photosites, the more tonal range you will have.
So naturally, everything else held constant, a medium format back will have more dynamic range than a 35 mm DSLR with the same number of megapixels

Also take into the consideration of more expensive lenses and crazy quality all around.
All that said,
If you buy some decent glass for your DSLR, learn about exposure and post processing, and print your black and whites right, you'll have some amazing images....

Your technical information is right. Also, it explains why not a 5DMKII

[Quantum3]

Originally Posted by Godmother

Actually... the Hasselblad alone does very little for you. I've retouch some pretty crappy files shoot with a Hasselblad and some great files done with a medium format camera...

100% agree.

Let me know one thing. How behaved the iMac for editing such big pic? Did you edited in 16 or 8 bit?

[snapperanton]

Originally Posted by Quantum3

Most photographers have not concerns about the technical stuff involved inside the camera and how it interacts with a given enviroment so even more impossible opening a talk about these things when the other party ignores lot of this technical stuff and even worst, when they're driven by their ego

Yep, lots of egos, I worked as a freelance fashion assistant for many years in London and worked with many of them. The worlds best photographers (or at least the ones shooting all the campaigns) are either extremely technical OR they have very technical assistants saving their butts on the day.... leaving them to be flamboyant and wild!!

A photographer would be crazy not to take advice from a retoucher they respect.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Godmother

Actually... the Hasselblad alone does very little for you. I've retouch some pretty crappy files shoot with a Hasselblad and some great files done with a medium format camera...



That has been heavily retouched. So if you want to get to that... learn how to retouch

x

Yep, don't expect the camera you have to give you a drastically different result.... the only examples I can think where you would get a drastic result as a direct result of camera choice is if you use a view camera doing distortion movements or complicated focusing, or if you bought a holga or some cheap camera that has a lot of individualities.

If you go out and spend 30 grand on a camera, that RAW file is going to look pretty similar to your prosumer SLR as far as mood and feeling.... all of that needs to come in at post processing.

Originally Posted by Quantum3

Yes, I do that as far as the photographer is open to listen. Sometimes photographers don't listen or they think they're right. For example, since Canon released 5DMKII most photographers bought it because the picture size and you can tell them not to buy that camera because lot of reasons and examples found in the web and through experience and study and photographers will argue with lot of stuborness that that camera is great because X whatever said it.

It's still surprising to me how many "technical" people don't understand how megapixels are actually a measurement of surface area. So a move from 10 megapixels to 20 megapixels is only a 25% increase in resolution size. These numbers are used to sell cameras to the customer. 20 sounds twice as big as 10, so people feel it's a huge increase.

I got into a discussion with a camera salesman who was trying to tell my friend that one camera will make pictures twice as big because it has twice as many pixels..... It was so funny when I explained it on paper for him and he couldn't figure it out because my math checked out with what I was saying but he still wanted to believe what was common knowledge to him, he invited over his manager and even he got confused.

Originally Posted by Quantum3

Your technical information is right. Also, it explains why not a 5DMKII

It would explain that someone shouldn't go purely off of megapixel count and trashing their 6 month old 20 megapixel digital back for a 21 megapixel SLR. But..... there is a but......

As technology advances, these sensors are getting better and better over time.... I've used an old 6 megapixel Phase One Lightphase back that is practically a dinosaur and I actually preferred the quality of my old 6 megapixel Canon Rebel. I'd be willing to bet that its smaller sensor would have greater dynamic range just because of technological advances between the lightphase in '98 to the canon in '03...

For larger prints, up-sampling my 6 megapixel files in camera RAW to 21 megapixels worked very well as long as you sharpened a little more in the RAW dialogue....

I have a 5D mark II now and can't be any happier with the quality for the price. I'd be willing to also bet again that my newer 5D ii might have more dynamic range than the older Leaf Valeo 22 or Phase One H25 from the earlier 2000s even though they have larger sensors.

Of course you should be renting the newest medium format back if you can depending on the job/budget.