To automate or not to automate ?

[john beardsworth]

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

Put it another old-fashioned way, Rob, you may take a good photo but not develop the film well - printing it is always going to be a struggle. It's the same with digital colour images going to B&W.

[john beardsworth]

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.

I follow the logic but it is only an "if" and insufficient to take the next leap to "neither necessary nor sufficient" (you don't expect to un-bake a cake and find its ingredients good for making pancakes). You can certainly get to your ideal B&W image, whatever that may be, without working up the colour version first. But you're making it harder if you don't get the colour image to a good state first.

[GrahamBy]

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.

Ah, it's not just me then :-)

[Rob C]

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,

Elliot Gould!

Hot damn, I remember seeing him in some pretty strange but interesting movies years ago - probabaly the 70s? I wonder if he's still around.

You know, I think it must be tougher being an actor past that bloody sell-by than even a photographer; at least the snapper is usually invisible down at the shops...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msINcKfBJuE

Rob C

 

[JohnBrew]

After converting in ACR I go to PS and do conversion and adjustments there, fine tuning, if necessary with curves. I find SEFX images overdone and they have that "look" that screams SEFX. I did a trial of SEFX and found most of the actions could be accomplished in curves.
If you're happy with your results, however achieved, then it shouldn't matter.

Rob, great to see you posting again. Your experiences are usually invaluable.

[Rob C]

After converting in ACR I go to PS and do conversion and adjustments there, fine tuning, if necessary with curves. I find SEFX images overdone and they have that "look" that screams SEFX. I did a trial of SEFX and found most of the actions could be accomplished in curves.
If you're happy with your results, however achieved, then it shouldn't matter.

Rob, great to see you posting again. Your experiences are usually invaluable.

Thank you, John. My 'experiences' have often left me with more bumps and facial egg than one might desire!

;-)

Rob C

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Put it another old-fashioned way, Rob, you may take a good photo but not develop the film well - printing it is always going to be a struggle. It's the same with digital colour images going to B&W.

Thank you, John. I'm quite surprised that my innocent comment about making the best Color version I can before converting to B&W has stirred up such a commotion. What I actually try to do is very much like developing the film correctly.

I don't do a lot of fine tuning on the color version, except in the rare occasion when I think an image has significant potential in color. I just do the basic adjustments to make it look "pretty good." Then, if I want a B&W version (which is almost always based on my intention at the time of shooting,) I will make a copy that becomes the B&W version, where I do all sorts of fine tuning, including curves and anything else that I feel is needed.

My best color versions are given a yellow tag, and the best B&W versions are given a blue tag, so I can easily separate them.

It has never, ever, occurred to me to convert a B&W version back to color!

-Eric

[brandon]

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.

Not to disagree with you, however a orange filter used to improve for example sky and cloud rendition on B&W film would look pretty awful IF used on colour transparency of the same scene, but that doesnt detract from its value in a B&W one. So an "awful colour version" might make a good B&W

[Rob C]

Not to disagree with you, however a orange filter used to improve for example sky and cloud rendition on B&W film would look pretty awful IF used on colour transparency of the same scene, but that doesnt detract from its value in a B&W one. So an "awful colour version" might make a good B&W

C'mon Brandon, they aren't even similar! What you do to film is final, with digital not necessarily so.

Rob C

[john beardsworth]

C'mon Brandon, they aren't even similar! What you do to film is final, with digital not necessarily so.

Think about it. He is explaining - rather well - why the adjustments made to a digital image while it is in B&W make the picture look crap if is switched back to colour without removing those adjustments.

[brandon]

Think about it. He is explaining - rather well - why the adjustments made to a digital image while it is in B&W make the picture look crap if is switched back to colour without removing those adjustments.

Yep that was my point, in analog days we didn't think good B&W renditions (via filtering) were "expected" to look good if recorded in colour. The fact that with digital we can redevelop and redevelop is even more reason to not be constrained as we can develop in different ways depending on more than one intended end. 

[Rob C]

Oy veh, already!

I give up. This is argument for its own sake, not for clinical clarification.

Rob C

[john beardsworth]

I give up. This is argument for its own sake, not for clinical clarification

Nonsense, you're just failing to understand the explanation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not to disagree with you ... So an "awful colour version" might make a good B&W

I do not see how you are disagreeing with me. You seem to be saying the same thing I did: it is not necessary to first obtain "the best color" version before converting.

[brandon]

I do not see how you are disagreeing with me. You seem to be saying the same thing I did: it is not necessary to first obtain "the best color" version before converting.

precisely..(as stated)..I was making the point that it was often the norm for analog B&W (but of course we didnt develop colour options with another camera or MF back to prove the point), rather than an "if..then" statement.