Question: Best way to produce B&W images from color

B
Posted By
BD
Aug 29, 2005
Views
542
Replies
20
Status
Closed
Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.

Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.

Thanks!!

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

N
nomail
Aug 29, 2005
BD wrote:

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

There is nothing ‘lossy’ about it, except of course that you loose all color. However, it is a method without any manual control.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.

Same thing. It works, but no control whatsoever.

Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.

He means using the Channel Mixer, and set the output to grayscale. Now you can make any mix of channels, so you can control very well how the conversion from color to B&W is done.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
B
BD
Aug 29, 2005
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of it before, but I guess the different channels can have different effects on the output images that could not be ‘duplicated’ when making adjustments to a one-channel greyscale image.

So it sounds to me as if the issue is not so much one of retaining fidelity, but with allowing more flexibility in the ‘flavor’ of the output image. Is that a fair way to put it?
N
nomail
Aug 29, 2005
BD wrote:

Interesting. I hadn’t thought of it before, but I guess the different channels can have different effects on the output images that could not be ‘duplicated’ when making adjustments to a one-channel greyscale image.

So it sounds to me as if the issue is not so much one of retaining fidelity, but with allowing more flexibility in the ‘flavor’ of the output image. Is that a fair way to put it?

Yes. You can compare it to using an B&W film and then trying different color filters. In all cases you get a B&W image, but different colors are translated differently to greyscale for each filter.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
LI
Lorem Ipsum
Aug 29, 2005
"BD" wrote in message
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of it before, but I guess the different channels can have different effects on the output images that could not be ‘duplicated’ when making adjustments to a one-channel greyscale image.

Consider it the same as using color contrast filters with B&W film.
B
BD
Aug 29, 2005
Yup, makes sense. Looking forward to mucking with some portrait shots to get different nuances…

Thanks!
BH
Bill Hilton
Aug 29, 2005
So it sounds to me as if the issue is not so much one of retaining fidelity, but with allowing more flexibility in the ‘flavor’ of the output image. Is that a fair way to put it?

"Grayscale" conversion uses a fixed percent of each channel, I think 59% G, 30% R, 11% B, something like that (don’t quote me). This is usually OK but rarely optimal. Using Channel Mixer in Monochrome mode lets you mix the percents any way you wish, so it’s more flexible.
BH
Bill Hilton
Aug 29, 2005
Looking forward to mucking with some portrait shots
to get different nuances…

For portraits it’s often the case that using just the Green channel works best … so before mucking with Channel Mixer open Channels and look at just the G …
B
BD
Aug 29, 2005
Will do…
S
SJB
Aug 29, 2005
Why don’t you look-up a tut on using "calculations". It’s a very versatile way to convert to B&W with endless control possibilities.

Another option is to use two adjustment layers. For a quick and dirty tut on that technique checkout the podcast "2 minute photoshop tricks" episode #2. (No I’m not a shill for them, I recently found out about this ‘cast myself and just started listening and your question sparked the reference). I’ve seen this same technique before (possibly Photoshop User mag) … I’ve tried it and it gives you lots of control too.

Play and have fun.

SB

"BD" wrote in message
Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.
Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.
Thanks!!
B
BD
Aug 30, 2005
Hey, thanks for the tip. I’ll look for that cast and see if I can get it.

Never heard of ‘calculations’ before, but I guess the more ammo I have the better off I am. 😉
H
Hecate
Aug 30, 2005
On 29 Aug 2005 14:50:57 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

So it sounds to me as if the issue is not so much one of retaining fidelity, but with allowing more flexibility in the ‘flavor’ of the output image. Is that a fair way to put it?

"Grayscale" conversion uses a fixed percent of each channel, I think 59% G, 30% R, 11% B, something like that (don’t quote me). This is usually OK but rarely optimal. Using Channel Mixer in Monochrome mode lets you mix the percents any way you wish, so it’s more flexible.

It’s 3:6:1 R:G:B.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
BV
Bart van der Wolf
Aug 31, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message
On 29 Aug 2005 14:50:57 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:
SNIP
"Grayscale" conversion uses a fixed percent of each channel, I think 59% G, 30% R, 11% B, something like that (don’t quote me). This is usually OK but rarely optimal. Using Channel Mixer in Monochrome mode lets you mix the percents any way you wish, so it’s more flexible.

It’s 3:6:1 R:G:B.

I would expect Adobe to use an RGB to YUV conversion:
y = ((76*r) + (150*g) + (29*b)) / 256 , (= approx. R=30% G=59% B=11%), but Gamma may play a role in the actual conversion.

If you have an Adobe reference to 3:6:1, I’d be interested.

Bart
C
Clyde
Aug 31, 2005
BD wrote:
Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.
Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.
Thanks!!

I like the method described here:
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html Scroll down to the "Seeing in Black & White" in the Photoshop 7 area.

Clyde
JM
John McWilliams
Aug 31, 2005
Clyde wrote:
BD wrote:

Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.
Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.
Thanks!!

I like the method described here:
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html Scroll down to the "Seeing in Black & White" in the Photoshop 7 area.
I’ve been using and like that method, too, but I now need to see if there’s a way to do mass B+W conversions for a newspaper that publishes only B+W. I made an action that sets up the filters, and for processing a large number of similar files the same way, it’s easy enough to set all the parameters and have the action applied and then flattened.

But for a large number of disparate images from a wide variety of sources, is there a preferred way to convert to B+W?


John McWilliams
S
SJB
Aug 31, 2005
You’ll find it under the "Image" menu … 4th item down. A lot of folks avoid it b/c they believe it will be too difficult … not so. If you’re in a mood to play you could spend lots of time with it exploring subtle and not so subtle conversions. Don’t forget to play with the blending modes too.

"BD" wrote in message
Hey, thanks for the tip. I’ll look for that cast and see if I can get it.

Never heard of ‘calculations’ before, but I guess the more ammo I have the better off I am. 😉
H
Hecate
Sep 1, 2005
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:41:14 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
On 29 Aug 2005 14:50:57 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:
SNIP
"Grayscale" conversion uses a fixed percent of each channel, I think 59% G, 30% R, 11% B, something like that (don’t quote me). This is usually OK but rarely optimal. Using Channel Mixer in Monochrome mode lets you mix the percents any way you wish, so it’s more flexible.

It’s 3:6:1 R:G:B.

I would expect Adobe to use an RGB to YUV conversion:
y = ((76*r) + (150*g) + (29*b)) / 256 , (= approx. R=30% G=59% B=11%), but Gamma may play a role in the actual conversion.

If you have an Adobe reference to 3:6:1, I’d be interested.
If I can find it, I will. But I read it in a book or article. I’m not really keen on online sources 🙂



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
K
KatWoman
Sep 1, 2005
"BD" wrote in message
Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.
Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.
Thanks!!
from Adobe tutorial at their website:

make a hue saturation layer and leave the slider alone for now make a second Hue/sat layer and use the saturate slider all the way left put this layer on blending mode called HUE
now go back to first hue sat layer and move the top slider around till you are happy

cheap fast way
one hue sat layer to desat
one layer above that to fix levels or curves
C
Clyde
Sep 1, 2005
John McWilliams wrote:
Clyde wrote:

BD wrote:

Hi, all.

I have some color photos I want to convert to B&W.

My first attempt would be to change to Greyscale mode, but I’ve been told that this is an extremely ‘brutal’ way to do it, and is very lossy.

I also tried the Saturation slider, in hopes of retaining more detail.
Are there any strong opinions as to the best way to convert to B&W and still retain all the image fidelity possible?

One fellow I spoke to mentioned something about adjusting each color channel separately, but I’ve not seen any specifics on this process.
Thanks!!

I like the method described here:
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html Scroll down to the "Seeing in Black & White" in the Photoshop 7 area.
I’ve been using and like that method, too, but I now need to see if there’s a way to do mass B+W conversions for a newspaper that publishes only B+W. I made an action that sets up the filters, and for processing a large number of similar files the same way, it’s easy enough to set all the parameters and have the action applied and then flattened.
But for a large number of disparate images from a wide variety of sources, is there a preferred way to convert to B+W?

I DO use this method for a large number of pictures at a time. I’m a part-time wedding photographer. I shoot all digital and give all final pictures to the bride and groom in both color and B&W.

I have Dr. Brown’s method in an action that creates the two adjustment layers. After all the color editing is done, I then go through a few of the pictures to get a nice average on the Hue that works best. My keys are to get the skin tones and the bride’s dress looking their best in B&W. That stays pretty consistent throughout a wedding. Actually it stays pretty much at -100 for all weddings.

I have that action stop so I can manually adjust the layer if I want to. I have a second action that flattens, converts to Grayscale, and then converts to Duotone. Well, I have worked out a Tritone that I like with my wedding pictures; brides seem to like it too.

When I’m happy with it. I make an action that I call Batch. It has nothing in it but the references to the above two actions. Then I let File Browser (now Bridge) run that action on the hundreds of pictures in that wedding. Minutes later I have lovely B&W versions of all the pictures. It’s very simple, quick, and lovely.

I have been know to go back and manually redo a few of the pictures. I still have the two actions that I can do with that pause for adjusting the Hue in the middle and the Duotone at the end. It’s still fast and easy.

If all your pictures have complete different lighting, colors, and contrast this might be a bit difficult. However, I doubt that really is the case. Look for the key items for your conversion. If skin and clothes are the key, forget everything else. If the green of the trees and the sky are the keys, pay no attention to the result of the flowers.

You could also break your workflow up into groups. This group is all the inside shots of the story with another batch for all the outside shots of the story. Then you would only have a single adjustment of the Hue in your action between batch runs.

The big difference between an amateur photographer using Photoshop and a professional photographer using Photoshop is the workflow. As a pro you HAVE to automate and make it all go as fast as you can and still get the top quality. Of course, it is a quality that is needed for the customer not the theoretical "top" quality. I did a few weddings where I adjusted the Hue and Duotone nicely fit the mood of small groups of pictures. The brides didn’t notice and it took a lot of work. I do the whole wedding the same now and the brides love it.

I can’t imagine that large groups of pictures for a newspaper couldn’t use my workflow. The final output demands much less "quality" that wedding photos. I’m sure you could find a Hue that would work good enough for large batches and no one would notice a thing in the paper itself. i.e. Don’t spend time adjusting the fine gradations of B&W if it won’t show on the newsprint.

Clyde
JM
John McWilliams
Sep 1, 2005
Clyde wrote:

<< Snipped very helpful bits out >>

Thanks so much, Clyde. I have come to a maxum for the way I shoot: Everytime I shoot in RAW, I find the exposure and color balance is spot on. The converse is true too many times.

Now I have a bunch of overexposed digitals – head shots of HS boys on the football team that I want to prepare for a program that’ll be made up. The program will be B+W, and the initial adjustments via levels seemed to leave the B+Ws a bit short on contrast. The exposures are all close enough so that when I get the right adjustments and conversion to grey scale, I can run an action. This is not for a newspaper, but I’d be dealing possibly with a local Kinko’s and wonder what instructions can be given, etc. when if and as I get some decent output.


John McWilliams
C
Clyde
Sep 2, 2005
John McWilliams wrote:
Clyde wrote:

<< Snipped very helpful bits out >>

Thanks so much, Clyde. I have come to a maxum for the way I shoot: Everytime I shoot in RAW, I find the exposure and color balance is spot on. The converse is true too many times.

Now I have a bunch of overexposed digitals – head shots of HS boys on the football team that I want to prepare for a program that’ll be made up. The program will be B+W, and the initial adjustments via levels seemed to leave the B+Ws a bit short on contrast. The exposures are all close enough so that when I get the right adjustments and conversion to grey scale, I can run an action. This is not for a newspaper, but I’d be dealing possibly with a local Kinko’s and wonder what instructions can be given, etc. when if and as I get some decent output.

Oh boy! Instructing Kinkos would be a very iffy process. The level of expertise in a single Kinkos would vary from nil to pretty good with the bet being toward the bottom.

I think I would convert the final output to sRGB to get to the lowest common denominator. Then I would save everything in 300 dpi PDF files. They are less likely to screw up the printing of Acrobat files than just about anything. That way any ignored instructions will still give you pretty good prints.

Clyde

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections