How do you turn digital to Black and White?

[tpinchback]

I was just wondering how people turned there digital photos to Black and White? I know of four ways to do this in Photoshop 7.0. Any other ways of doing this? Is one way better than another?

Thanks

[Yance]

It depends on the photo and on the effect you want to achieve. Some pictures naturally lend themselves to simple desaturation, others don't.

[slejhamer]

None of the above.

This does incorporate the channel mixer, but goes well beyond:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html

[evilenglishman]

none of the above either :wink:

try looking at "image/adjustments/gradient map"

[iwatkins]

None of the above either. I use this in PSCS: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm

Recommended

Cheers

Ian

[GenEOS]

I would assume that Rog's script uses most of these to get the final results.

[tpinchback]

I did not relize that there are so many ways to turn photos into Black and White. thanks

[iwatkins]

I would assume that Rog's script uses most of these to get the final results.

I would guess there is some truth in that. But I don't worry about it, I just press the buttons and get great output. :D

Cheers

Ian

[cgratti]

I like to make photos look sepia-toned.
using colorize in Photoshop.....

New photos look like they were taken in the 1800's..

[evilenglishman]

None of the above either. I use this in PSCS: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm

Recommended

Cheers

Ian


I just tried this script and it is no good for printing.
If you want a photo for the web etc its fine to do it this way but if want it to look good in print...

...you also have to consider the technicalities of printing - I don't mean photographic prints, I mean magazine/book printing etc.

There sould never be 100% white (so to speak) or 100% black in an image.
These values should be around 2-3% in the lightest areas and 97-98% in the darker areas.

The reason being that any area with no information (0% black) will show the blank paper the photo is printed on and will give the images a "cut-out" look.
100% black will become muddy when printed because there are so many dots printed so close together.

[iwatkins]

You learn something new everyday, I didn't know that.

Doesn't stop me using it though, I only use it for processing before web use or for my own printing (using inkjet).

Cheers

Ian

[evilenglishman]

Ian, yes its a great script for free and perfectly usable for anything other than magazine/book printing.
I don't want to put people off it - thats not my intention. I just thought I would point this out in case people weren't aware of it.

[spock84]

Desaturate or channel mixer. I always try the former first and if I don't like the way it looks I use the latter.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I'm going to chime in here since our (mine and Paul Jaruszewski's) Variations Suite (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/variations.htm) B&W conversion script (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm) has been mentioned.

First, an apology: since V-Suite scripts are available in both free and donation-ware versions, this post could be construed as marketing.

Secondly, thanks to Ian for his enthusiastic endorsement and to Evilenglishman for clarifying his negative feedback - just before I stomped him. :) The script is designed for web images and inkjet printing; neither Paul nor I are in a position to test results with the kinds of printers used for mags and books. EE makes it sounds like it's just a matter of adjusting IO levels, but I don't suppose it's that simple (of course, if it is that simple, you might just see an new feature in the next version :) ).

Coming back to the initial point of the thread, there are definitely other ways to convert B&W than those listed in the poll, and it's complicated by the fact that different settings can be used with many of these methods. Slejhammer mentioned the channel mixer method - how many different ways are there to combine channel values with this?

I'm currently working on V2 of B+W Variations (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm) (perhaps, we should call it "Mark II" :) ). It has 32 different treatments for conversion using 6 or 7 - without actually checking the code, I can't remember the precise figure - with different settings. Each one of the 32 options gives a different result; one of my test images is a print profile chart that has around 750 swatches on it. So it's easy to see what effect the different methods have. As Yance said early on the "best" method depends on the subject matter, except, of course, there's no such thing as the best method, it depends what you like the look of. One technique we didn't use is straight desaturation - doesn't give enough flexibility.

None of this, of course, touches upon the additional complications of toning or adding grain, or the other things you might do to the image.

Regards,

[evilenglishman]

EE makes it sounds like it's just a matter of adjusting IO levels, but I don't suppose it's that simple (of course, if it is that simple, you might just see an new feature in the next version :) ).



Roger, I 'think' it can be as simple as that. all other values will print fine, its just the "cut off" points that have to be watched.

I'm not sure but I would imagine this is difficult to achieve with a script as any two images run through an identical process will give different final results.

Thanks for not stomping me :shock: :D

[evilenglishman]

forgot to mention, that i use the "convert to black and white pro" plug-in a lot:
http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

This is a very good plug-in

[slejhamer]

Slejhammer mentioned the channel mixer method - how many different ways are there to combine channel values with this?
...
None of this, of course, touches upon the additional complications of toning or adding grain, or the other things you might do to the image.


Like Roger's work, the Petteri technique is designed for web display and attempts to emulate the printed page with a curve adjustment layer. (It also adds toning and graining, but as Roger suggests there are different methods for those too!) What I like about this technique is that it's a simple matter to delete the contrast adjustment layer before printing (or before saving a copy to be sent to the lab.)

We should also mention Russell Brown's very popular Film/Filter method, which I believe forms the basis for both Petteri's and Roger's fine work. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Roger. :wink: )
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/pdf/colortoB&W.pdf

[Roger_Cavanagh]

We should also mention Russell Brown's very popular Film/Filter method, which I believe forms the basis for both Petteri's and Roger's fine work. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Roger. :wink: )
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/pdf/colortoB&W.pdf

Actually, Slej, in the current version of B+W Variations (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm), you are wrong. :P But V2 does, I confess, include one set of conversions based on this technique and another set that adds a further variation on it of mine own invention.

The trouble with Photoshop techniques is that (a) there are usually a dozen different ways to digitally skin the cat, and (b) it's pretty hard to know who thought of any given idea first. I'm not saying that the film/filter idea wasn't Russell's, but it would not surprise me to find that someone else did think of it, but didn't publicise it as well or give it such a catchy name.

Petteri's actions are based on channel mixer methods and using channels as layers rather than the film/filter method.

Regards,

[kd6lor]

Mr Evil, ( I checked your website and I know how you got your name you naughty boy. )

I gather from your post that you are opposed to the script that Roger and I have made because it doesn't provide prevent clipping in the edge of the 0-255 range. This feature was not included because it is an output issue and not a conversion issue. The script was written with an emphasis on the conversion while leaving concerns specific to output i.e. crt v.s. paper, to the person generating the output. This is very easy to do and I talk to Roger about making this a feature on our next release of the B/W script, or possibly in a script that does resize and resample for paper or web.

Interestingly enough I ran a black and a white image through the imaging factory plugin you mention. The black remained 0.0.0 and the white remained 255.255.255. I did this using several different film emulations which would have been easier if the script allowed layered multiple outpout ( but that's another story ) and got the same result every time. In any case, I am not sure why my script offends while theirs pleases. ( Maybe their plugin does the flesh tones better than mine, wink wink... ) Given that a properly exposed image shouldn't realy have any 0.0.0 or 255.255.255 areas this shouldn't be a problem with any conversion script where the output is paper or web.

What their plugin does do that I cannot deliver is realtime adjustment. At ten times the cost I am happy to say theirs should do something that mine cannot. Our script does deliver is something that theirs does not, that is layered conversions. Layered conversions allow the user to perform several conversions on one image and show and reveal different parts of different layers. In effect multiple conversions in one and the complete discretion of the user to select what conversion to use in any part of the image. For those not interested in using layer masks, the ability to see fullsize previews of several different conversions by clicking on layer visibility or history states. This beats the heck out of a small preview window if you have a particular conversion effect you are seeking. This is a powerful feature of all of the variations scripts and is available to the "power user" as well as the novice.

Paul





None of the above either. I use this in PSCS: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/actions/variations/02_bw.htm

Recommended

Cheers

Ian


I just tried this script and it is no good for printing.
If you want a photo for the web etc its fine to do it this way but if want it to look good in print...

...you also have to consider the technicalities of printing - I don't mean photographic prints, I mean magazine/book printing etc.

There sould never be 100% white (so to speak) or 100% black in an image.
These values should be around 2-3% in the lightest areas and 97-98% in the darker areas.

The reason being that any area with no information (0% black) will show the blank paper the photo is printed on and will give the images a "cut-out" look.
100% black will become muddy when printed because there are so many dots printed so close together.

[slejhamer]

Hi Roger.

Regarding your and Pauls' script: of course I meant V2, as I am very forward-thinking. :wink:

Regarding Petteri's: he does give you the option of skipping the channel separation and going straight to a mixer layer, which is analog to Brown's desaturated film layer. And Petteri's "tint" layer looks at least a little bit like Brown's "filter" layer. Variations... pardon the pun.

What I should have said was that Brown's concepts form the basis, rather than his methods. (If indeed they are his ... :lol: )

If I ever upgrade from PS7 I will look forward to trying your script!
Cheers,

[Roger_Cavanagh]

If I ever upgrade from PS7 I will look forward to trying your script!

The opportunity to do that has surely got to be worth twice the price of the upgrade. :D

The lack of any sensible UI capability in PS7 scripting makes it impossible to develop anything without going the VB route, which didn't really appeal. But - providing your PC has sufficient clout - CS does have some neat new features.

Regards,

[evilenglishman]

I gather from your post that you are opposed to the script that Roger and I have made because it doesn't provide prevent clipping in the edge of the 0-255 range.


I am not opposed to your script at all. I just made a relevent comment about the output/printing issue.



Interestingly enough I ran a black and a white image through the imaging factory plugin you mention. The black remained 0.0.0 and the white remained 255.255.255. I did this using several different film emulations which would have been easier if the script allowed layered multiple outpout ( but that's another story ) and got the same result every time.


Why put a black and white image through a plug-in designed to convert a colour image into black and white?
I don't understand the logic of this???
I just ran it on a colour image and there were no 0% and no 100% values at all.


In any case, I am not sure why my script offends while theirs pleases. ( Maybe their plugin does the flesh tones better than mine, wink wink... )

What their plugin does do that I cannot deliver is realtime adjustment. At ten times the cost I am happy to say theirs should do something that mine cannot. Our script does deliver is something that theirs does not, that is layered conversions.


Your script doesn't offend :roll:
I prefer the plug-in because as you mentioned, it has real-time adjustments AND has a real-time preview AND doesn't convert to greyscale. That's enough for me

[kd6lor]

I gather from your post that you are opposed to the script that Roger and I have made because it doesn't provide prevent clipping in the edge of the 0-255 range.


I am not opposed to your script at all. I just made a relevent comment about the output/printing issue.




Interestingly enough I ran a black and a white image through the imaging factory plugin you mention. The black remained 0.0.0 and the white remained 255.255.255. I did this using several different film emulations which would have been easier if the script allowed layered multiple outpout ( but that's another story ) and got the same result every time.


Why put a black and white image through a plug-in designed to convert a colour image into black and white?
I don't understand the logic of this???
I just ran it on a colour image and there were no 0% and no 100% values at all.


In any case, I am not sure why my script offends while theirs pleases. ( Maybe their plugin does the flesh tones better than mine, wink wink... )

What their plugin does do that I cannot deliver is realtime adjustment. At ten times the cost I am happy to say theirs should do something that mine cannot. Our script does deliver is something that theirs does not, that is layered conversions.


Your script doesn't offend :roll:
I prefer the plug-in because as you mentioned, it has real-time adjustments AND has a real-time preview AND doesn't convert to greyscale. That's enough for me


Opposed was a bad choice of words on my part, granted, but I don't believe your comment to be relevent at all. Our routine converts a color image to black and white. If you start with a RBG file, you end with an RGB file. Except it is monochrome. The bit depth remains the same. If you want to do levels work to prevent pure white or black portions of the image you will have to do so --- in my routine or the imaging factory routine.

As far as putting a black and white image through the routines to test, I was seeking to determine if the imaging factory routine actually clips the high and low ends of the histogram to prevent pure white or pure black regions. It does not. So to say that it is appropriate for prep for print and my script is not based on the fact that my script outputs pure black and white does not make sense as they both exhibit that property. I was curious to discover what you were talking about and realized that maybe you were using the imaging factory plugin on a CYMK file. You weren't since it won't process a CYMK file. Interestingly enough, Roger and my script will process a CYMK file. It leaves the result in RGB16 color, but that can be fixed. ( So far no one has asked for this )


The last bit, I have to agree with 2 of the 3 things you mention. The Image Factory routine does do cool real-time adjustments and real time preview ( I think that might actually be one thing ) but why do you keep mentioning greyscale? The B/W Variations script I have been playing with today has been putting out 16 bit images in RGB, even when fed CYMK. Just like the Image Factory routine, with the exception of the CYMK which it cannot process.

Paul

[evilenglishman]

I was seeking to determine if the imaging factory routine actually clips the high and low ends of the histogram to prevent pure white or pure black regions. It does not. So to say that it is appropriate for prep for print and my script is not based on the fact that my script outputs pure black and white does not make sense as they both exhibit that property.


Okay, I think you missed my point.
I ran your script on a colour image and ended up with 0% and 100% values.
I ran the image factory plug in on the same image and I didn't get these values.
This is what my point was based on.


but why do you keep mentioning greyscale?


I've only mentioned it once, and that was an observation as to why I use the plug in, i didn't say your script converted to grayscale. there is no need to get so defensive :roll:

[mattlamb]

None of the above...

I mostly just convert image to Lab, and keep only the lightness channel then convert to greyscale, then use curves to adjust contrast.

admitedly I work for a newspaper whose standards are different than fine printing but at home I often find myself using this technique as it gives me a nicer result than the channel mixer and tends to have less grainy and smoother feel.