Tones

[Shadowman]

There's nothing special about this image, in fact the focus was off (indicator was between the two girls), wrong time of day (3:30pm), and not composed well. I edited because I liked the tonal range (shadows, cast shadows, and highlights) and wanted to see how crisp the tones would come out when converted. Edited with PSE8, want to know if the whites are too white and if the shadows are too harsh.

f/6.7, 1/1000s, ISO 100, 135mm.

[John Morton]

That would depend on how you are going to display the image. If it were going onto low grade newsprint, you would need that hard contrast to present a crisp image; but you would want to lighten up a bit on the tones because the paper itself would darken the image, maybe about 8-12% or so.

If you were printing for display, you would probably want to go with a lower contrast range: if this image were now at a 3 on the old Multigrade Contrast scale, a 2.5 or even a 2 might give a better result with better tonal definition and separation in the darkest and lightest areas.

[Shadowman]

That would depend on how you are going to display the image. If it were going onto low grade newsprint, you would need that hard contrast to present a crisp image; but you would want to lighten up a bit on the tones because the paper itself would darken the image, maybe about 8-12% or so.

If you were printing for display, you would probably want to go with a lower contrast range: if this image were now at a 3 on the old Multigrade Contrast scale, a 2.5 or even a 2 might give a better result with better tonal definition and separation in the darkest and lightest areas.

Hi John,

I was considering using a luster paper for display. The print lab that I use has this type of paper and the images come out so much better. I recently received a sample print of luster paper with a black and white portrait and really liked the tones. I did a test print on standard glossy and the darks look great, wasn't too sure about how the whites although they contained some decent cast shadows.

When I edited this photo, I set the black/white points in ACR, but when I edited in PSE I reset both based on RGB values using levels, white on sleeve of young man immediate left was 255 and cast shadows coat was (2, 2, 1). Probably should have left it at ACR setpoints.

[DanK]

I like high contrast B&W and often aimed for that in the Pleistocene Era, when I did my own darkroom work. Nonetheless, I think this is too extreme for my tastes. The whites look mostly blown out--seemingly completely free of detail in large areas. The blacks still seem to have detail, e.g., the pants and coat on the left. For my taste, I would pull the whites down a bit and reduce contrast a bit. But: it's all a matter of taste.

[Shadowman]

I like high contrast B&W and often aimed for that in the Pleistocene Era, when I did my own darkroom work. Nonetheless, I think this is too extreme for my tastes. The whites look mostly blown out--seemingly completely free of detail in large areas. The blacks still seem to have detail, e.g., the pants and coat on the left. For my taste, I would pull the whites down a bit and reduce contrast a bit. But: it's all a matter of taste.

Dan,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I'll give it another edit.

[John Morton]

I can't say with any degree of certainty just how your tonal range actually runs in this image, because I am using a new computer that I haven't profiled yet (it's a MacBook Pro with a Retina screen); but, just as a rule of thumb, I would have to say that I would generally limit my use of 255 as a white point for specular highlights; that is, something that the sun is reflecting directly from (water, metal, and so on).

Even a "white" shirt in sunlight should show some detail BUT if you were printing onto a newsprint using a web press you would expect that the coloration of the paper would in effect provide a reader with an appearance of detail in very white areas and would expect to get away with setting a white point for something like that white shirt in direct sunlight.

For printing that is directed toward display, I would myself want to leave some tonal detail in the white areas.

As for the dark tones, the one thing that really catches my eye here is the fact that the shadow of the lamp post completely obscures any detail in the road where it falls; and you can clearly see that this is the result of post processing by the way the shadow bows in at the point where the lighter part of the road runs under it. Clearly, there are lighter parts of the shadow that have completely disappeared; but there are also darker parts that are much darker than we would expect the human eye to clearly see on a bright day like that.

[Polar01]

John your white point set at 255, suggest that you bring it down to 253 as no printer that I know of can print the difference between 253 and 256, it is all the same tone. So if you are wanting a good white make sure that the stock you are printing on will give you the look that you want.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

I can't say with any degree of certainty just how your tonal range actually runs in this image, because I am using a new computer that I haven't profiled yet (it's a MacBook Pro with a Retina screen); but, just as a rule of thumb, I would have to say that I would generally limit my use of 255 as a white point for specular highlights; that is, something that the sun is reflecting directly from (water, metal, and so on).

Even a "white" shirt in sunlight should show some detail BUT if you were printing onto a newsprint using a web press you would expect that the coloration of the paper would in effect provide a reader with an appearance of detail in very white areas and would expect to get away with setting a white point for something like that white shirt in direct sunlight.

For printing that is directed toward display, I would myself want to leave some tonal detail in the white areas.

As for the dark tones, the one thing that really catches my eye here is the fact that the shadow of the lamp post completely obscures any detail in the road where it falls; and you can clearly see that this is the result of post processing by the way the shadow bows in at the point where the lighter part of the road runs under it. Clearly, there are lighter parts of the shadow that have completely disappeared; but there are also darker parts that are much darker than we would expect the human eye to clearly see on a bright day like that.

John,

I just checked the info for the DNG file and the young man on the immediate left RGB values for the shirt sleeve is 235, 219, 208. The shirt sleeve of the other young man is 233, 224, 223. The RGB value for the cast shadow of the jacket is 8, 6,5 and the cast shadow from the lamppost is 25, 24, 26. Obviously I overdid it when I brought it into PSE.

[Shadowman]

John your white point set at 255, suggest that you bring it down to 253 as no printer that I know of can print the difference between 253 and 256, it is all the same tone. So if you are wanting a good white make sure that the stock you are printing on will give you the look that you want.

Cheers: Allan

Allan,

Thanks for the suggestions. It appears I over did it in post processing.

[Shadowman]

Here is a screen shot of the histogram prior to black and white conversion.

[Shadowman]

One more edit.

[IzzieK]

Looking good John...I wonder how this will print on that luster paper you were talking about???

[Shadowman]

Looking good John...I wonder how this will print on that luster paper you were talking about???

Thanks Isabel,

As always a work in progress.

[DanK]

Much better, I think

[Richard Lundberg]

The size limitations for upload on this forum turn everything to mush so focus isn't really something to spend much time on when critiquing. I used the simple tools in Apple Preview to get a histogram result pretty much like your last upload. I sharpened too, but it would be better to use a focus tool on the full size image. I like the composition for an offhand shot. How many pixels were in the original color shot, h and v?

[Colin Southern]

The size limitations for upload on this forum turn everything to mush so focus isn't really something to spend much time on when critiquing. I used the simple tools in Apple Preview to get a histogram result pretty much like your last upload. I sharpened too, but it would be better to use a focus tool on the full size image. I like the composition for an offhand shot. How many pixels were in the original color shot, h and v?

Richard,

As previously explained HERE, images are NOT uploaded here (unless as attachments, which none of the images in this thread are).

As such, we have no size limitations nor do we do anything to images that affects their quality.

Folks DO need to be aware though that tinypic.com (the free hosting site that people are referred to when they click the "click here to upload photos from their computer" button) (that is in no way associated with CiC) DOES have limitations. If people aren't happy with the way TinyPic handles their images then they're encouraged to use another hosting service of their choosing (eg Facebook, which is better, or the likes of Pbase or Flicker, which are better still).

Either way, it's not a CiC restriction or limitation - it's an issue with the site they're choosing to host images with.

I hope this clears up any continuing confusion.

[Shadowman]

Much better, I think

Thanks Dan.

[Shadowman]

The size limitations for upload on this forum turn everything to mush so focus isn't really something to spend much time on when critiquing. I used the simple tools in Apple Preview to get a histogram result pretty much like your last upload. I sharpened too, but it would be better to use a focus tool on the full size image. I like the composition for an offhand shot. How many pixels were in the original color shot, h and v?

Richard,

The original was 6000 x 4000 which I used in the upload through tinypic. It was resized by tinypic to 1599 x 1066.

[Richard Lundberg]

Thanks for providing that size info.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for providing that size info.

Not a problem Richard. I used to resize the image myself at 1000x600, but a few weeks ago decided to let tinypic do it and see what happens. I was surprised that tinypic allowed larger dimensions.