What are some techniques to get really good B&W images?

[jwbryson1]

I am watching a video on Adorama TV and Mark Wallace says that he is really going to "restrict the light" on his portraits so he can get some really good B&W shots.

That got me to thinking what is the "trick" to getting good B&W shots....

Is it better to shoot in monotone in camera or to convert in PP with software like Silver Efex Pro? What do you need to do to get really good B&W images?

Discuss...

 

[KmH]

It is better to maintain control and convert from a color image post process.

The real trick to making great B&W images is being able to 'see' B&W images in a world of color.
That ability boils down to being able to see contrast.

 

[amolitor]

I think somewhere in the middle. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that in-camera b&w simply isn't very good, and that one really ought to shoot raw and convert after the fact. I limit myself, though, and don't go crazy with sliders and so on, and I definitely avoid Silver Efex Pro since it appears to be a slider-fest that will suck the strongest of men into the madness of black skies and cotton-candy clouds.

I use what ViewNX2 will give me, which is basically red/orange/yellow/green filters (a simulation of the effect of such a filter stuck in front of the lens, to be exact) and I find that's generally enough. If I'm not able to get the separation I want between this and that with these, the image is probably crap. A little burning and dodging will generally suffice after that.

That said, I am a known sh*t disturber and am distinctly anti-tech.

I don't know what the Adorama TV guy meant, but frequently with b&w you'll see much more dramatic lighting. Since you haven't got color to fill in details, you might light a model with a much higher lighting ratio to help fill in the idea of 3-dimensionality. It's also simply tradition to push b&w images to higher contrasts, thanks Ansel, you putz.

 

[Big Mike]

I'd suggest that it's almost never the best idea to shoot B&W 'in camera'...unless, of course, you are shooting in RAW, in which case the images will be in color anyway (only the previews would be B&W).

There are many, many different techniques for converting color images to B&W. So knowing how to get the look you're after, or at least knowing how to play with the right settings, is certainly something worth knowing.

As for creating 'really good B&W shots'...that is practically asking 'what makes a really good photo?' There are a million answers and they're all subjective.
But, to me, there are certain subjects or scenarios that would lend themselves to looking better in B&W. For example, if the color in the photo is distracting attention away from your intended subject, then converting to B&W may make for a better photo. If you want to remove color to emphasize what is left...things like texture, light/shadow etc.

Sometimes the subject or scene, will portray different feelings in B&W than when in color. For example, many thing might tend to look older or maybe timeless when viewed in B&W.

 

[Derrel]

Shoot in RAW + JPEG mode, with the camera set to Monochrome or B&W capture mode, so the previews on the LCD are in B&W, and the SOOC JPEGS will also be B&W. The RAW images will however, have full, RGB color information. What this allows you to do is to literally SEE the images you are making in the field or studio, in black and white form. "literally"--as black and white, two-dimensional images.

Canon offers image toning, like sepia or cold-tone, and also has filter effects. I often use their "sepia" in color toning, and also use their yellow filter filter effect.

B&W photography is quite often about shapes and lines, as well as mass, texture, and value. B&W images often benefit from a different type of lighting than color images...with color removed, B&W images are actually quite a bit different from full-color images. Lighting that looks very good in color might be too "flat" when the image is B&W. In studio portraiture, lighting ratios for color are often MUCH lower than those used when the pictures will be shot B&W.

Same with the lights themselves!!! Lights that have a higher degree of specularity and crisper degree of contrast are often very,very nice for B&W images. For example, the degree of specularity a light produces; if the image is going to be a B&W, on many subjects, the shape of the object is better-revealed if the light modifier itself produces some specularity; that provides clues as to shape and depth of objects when the "color" information is removed. Translation: for B&W portraiture and B&W commercial photos, using smaller lights can be good. Same with using semi-silvered or metallized silver umbrellas or soft box interiors. For example, metallized gold softbox interiors, or gold/silver "zebra" interior reflecting umbrellas often look VERY gimmicky when the images are color; buuuuut....those same metallized modifiers impart a very subtle specularity, a very subtle "shine" or "sheen" on rounded noses and cheeks and chins, and so on. With the color information stripped out by means of either 1) using B&W film or 2) shooting digital with color-to-B&W conversion in software or in-camera, the "character of the light itself" becomes a key component in how good B&W images look.

Today, not many people are familiar with lighting for good-looking B&W. My mentor died 30+ years ago, and learned in the B&W era. These are some of the things he taught me.

In software converting using say, Lightroom, the B&W filter effects presets make a huge difference in how images look when converted. Different filter effects will alter the images quite significantly. Same with channel mixer in Photoshop. Do not be afraid to experiment!

 

[IByte]

I am watching a video on Adorama TV and Mark Wallace says that he is really going to "restrict the light" on his portraits so he can get some really good B&W shots.

That got me to thinking what is the "trick" to getting good B&W shots....

Is it better to shoot in monotone in camera or to convert in PP with software like Silver Efex Pro? What do you need to do to get really good B&W images?

Discuss...

I enjoy his tutorials.

 

[paigew]

the best b/w photos have direction light which give depth to the photo (imo at least) flat photos = boring b/w

b/w photos are my favorite; most of my personal work is b/w

 

[paigew]

I am watching a video on Adorama TV and Mark Wallace says that he is really going to "restrict the light" on his portraits so he can get some really good B&W shots.

as far as 'restricting the light' goes. he is prob doing this to create strong lighting. by only using one light source you can create dramatically lit photos. Restricting where the light falls onto your subject. This may mean blocking out alternative light sources (windows)

 

[Vautrin]

Nik Software has really made a difference for me in terms of the black and white images I can create.

My workflow is:

1. Shoot images in raw, but use Monochrome in camera to get a feel for what it will look like on the previews
2. Convert images to DNG using lightroom.
3. Pick keepers
4. Open the DNG file direct in Photoshop and adjust exposure
5. Open Nik's DFINE to remove noise (if needed)
6. Apply Nik's RAW Presharpener
7. Open Nik's Viveza to change lighting (if needed)
8. Apply any photoshop adjustments. Cloning out skin blemishes, cleaning up skin
9. Open in Silver efex

With that, I've made some images I'm very proud of, and that I feel "pop"

If that sounds like a lot of work, it is. But, I think it's really quite necessary if you really want a great "feel" to your black and white.

That's because, many things that traditional black and white film would do, is missing from your "in camera" black and white images. You don't need to use Nik Software, but you've got to do some post processing, in photoshop, or wherever.

Specifically:

Colors are simply desaturated in camera. Real Black and White film would react differently to different colors, and tends to have more contrast. For instance, when I shoot film I always shoot Rollei Retro, which will render reds white. Your camera might render reds grey.

In film, you'd apply color filters. For instance, if I wanted to get a nice sky in a landscape picture, I'd put a deep red filter on my camera. This would render blues, black. It'd also make skin almost white.

Your camera sucks at noise reduction and sharpening, doing it after the fact will make the image much better

Silver Efex will allow you to do things quickly with black and white. You can, for instance, bring out unreal levels of detail in a photo, or other things with a click of a button, or drag of a slider. For instance, I apply film grain to my photos to make them look more classic.

Finally, most "pro" photos (especially of models) have some form of post processing. If you want to make, say, portraits that look like they could be in vogue, you'll need to do some too.

 

[skyy38]

If you want Black and White *shoot* Black and White.

Spielberg didn't shoot Schindlers List in Color, just so he could desaturate it later on, never mind how much that would have cost.

He shot B+W to put himself in the proper frame of mind...

 

[kathyt]

I am watching a video on Adorama TV and Mark Wallace says that he is really going to "restrict the light" on his portraits so he can get some really good B&W shots.

That got me to thinking what is the "trick" to getting good B&W shots....

Is it better to shoot in monotone in camera or to convert in PP with software like Silver Efex Pro? What do you need to do to get really good B&W images?

Discuss...

I enjoy his tutorials.

Me too, Mark is great to watch.

 

[amolitor]

If you want Black and White *shoot* Black and White.

Spielberg didn't shoot Schindlers List in Color, just so he could desaturate it later on, never mind how much that would have cost.

He shot B+W to put himself in the proper frame of mind...

Unfortunately, if you're shooting digital, you're shooting color (with a very few notable exceptions, and if you have one of those, you're not asking this question). You haven't got the color response of b&w film. You can set it to B&W in the camera, but if you let the camera do the conversion it's unlikely to do a particularly satisfactory job most of the time.

 

[Vautrin]

If you want Black and White *shoot* Black and White.

Spielberg didn't shoot Schindlers List in Color, just so he could desaturate it later on, never mind how much that would have cost.

He shot B+W to put himself in the proper frame of mind...

I very much agree with you and disagree with you.

I LOVE my black and white film. To this day, you'll still see me puttering around town with a pentax, rolliflex, or mamiya, and I load FILM.

The problem with film is expense and workflow.

With digital, I shoot in color and manipulate images to make them come out in silver efex, it's time consuming, but free as I already have paid for my camera, and software.

With film, I pay to develop the film, and either I pay lots of money to get the film scanned into a useable format (you can't just go to walmart), OR I pay lots of time scanning it myself.

If if weren't for that expense, I'd shoot exclusively black and white film.

 

[Ysarex]

If you want Black and White *shoot* Black and White.

Spielberg didn't shoot Schindlers List in Color, just so he could desaturate it later on, never mind how much that would have cost.

He shot B+W to put himself in the proper frame of mind...

If you want the best B&W shoot a digital color (raw) original -- don't desaturate it, convert it. Amolitor is correct, digital cameras only record color (one exception), but that's not unfortunate. Derrel's suggestion of previewing a B&W JPEG is fine, but remember that's the camera preview.

If you shot b&w back in the day using film, and you were serious, then you carried around at least a yellow, deep yellow, green, red and blue filter to alter the translation of color to grey tone. The filter color lightened itself and darkened it's opposite so a yellow filter would darken a blue sky and lighten a golden delicious apple as those colors were translated to grey.

(We all know Ansel Adams became famous for the decade shooting in Yosemite when his red filter got stuck on his lens and he couldn't get it off.)

Today with a digital color original you're not limited to using the yellow filter or the green filter; you can use both and throw in the red one as well. That additional control means better results; get the photo you want not just the photo you have to settle for.

(Spielberg had total control of the set, shooting out in the natural world we do not.)

Here's an example, one of my neighbor's homes:

I used Photoshop's channel mixer in this case on a 16 bit RGB file. When possible it's best to do the conversion to B&W in the raw converter, but in this case I wanted to be able to convert the image in discreet sections. Photoshop's channel mixer allows you to alter the proportion of each of the RGB channels as the file is converted. This is equivalent to using a red, green, or blue filter when taking the photo, or in the case of this image the red and green filters together (try that with b&w film).

The red channel makes the blue sky darker and anything red lighter. Use the red channel to separate the clouds from the sky. I converted the sky with 100% red channel. But in this photo the house siding is two shades of blue. I didn't want the house getting darker. And to make matters worse the house is ringed in blood red begonias and I didn't want them getting lighter not to mention the red brick drive way. Shooting film? Just use your graduated red to green filter.

So it's simple in Photoshop to apply different channel mixes to different sections of the photo. In this photo the sky and the two deep red hibiscus flowers were converted using 100% red channel while the rest of the photo was converted using 10% red, 85% green and 5% blue. A level of control that if old Ansel were here to see it he'd pee his pants.

Joe

 

[Vautrin]

Today with a digital color original you're not limited to using the yellow filter or the green filter; you can use both and throw in the red one as well. That additional control means better results; get the photo you want not just the photo you have to settle for.

Actually, in B&W film photography, theres quite a long list of filters available, including inbetween colors like "green-yellow", and variants of colors (you have different levels of darkness of red, for instance).

The problem with film is to actually use all these filters, you need to own one of each (lots of $$$). In addition, you need to "see" ahead of time which filter to use -- which takes quite a bit of practice.

If you didn't get the right filter you could use filters in the dark room to adjust the contrast -- but it wouldn't have the same effect as you get with photoshop....

So digital is a little more forgiving. If you shot a nature scene in a red filter but realized you really wanted a blue or green filter, you can just switch it.

Lastly, there are "typical" uses for each filter.

For a yellow filter, it's effect is very mild just adds some contrast. Some people leave this on their cameras as the default (not clear!)
For a Red filter, skies will get very dark and dramatic, which can be great for landscape.
For an Orange Filter, it's between the red and yellow and is used a lot for portraits, I think.
For a blue filter or a green filter, it's great for nature shots (like a forest), but watch out using it on people as it'll render them funny shades of dark