Ansel Adams type quality from a color digital?
Jen
landscape photo. I have tried various techniques using both psp6 and psp7
but I can't quite get the effect I'm looking for. The contrast just isn't
there.
Anyone?
Thanks so much I learn alot here.
Jen
Kris Zaklika
>
> Looking for a tutorial to make a great looking B&W photo from a color
> landscape photo. I have tried various techniques using both psp6 and psp7
> but I can't quite get the effect I'm looking for. The contrast just isn't
> there.
There is no "Ansel Adams - just add water" recipe, otherwise
anyone could be Ansel Adams :). You also haven't said what
you actually tried and whether you find you have too little
or too much contrast. Nor have you provided a link to the
original image. This makes it hard to answer specifically.
However, some of the tools you should consider using are:
1. Colors > Histogram Functions > Histogram Adjustment
2. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify
3. Colors > Adjust > Curves
4. Colors > Adjust > Channel Mixer with the Monochrome
option checked
> Anyone?
>
> Thanks so much I learn alot here.
>
> Jen
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Zaklika Jasc Software, Inc. The
Product Ideas: id...@jasc.com Power
Customer Service: customer...@jasc.com To
Technical Support: tec...@jasc.com Create
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter
"Jen" <sierr...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f07R7.4615$7R6.2...@nntp2.onemain.com...
The real key is learning to better drive your Enhance Photo tools
(on the Effects menu), and a lot of your Colors> Adjust tools
(found on the Colors menu). Of course the quality and subject
matter of the original image also factors in heavily too.
Why not put your picture up at StudioAvenue and see what people
come up with?
http://campratty.com/1faq/faqpages/b9.html
Porter
baseb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Jen wrote:
>>
>> Looking for a tutorial to make a great looking B&W photo from a color
>> landscape photo. I have tried various techniques using both psp6 and psp7
>> but I can't quite get the effect I'm looking for. The contrast just isn't
>> there.
>
>There is no "Ansel Adams - just add water" recipe, otherwise
>anyone could be Ansel Adams :). You also haven't said what
>you actually tried and whether you find you have too little
>or too much contrast. Nor have you provided a link to the
>original image. This makes it hard to answer specifically.
>However, some of the tools you should consider using are:
>1. Colors > Histogram Functions > Histogram Adjustment
>2. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify
>3. Colors > Adjust > Curves
>4. Colors > Adjust > Channel Mixer with the Monochrome
> option checked
One other technique that sometimes helps is to take your color image
and use Color/Separate Channels/Separate to RGB. You might find that
one of the color channels will give you a better black-and-white
starting point. You can also use a split to CMYK, but you will need to
invert the color of the channel (Colors/Negative Image) after the
split.
--
Cliff
baseb...@hotmail.com
Tom
in dynamic range from photographic materials, which always
have a MUCH greater dynamic range ("available bandwidth"?)
than digital media. And his "histogram adjustments" were
designed (with the same term of study) before the picture
was ever taken. His lab work was never anything but practical,
and could be duplicated today from his notes about each and
every shot.
Most photos that emulate Adams' (or Weston's, or White's)
are emotionally succesful by some stroke of luck, or by new
techniques that take advantage of what is at hand. Good
luck. We don't see much b/w scenic work these days.
Tom
"Jen" <sierr...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f07R7.4615$7R6.2...@nntp2.onemain.com...
Jen
you all can come up with. I'll post the site name to this thread tomorrow.
Thank you All
Jen
"Porter" <camp...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ot7R7.27521$WK1.3...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
Jen
http://www.photoloft.com/view/Album.asp?s=jasc&nonav=1&u=1660568&a=1198435&a
lbumpass=
I was wondering what you guys could do with it to make it a nice enough
print to frame in about 5x7.
Thanks again
Jen
Jen
> Clarify, and made a vast improvement to the simple techniques I was
trying.
Thank you
Jen
Kris Zaklika
How about the following steps:
1. Layers > Duplicate.
2. Select the entire sky region with the Magic Wand.
3. Feather the selection by 4 pixels.
4. Save the selection to the alpha channel and remove the
active selection.
5. Colors > Grey Scale.
6. Effects > Histogram Functions > Histogram Adjustment.
Use Luminosity. Press Reset and apply Midtone Compression
of 20 (and nothing else).
7. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify at 5.
8. Repeat step 7.
9. Load selection from alpha channel and press Ctrl-X to
remove the "clarified" sky.
10. Merge the layers.
It's a while since I looked at an Ansel Adams picture but
I e-mailed you the result anyway. Perhaps it will be to
your taste. Note that you can now see the moss on the rock
and the texture of the bark. Some regions of the image may
appear to "glow" too much for your liking. You can try
omitting step 8 or running Clarify with a lower setting
in step 8 to strike a more pleasing balance.
Jen
much.
heres the url to the new B&W
http://www.photoloft.com/view/Image.asp?s=jasc&nonav=1&u=1660568&a=1198435&i
=8569075
it doesn't seem to have quite the detail on the foliage as yours did . what
might I have done wrong?
Couldn't see any need for the sky treatment though..
1. Layers > Duplicate.
2. Colors > Grey Scale.
3. Effects > Histogram Functions > Histogram Adjustment.
Use Luminosity. Press Reset and apply Midtone Compression
of 20 and Gamma 1.80
4. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify at 5.
5. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify at 5.
6. Effects > Enhance Photo > Clarify at 5.
7. Merge the layers.
8. After I uploaded the picture I used the magic want on the forground
rock at toleance 13 and feather 4
9. Then I applied histogram adjustment, midtone+20 and Gamma 1.50 to
increase the detail of the rock.
Kris Zaklika
checked the newsgroup. Could you confine the postings to
the newsgroup - it's much easier for me that way. (Remember,
this is just a spare time thing for me and I have a real
job to do :)
--
Uni
Kris Zaklika wrote:
>
> I answered this by e-mail since I got that first, before I
> checked the newsgroup. Could you confine the postings to
> the newsgroup - it's much easier for me that way. (Remember,
> this is just a spare time thing for me and I have a real
> job to do :)
Watching you respond in this news group, day and night, at work and
home, I can't image how you find any time to do your real job!!!! :-)
Uni
Jen
Can you point to a
URL online that would help me to take better B&W's with an old pentax
camera? This camera take the most lovely photos in B&W and if I knew how to
make the correct adjustments I would love to try my hand at it. I do live
just north of Yosemite so I have much interest in Mountain Scenic Photos.
Thanks again
Jen
"Tom" <no...@no.net> wrote in message
news:u1atflp...@corp.supernews.com...
Jen
> this is just a spare time thing for me and I have a real
> job to do :)>>>
Sorry Kris, I'm rather new at newsgroups. I totally appreciate all your time
and I've gained so much already from just reading here recently.
Where DO you find the time...You're amazing
Jen
cc
years working in photo finishing/digital pre-press, has taken numerous
workshops with well known photographers/printers, have won/honorable mention
several competitions, own an authentic "work print" made probably by a
staffer, have seen many AA originals in exhibits, basically chasing after the
whole Adams, Weston (Ed & Brett) look all my life. To reproduce it digitally
is impossible. Very few images can come to their standard. There is a magic to
fine printing in the darkroom that is easy to achieve a closeness to, but hard
to match up to.
You might have to merely settle for "good" or "very good" perhaps "excellent".
There are more than a few ways to get to where you want to go. Read Black and
White Photography a Basic Manual, by Horenstien.
cc
Speaking as a person who has an AA in photography, has spent the last twenty
numerous workshops with well known photographers/printers, have won/honorable
print" (made probably by a staffer), have seen many AA originals in exhibits,
basically chasing after the whole Adams, Weston (Ed & Brett) look all my life.
To reproduce it digitally is impossible. Very few images can come to their
darkroom that is easy to achieve 98% of, but hard to get it perfect.
You might have to merely settle for "good" or "very good" perhaps "excellent".
There are more than a few ways to get to where you want to go. Read Black and
White Photography a Basic Manual, by Horenstien. Understanding photography is
far more than understanding a computer program.
Kris Zaklika
>
> Hi,
> Speaking as a person who has an AA in photography, has spent the last twenty
> years working in photography, photo finishing and digital pre-press, has taken
> numerous workshops with well known photographers/printers, have won/honorable
Speaking as a person who merely participates in this
newsgroup, I'd say you were getting to be a repetitive
person :)
[snip]
Uni
Kris Zaklika wrote:
>
> cc wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Speaking as a person who has an AA in photography, has spent the last twenty
> > years working in photography, photo finishing and digital pre-press, has taken
> > numerous workshops with well known photographers/printers, have won/honorable
> > mention several competitions for print making...
>
> Speaking as a person who merely participates in this
> newsgroup, I'd say you were getting to be a repetitive
> person :)
/me thinks people have to keep a open mind and consider that you can do
a lot more with digitized images than you could ever think of doing in a
darkroom :-)
Uni
Uni
Ron Lacey wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:50:25 -0500, Uni <plg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >/me thinks people have to keep a open mind and consider that you can do
> >a lot more with digitized images than you could ever think of doing in a
> >darkroom :-)
>
> A two edged sword perhaps<gr>.
>
> One thing you can't do with todays digital hard/software is produce
> the kind of prints a master like Adams could using large format
> cameras and controlling the entire process from exposure to printing.
... using a large format camera, I agree <handshake>
Uni
>
> Ron
>
> r...@ronstoons.com
> http://ronstoons.com
> http://ronanddave.com
cc
of tones with a fine printing paper such as Orient Seagull G. Tell me what
printer makes a page look like this paper? Your inkjet print against what I
do in the darkroom. No comparison.
For the last six years I've been involved in digital pre-press. The last two
as a supervisor. I started college in 1981 as a photography major. I got a
job printing for a photographer in 1982 while still in school. In the mid
1980's I spent three years working as a photographer for a small (30k
circulation) daily newspaper. In the late 1980's I returned to lab work and
spent many years honing my skills. For a few years I had the joy of working
both in digital formats and traditionally. Sadly, I only print for personal
pleasure these days. The publication I work for now uses digital cameras for
about 90% of the photos, and film for only about 10% of the photos. We expect
to be all digital some time in 2002. While digital offers many conveniences
and tricks not available in the darkroom, the medium for creating digital
prints sucks. This is digital's downfall.
Ron Lacey wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:50:25 -0500, Uni <plg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >/me thinks people have to keep a open mind and consider that you can do
> >a lot more with digitized images than you could ever think of doing in a
> >darkroom :-)
>
> A two edged sword perhaps<gr>.
>
> One thing you can't do with todays digital hard/software is produce
> the kind of prints a master like Adams could using large format
> cameras and controlling the entire process from exposure to printing.
>
Uni
cc wrote:
>
> I defy a proponent of digital to find me the way to produce the subtleties
> of tones with a fine printing paper such as Orient Seagull G. Tell me what
> printer makes a page look like this paper? Your inkjet print against what I
> do in the darkroom. No comparison.
I cannot lead you to a printer which can do this. My guess is that a dye
sublimation printer would be a good choice. However, being a owner of a
(6) six color inkjet printer, I do know that continuous and subtle tones
are a reality.
> For the last six years I've been involved in digital pre-press. The last two
> as a supervisor. I started college in 1981 as a photography major. I got a
> job printing for a photographer in 1982 while still in school. In the mid
> 1980's I spent three years working as a photographer for a small (30k
> circulation) daily newspaper. In the late 1980's I returned to lab work and
> spent many years honing my skills. For a few years I had the joy of working
> both in digital formats and traditionally. Sadly, I only print for personal
> pleasure these days. The publication I work for now uses digital cameras for
> about 90% of the photos, and film for only about 10% of the photos. We expect
> to be all digital some time in 2002.
I don't believe that. There is a place for film, which won't be replaced
by digital, in a year or so.
> While digital offers many conveniences
> and tricks not available in the darkroom, the medium for creating digital
> prints sucks. This is digital's downfall.
If it were that bad, photographers wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon
and using digital cameras. Digital offers superior color accuracy than
film. Its pitfall is it cannot yet meet the resolution which film
offers.
Uni (who once believed vinyl records and tube amplifiers were the way to
go :)
cc
Uni wrote:
> cc wrote:
> >
> > I defy a proponent of digital to find me the way to produce the subtleties
> > of tones with a fine printing paper such as Orient Seagull G. Tell me what
> > printer makes a page look like this paper? Your inkjet print against what I
> > do in the darkroom. No comparison.
>
> I cannot lead you to a printer which can do this. My guess is that a dye
> sublimation printer would be a good choice. However, being a owner of a
> (6) six color inkjet printer, I do know that continuous and subtle tones
> are a reality.
The difference between your dye sub or 6 color inkjet and a well printed photo is
the difference between hearing a symphony broadcast over an AM radio and being
there live. My question to you is have you ever see a real b&w photo made by a
master of their craft in person? Not in a magazine, book, or on the web... in
person. Find a gallery or museum and see fine work and then say what you said.
Please let us know the name of the place and artist.
>
>
> > For the last six years I've been involved in digital pre-press. The last two
> > as a supervisor. I started college in 1981 as a photography major. I got a
> > job printing for a photographer in 1982 while still in school. In the mid
> > 1980's I spent three years working as a photographer for a small (30k
> > circulation) daily newspaper. In the late 1980's I returned to lab work and
> > spent many years honing my skills. For a few years I had the joy of working
> > both in digital formats and traditionally. Sadly, I only print for personal
> > pleasure these days. The publication I work for now uses digital cameras for
> > about 90% of the photos, and film for only about 10% of the photos. We expect
> > to be all digital some time in 2002.
>
> I don't believe that. There is a place for film, which won't be replaced
> by digital, in a year or so.
Not in the commercially motivated contect of publishing. Our largest photo would be
a 8x11 vertical @ 266 dpi, as I work for a regional magazine that produces pages at
133 linescreen. If the subject is organic, we only use 226 dpi. It is a widely
accepted practice in publishing that you use 1.7 times the linescreen for organic
subjects without sharp edges, such as people, and 2 times the linescreen for
inorganic subjects such as a building, which does have sharp edges. This translates
to a 2128 by 2926 pixel image being the largest we'd use. At the present time, we
have two staff photographers. In the summer of 1998 they were given Kodak DCS 520's
(same as Canon D2000's). These make images 1152x1728 pixels. This easily met our
needs for about 75% of our photos. We had a freelance photographer using a Olympus
D-600L a good six months prior to that. This was our first experience with digital
images. This photographer switched to an Olympus E-20 about a month ago. Some time
in 2002 we plan to get Canon EOS-1D's for our photographers. Because of the great
expense, they will probably be purchased a few months apart. With 1662x2496 pixels
to work with the company will stop buying film. Since buying the 520's we've bought
and processed very little film. We estimate that we "broke even" on the cameras
earlier this year because of the savings. I'm glad they budgeted for the new
cameras, though to the money minded people, this was not as easy to justify as the
first time.
Bottom line, in publishing, the savings is so great, film has been dead already
for more than 3 years.
>
>
> > While digital offers many conveniences
> > and tricks not available in the darkroom, the medium for creating digital
> > prints sucks. This is digital's downfall.
>
> If it were that bad, photographers wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon
> and using digital cameras. Digital offers superior color accuracy than
> film. Its pitfall is it cannot yet meet the resolution which film
> offers.
>
Then your standards aren't very high. Give me one link to prove any statement you
just made from a respected source. Obviously you are an amateur photographer who
has read too many advertisements. I've earned a living for the last 20 years
working in photography, photo lab work, and digital pre-press. I'd like you to
prove me wrong. I do this for a living. I can tell you have only a slim grasp on
the subject. The only reason why people have even started to switch to digital is
first consumers like the novelty. It still hasn't even made a 25% market
penetration. While it has probably made a 90% market penetration in publishing,
it's not for reasons of quality, it's because of deadlines and the bottom line.
Until you've seen a real photo exhibit, you'd never be able to understand that
there's nothing like the real thing...
Kris Zaklika
>
> Uni wrote:
>
> > cc wrote:
> > >
> > > I defy a proponent of digital to find me the way to produce the subtleties
> > > of tones with a fine printing paper such as Orient Seagull G. Tell me what
> > > printer makes a page look like this paper? Your inkjet print against what I
> > > do in the darkroom. No comparison.
> >
> > I cannot lead you to a printer which can do this. My guess is that a dye
> > sublimation printer would be a good choice. However, being a owner of a
> > (6) six color inkjet printer, I do know that continuous and subtle tones
> > are a reality.
>
> The difference between your dye sub or 6 color inkjet and a well printed photo is
> the difference between hearing a symphony broadcast over an AM radio and being
> there live.
I find that there is more coughing in the live version :)
Fortunately that doesn't affect photographic prints.
> My question to you is have you ever see a real b&w photo made by a
> master of their craft in person? Not in a magazine, book, or on the web... in
> person. Find a gallery or museum and see fine work and then say what you said.
> Please let us know the name of the place and artist.
>
> >
> >
> > > For the last six years I've been involved in digital pre-press. The last two
> > > as a supervisor. I started college in 1981 as a photography major. I got a
> > > job printing for a photographer in 1982 while still in school. In the mid
> > > 1980's I spent three years working as a photographer for a small (30k
> > > circulation) daily newspaper. In the late 1980's I returned to lab work and
> > > spent many years honing my skills. For a few years I had the joy of working
> > > both in digital formats and traditionally. Sadly, I only print for personal
> > > pleasure these days. The publication I work for now uses digital cameras for
> > > about 90% of the photos, and film for only about 10% of the photos. We expect
> > > to be all digital some time in 2002.
> >
> > I don't believe that. There is a place for film, which won't be replaced
> > by digital, in a year or so.
>
> Not in the commercially motivated contect of publishing. Our largest photo would be
> a 8x11 vertical @ 266 dpi, as I work for a regional magazine that produces pages at
> 133 linescreen. If the subject is organic, we only use 226 dpi. It is a widely
> accepted practice in publishing that you use 1.7 times the linescreen for organic
> subjects without sharp edges, such as people, and 2 times the linescreen for
> inorganic subjects such as a building, which does have sharp edges.
More than an accepted practice. It is based on sampling
theory and the Nyquist frequency - ask any physicist :)
In fact, this is a somewhat minimalist approach aimed at
reducing cost and lowering the demands on printing plate
technology.
--
Uni
Possibly, but here's what I have to say:
There are too many processes which film has got to go through before the
final print is made. These processes are all open to errors and defects.
However, with digital, all of these processes and defects are
eliminated. You might say, it's like having the symphony in the palm of
your hands.
I cannot provide you with any link (www related) to the film vs digital
color accuracy issue, since it has been some time since I visited these
web sites. But I have yet to see one in favor of film, so maybe you can
provide me with one?
If you take a look in other news groups where photographers are using
the latest and greatest digital cameras, I believe you'll agree, that
the images are nothing less than beautiful. Granted, at this time, they
can't be appreciated in a gallery or museum, since most images there, I
assume, are printed on large media, which digital can't touch yet. But
on the other hand, you'll never be able to appreciate Mr. Adams work on
the internet as much as you can in person.
When Nikon first introduced its D1 camera for approximately $5000, I
thought it was a piece of junk, due its image quality. But in a pretty
small time frame, their recent cameras, meets or exceeds the image
quality of any film camera on the market today. Do I have any proof to
back this statement up? No, only the two eyes which God gave me.
You are correct. I do have a slim grasp on photography and all issues
pertaining to it. However, there are some people who hang onto
yesterday's technology without giving today's' technology a fair chance.
I use to be one of those people who'd buy half speed mastered copies of
limited edition LP's, pressed on virgin vinyl, from the master tapes,
for about $50 each, because I wanted the best sound. But today, for $10
or so, I can purchase these same records on digitized CD's, which sound
better than the vinyl records did.
Anyway, I respect what you do and everything you have to say.
May you and yours have a pleasant Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Uni
P.S. Curious, if Mr. Adam's (bless his soul) were with us today, which
do you think he'd be using, Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop for his
photography? :-)
<snip>
cc
for silver, I've had way too much fun with it over the years, I do believe there are
right times to use digital and right times to use traditional ways. I'd never lie and say
that I prefer the OM-1n I got in 1980 by working my first summer job was and still is my
favorite camera. I also have an OM-2s I bought when I worked for the paper because I was
told there were times I could benefit from automatic exposure, though I'm still coming to
terms with that as well. If you haven't guessed it, when I get into a care with an
automatic transmission, when its time to shift, my left foot often ends up on the brake.
I don't think I could convince you of the difference. I wouldn't loan anyone my "work
print" from Saint Ansel. I bought that at auction about a year before he died. I'd hate
to even guess its value. If I knew you better, I also have an 8x10 print made by Fred
Picker, founder of Zone VI Studios, and now retired. That's probably only worth about
$100, that I would loan.
As for AA, I don't think the old curmudgeon wouldn't have any use for either. He had
very little use for roll film cameras. I doubt he'd embrace the technology.
On the otherhand, at home I have Photoshop 5.0LE, PSP 7, and from a few years ago,
Micrografx Picture Publisher 8. I like to acquire with Photoshop mainly because I've used
it for so long and it is familiar. I used to favor PP8 for retouching, but now favor
PSP7. At work, I'm Mac based and use the full version of Photoshop 5.5. I don't have any
other choices, but have no major problems with Photoshop other than it's cost.
Ray Hudson
over to the 'Luminous Landscape' site, read thru some of the topics and
tutorials on B&W digital printing. The 'Cone' system of dedicated inks, the
'Piezo' system, read about some of the new papers coming out, specifically
for digital B&W, and so on. This issue is far from being decided. Speaking
as someone who once had a view camera and knew a bit about the zone system -
depending on your scan, that is from 35mm negs, or medium format, etc... and
other variables of course... some very beautiful tonal ranges can be
produced in a digital darkroom.
Just my thoughts.
rlh1138
"Uni" <plg...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3C1C5A1E...@usa.net...
Uni
Ray Hudson wrote:
>
> Good topic - but I'd suggest the answer is not as clear as some think. Go
> over to the 'Luminous Landscape' site, read thru some of the topics and
> tutorials on B&W digital printing.
Where can I find this "Luminous Landscape" site? I assume you mean it's
a web site?
The 'Cone' system of dedicated inks, the
> 'Piezo' system, read about some of the new papers coming out, specifically
> for digital B&W, and so on. This issue is far from being decided. Speaking
> as someone who once had a view camera and knew a bit about the zone system -
> depending on your scan, that is from 35mm negs, or medium format, etc... and
> other variables of course... some very beautiful tonal ranges can be
> produced in a digital darkroom.
>
> Just my thoughts.
Most appreciated :-)
Uni
Uni
Ron Lacey wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:12:43 -0500, Uni <plg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Where can I find this "Luminous Landscape" site? I assume you mean it's
> >a web site?
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
Thanks, Ron. I forgot the hyphen! <g>
Uni