To automate or not to automate ?

[dumainew]

Here is my question.

Working on some b&w files converted from color in ACR.
Wondering if ACR and PSCC2015 can produce b&w fotos as good as Nik Silver Effex?
Asking because I feel it's important to make as many of my own decisions as possible.
Thanks for looking.

Richard

PS- I drive a standard shift.

[john beardsworth]

Wondering if ACR and PSCC2015 can produce b&w fotos as good as Nik Silver Effex?
Asking because I feel it's important to make as many of my own decisions as possible.

Two points. How do you define "as good"? Secondly, different toolsets often lead to different decisions.

Update: And why the word "automate"? If you use any of these programs, you have decisions to make.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You will find many LuLa posters who swear by SilverEfex. My own preference is for LightRoom.

I have SilverEfex Pro and LightRoom, and when I first got SilverEfex I played with it quite a bit and got some pretty good results. If I recall correctly, SilverEfex comes with a big bunch of presets in different "styles," from elegant to grungy, high or low contrast.

Besides the presets, the main tool for individual modification was similar to the local adjustment brush in LR. At the time, either LR didn't yet have a local adjustment brush or else I had never used it, so I found it difficult to apply a round brush to a non-round object in the image.

Using the presets, I never felt I was in control (it was a little like posting a raw file on LuLa and asking people to do their best B&W rendition, and then choosing the one you liked best, with no idea how to get the same effect in another image).

In LR I always make the best color version I can before converting to B&W. The sliders in the B&W panel give me lots of (global) control, and I always test all of them, since sometimes what looks green actually has more yellow than green, for example.

And if I need local adjustments, I can still do them with the local adjustment brush.

So, my feeling is that in LR everything I do is under my control, and I never felt that way in SilverEfex. Of course, if I spent as much time learning SilverEfex as I have put into LR since version 1, I might feel differently.

That's my two farthings.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...PS- I drive a standard shift.

Btw, what is a "standard" shift? If you are in America, automatic shift has become the standard. Manual is the exotic, non-standard one.

P.S. Oh, as for b&w... Never cared much for canned solutions as they look...well, canned. Home cooking all the way!

[AlterEgo]

PS- I drive a standard shift.

then I am surprised that you are using ACR... ever tried something like rawtherapee then... quite manual   ... you can even compile/build it yourself

[chez]

I use SilverEfx with so e canned presets that came with the package...plus I have some which I purchased. Using a preset does not mean you cannot adjust them to your likings. I use a preset that gets me closest to the look I am after, and then tweak from there. I find it very advantageous to quickly view your image through a bunch of presets to get a feel what a given image could look like.

I've been using SilverEfx for years and am very happy with the results.

[dumainew]

Thank you all for your feedback.
If S.E.P. doesn't have something superior to PS by way of tools then I'm inclined to stick with PS and ACR. altho I can see the convenience of looking at presets. 
I respect everyone's decision to work on their fotos however they see fit.
Personally, I find it's a huge challenge to learn a new program.
As for the language of manual vs. automatic transmissions, I thank Slobadan for keeping us up to date.
Richard

[chez]

Thank you all for your feedback.
If S.E.P. doesn't have something superior to PS by way of tools then I'm inclined to stick with PS and ACR. altho I can see the convenience of looking at presets. 
I respect everyone's decision to work on their fotos however they see fit.
Personally, I find it's a huge challenge to learn a new program.
As for the language of manual vs. automatic transmissions, I thank Slobadan for keeping us up to date.
Richard

I think SEP is much superior to PS when it comes to productivity. It's u-point technology is great for selecting specific areas in the image. The presets quickly get to 80% of the way there.

You can use SEP for 30 days as a free trial. Give it a try and see the capabilities for yourself.

[dumainew]

Thank you Chez.
Will look into their 30 day free trial.
Richard

[Rob C]

In LR I always make the best color version I can before converting to B&W. The sliders in the B&W panel give me lots of (global) control, and I always test all of them, since sometimes what looks green actually has more yellow than green, for example.

That's my two farthings.

Interesting, Eric. I do quite the opposite: once I have the shot sort of vaguely okay within NX2 Capture (the Nikon RAW dev.) I get my butt into PS as soon as possible. I don't change anything further in the TIFF at that stage; I just switch over to B/W and do all the curves etc, there. I have convinced myself that doing the B/W work with what I imagine is the full set of untouched information available - if not screwed around first before changing to B/W - allows me the most virgin material with which to work within the B/W mode. This link may explain it more clearly, and all you need do to get the drift is swap the word Toot for Pix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ipI2qnUGuQ

I never use other companies' products at all - I always feel that the fewer the different products that mess with your files, the better.

I find that I can do pretty much whatever I want to in B/W within PS. The secret lies (for me) in doing the final granularity at the very last stage, after sizing, before jpeg. I've tried doing the fake grain after saving as jpeg and see no difference. Whether you sharpen on top of the noise is up to the image: sometimes I do and then again I don't; sometimes I will and then again I won't, but that's another number I'll keep for later.

However, and not to 'offend' anyone at all, I have usually felt that black/white conversions (with fake granularity) I see here are never that convincing. Maybe it's just a product of too many all-nighters in the darkroom, wondering where the hell I can possibly lay dozens and dozens of wet prints awaiting the glazer, who knows. No, I won't run a blind test; then I might be being offensive.

;-)

Rob C

[David Sutton]

There are so many ways of doing a good B&W conversion. I think it's like choosing papers for printing: pick a couple and master them.
Rob, one advantage with working on the colour version first is that the saturation can be boosted. Any saturated colour can be made dark or light in the subsequent conversion to B&W. This often suits some landscape images where just moving sliders gives me the tonal balance I'm seeking. On the other hand I don't like this approach for portraits and prefer starting with a slightly flat image and using curves in PS to darken or lighten.

[john beardsworth]

In LR I always make the best color version I can before converting to B&W. The sliders in the B&W panel give me lots of (global) control, and I always test all of them, since sometimes what looks green actually has more yellow than green, for example.

You might want to try using the panel's Targeted Adjustment Tool as it detects what colour is present in the area where you drag it. So you think in terms of "I want that feature lighter in B&W" or "I want that part of the frame darker". It also means that rather than continually swapping between looking at the image and the sliders, you keep your eye on the image and its changing appearance.

I agree with the general point about making the best colour version.

John

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...In LR I always make the best color version I can before converting to B&W...

Hmmm... Not sure why would that be a requirement for a B&W conversion. My B&Ws sometimes look awful, garish, when converted back to color.

[graeme]

Hmmm... Not sure why would that be a requirement for a B&W conversion. My B&Ws sometimes look awful, garish, when converted back to color.

I don't quite get it either. I usually just sort out the basic exposure / highlights / shadows / etc, sharpening, noise reduction, lens corrections then work on virtual copy for the b & w conversion. But I will try working harder on the initial colour image as I'm trying to improve my B & W.

[stamper]

If one makes a good colour image first of all then they have a good colour image as well as a good B&W. Increasing saturation in a colour image can help with tonal separation in a B&W image.

[john beardsworth]

Hmmm... Not sure why would that be a requirement for a B&W conversion. My B&Ws sometimes look awful, garish, when converted back to color.

He's not talking about converting back to colour though, is he?

I think there is some risk working up the colour original so completely that you constrain how you envisage the scene in B&W, but equally failing to correct the colour version can reduce your B&W efforts to little more than a turd polishing exercise.

[Rob C]

There are so many ways of doing a good B&W conversion. I think it's like choosing papers for printing: pick a couple and master them.
Rob, one advantage with working on the colour version first is that the saturation can be boosted. Any saturated colour can be made dark or light in the subsequent conversion to B&W. This often suits some landscape images where just moving sliders gives me the tonal balance I'm seeking. On the other hand I don't like this approach for portraits and prefer starting with a slightly flat image and using curves in PS to darken or lighten.

I don't disagree with you on that score, David; more is it a sort of historical thing in my photo makeup: I never used filers other than skylight as protection, and pola when it was going to help. I understand how you can work pixels to emulate the effect a filter would have with film, but as I didn't have any affinity with landscape or architecture I didn't have to learn too much about it, and that's carried on throughout my life, ever since. Much of what I do now is about oddball situations that attract me as I walk around the place just looking and thinking about other things. I gave up going out with anything specifically in mind as a shot; that's why I feel no obligation within mysef to 'concentrate the mind'; instead, I rely totally on my eyes yelling stop! when something crops up. It may or may not come off, but I usually snap it anyway. That's one amazing thing about digital: I can do that and not worry about the cost!

Maybe I just got lazy; maybe I'm just ever more minimalist.

Rob C

[Rob C]

He's not talking about converting back to colour though, is he?

I think there is some risk working up the colour original so completely that you constrain how you envisage the scene in B&W, but equally failing to correct the colour version can reduce your B&W efforts to little more than a turd polishing exercise.

That's a  bit far-fetched, John: a turd is ever a turd, even if smothered in Chanel 5.

Regarding the thing about overdoing the colour version, you shouldn't get there. That decision should have happened before you went click!

;-)

Rob C

[tom b]

The last few posts have reminded me of the 1971 film, 'Little Murders'. From memory, Elliot Gould is an award winning photographer. He is depressed and his photography spirals down until he is taking photos of turds. He is still a great photographer and his images still win awards. Probably hard to find anything more than short clips on YouTube.

Cheers,

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

He's not talking about converting back to colour though, is he?...

No, but I am sure you can follow my logic here. If, when converted back to color, the resulting image looks horrible as a color image, then it is logical to conclude that having "the best color version" as a starting point is neither necessary nor sufficient assumption for a good B&W.