Experiment 08 - B&W Conversion: Broken Arrow #2, Sedona, AZ

[Alan9940]

Hello All,

OK, for those picky ones among us who shall remain unnamed (Ken) how about this image for the challenge of revealing separation in that huge foreground rock area?

For my version, I used the same techniques for the B&W conversion as before; I'm really starting to settle into this method for B&W! As with Experiment 07 I included a few additional layers for vignetting and USM sharpening. Upon reflection of my result and if I was working this image up for real, I would definitely pay more attention to the rock faces in the distant areas. I pushed these smaller areas to white somewhere in the conversion process because I was concentrating mostly of what was happening in the foreground. My objective in that foreground rock area was to reveal as much separation of close color values and reveal texture as much as possible. Note to self: pay attention to the entire image when doing B&W conversions!

Anyway, have fun and let's see what you can do with this one. Ken?

Base color image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/60u0cw0dapu4e ... 2.jpg?dl=0

My result: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb8vwcx6xps2e ... a.jpg?dl=0

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Hey Alan,
Aha! You dog, you! This looks like it'll be an especially hard nut to crack. Thanks!

Still thinking about the previous image, too -- just haven't had the time to work on it.

About the method of working on a conversion: I'm liking a "two stage" process. The first thing is to do a quick conversion using the simple adjustment layer set I used to always use (Gray Mixer, Curves, Light/Shadow). This gives me a test image that I can analyze and think about what should be changed. Using those adjustment layers also alerts me to the "problem areas" in the image that will require special attention when working on the final conversion. The second stage is the final conversion using the multiple adjustment layers you and Scott have described. In other words, I'm finding that I can more effectively decide what adjustments need to be made to the colours before the actual B&W conversion layer because I can use what I learned from that first test.

For example, here's the first test of the image:

Experiment 08.jpg

I can see that I'll need to boost the contrast of the foreground rocks and reduce the contrast of the background mountains. It might not be apparent in this reduced forum image, but there's a nasty light edge along the line between the rocks and the sky. Might need to do some masking....

[bkh]

My version. Again, I tried not to over-emphasize the details on the rock (compared to the original), and also tried to achieve a good separation of the rocks from the sky/clouds.

BrokenArrow2-grey.jpg

[mwenz]

And mine.

broken-arrow-2-bw.jpg

[Alan9940]

Went back and re-worked this image today; attached is what I'd consider a more realistic interpretation and closer to what I'd do, if doing this conversion for real. My first result was more of an exercise to see exactly how much separation I could pull out of that foreground rock area.

It's all good, though!

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

OK, I threw some serious adjustments at this.

My thinking is that since the foreground rocks occupy > 75% of the area, I'd better make them interesting, which also meant lessening the visual importance of the background mountains. I basically did that by manipulating contrasts:

Experiment 08 b.jpg

The layers:

Experiment 08 b layers.png

Those bottom two layers affected the original colours like this:

Experiment 08 b colours.jpg

That was to give me more control later on in targetting the foreground rocks. The sky got darkened (and the contrast between the clouds and sky was reduced) as a side effect of all the adjustments, but I'll leave it as shown because it wound up being less visually important and, therefore, does not distract from the foreground rocks.

The Hue Editor layer (working in Lab mode) did most of the work in separating the values in the foreground rocks.

The first Curves layer (fourth layer up from the bottom) does the actual B&W conversion. I worked in HSV mode, and also used that layer to do most of the heavy contrast work. The top Curves layer is used in Lab mode for fine-tuning and applying my "selenium" toning.

[Alan9940]

Ken,

Ah, another photog with nothing to do on Christmas eve?

I like this new version of yours...really comes across with a feeling of depth...I want to see what's behind that foreground rock area. Nice job!

Yeah, when you use the B&W conversion layers that I've talked about, and then start turning individual ones off--like Selective Color and Color Balance--after editing your image the color of the background layer usually does get real funky looking. But, as you surmised these off and/or psychedelic colors will subtlety and/or dramatically affect the gray tones as the math is done going up the layer stack. Once you begin to understand how these base image colors affect the final B&W result, it all becomes quite powerful!

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Ah, another photog with nothing to do on Christmas eve?

Yeah, turns out that all the busy work happens during the week or so before Christmas. Now, all that's left is plenty of free time. Merry Christmas to ya!

Once you begin to understand how these base image colors affect the final B&W result, it all becomes quite powerful!

You're absolutely right about that. Thanks again for showing us that technique.

Thanks for the kind words about the conversion. I'm still not entirely happy with how dark the greens are. I've got a wild idea about that -- stay tuned....

[Alan9940]

Merry Christmas to ya!

Right back at ya, Ken! A Very Merry Christmas to you and your family!!

Can't wait to see what ya come up with next on this image.

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

For this one, I started with the previous version "b" and modified a few of the layers:

Experiment 08 c layers.png

I separated the B&W conversion from the main contrast adjustment: the Gray Mixer layer now does the actual conversion and the first Curves layer (fifth layer up from the bottom) working in Lab mode now only does the gross contrast modifications.

I added another Curves adjustment layer above it and masked this new layer to only affect the background mountains (again working in Lab mode), painting on its mask to target just the mountains -- I still wanted to de-emphasize those mountains.

I like this result. The greens no longer have been reduced to solid blacks, and as a result of finessing all the other layers I got a nicer value separation in the foreground rocks, too:

Experiment 08 c 02.jpg

(As a side note, the "wild idea" I mentioned in my previous post didn't work. I tried to create a "feedback loop" for a Curves mask by copying the merged result as a virtual copy mask for the first Curves layer, but that's a no-go. Oh well, live and learn.... )

[Alan9940]

Ken,

I like the foreground rock area better in the "c" version but, overall, it now seems flatter than "b." And, because the mid-ground hilly area is of lighter tone and closer in value to the toning down of the distant mountains, the sky visually appears darker. I doubt seriously if it really is...mind/eye tricks?!

Also, I forgot to mention with this "Control Freak B/W" technique that you can play around with blending modes, too. Like weird colors you've seen from the base image, different blending modes can provide some unique outcomes. Just something to twist your mind a bit more!!

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

And, because the mid-ground hilly area is of lighter tone and closer in value to the toning down of the distant mountains, the sky visually appears darker. I doubt seriously if it really is...mind/eye tricks?!

Yeah, there's plenty more that could be done to it. The sky is probably, in fact, darker. Looking at version "c" with a fresh eye, I'd probably lighten it a bit. Those mid-ground hills could stand to be a touch darker, as you said; I was a little too sloppy when painting the mask for the background mountains; the shrub at the far right needs to be toned down a lot; the contrast in the clouds could use some finessing; etc., etc.

The important thing for me was to gain experience with the process of doing a B&W conversion. Taking it in stages and saving those intermediate results for later analysis suits my style of working. In other words, I'd rather use that approach than to jump in and invest a lot of time constantly bashing away at one "final" image right from the get-go.

[photoken]

Just a little bit of fine tuning:

Experiment 08 c 03.jpg

I lightened the sky a bit to get a nice separation from the mountains, removed that shrub at the far right that was against the sky, did some judicious darkening of the background mountains where they met the foreground rocks to get some good separation there, darkened the greens as much as I dared without sending the foreground shrubs to solid black, and added a High Pass layer at the top of the stack for sharpening.

I found that I had to spend a lot of time working the various layers to get a satisfying sense of light -- so that the foreground rocks were noticeably brighter than the other areas. It was tough to do that and maintain a nice separation of their values without winding up with so much contrast that it looked like a snow scene.

Learned something important here -- It's all well and good to get a lot of separation in the values, but that's pointless if the overall effect doesn't read as a naturally lit scene. Note to self: don't lose sight of the big picture!

[Alan9940]

Ken,

Yes! That last version you posted is what I'd call really close to a final print. Very nice effort!

I found that I had to spend a lot of time working the various layers to get a satisfying sense of light -- so that the foreground rocks were noticeably brighter than the other areas. It was tough to do that and maintain a nice separation of their values without winding up with so much contrast that it looked like a snow scene.

Yep, IMO it's always that final couple of percentage points that pushes an image over the top and makes it sing! In my editing, many times I've had to spend the most time with those last tweaks to get everything the way I want it. But, is it over then? Nope! I have a bar with clips running down one wall in my living room where I hang working/trial prints. Once I think I'm done with an image, I'll print it on whatever paper I plan to print the final version, and then I'll live with it for awhile. Many times (most times!) this leads to a few final, final tweaks; then, it's done.

I do the same with my wet printing in the analog darkroom. The truth of it all is that probably 95% of what I produce winds up in the circular bin! Actually, your comment above reminds me of a story many years ago where I was working up a B&W silver print from a 4x5 neg. I got the work print to where I thought it was pretty good, and then showed it to my mentor. He looked at it for several minutes, then said, "It's nice, but I can't feel the air." WTF? How does one "feel air" in a print on a piece of paper? So, I went back into the darkroom, played around with judicious dodging/burning, various developers with/without additives, used about 40 sheets of paper, but when I was done you could definitely sense the "air" in the print. The silvery mid- to light tones just glowed! I showed him the final, final and he said nothing; I knew then that I'd accomplished my (his) goal!

For me, everything is in service to the final print. Everyone has different goals with their photography...mine is the final print.

Learned something important here -- It's all well and good to get a lot of separation in the values, but that's pointless if the overall effect doesn't read as a naturally lit scene.

No question! In that last version of yours, the way you worked the tones in the mid-ground hilly area by darkening them and slightly lightened and/or added a bit of contrast to the distant mountains, one could read the light as glancing off that large foreground rock area to illuminate the distant mountains. I love that!

Note to self: don't lose sight of the big picture!

Pun intended?

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Hey, Alan,

Once I think I'm done with an image, I'll print it on whatever paper I plan to print the final version, and then I'll live with it for awhile. Many times (most times!) this leads to a few final, final tweaks; then, it's done.

Yes. And as time goes by, one's thoughts about the image change, too.

Over the course of the years, I've had the great good fortune to see many original Ansel Adams prints. Even he changed his interpretation of the negative -- one can see that his later prints from the same negative are more "contrasty". The later prints can be described as being "bolder" or having more "punch", but he always remained true to the feeling of the glorious light in the scene....

For me, everything is in service to the final print. Everyone has different goals with their photography...mine is the final print.

Agreed. With digital images, you'll have to compensate for the paper and ink, etc., so that the image might not look great when viewed as a JPG onscreen, but translates excellently onto paper. In a somewhat similar vein, the JPG I posted in my last message lacks the brilliant whites in the PLD file I worked on, but that's because I had to resample it 3 times to get it down to meet the forum's posting guidelines. I chose to leave well enough alone with the PLD instead of modifying it so that the stepped-on JPG would look better in the forum message....

By the way, I went back and looked at your re-worked version and I think you've got a terrific sense of light where the edges of the mountains meet the sky. Might be interesting to crop it into a long, narrow image with that sky/mountain edge as the focal point.