Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Black & White => Topic started by: William Walker on June 30, 2021, 07:11:56 am
-
I came across this video yesterday and have tried this method of B&W conversion.
The difference is quite noticeable!
https://youtu.be/z4HYksU_7Tg
-
Thanks for the tip, William.
-
What's the tip? I don't have time to watch the whole thing.
-
Coincidently, I watched a few minutes of two of his recent videos.
I had to stop each after only a short while as I found it frustrating to listen to him. He may know his stuff but, boy his "public" speaking skills are lacking. It's like he didn't have any prior plan or thought on how he was going to present the material and just jumped right in and started talking.
By the way, William, if you would be willing to elaborate a bit - "The difference is quite noticeable", - from what?
Marv
-
Hmmm....
I think that it was a nice thing to share the link with us.
I've learned lots of things from this kind of "tutorials" and am grateful for it.
Some speakers are not perfect communicators, others put horrible background music, others use (at least to me) ununderstandable English, depending on the region of the world they come from...
But most are for free and it's up to you to do the most of it. Or not-
Just MHO
-
For those impatient with the presentation (and for good reasons), start the video around 19:00: that's his tip in a nutshell.
-
After watching the video I did my own testing and can confirm what he is saying. I compared the 16 bit and 32 bit processing and saw that the 32 bit had noticeably better details and contrast, especially in the shadows. On some images the differences were small but present, on others it was more dramatic. I also compared his method to the method built into Lightroom and saw the same results. I think that Lr is using a 16 bit method to make its results. I also compared the Lightroom "merge to HDR Pano" feature that automates a lot of the work and found the results compared to merging the image sets individually was not as good. It was more work but I think the results were worth it. I just completed a Pano of some beautiful Monsoon clouds we get here in AZ, using his method and am very pleased with the results. I suggest you try his stuff for yourself.
MDIJB
-
For those impatient with the presentation (and for good reasons), start the video around 19:00: that's his tip in a nutshell.
Thanks for the tip, Bob
-
After watching the video I did my own testing and can confirm what he is saying. I compared the 16 bit and 32 bit processing and saw that the 32 bit had noticeably better details and contrast, especially in the shadows. On some images the differences were small but present, on others it was more dramatic. I also compared his method to the method built into Lightroom and saw the same results. I think that Lr is using a 16 bit method to make its results. I also compared the Lightroom "merge to HDR Pano" feature that automates a lot of the work and found the results compared to merging the image sets individually was not as good. It was more work but I think the results were worth it. I just completed a Pano of some beautiful Monsoon clouds we get here in AZ, using his method and am very pleased with the results. I suggest you try his stuff for yourself.
MDIJB
Those were my findings too.
I have altered my workflow from his based on another similar video: I take the three images into "Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop", set it to 32-bit, but uncheck the Camera Raw box. It ends up as a 32-bit Tiff in PS. Save that back to Lightroom and in the Library Module go to "Library" at the top and take the option to "Convert to DNG". The Tiff file is converted into a 32-bit DNG. Carry on with your usual workflow.
-
Coincidently, I watched a few minutes of two of his recent videos.
I had to stop each after only a short while as I found it frustrating to listen to him. He may know his stuff but, boy his "public" speaking skills are lacking. It's like he didn't have any prior plan or thought on how he was going to present the material and just jumped right in and started talking.
By the way, William, if you would be willing to elaborate a bit - "The difference is quite noticeable", - from what?
Marv
Hi Marv - there is little doubt that different tone backgrounds are noticeably smoother than any other method I know of. See "MDIJB's" comment... Try the different methods and see for yourself .
-
Those were my findings too.
Yup
-
I have altered my workflow from his based on another similar video: I take the three images into "Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop", set it to 32-bit, but uncheck the Camera Raw box. It ends up as a 32-bit Tiff in PS. Save that back to Lightroom and in the Library Module go to "Library" at the top and take the option to "Convert to DNG". The Tiff file is converted into a 32-bit DNG. Carry on with your usual workflow.
I tried Bob_B's suggestion to start the video at 19 minutes, but the explanations were so vague and the illustrations too small to see any of the desired effect.
But William Walker's description gives a clear outline of the essential steps (once you know what "the three images" are,) so Thank You William!
-
Crop of 16-bit and 32-bit - identical Lightroom adjustments.
32-bit above. 16-bit below.
Edit: I forgot to add that this is about a 200% crop.
-
Crop of 16-bit and 32-bit - identical Lightroom adjustments.
32-bit above. 16-bit below.
It reduces noise!?
Can you describe how you got to the final pics, please? Is the process the one from the post #8?
-
Would adjusting noise or masking sliders with one picture reduce noise similarly?
-
It reduces noise!?
Can you describe how you got to the final pics, please? Is the process the one from the post #8?
Yes Slo: I take 3 photos -2EV, 0.0EV, +2EV. From Lightroom I go to "Merge to HDR Pro in PS". In HDR Pro I set it to 32-bit and uncheck "Tone In ACR". It ends up in PS as a 32-bit TIFF. Save. It appears in Lightroom as a TIFF.
In Library Mode, I go to "Library" in the menu bar and select Convert to DNG. It converts it to a DNG. Check 32-bit as per Screenshot.
You now go ahead and process the image as you normally would. (In Lightroom! The moment you send it back to PS it becomes 16-bit.)
All I did in the above pics of the church was as described in the process above then I selected the 0.0EV photograph and synced the adjustments (with the 32-bit DNG) and ended up with the two examples I posted.
Simple!
-
Yes Slo: I take 3 photos -2EV, 0.0EV, +2EV. From Lightroom I go to "Merge to HDR Pro in PS". In HDR Pro I set it to 32-bit and uncheck "Tone In ACR". It ends up in PS as a 32-bit TIFF. Save. It appears in Lightroom as a TIFF.
In Library Mode, I go to "Library" in the menu bar and select Convert to DNG. It converts it to a DNG. Check 32-bit as per Screenshot.
You now go ahead and process the image as you normally would. (In Lightroom! The moment you send it back to PS it becomes 16-bit.)
All I did in the above pics of the church was as described in the process above then I selected the 0.0EV photograph and synced the adjustments (with the 32-bit DNG) and ended up with the two examples I posted.
Simple!
William: Have you compared the three picture process to adjusting noise or masking sliders with one picture? It would be interesting to know the difference if any.
It reminds me of scanning the same film image twice. The process winds up combining or smearing grain from the two scans so it looks cleaner. But you can accomplish the same thing by using adjustments on one picture in half the scan time and three times simpler.
-
What I see is a reduction in noise (or maybe reduction in granularity is a better description), but without the usual accompanying loss of sharpness or increased smearing you get with simple NR.
Looking at this (and at the OP's recent image in User Critiques), I'm sort of ambivalent about this process, I guess. Any poor soul that's been paying attention to my sort-of-infrequent posts lately knows that I've been on a pretty heavy BW kick, and I've been playing mainly with X-Trans Fuji equipment. Maybe it's just my own personal perspective, but what I'm finding is that, for what I'm shooting right now, I'm enjoying the "filmic" quality of the Xtrans BW files and prints, and I'm not certain that this method isn't resulting in "digitizing" what I am tryong so hard to "de-digitize"
Do I see the smoother tones and transitions, and the resultantincreased sharpening and clarity? Yep - sure do. Do I think it improves the picture? Not quite as certain. Could that opinion just be me putting too much emphasis on imitating the "feel" of something traditional isntead of embracing the advantages of a technique like this? 100% it could be.
I'd be interested in looking at the ultimate difference in my "typical" end result - a 20x30 print on a rough matte paper. Iwonder if the smothenss and the clarity would add to or detract from the fine art look I strive for.
Interesting discussion - thanks for sharing!
-
William: Have you compared the three picture process to adjusting noise or masking sliders with one picture? It would be interesting to know the difference if any.
It reminds me of scanning the same film image twice. The process winds up combining or smearing grain from the two scans so it looks cleaner. But you can accomplish the same thing by using adjustments on one picture in half the scan time and three times simpler.
Alan, I don't think it is noise... 32-bit allows you to make more aggressive adjustments on the colour sliders, especially the blue. If you have ever been too heavy on dragging the blue slider too far to the left you will know what happens to the sky.
What you are seeing - I think - is those artefacts which the 16-bit can't handle.
I will gladly bow to a superior theory!
-
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur." :)
-
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur." :)
Hmmmm...
I would rather say
"Do what works for you"
-
Alan, I don't think it is noise... 32-bit allows you to make more aggressive adjustments on the colour sliders, especially the blue. If you have ever been too heavy on dragging the blue slider too far to the left you will know what happens to the sky.
What you are seeing - I think - is those artefacts which the 16-bit can't handle.
I will gladly bow to a superior theory!
Just as uprezing 2K to 4K only gives you an illusion of 4K, doesn't overlying 16-bit images give you an illusion of 32 bits or 48 bits rather than 16 bits. All you're doing is blending three different exposure levels, each of which have only 16 bits. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
-
I would agree with Alan... 16 bits should be way more than enough to process an image destined to be displayed on a 8- or 10-bit device.
That's 6 bits of leeway, or roughly the ability to multiply the contrast by 64.
32bits is not that far from overkill.
What we may see here (if it's not a bug) is rather the effect of the merge to HDR routine : each image section benefits from the maximal S/N ratio in any of the 3 captures (I'd personally like to space them a bit more, -3/0/+3EV eg).
See http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virtualraw/index_en.htm written by Guillermo 13 years ago, many thanks to him!
-
... All I did in the above pics of the church was as described in the process above then I selected the 0.0EV photograph and synced the adjustments (with the 32-bit DNG) and ended up with the two examples I posted...
Ok... correct me if wrong... but it seems to me that the noisier image is a result of just one image (0.0EV) adjusted in Lightroom. If so, you are losing the benefits of 1. the HDR process selecting the +1.0 image (more light, less noise) for a good part of the final image and 2. averaging noise when blending the three images.
-
Hmmmm...
I would rather say
"Do what works for you"
Perhaps, but I was simply translating William's signature phrase to Latin (where it originated) :)
-
Ok... correct me if wrong... but it seems to me that the noisier image is a result of just one image (0.0EV) adjusted in Lightroom. If so, you are losing the benefits of 1. the HDR process selecting the +1.0 image (more light, less noise) for a good part of the final image and 2. averaging noise when blending the three images.
Try doing an HDR in Lightroom - which is 16-bit - and compare. You get the same "16-bit" result.
No question (in my mind - and apparently everyone else who has actually done the experiment) that the 32-bit is better.
As an aside: There is no noise in the 0.0EV image. I took it at midday in good light @ 100 ISO.
-
Perhaps, but I was simply translating William's signature phrase to Latin (where it originated) :)
So, you aren't just a pretty face, I see? 8)
-
Perhaps, but I was simply translating William's signature phrase to Latin (where it originated) :)
I knew Hitchens Razor but I didn't notice that that is William's signature (after the wording)
I know, it's all there... :-[
Chapeau, Slobodan
I'll put more attention next time
-
Ok... correct me if wrong... but it seems to me that the noisier image is a result of just one image (0.0EV) adjusted in Lightroom. If so, you are losing the benefits of 1. the HDR process selecting the +1.0 image (more light, less noise) for a good part of the final image and 2. averaging noise when blending the three images.
Well spotted : the 32bit HDR should be compared with a 16bit HDR (made directly in LR, eg), a single frame will be noisier than both.
-
I tried Joel's technique using his files and I got a really strange result.
Has anyone replicated his steps with the latest PS?
-
Well spotted : the 32bit HDR should be compared with a 16bit HDR (made directly in LR, eg), a single frame will be noisier than both.
Try doing an HDR in Lightroom - which is 16-bit - and compare. You get the same "16-bit" result.
No question (in my mind - and apparently everyone else who has actually done the experiment) that the 32-bit is better.
-
I tried Joel's technique using his files and I got a really strange result.
Has anyone replicated his steps with the latest PS?
I agree, I gave up working on his files and used my own...
-
Ok... will go out on a limb and say it: you can not possibly get so much cleaner and sharper results just by going 32 vs. 16. There must be an error in your comparison workflow.
-
Ok... will go out on a limb and say it: you can not possibly get so much cleaner and sharper results just by going 32 vs. 16. There must be an error in your comparison workflow.
The video shows and compares processing of files; 32 bit with HDR, 16 bit with HDR and 16 bit single shot. So the discussion does need to be clear about what is being compared.
-
Ok... will go out on a limb and say it: you can not possibly get so much cleaner and sharper results just by going 32 vs. 16. There must be an error in your comparison workflow.
Well Slo, there's only one way to find out. Try it yourself, it will take you less than the time you've spent thinking and questioning all this! 8)
P.S. What is the Latin translation for "What can be asserted with evidence cannot be dismissed without evidence."
-
Are the results of shooting three shots for every picture worth the time and effort and processing? Or is this just a case of pixel peeping?
-
Are the results of shooting three shots for every picture worth the time and effort and processing? Or is this just a case of pixel peeping?
If you get the results you want in this way, then it is worth it.
If you are satisfied with less, probably not.
-
Are the results of shooting three shots for every picture worth the time and effort and processing? Or is this just a case of pixel peeping?
If you make large prints - which I do - it is worth it.
-
If you make large prints - which I do - it is worth it.
What size is where you can see the difference with three shots?
-
Photoshop does behave differently with 32 bit images. I’m not sure if this is due more to the fact that 32bit uses floating point math vs 8/16 bit’s integer math.
Anyway, a good demonstration of the differences between the editing capabilities of 32 bit images and 8/16 bit in photoshop can be seen in the following video:
Photoshop 32 vs 16 bits (https://youtu.be/Fnua6gM7bUk)
-
What size is where you can see the difference with three shots?
...from A2 upwards you notice the smoothness in the sky - remember, all this time I have always only spoke of this in terms of Black & White photography - I have not looked colour.
-
Interesting thread, must say however that 32bit files are not handled correctly in Lightroom. Colors are not shown correctly on screen and in print. This must have an effect on black and white as grey’s are just part of the colorspace.
-
To Alan,
Even though I've never checked this fellows videos it only took about a minute to download this one so I can view it at my own leisure. Therefore I might check more than the one mentioned here and decide if they are worth the time.
Gary
-
Yes Slo: I take 3 photos -2EV, 0.0EV, +2EV. From Lightroom I go to "Merge to HDR Pro in PS". In HDR Pro I set it to 32-bit and uncheck "Tone In ACR". It ends up in PS as a 32-bit TIFF. Save. It appears in Lightroom as a TIFF.
In Library Mode, I go to "Library" in the menu bar and select Convert to DNG. It converts it to a DNG. Check 32-bit as per Screenshot.
You now go ahead and process the image as you normally would. (In Lightroom! The moment you send it back to PS it becomes 16-bit.)
All I did in the above pics of the church was as described in the process above then I selected the 0.0EV photograph and synced the adjustments (with the 32-bit DNG) and ended up with the two examples I posted.
Simple!
[/quotei tried to go from LR to merge to HDR pro in Ps but under pull down of tools I do not find it. Am I looking at the wrong placeL
-
i tried to go from LR to merge to HDR pro in Ps but under pull down of tools I do not find it. Am I looking at the wrong placeL
It's not in the Tools tab/pulldown.
Go to the Photo tab, then Edit In in the pulldown
You'll see the Merge to HDR Pro in PS option there.
Note that if you only select 1 image you'll see it but it will be greyed out
You can also right click on any one of your selected images and find the Edit In option listed
Mike
-
I was able to make headway thanks to your advice. I am facing another problem but I will first strive to overcome then I may come back to ask for your help.
-
Those were my findings too.
I have altered my workflow from his based on another similar video: I take the three images into "Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop", set it to 32-bit, but uncheck the Camera Raw box. It ends up as a 32-bit Tiff in PS. Save that back to Lightroom and in the Library Module go to "Library" at the top and take the option to "Convert to DNG". The Tiff file is converted into a 32-bit DNG. Carry on with your usual workflow.
Another naive question, if I may. What is the reason to covert the file to dng? What is the advantage? Thank you.
-
I made several trial with reasonable success and felt this method open new and exciting avenue for my pursuit of better black and white photos. The slight trouble was the resultant dng files show the image on too much side of underexposed frame. I can correct this by adjusting exposure but wonder if anyone here can give some advice. Thank you.
-
I made several trial with reasonable success and felt this method open new and exciting avenue for my pursuit of better black and white photos. The slight trouble was the resultant dng files show the image on too much side of underexposed frame. I can correct this by adjusting exposure but wonder if anyone here can give some advice. Thank you.
This may be due to the balance of luminosities from the files you chose to blend. By this I mean (for example) if you blended 5 files but the "average" was the 2nd brightest then you'd have 3 files darker than "average" and only one brighter. And by "average" here I mean the final luminosity you'd expect from the scene.
You can test this easily by stepping out the door and taking a set of 9 bracketed images and using this method on several sets of 3 or 5 images, moving the middle image +/- 1 ev from the center exposure.
Hope that's clear.
-
Thank you. My road for improvement continues. I will do another attempt with the center of bracket increased by one 1ev.
-
My third trial with the center of exposure up by 1EV hit the nail and extremely pleased with smooth tone. Thank you everyone. I am excited for the real b and w shoot.
-
As I am so pleased with the results of 32bit process of b and w images especially with such nice and smooth tone and dynamic range, I am curious how the experts of this site interpret the merit on color photo. If it is so good for b and w it should be good for the color photo as well. What do you think?
-
I do not have samples but I have tried it on color images and have been pleased. Better details and smooth gradations. The differences have been subtle but visible. Give a try.
-
Another naive question, if I may. What is the reason to covert the file to dng? What is the advantage? Thank you.
It remains in 32-bit...
-
HelloWilliam,
i have not tried it yet for myself, but
i just was looking to the files you presented and i do not like the flowers in 32 bit... they seem posterized.
-
HelloWilliam,
i have not tried it yet for myself, but
i just was looking to the files you presented and i do not like the flowers in 32 bit... they seem posterized.
Hi Pieter, unfortunately I don't have the original files anymore so I can't have a close look at them to check properly.
As I said, those are 200% enlargements and I am not sure how noticeable what you are seeing would be at print size ....
Later: Pieter, I went back and re-took some pictures and it would seem that I "overworked" the editing (on the original) - what you see there is not because of the process!!
-
Hi Pieter, unfortunately I don't have the original files anymore so I can't have a close look at them to check properly.
As I said, those are 200% enlargements and I am not sure how noticeable what you are seeing would be at print size ....
Later: Pieter, I went back and re-took some pictures and it would seem that I "overworked" the editing (on the original) - what you see there is not because of the process!!
Ah yes, like with everything; you need to find the right balance...
i work a lot with photoshop and it is always a fight in preserving data...
-
Many Thanks for sharing this video. it is really useful :)
-
Those were my findings too.
I have altered my workflow from his based on another similar video: I take the three images into "Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop", set it to 32-bit, but uncheck the Camera Raw box. It ends up as a 32-bit Tiff in PS. Save that back to Lightroom and in the Library Module go to "Library" at the top and take the option to "Convert to DNG". The Tiff file is converted into a 32-bit DNG. Carry on with your usual workflow.
I had that part wrong! After going through Jeff Schewe's "The Digital Negative" (Page 244-245) I found that, once you have the image back in PS, you go to "Save As" - Save as a Tiff, and then it gives you the option to save as "32-Bit (Float). You then import that file into Lightroom as a 32-Bit file.