Landscape give me thoughts on b/w conversion

wgosma · 02-02-2019, 11:09 AM

Give me your input/ideas on what I can to regards a b/w conversion on this one, I think it's got potential.
The conversion shown was done in LR6 and I sort of went for a soft look...tad bit negative clarity.

This image is from K-1, you're looking at basically the field capture- hardly anything was cropped in post (it was shot in raw) so there are plenty of pixels to work with - such as maybe a heavy crop to an 'abstract' or ???

Thanks / Bill

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

dLSK · 02-02-2019, 11:23 AM

It's a decent enough image. Some points to ponder:

- right side branch, very distracting as it exits the frame unfinished

- foreground reflection is a distraction : too much or not enough reflection. Would either take the image closer to where the tree touches the water OR pan back a fair amount and get all tree / all reflection

- the tree / root in the water half submerged ( to left side and behind some the subject tree ), big distraction. Takes away the separation of subject and background.

- I feel, overall, there is too much of your main subject not in frame

- overall, as well, just too busy. The branches, the grasses in the water (fore ground and background to right ) all compete for the eye , and takes away from your main subject.

- there is a weird halo in between branches + background sky. I can see it in the colour image, but it's much more predominant in the B+W

- overall the B+W conversion is flat. The reflection, background area, and the branches are all the same tone. Mountains could be darkened to fix that, add a bit of contrast.

Hope these tips help

wgosma · 02-02-2019, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by dLSK

It's a decent enough image. Some points to ponder:

- right side branch, very distracting as it exits the frame unfinished

- foreground reflection is a distraction : too much or not enough reflection. Would either take the image closer to where the tree touches the water OR pan back a fair amount and get all tree / all reflection

- the tree / root in the water half submerged ( to left side and behind some the subject tree ), big distraction. Takes away the separation of subject and background.

- I feel, overall, there is too much of your main subject not in frame

- overall, as well, just too busy. The branches, the grasses in the water (fore ground and background to right ) all compete for the eye , and takes away from your main subject.

- there is a weird halo in between branches + background sky. I can see it in the colour image, but it's much more predominant in the B+W

- overall the B+W conversion is flat. The reflection, background area, and the branches are all the same tone. Mountains could be darkened to fix that, add a bit of contrast.

Hope these tips help

Thanks. I think your suggestion on composition - cropping the water area below the tree might makes sense, I'll give that a go and see how it looks. Aside from that, the location of the adjacent tree does not allow for backing camera away (wider focal length) to 'isolate' this one tree and all it's branches against the background - attached is a pic showing the scene but from another angle (pic is direct from camera so it's 'dull') - camera position for the image I converted to b/w is from on the small grassy mound just to the left of the tree (tree I shot is on left in this image). The sun was rising almost directly behind me, it was 12 mins. after sunrise, I was done shooting and on my way to the car when I turned to see the tree. I think the 'halo' you see is likely the light/color in the distant sky and/or maybe a combination of that along with taking a large raw file and compression it to upload here - raw file it looks tad bit different in that respect.

I'm going to play with the b/w conversion - I am like many, my first inclination on b/w is to move towards heavier contrast for 'snap', etc. That might be effective, I'm going to play with it and continue also along the 'soft look' too.
Thanks/Bill

**Mallee Boy** · 02-02-2019, 04:50 PM

Bill...try the last one in a square format, getting rid of as much bottom and bottom left as possible. You could easily get rid of some off the top too...adds nothing to the image. As far as B&W conversions go do you have NIK ? if so have a play with SilverEffex Pro, I believe Topaz also has a very good B&W offering although I have never used it.
Cheers

wgosma · 02-02-2019, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Mallee Boy

Bill...try the last one in a square format, getting rid of as much bottom and bottom left as possible. You could easily get rid of some off the top too...adds nothing to the image. As far as B&W conversions go do you have NIK ? if so have a play with SilverEffex Pro, I believe Topaz also has a very good B&W offering although I have never used it.
Cheers

Thanks, that last pic was simply to tell to the previous poster where the camera position was when I took the first photo - it was not intended to be processed or used.
I do have the NIK collection, might give it a go on the original image, but I find at times that software can be pretty 'heavy handed' with it's effects.
Bill

**dms** · 02-02-2019, 10:06 PM

Since you asked:

In both cases I prefer the image w/o crop. In the first one the right and bottom limbs lead the eye to the tree, and ditto for the longer shoreline on the left bottom of the second one.

And I also (much) prefer the version in color to the B&W. It is relatively monochromatic and the blue with the sky color are very interesting/make the image for me.

BTW I like the second image and would not treat it as a "throw away."

wgosma · 02-03-2019, 08:13 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by dms

Since you asked:

In both cases I prefer the image w/o crop. In the first one the right and bottom limbs lead the eye to the tree, and ditto for the longer shoreline on the left bottom of the second one.

And I also (much) prefer the version in color to the B&W. It is relatively monochromatic and the blue with the sky color are very interesting/make the image for me.

BTW I like the second image and would not treat it as a "throw away."

Thanks. That last (unprocessed) image was the beginning of a pano shot; here's what the pano came out looking like, plus another shot that was taken 30 minutes before sunrise. I just need 'farmers pond' to get filled up with a bit more water or move my camera position so I capture the scene w/o the mud shoreline in foreground.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

chd · 02-07-2019, 10:33 AM

It's a matter of taste, but I usually like fairly high contrast B&W. Maybe a blue filter for the first one, or some "dehaze" processing?

wgosma · 02-07-2019, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by chd

It's a matter of taste, but I usually like fairly high contrast B&W. Maybe a blue filter for the first one, or some "dehaze" processing?

Thanks for your input- I think I can tweak the framing of the tree a bit too.
B/W is kind of tricky for me, I don’t shoot specifically for b/w and the few images I migh garner that have conversion potential are few in number- so I don’t have much experience in conversion.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature give me your thoughts	fastpitchdad	Photo Critique	9	06-22-2018 05:51 PM
Black & White Your thoughts? B&W conversion	sealonsf	Photo Critique	12	04-20-2017 04:28 PM
Pro won't give RAW files, only jpg: thoughts?	rzarector	Photographic Industry and Professionals	24	07-25-2013 02:15 PM
Can a k-r owner give us some thoughts on k-r	jesusdied4u	Pentax K-r	5	10-20-2010 09:16 AM
OK before I give up I would like your thoughts. C&C wanted	Peter Zack	Post Your Photos!	11	10-26-2007 05:15 AM

02-02-2019, 11:23 AM	#2
dLSK New Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Location: NB, Canada Posts: 24	It's a decent enough image. Some points to ponder: - right side branch, very distracting as it exits the frame unfinished - foreground reflection is a distraction : too much or not enough reflection. Would either take the image closer to where the tree touches the water OR pan back a fair amount and get all tree / all reflection - the tree / root in the water half submerged ( to left side and behind some the subject tree ), big distraction. Takes away the separation of subject and background. - I feel, overall, there is too much of your main subject not in frame - overall, as well, just too busy. The branches, the grasses in the water (fore ground and background to right ) all compete for the eye , and takes away from your main subject. - there is a weird halo in between branches + background sky. I can see it in the colour image, but it's much more predominant in the B+W - overall the B+W conversion is flat. The reflection, background area, and the branches are all the same tone. Mountains could be darkened to fix that, add a bit of contrast. Hope these tips help

02-02-2019, 04:50 PM	#4
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Bill...try the last one in a square format, getting rid of as much bottom and bottom left as possible. You could easily get rid of some off the top too...adds nothing to the image. As far as B&W conversions go do you have NIK ? if so have a play with SilverEffex Pro, I believe Topaz also has a very good B&W offering although I have never used it. Cheers

02-02-2019, 09:59 PM	#5
wgosma Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 128 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mallee Boy Bill...try the last one in a square format, getting rid of as much bottom and bottom left as possible. You could easily get rid of some off the top too...adds nothing to the image. As far as B&W conversions go do you have NIK ? if so have a play with SilverEffex Pro, I believe Topaz also has a very good B&W offering although I have never used it. Cheers Thanks, that last pic was simply to tell to the previous poster where the camera position was when I took the first photo - it was not intended to be processed or used. I do have the NIK collection, might give it a go on the original image, but I find at times that software can be pretty 'heavy handed' with it's effects. Bill

02-02-2019, 10:06 PM	#6
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	Since you asked: In both cases I prefer the image w/o crop. In the first one the right and bottom limbs lead the eye to the tree, and ditto for the longer shoreline on the left bottom of the second one. And I also (much) prefer the version in color to the B&W. It is relatively monochromatic and the blue with the sky color are very interesting/make the image for me. BTW I like the second image and would not treat it as a "throw away."

02-07-2019, 10:33 AM	#8
chd Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 54	It's a matter of taste, but I usually like fairly high contrast B&W. Maybe a blue filter for the first one, or some "dehaze" processing?

02-07-2019, 11:05 AM	#9
wgosma Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 128 Original Poster	Originally posted by chd It's a matter of taste, but I usually like fairly high contrast B&W. Maybe a blue filter for the first one, or some "dehaze" processing? Thanks for your input- I think I can tweak the framing of the tree a bit too. B/W is kind of tricky for me, I don’t shoot specifically for b/w and the few images I migh garner that have conversion potential are few in number- so I don’t have much experience in conversion.