I did mention, a few days ago, about starting some thread about doing b+w photos. So... here it is. Before I get started, I don't use photoshop, elements, or any adobe art package. I use GIMP. That shouldn't make a difference though, the procedures are pretty much the same, only the art package layouts are different.

First off, shoot in colour. The reasons being, if the b+w conversion looks wrong, you've not wasted a photo as you still have a colour version. The other reason, it's easy to remove colour, it's not so easy to add colour. B+W photos also look good, depending on the subject, with grain (aka digital noise). Digital noise on colour photos looks horrible, regardless of subject.

Onwards to the various ways...

1. Desaturate. No. The desaturate function/method simply strips the colour and produces a washed-out greyscale version of the masterpiece. Not good.
2. In-camera b+w modes. No. Again, it's almost as if the camera mode has a desaturate function. The results again look washed-out.
3. Channel mixer. My preferred method. This gives a far greater amount of control over the final result. The channel mixer filter/script/function offers you a choice of three sliders (red, green and blue), as well as a monochrome setting. Enable the monchrome setting, then use the sliders to get the desired result. The values of the three sliders *must* total 100 though, otherwise the result will look other under or over exposed. Also rememeber that the red value should be more than the green and blue values.
4. Gradient map. I've not used this method much, so I'm a bit rusty on this one. Suffice to say, you apply a b+w gradient map to the photo.

Grain. Noise. Hated throughout camera magazines, unless used in an arty-type fashion. Photoshop has a film-grain plugin by default, iirc. With that, I'd duplicate the b+w photo into a layer, apply the strongest film-grain effect you can stomach, then blend the two layers. Gimp, use the "Scatter HSV" effect and keep the hue/saturation/value values low.

Anyone want a run-through on b+w filter effects or b+w film emulation?

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

Niceone Dave.
Can we have this pinned please?

---

My DCM Gallery
and
Flickr

Agreed this should be pinned, cheers Dave.

---

DCmag Gallery
I Don't Work For DCM.....Honest

You'll have to contact Jake Xu, regarding pinning/sticky-ing posts. Such a setting isn't available to us, for good reasons.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

Thanks Dave, Since I first read your channel mixer that's the only method I've used.

---

Pete B(BPITW -5 times)
http://www.christianblandford.com/
DCM
flickr

Boltondave:

Anyone want a run-through on b+w filter effects or b+w film emulation?

Black and white film emulation values.

The following list is laid out as "Filmname/type: red,green,blue". Enter the values into the channel mixer for your desired filmtype.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

I am glad you used the word "emulate" which as you know means "strive to equal", which is what it does. You can`t beat the old fashioned way, with a sheet of Ilford gallery paper, trying to hammer it flat.Then putting it under 20 books

Welcome back Stan, I hope the op went well.

---

My DCM Gallery
and
Flickr

stan walker:

I am glad you used the word "emulate" which as you know means "strive to equal", which is what it does. You can`t beat the old fashioned way, with a sheet of Ilford gallery paper, trying to hammer it flat.Then putting it under 20 books

Then forgetting which pile of books it's under and having to start again. lol

 

Dave i as i have nothing to do with film and d & p,  why do all thoughs papers give different results, what makes the papers different

---

Keiths site

You don’t need eyes to see, you need vision

Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Both DSLRs (any, I'm not fussy) handle ISO200, but both give different results, due to different sensor technologies and image processors. Stick Sony in there (well, why not), add a bit of Pentax, you become stuck for choice with regards to results.

The same can be applied to b+w films. Kodak, Agfa and Ilford both made identical filmspeeds for b+w films, but had slightly different results, due to how their films handled the colours.

Along with that, each film maker produced speciality films. Kodak released b+w IR films and low-grain technical films, Ilford produced XP2 (an odd film that used C41 (colour print) chemicals for processing, and could have its ISO setting altered midroll without a problem, but required processing by someone who had a clue). Agfa released some very slow films, to give low-grain results (before Kodak, afaik), etc.

I could go on about papers if you want, but the list I gave was for emulating filmtypes.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

stan walker:

I am glad you used the word "emulate" which as you know means "strive to equal", which is what it does.

Well... yes. The only way to get around emulating, is to use the real thing.

... and digital cameras tend to not handle b+w films too well.

stan walker:

You can`t beat the old fashioned way, with a sheet of Ilford gallery paper, trying to hammer it flat.Then putting it under 20 books

I've also heard horror stories of spending hours in a darkroom, inhaling various obnoxious fumes (I'll not go on about alternate processes and their dependancy for cyanide), only to find that something didn't go according to plan.

Gimme the channel mixer anyday.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

thanks for that Dave, i am going to try some b&w conversions this week using those settings and see the different results

---

Keiths site

You don’t need eyes to see, you need vision

Keith Hammond:

thanks for that Dave, i am going to try some b&w conversions this week using those settings and see the different results

Good luck.

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

What a strange lot we are. For more than  50 years we were stuck with  B/W. The boffins got their heads together and gave us color. Now we all want to print in B/W Thats what I call progress. 3D is the way to go. On a normal sheet of paper Remember those disk viewers Woolworth sold, the views were fantastic.Also those picture frames you stuck on the wall and it looked like you were looking into a box, usually a bird.