Older B&W - C&C please

[exemplaria]

Had the opportunity to get into a midtown high-rise in NYC to take this. It's actually a fairly long lens - 105mm. If you want to tell me it doesn't look quite straight that's fine - making all the vertical and horizontal lines line up seems to be a nigh impossible task - could this be an example of lens distortion, and can I get rid of it? I also just used the camera to make this B&W, could probably get better results using the channel mixer.


CSC_1489 by exemplaria, on Flickr

 

[amolitor]

Not bad at all. This is all about the middle tones, and I think it captures a little something of the "sea of greys and concrete" feeling one gets in a large city, especially in the mist or on an overcast day. You do have a pretty complete tonal range in here, so it's not flat per se. So, that's good.

The composition is subtle, but pretty decent, with a sort of sense of buildings "massed" just to left of center, and the larger street on the right.

It's not an image I love, but it's pretty decent, to my eye.

 

[Ysarex90 84]

Nice shot. I think you're close enough with the straight lines; it doesn't feel like there's any keystoning or rotational error in the photo. You just need some additional processing to normalize the tone response. The camera B&W is fine but the tone response is compressed. You have nothing in this photo that even comes close to black and that's it's biggest problem. That's a basic Levels correction to set the black point. After that it could probably benefit from a contrast boost, but setting that black point is the real issue.

Joe

 

[amolitor]

I have to disagree. I think there's adequate black in the frame already -- there's actually one pixel (just one!) that renders at a value of 0 for me (this might depend on your JPEG engine, so it's possible it won't work for you!) The material lower in the frame, the tanks and so forth, are sufficiently black for my taste. Yes, the image acquires more visual drama if you push those down blacker, but I think you lose some of the sense of the atmosphere between the lens and the object.

I see this image as about the slightly misty air and the greyness of the city, anyways. Maybe a little more black would be nice.

 

[Ysarex90 84]

I have to disagree. I think there's adequate black in the frame already -- there's actually one pixel (just one!) that renders at a value of 0 for me (this might depend on your JPEG engine, so it's possible it won't work for you!) The material lower in the frame, the tanks and so forth, are sufficiently black for my taste. Yes, the image acquires more visual drama if you push those down blacker, but I think you lose some of the sense of the atmosphere between the lens and the object.

I see this image as about the slightly misty air and the greyness of the city, anyways. Maybe a little more black would be nice.

A few stray pixels do not make a black point. Here's the histogram for that photo:



Given a full tonal range scene like this that histogram needs to reach the left corner. There may be an exception to most every rule, but this photo isn't the exception to this rule.

OP, it's an easy correction in Levels. Pull the black end slider to the right to line up with the end of the histogram. (You'll want to do nearly the same on the white end as well.)

Joe

 

[amolitor]

I saw the histogram, and I see your technical point. I just happened to disagree on the aesthetic point, and I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. It's certainly a matter of taste.

 

[Derrel]

If the black point were slammed all the way to the left of the histogram, if the image were printed it'd probably ink up really badly...

 

[Light Guru]

NYou have nothing in this photo that even comes close to black and that's it's biggest problem. That's a basic Levels correction to set the black point. After that it could probably benefit from a contrast boost, but setting that black point is the real issue.

I agree. The image looks flat it needs some punch.

Dont get upset at out comments you asked for c&c.

I sagest increasing the blacks and contrast and post that version also let us see then side by side.

 

[exemplaria]

NYou have nothing in this photo that even comes close to black and that's it's biggest problem. That's a basic Levels correction to set the black point. After that it could probably benefit from a contrast boost, but setting that black point is the real issue.

I agree. The image looks flat it needs some punch.

Dont get upset at out comments you asked for c&c.

I sagest increasing the blacks and contrast and post that version also let us see then side by side.

He's not the OP, I am. I don't have much experience working in B&W and have gotten excellent feedback from this thread. My photos are fine to edit so if anyone feels they can improve upon it, please have at it - just let me know what you did so I can learn.

 

[Ysarex90 84]

NYou have nothing in this photo that even comes close to black and that's it's biggest problem. That's a basic Levels correction to set the black point. After that it could probably benefit from a contrast boost, but setting that black point is the real issue.

I agree. The image looks flat it needs some punch.

Dont get upset at out comments you asked for c&c.

I sagest increasing the blacks and contrast and post that version also let us see then side by side.

He's not the OP, I am. I don't have much experience working in B&W and have gotten excellent feedback from this thread. My photos are fine to edit so if anyone feels they can improve upon it, please have at it - just let me know what you did so I can learn.

OK, I'll step you through it. Our eyes are always the final arbiter, but to begin editing you start with a look at the histogram. Here's your original with the histogram inset in the upper left:

What it tells us is that your photo's tone response is compressed. The histogram doesn't reach the left (black) corner and that's a rule that you almost never want to break. It also falls short of the right (highlight) corner. In effect your photo is only using around 75% of the available tonal range and the result is an overall low contrast flat appearance. First step then is to use Levels and pull the black point slider over to meet the histogram. In Levels the black point slider's numeric value is zero. I moved it over to 21. In other words the dark values that had been 21 in your photo I forced to black. Here's that change and resulting histogram:

Next step was the highlight end. This is a little trickier since your photo has some small white and off-white highlights. You see that low line on the histogram that extends up past the point where the sky ends -- that's stuff like the white dish antenna. We want to try not to clip those so I wasn't able to pull the highlight slider as far to the left as I would have otherwise liked. This is a real common occurrence and in Photoshop we can get around it by creating a highlight mask (another lesson). I did that to protect the brightest whites and then in Levels pulled the highlight point to the left which moved your whites whiter and lifted the overall density of the photo. The photo got too light for me and so I used the Levels midpoint to reset the density. Here's that photo:

I could call that finished, but I made two final slight changes. I tweaked up the midtone contrast. Photoshop under the Selection menu/Color Range will allow you to select Highlights, Midtones or Shadows. I didn't want to raise contrast at either end but I did select the midtones and added a smidge of contrast there. Then I put a slight warm color on the photo which I think goes well with the subject. Here's that final:

Compare the histogram from your original with this last one. Now the photo is making full use of the available tonal range. That's basically a goal that you want to embrace except in rare circumstances.

Joe

 

[amolitor]

And now you've completely lost the feeling of mistiness, with a sort of bizarre hyper-clarity in the first couple hundred yards, fading into soft grey tonality and mist in the distance. Pretty much what I figured would happen. The foreground area up to the nearer mass of buildings gives me a sense of "it's just rained" with the chilly moistness in the newly cleaned air. There's a clarity and a coolness in the air after a fall rain. The distant area feels completely different, with a sense of closeness/muggy/foggy going on.

It's a look, for sure. It's what convention suggests, for sure. I don't think it's right for this one.

Solid technical handling of a technical issue, though!

 

[Derrel]

Totally ruined the shot by "juicing it" wayyyyyyy too much. Judging by the amount of haze/smog/fog, and the presence of SOLID black in small places in the original rendering of the scene (the dark BLACK tower, the BLACK windows), the revised shots are terrible representations of the original scene. It has been "Ansel Adams'd To Death",so to speak. Or "Flickr'd". Or Spinal-Tapped. Sometimes the numbers ought NOT to be our guide...crank those sliders to the MAX!!!!! Just my opinion...

 

[sleist]

A VERY slight curve adjustment would have been enough, if anything. Lock mid-tones in the center and drag the lower third down just a smidge. This keeps the haze while bringing out more of the vertical lines of the buildings.
Or leave it. Matter of taste. I like the shot.