Possible B/W Nirvana

[John R Smith]

 

In case anyone is still interested, here is an update to my search for software which suits a fossilised dyed-in-the-wool B/W film buff who was crazy enough to buy a ridiculously expensive digital back for his cherished collection of ancient Hasselblad cameras and lenses. And then discovered that no, it really is not that simple to convert a colour 3FR file to something which looks like a scanned HP5 negative. Oh, bother.

One of the good things about the Internet is the existence of Forums like this where one can obtain some excellent advice and guidance. Another good thing is the ability to download trial versions of various applications and try them out (even if it does take six hours to download Elements 8 on my miserable Broadband connection). Strangely, I nearly missed trying out the one that seems to do the trick, because I thought it was just an image organiser or cataloguing thing.

I have spent every spare hour since Friday evaluating Adobe Lightroom, and I have to say that so far it seems to be utterly wonderful and the answer to most of my problems. For the first time in years, I actually felt excited about a piece of software (I think the last time was when we got a GIS system at work). Mind you, I nearly didn’t bother to investigate it properly because, as so often happens, the factory presets are pretty dire (for B/W at least). Particularly the default Grayscale curve which perversely is almost the exact opposite of what you really want (it really makes you wonder whether any of these programmers have ever actually used B/W film and printed in a darkroom).

Never mind, when you get into it a bit it has a great deal going for it. Nice user interface, sensible modules, it reads the Hasselblad 3FR RAW files directly, catalogues your stuff if you want it to, but most importantly has an excellent RAW editor. Now obviously I am a total Lightroom virgin at the moment and know only a fraction of what you folks do about it. But it looks good.

There seem to be two basic strategies in Lightroom for converting the RAW files to B/W. One, we can do a straight desaturate in HSL and then take it from there. This actually is quite preferable for a lot of my shots which are pretty much monochromatic to start with (strongly backlit, or grey shed with white windows, etc) because there is little or no colour content to “adjust” in RGB. Two, we can use the Grayscale mode. This is double excellent because instead of a simple RGB channel mixer we have a curve spread across the spectral range of the image. So now we can create user presets based on the spectral response of specific film emulsions (rather like Convert to Black and White Pro or NIK). This is fun. We can easily download the specification sheets for most films from the Ilford and Kodak sites, and then try to replicate the film’s spectral curve in the Lightroom greyscale. So far I have built curves and presets for Ilford FP4, HP5 and Delta which are perhaps a little exaggerated but look convincing enough. Using the Lightroom Develop module, for the first time I was able to seriously improve on my previous Phocus>TIFF>PS>Lab Color>Extract L-channel method and get a better print at the end of the process.

The other stuff in Lightroom seems really good, too. The burn and dodge tools are wonderfully configured and very subtle. Sharpening is perhaps a little basic for output to printer, with no preview. It would also be nice to be able to export a TIFF as grayscale rather than RGB and to be able to set the embedded dpi (but I may have missed something here). Printing is just brilliant, with the user templates. Very few applications can manage to print a proper contact sheet, but Lightroom makes it a doddle. The only serious snag I have found so far, is that LR prints are subtly darker than the same file output from any other image editor I have. I’m not sure what is causing this, but any suggestions would be welcome.

Still, I am getting quite anxious already about coming to the end of my 30 day trial. And you know what that means, don’t you? I might just have to buy it . . . .

John

[Jeremy Payne]

 Sharpening is perhaps a little basic for output to printer, with no preview.

You don't want to preview output sharpening with your eyes ... unless you REALLY know what you are doing ...

I go back and forth on B&W.  I own and use Silver Effex, but more and more I find myself converting images in LR.

I love Effex, but kinda feel like I could live without it.

[john beardsworth]

There seem to be two basic strategies in Lightroom for converting the RAW files to B/W. One, we can do a straight desaturate in HSL and then take it from there. This actually is quite preferable for a lot of my shots which are pretty much monochromatic to start with (strongly backlit, or grey shed with white windows, etc) because there is little or no colour content to “adjust” in RGB.

I recommend you abandon and completely forget this method. It'll work, but is cumbersome and only existed as a workaround for a noise-related problem which Adobe subsequently fixed. Unfortunately the internet means that obsolete techniques accumulate and are indistinguishable from good, current advice.

As well as being a diversion, it also means you cannot use Library to find all your black and white pictures, so it means you get less out of Lightroom's organisational features.

Two, we can use the Grayscale mode. This is double excellent because instead of a simple RGB channel mixer we have a curve spread across the spectral range of the image. So now we can create user presets based on the spectral response of specific film emulsions (rather like Convert to Black and White Pro or NIK). This is fun. We can easily download the specification sheets for most films from the Ilford and Kodak sites, and then try to replicate the film’s spectral curve in the Lightroom greyscale. So far I have built curves and presets for Ilford FP4, HP5 and Delta which are perhaps a little exaggerated but look convincing enough. Using the Lightroom Develop module, for the first time I was able to seriously improve on my previous Phocus>TIFF>PS>Lab Color>Extract L-channel method and get a better print at the end of the process.

Stick to this method (though don't be too gullible about film emulation presets). Have you noticed the "targeted adjustment tool" yet? It's a little button at the top left of the B&W panel - use it to "paint" on the image. It samples where you paint, and adjusts the slider accordingly, so you keep your eyes on the image's appearance. Drag upwards on a face and the face's greyscale appearance becomes lighter, downwards and it darkens. In the background, the sliders are moving but you don't need to look at them, just see what's happening to the picture.

By the way, Lightroom 3 has a free trial.

John

[tomrock]

Don't buy LR 2 right now. LR 3 will be out fairly soon and you'll have to pay for the upgrade.

Use the LR 3 beta that's available at http://labs.adobe.com

It's pretty good.

[John R Smith]

I recommend you abandon and completely forget this method. It'll work, but is cumbersome and only existed as a workaround for a noise-related problem which Adobe subsequently fixed. Unfortunately the internet means that obsolete techniques accumulate and are indistinguishable from good, current advice.
As well as being a diversion, it also means you cannot use Library to find all your black and white pictures, so it means you get less out of Lightroom's organisational features.

OK, point taken. I would not use Library in the way you describe though, but that's just me - all my pictures are B/W.

Stick to this method (though don't be too gullible about film emulation presets). Have you noticed the "targeted adjustment tool" yet? It's a little button at the top left of the B&W panel - use it to "paint" on the image. It samples where you paint, and adjusts the slider accordingly, so you keep your eyes on the image's appearance. Drag upwards on a face and the face's greyscale appearance becomes lighter, downwards and it darkens. In the background, the sliders are moving but you don't need to look at them, just see what's happening to the picture.

I missed the "Targeted Adjustment Tool" altogether. I must try this tonight. I'm not saying that film emulation is even what it's supposed to do (no manual and the help seems to be on-line which I can't use - the PC I use for image work has no Internet connection). I was just having fun. I miss my darkroom, really I do. If I lived somewhere which had a suitable space with water I would have set one up again years ago. Just humour an old romantic idealist who wishes he was shooting HP5 rather than pixels  

John

[John R Smith]

Don't buy LR 2 right now. LR 3 will be out fairly soon and you'll have to pay for the upgrade.

Use the LR 3 beta that's available at http://labs.adobe.com

It's pretty good.

Yes, but I bet LR 3 won't run on my PC. Phocus 1.2 won't (properly), Phocus 2 just crashes, CS4 won't without crashing all the time. Whereas LR 2.6 runs perfectly with no crash whatsoever so far. And I really don't want to have to buy a new PC as well.

John

[john beardsworth]

I missed the "Targeted Adjustment Tool" altogether.

I'm not surprised. Often Lightroom's UI is a pyrrhic triumph of subtlety over function, and some of the cleverest features are less obvious than they should be. The TAT is a great way to work, and is also on the other HSL panels and the Tone Curve.

Nothing stops you shooting that HP5 - I still have my darkroom.

John

[john beardsworth]

And I really don't want to have to buy a new PC as well.

LR3 doesn't seem any more demanding that LR2, so you should be OK. Mac users with pre-Intel systems do have to upgrade.

John

[John R Smith]

LR3 doesn't seem any more demanding that LR2, so you should be OK. Mac users with pre-Intel systems do have to upgrade.

That's very good news, thank you John. Cash is rather tight around here after splashing out for the CFV.

PS Ooops I think I see the problem. LR 3 Beta needs XP with SP3, I have XP with SP2 but no internet connection on the PC. This is probably why the other things don't work properly. I'm not sure how to fix this.

John

[Schewe]

Don't buy LR 2 right now. LR 3 will be out fairly soon and you'll have to pay for the upgrade.

Define "fairly soon"?

The only thing you could possibly "know" is when the beta runs out (April).

But unless you are under NDA, you don't know if that means there will be a second beta or that LR3 will be released. So, unless you _DO_ know which (in which case you would be breaking your NDA), I would suggest altering your advice...

[john beardsworth]

PS Ooops I think I see the problem. LR 3 Beta needs XP with SP3.

I'm running it on XP SP2.

John

[John R Smith]

Thanks again, John. So SP2 is OK. Great.

I tried the Targeted Adjustment Tool last night, but have to say I didn't like it very much. I don't like the way it finds edges and runs up to them, so (for example) it came to some tree branches, stopped there, and left the sky behind them unaltered, making things look very odd. Also, if I have selected a curve for the grayscale conversion, I don't really want the colour conversion values altered again, locally. I would prefer to keep those tonal values intact throughout the picture and do local alteration with dodge and burn.

There are two things I am still not happy with when exporting the finished result as a 16-bit TIFF. I would prefer to save it as a grayscale, but there is no option for this. However, you can select a custom colour profile. Is there a Gray Gamma 2.2 profile somewhere on the PC that I could point it to? And it seems to output the TIFF at 240 dpi no matter what, when I would prefer 360 dpi to match the Epson printer - in Phocus, you can set the embedded dpi on export. Or does this not matter much?

John

[john beardsworth]

I tried the Targeted Adjustment Tool last night, but have to say I didn't like it very much. I don't like the way it finds edges and runs up to them, so (for example) it came to some tree branches, stopped there, and left the sky behind them unaltered, making things look very odd. Also, if I have selected a curve for the grayscale conversion, I don't really want the colour conversion values altered again, locally. I would prefer to keep those tonal values intact throughout the picture and do local alteration with dodge and burn.

That's not a result of using the TAT - you could break an image in the same way by dragging the sliders. Remember the TAT detects the colour of the area you're dragging over and darkens that colour's greyscale rendition - ie it targets the colour rather than the physical area. Also think of the TAT (and the greyscale sliders) as equivalent to coloured lens filters with b&w film - wholly different from dodging and burning.

John

[John R Smith]

All right. Yes, I see I have misunderstood the way TAT works - it was not finding an edge, it was just darkening blue, in my case. Of course, because this blue was the sky in my picture, it had a similar effect. Hmmmm. I'll try to think of a use for it. Sometimes these programmers are apt to come up with a solution looking for a problem. The one I really did like was the grad filter - you can use this just like a sky burn in the darkroom. Very smooth.

John

[john beardsworth]

All right. Yes, I see I have misunderstood the way TAT works - it was not finding an edge, it was just darkening blue, in my case. Of course, because this blue was the sky in my picture, it had a similar effect. Hmmmm. I'll try to think of a use for it. Sometimes these programmers are apt to come up with a solution looking for a problem. The one I really did like was the grad filter - you can use this just like a sky burn in the darkroom. Very smooth.

John

Well let me describe the problem. Without the TAT, you are first looking at the picture, then moving your focus to the sliders, guessing which slider to drag, and then looking back to the image, and you'll do this more than once as you drag different sliders. The TAT takes out the guesswork of wondering which slider to drag, and I'd argue that the b&w end product looks better if you keep your eyes on its changing appearance while dragging the TAT to convert it. It has always struck me as a much more artistic way to work with images.

With the grad and the regular dodge and burn brush, try using Clarity at 100 (as well). This local contrast adjustment can work wonders bringing out the detail in cloudy skies (b&w or colour).

John

[Jeremy Payne]

And it seems to output the TIFF at 240 dpi no matter what, when I would prefer 360 dpi to match the Epson printer - in Phocus, you can set the embedded dpi on export. Or does this not matter much?

You are confusing the embedded DPI in the file (a meaningless number) with true resolution.  That said, you can change the embedded DPI when you output/export.

The print module lets you output to the printer at any true file resolution up to 480dpi - which is what you want.

If you want to export files, you can export them at any size you want ... which is what you want if you want to print outside of LR.

[John R Smith]

The print module lets you output to the printer at any true file resolution up to 480dpi - which is what you want.

If you want to export files, you can export them at any size you want ... which is what you want if you want to print outside of LR.

Right. So I have completely missed two more things - doing brilliantly so far, as usual. Adobe should make me an alpha tester for this stuff just to monitor how the average user can cock it up. I couldn't see anything in the print option where you could set output dpi - or wait a minute, maybe there was but it was greyed out. And in export to TIFF, I'm sure there wasn't anything where you could set the output size. I'll just have to go through it again tonight.

John

[Jeremy Payne]

John

You sound like someone who could benefit from one of the video tutorials ... Some of the UI is subtle and not necessarily obvious, but you seem to be missing the stuff that's right there in front of you.

Expand all the sections in the output dialogue and you will see the file sizing options.

[tomrock]

Define "fairly soon"?

The only thing you could possibly "know" is when the beta runs out (April).

But unless you are under NDA, you don't know if that means there will be a second beta or that LR3 will be released. So, unless you _DO_ know which (in which case you would be breaking your NDA), I would suggest altering your advice...

"fairly" = before hell freezes over.

It's not a big secret that Adobe is working on LR 3. And CS5. And they're going to be out "fairly" soon.

Take a breath. I don't know anything special, I'm just trying to save the guy the cost of buying the upgrade.

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy CS4 right now, either.

[John R Smith]

You sound like someone who could benefit from one of the video tutorials ... Some of the UI is subtle and not necessarily obvious, but you seem to be missing the stuff that's right there in front of you.

Lord, no, I don't want a video - I just want a proper user manual like we used to get with a decent index where I can grab the section on "Export to TIFF" or whatever and get the answer fast. I used Corel Photo Paint 9 for years with the manual that came in the box and it was absolutely first-class.

John