Looking for C&C on B&W conversion.

[jwbryson1]

I'd love to get some C&C on this BW conversion of my daughter. Please blast away. :mrgreen:

Thanks for looking!

[/URL] Hearts and Hat B&W by jwbryson1, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[tirediron]

Looks pretty good to me... I see almost pure white and deep black.

 

[ceeboy14]

Not sure at this size and resolution what I've done will show, but I would add some selective sharpening to his eyes and mouth at the same opacity and half that for his nose, the hem lines in the hat and buckle just to help keep the eye riveted..other than that, very nice conversion.

 

[jwbryson1]

Looks pretty good to me... I see almost pure white and deep black.

Thanks John. How about the lighting? Good portrait lighting? I am no expert on B&W photos but I thought they were supposed to have a lot of contrast to be good. I tried to create that contrast here.

 

[tirediron]

The lighting looks good, and really, you can't have much more contrast that the full range of white to black. The thing that I've found to make the biggest difference in good conversions is getting the exposure right (which you've done). Start with a poorly exposed colour image and you'll never get anything better than a mediocre monochrome.

 

[Derrel]

Good-looking B&W. I stopped by your Flickr and looked at it Large, which was 2,048x...I thought it needed just a tiny,tiny bit more sharpening when seen on my monitor at that size. But in terms of tonal rendering, this looks a lot like Kodak Plus-X Pan, printed on a smooth-surface, cold-tone, grade 4 paper. "Classic, modern B&W".

 

[terri]

Good-looking B&W. I stopped by your Flickr and looked at it Large, which was 2,048x...I thought it needed just a tiny,tiny bit more sharpening when seen on my monitor at that size. But in terms of tonal rendering, this looks a lot like Kodak Plus-X Pan, printed on a smooth-surface, cold-tone, grade 4 paper. "Classic, modern B&W".

Is there higher praise?

 

[Derrel]

Good-looking B&W. I stopped by your Flickr and looked at it Large, which was 2,048x...I thought it needed just a tiny,tiny bit more sharpening when seen on my monitor at that size. But in terms of tonal rendering, this looks a lot like Kodak Plus-X Pan, printed on a smooth-surface, cold-tone, grade 4 paper. "Classic, modern B&W".

Is there higher praise?

Agreed...for me, the way this looks is the way I always tried to get my 1980's B&W images to look. Higher praise? Oh, I guess I could have added, "Printed at the fine arts darkroom using the Leitz Focomat IIc condenser enlarger, and not on one of the crummy old Dursts."

 

[jwbryson1]

Good-looking B&W. I stopped by your Flickr and looked at it Large, which was 2,048x...I thought it needed just a tiny,tiny bit more sharpening when seen on my monitor at that size. But in terms of tonal rendering, this looks a lot like Kodak Plus-X Pan, printed on a smooth-surface, cold-tone, grade 4 paper. "Classic, modern B&W".

Is there higher praise?

Derrel loves me. :mrgreen:

 

[tirediron]

Good-looking B&W. I stopped by your Flickr and looked at it Large, which was 2,048x...I thought it needed just a tiny,tiny bit more sharpening when seen on my monitor at that size. But in terms of tonal rendering, this looks a lot like Kodak Plus-X Pan, printed on a smooth-surface, cold-tone, grade 4 paper. "Classic, modern B&W".

Is there higher praise?

He could have said it looked a lot like FP4 or PAN-F!

 

[ceeboy14]

I love FP4 and have 50 rolls of it still in the fridge and I still print with a cold head Zone VI on graded Ilford papers...yummy.

 

[tirediron]

I love FP4 and have 50 rolls of it still in the fridge and I still print with a cold head Zone VI on graded Ilford papers...yummy.

Nice! If and when I ever get the room again, I'm going to set up a proper wet dark room.

 

[ceeboy14]

I have one in the process of being rebuilt with all the bells and whistles including temp control, exhaust fans, all stainless tanks, reels, flat glass trays (I do a lot of alternative processes as well). I love the moment the print surfaces and it is just as exciting now as it was when I made my first one in 1961 in a high school graphic arts class. I'll make you swimmingly jealous now. I have two 8x10 and two 11x14 and two 16x20 packs of graded #2 and #3 Agfa FB papers which have been meticulously preserved for over 25 years. And yes, they'll print as nicely now as they did then.

 

[amolitor]

For my money there's a bit too much contrast in the midtones. Her skin looks, for want of a better word, a little "greasy", because the curve is a little steep in those tones, I feel. See the hottest spots on her pudgy lil cheeks, and how the tones drop off from there. Slightly flatter would be more flattering, more telling of the perfect skin kids have.

Light looks great, I love the light touch of rim lighting on her camera-left cheek-chin, really well done.

 

[paigew]

I think this looks good. I would probably try pushing the whites a little more...maybe move the orange slide a couple points to the right.