civilized ku # 954 ~ b+w from RGB
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 02:01PM 
NJ Turnpike overpass ~ Secaucus Junction Station - Secaucus, NJ - • click to embiggenHere's another b+w picture made at Secaucus Junction. Unlike the first one, this one was converted from a RGB file, although ...
... what little messing around I have done with b+w conversions via PS Calculations and/or Channel Mixer functions has not exactly endeared them to the cockles of picture processing heart.
The primary reason for that outcome stems from the fact that those conversion methods have a zillion opinions / possibilities. Call me old school / film boy, but , when it comes to b+w pictures I like mine to be all of a piece - i.e. Kodak Tri X / Plus X look, Ilford FP4 / HP5 look, et al. That is to say, in film days of yore, most (serious) b+w picture makers settled in with one film + developer + paper combo and went with it for everything thing they pictured. At least that was so within a given body of work.
In today's digital / PS darkroom that is often not the case. Picture makers process their individual pictures with individual methodology resulting in - to the trained and observant eye - a mishmash of b+w looks. Not necessarily glaringly different, but noticeable to those who are accustomed to consistency of look. Although, that said, the notion of grain has been pretty much taken out of the equation.
Be all of that as it may be, my preferred method of b+w conversion is both simple and consistent - I convert my RGB file to LAB, discard the a and b color channels (which automatically discards the LAB channel), and retain the Lightness channel.
FYI, the Lightness channel is the LAB color space channel that contains all of the tonal information - the a and b channels contain the color info. And, on a side note, that is why all of my sharpening is performed on the Lightness channel in LAB color space. With that method. much higher levels of sharpewning can be applied without resulting in sharpening artifacts - only the tonal info is sharpened, not the color info.
Once the Lightness channel is isolated, I convert to Grayscale where I put the picture through my hi-end wringer. then, as my very last step - other than some sharpening in RAW convertion, all sharpening should be performed after all other processing is complete, I convert back to LAB for sharpening and then back to Grayscale.
This conversion method is very simple and it provides a consistent look to all of my b+w images.
The question was asked, why did I set my camera to monochrome when making some b+W pictures? I did so as a test of the camera monochrome function and I must say it passed that test with flying colors, or more accurately, lack thereof.
Reader Comments (3)
So do you deny yourself the option of controlling contrast through adjusting colours?
Also, I can understand that YOU PERSONALLY want to achieve a certain type of consistency, but your words suggest that there is only one acceptable type of "trained and observant eye". Does that mean that your work can ONLY be TRULY appreciated by others who have the same informed ability to read photographs in the way you do? Despite the fact that whilst I appreciate what you have written, and that I doubt that I have your visual literacy, as usual I like the picture.
I realize that this is all individual opinion and preference, and I certainly respect and appreciate yours, but I think that the problem with black and white conversions in PS is the complexity - something that you allude to in your post. A better alternative, I think, is Nik's Silver Efex Pro. Here, it's very easy to "standardize" one's approach. You can even simulate the old black and white films if you like, including whatever flavor of grain you prefer. You can download a fully functional version for a 15 day free trial.
God, I sound like a salesman........
Thanks for the details of your B+W workflow, but even bigger thanks for the images.
This image (civilized ku # 954) and civilized ku # 950 both seem to have been taken from approximately the same position. I admire the composition of both as well as the tonal subtlety. Who knew New Jersey could look so good? There is a freshness and lightness that is very appealing to me. These are great examples of the beauty of being true.
Maybe this is a stupid question but I cannot figure out what “ku” and “civilized ku” mean or represent. I guess it is irrelevant but I keep wondering.