What you did as a teenager may have little or no bearing on making good B&W prints today unless your memory is exemplary and you were an excellent B&W printer with some good background, and were able to recognize and understand what constitutes good B&W photography. Magazines are generally noted for poor reproduction, so reading them won't help much. IMO, the results produced in 99% of the magazines, especially older magazines, are just as poor as trying to educate yourself through looking at web images. You must, IMO, have some familiarity with the original prints of well regarded B&W photographers, and become at least somewhat familiar with their various styles and techniques. Soime books are nicely printed, but again, the results shown in their pages only suggest the quality of the original prints. Galleries are OK provided that you're looking at quality prints. There's a lot of shit covering the walls in a lot of galleries.
Is the color version on the page you've posted the original version that you posted a few days ago, or one that you've modified recently. It looks a little different than i remember it - lighter and with a little more contrast. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 8/30/2005 6:30:44 AM > Subject: RE: First attemt on B&W conversion > > Shit in = shit out ;-) > That's what you are saying, is it? > I get your point, and I do believe thats one of the problems. But I have > tweaked a bit, using levels to improve the contrast, adjusted gamma. Hue/Sat > I havent tried. My starting point is online, at the same page. (It is > thumbed below; clicking the thumb changes the displayed image). Right now I > have both versions on screen. There is a lot of difference. Starting point > has more contrast, and are lighter. > > >I'd also strongly recommend you learn what good B&W photography looks > >like. > >Visit some galleries, get some books, shoot some B&W film. > > > Done that, been there ;-) > In my teens I shot some B&W, played a bit in the darkroom. It's a long time > ago. But still, done that. > I've also read a photomag or two in my life, perhaps even three ;-), > Been to a gallery, and... > > I could do more, but basically I'm a "learning by doing" person. I learn a > lot better when I'm able to connect what I see with what I do. > (In fact, I believe thats the best way to learn for everybody, but thats > subject for a completely different thread) > > This may sound as I reject what you say. > I don't, I really do appreciate your input. In fact, youre a diamond ;-) > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 30. august 2005 14:49 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: First attemt on B&W conversion > > > > When I first saw this photo I commented on its low contrast and softness. > > It looks as though you tried to make the conversion without first > > adjusting > > the color, which I suspect you did since the result you got looks like I > > recall my result to be (I played with the pic a bit) before adjusting the > > color. Now, go back to the original pic and play with the contrast, > > brightness, hue, saturation, and so on until you get a decent color > > rendition, and THEN make the conversion. There's a lot more color in the > > original photo than is apparent at first glance. > > > > You might also be able to use the double Huse/Saturation technique with > > good results rather than the channel mixer. > > > > I'd also strongly recommend you learn what good B&W photography looks > > like. > > Visit some galleries, get some books, shoot some B&W film. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Tim Øsleby > > > > > This is my first attempt on doing a B&W conversion. No it isn't. I have > > > tried before, with a crappy technique from a computer geek book about > > using > > > PSE3. > > > > > > You have seen the picture before. > > > This time I've tried a simple Channel Mix. > > > 20 red, 70% green and 10% blue. The values Shel suggested as a starting > > > point. I fiddled a bit back and forth, but ended up with this. It came > > out > > > Ok-, but nothing more. > > > > > > Anybody got better ideas? A better mix, another solution? Not too fancy > > > please, I'm a total newbie at this. > > > > > Oh, nearly forgot ;-) > > > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=191903 > > > > > > >
