# How do you make black and white look more contrasy, without...?



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Sorry I meant contrasty obviously.  When taking black and white pics, it looks more like natural black and white photography to have as much black and white in the photo as possible and not so much grey.  One way to get more black and white in the pic is too turn the contrast up in the camera.  However, doing so causes people to become puffy-eyed.  It's not just her in the picture, I tried it on myself as well, and yeah, the eye bags look more puffy, even with make up on.

So when it comes possible clients who want to hire you, but want pictures with the contrasty look right from the camera, when you're done, what can I do in camera, to get a more contrasty look, but not get puffy eyes, if that's possible.

Thanks!


----------



## timor (May 11, 2014)

Interesting question... I mean interesting angle. To not to get this puffy eyes start with light proper for portrait and that would be soft light, light which doesn't create shadows. Then you can experiment with contrast.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 11, 2014)

What does the colour image look like ?
There is a reason why that area is dark.


----------



## runnah (May 11, 2014)

I would never give paying clients straight out of camera images.

Secondly I would never use the inboard editing adjustments as you can never undo them.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks.  I don't mind using the in camera adjustments, and I usually do both.  I will do flat ones, and adjusted ones.  As for using soft light, this client who wants to hire me, wants high key lighting.  She looked at some pics I did with high key, and liked them.  However, those pics I took in the examples were on a cloudy day with softer light, and the eye bags are still there.


----------



## hamlet (May 11, 2014)

I just use lightroom.

before:





after:


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks, but how do you get this right without using programs like lightroom or photoshop?   I mean before lightroom and photoshop existed I assume photographers had to get it right in camera and with certain films, so I would like to do that too. Take pictures as if lightroom or post software wasn't invented yet, and I had to do it right to begin with.


----------



## D-B-J (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks, but how do you get this right without using programs like lightroom or photoshop?   I mean before lightroom and photoshop existed I assume photographers had to get it right in camera and with certain films, so I would like to do that too. Take pictures as if lightroom or post software wasn't invented yet, and I had to do it right to begin with.



I think it really depended on the film and how it reacted to light.  Some films innately were contrastier or punchier than others. Also, you can dodge and burn in a darkroom.. so they did do some editing, of sorts. 

Cheers!
Jake


----------



## KmH (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks, but how do you get this right without using programs like lightroom or photoshop?


You can't.

The in-the-camera adjustments are to crude and to limited.
The biggest limitation in-the-camera is that it has to make an 8-bit depth JPEG monochrome image file.

You need to covert to B&W from the Raw file - post process. Raw files are always initially converted in color.

Digital Black & White Photography
Advanced Digital Black & White Photography (A Lark Photography Book)


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks.  Yes you are right D-B-J, that there were more contrasty films used.  I tried to mimic a more contrasty film by turning the contrast up in camera.  Should I just shoot completely flat then, and add later?  I tried that before but it adds more noise to the image to crush the blacks, and make the whites more white.  So I am hesitant because of past experience with more noise in the image.  As long as it's a sunny day, it's no problem, but on pics taken at night or in lower light areas, the noise is more apparent when playing around with 'curves', even in black and white if it's the contrast and exposure in curves.


----------



## D-B-J (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks.  Yes you are right D-B-J, that there were more contrasty films used.  I tried to mimic a more contrasty film by turning the contrast up in camera.  Should I just shoot completely flat then, and add later?  I tried that before but it adds more noise to the image to crush the blacks, and make the whites more white.  So I am hesitant because of past experience with more noise in the image.  As long as it's a sunny day, it's no problem, but on pics taken at night or in lower light areas, the noise is more apparent when playing around with 'curves', even in black and white if it's the contrast and exposure in curves.




Well something doesn't make sense.  You shouldn't have intense noise issues unless you are shooting at crazy high ISO's.  And yes, doing B+W conversions in post processing is how it should be done.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks.  I figured it was better to shoot B & W to begin with, since most pros do it that way it seems.  At least in film days.  No one seemed to shoot on color film then turn it to B & W later.  They would actually spend more money on B & W film, so I thought the purpose was that that look already being on the film helped.  But if I shoot on a camera picture style to begin with, what picture style and what camera settings should I use?


----------



## D-B-J (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks.  I figured it was better to shoot B & W to begin with, since most pros do it that way it seems.  At least in film days.  No one seemed to shoot on color film then turn it to B & W later.  They would actually spend more money on B & W film, so I thought the purpose was that that look already being on the film helped.  But if I shoot on a camera picture style to begin with, what picture style and what camera settings should I use?



That was back when there wasn't such a streamlined "post-production" process.  Why limit yourself to some crappy, in-camera, lack-luster monochrome image that you can never turn back to color, when you don't HAVE to?


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay then thanks.  I usually do a variety of different kinds under different settings, so then I have all my pictures pre-made to choose from.  But if I shoot in color and turn it into black and white, what camera settings should I use then?


----------



## D-B-J (May 11, 2014)

I use none.  I solely shoot RAW format, and do all the editing myself later in post production.  The camera's great and all, but I've never been pleased with JPEG files.  They are too small and compressed, and don't have the edit-ability that RAW files do.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Oh okay.  I can shoot RAW.  Clients have complained about RAW before cause they cannot open them under normal programs, but I can shoot in RAW and convert later.  Thanks for the tip.  However, what picture style should I use?  I have the Canon T2i, and I got styles like 'standard', 'landscape', 'neutral', etc.  What picture style and what settings on that style should I use?   Thanks.


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks.  I figured it was better to shoot B & W to begin with, since most pros do it that way it seems.  At least in film days.  No one seemed to shoot on color film then turn it to B & W later.  They would actually spend more money on B & W film, so I thought the purpose was that that look already being on the film helped.  But if I shoot on a camera picture style to begin with, what picture style and what camera settings should I use?



Back in the film days, B&W film produced a negative and that had to go into a darkroom and be printed -- processed if you like. That darkroom processing was much more sophisticated and capable than the software in your camera. Your camera software is not adequate.

(Color film was much more expensive than B&W film.)

"That look" was not on the film it happened during the print processing stage in the darkroom. Think: DARKroom -- LIGHTroom.

You got a really good clear answer from Keith: "You can't."

You're running down a dead-end alley if you think your camera JPEG software can deliver here. The picture style you need is RAW.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Oh okay.  I can shoot RAW.  Clients have complained about RAW before cause they cannot open them under normal programs, but I can shoot in RAW and convert later.  Thanks for the tip.  However, what picture style should I use?  I have the Canon T2i, and I got styles like 'standard', 'landscape', 'neutral', etc.  What picture style and what settings on that style should I use?   Thanks.



Don't give RAW files to clients. Pictures styles are meaningless and have no effect on a RAW file -- makes it a lot easier actually.

Joe


----------



## hamlet (May 11, 2014)

There is a bit of a failure of communication here. Raw files simply  retain all of the information so you can later in your computer edit it  to whatever you want. 

But if you still want to insist on in camera processing look up Gary Fong, he is a big advocate of jpeg.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks.  I don't need to do in camera processing. But even if I select RAW, I still have to select a picture profile though.

So far I shoot on Landscape, with the sharpness at 0, contrast at -2, saturation at 0, and color tone at 0.  That's the best look I have come up for color pics, and the contrast is down a couple of notches just in case, so there is not too much.  Anything above -2 gives you puffy eye begs it seems.

Is there a better one I should be using?


----------



## hamlet (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks.  I don't need to do in camera processing. But even if I select RAW, I still have to select a picture profile though.
> 
> So far I shoot on Landscape, with the sharpness at 0, contrast at -2, saturation at 0, and color tone at 0.  That's the best look I have come up for color pics, and the contrast is down a couple of notches just in case, so there is nto too much.
> 
> Is there a better one I should be using?



As Ysarex just mentioned, it doesn't matter.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Oh okay I get.  You're saying that with RAW, the image records in a certain way, in that which changes can be made, and it won't matter.  A lot of people say to shoot flat, cause you cannot make changes later, but with RAW you can, is that right?  So if I shoot in raw, I can up the contrast as much as I want and if the eyes are too puffy in black and white, then I can just take them down then?  Or I can shoot flat and bring them up if that's not right.

What about video?  My T2i, only does H.264 video.  But I cannot shoot flat, cause it goes from 8bit depth to 6 bit depth.  At least according to these articles it does:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2013/03/to...o-shoot-flat/\


http://www.steveoakley.net/template_...ink.asp?id=172


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks.  I don't need to do in camera processing. But even if I select RAW, I still have to select a picture profile though.
> 
> So far I shoot on Landscape, with the sharpness at 0, contrast at -2, saturation at 0, and color tone at 0.  That's the best look I have come up for color pics, and the contrast is down a couple of notches just in case, so there is not too much.  Anything above -2 gives you puffy eye begs it seems.
> 
> Is there a better one I should be using?



If you select RAW then the picture profiles have no effect -- they are meaningless. Select anyone you want since it won't matter in any way.

Set Landscape with sharpness at 0, contrast at -2 saturation at 0 and tone at 0 and take photo -- RAW file. Then change to Neutral and set sharpness to 2 contrast to 2 saturation to -2 and tone to 0 and take the same photo again and the two RAW files will be identical since the scene mode, sharpness setting, contrast setting, saturation setting and tone setting have absolutely no effect on a RAW file.

Joe


----------



## hamlet (May 11, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Okay thanks.  I don't need to do in camera processing. But even if I select RAW, I still have to select a picture profile though.
> ...



Exactly, and i think the reason he doesn't understand is because he thinks that he cant apply styles afterwards. When you put that raw file into your computer, you can apply all the settings yourself.

Look:






See all the settings in lightroom? Those are the same you find in the styles, but you get much more options and you can use scalpel like precision.


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Oh okay I get.  You're saying that with RAW, the image records in a certain way, in that which changes can be made, and it won't matter.  A lot of people say to shoot flat, cause you cannot make changes later, but with RAW you can, is that right?  So if I shoot in raw, I can up the contrast as much as I want and if the eyes are too puffy in black and white, then I can just take them down then?  Or I can shoot flat and bring them up if that's not right.
> 
> What about video?  My T2i, only does H.264 video.  But I cannot shoot flat, cause it goes from 8bit depth to 6 bit depth.  At least according to these articles it does:
> 
> ...



You're not quite getting it -- you can't shoot flat if you're shooting RAW you can only shoot RAW. All of the picture controls really do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to a RAW file. If the contrast and saturation etc. controls were dials on your camera you could spin them while shooting RAW files and they would have no effect whatsoever. All of those adjustments are exclusively for the camera software that creates a JPEG.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



I've always liked the scalpel analogy. The tools available to process a raw file are like a scalpel while the software in the camera that creates a JPEG is like a child's sharpened stick.

Joe


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Okay thanks, I understand now.  What about for video, since my camera does not shoot RAW video, and only H.264.  It can only record 8bit, but if you shoot flat then add later, you loose data, and 8-bit goes to 6 bit, if shooting flat.  What then?


----------



## Ysarex (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay thanks, I understand now.  What about for video, since my camera does not shoot RAW video, and only H.264.  It can only record 8bit, but if you shoot flat then add later, you loose data, and 8-bit goes to 6 bit, if shooting flat.  What then?



Video is a whole 'nother ball game. Get the light right or go home.

Joe


----------



## KmH (May 11, 2014)

hamlet said:


> There is a bit of a failure of communication here. Raw files simply  retain all of the information so you can later in your computer edit it  to whatever you want.


Raw files don't 'retain all the information'.

Before they are converted in a Raw conversion application Raw files contain no color, or gamma curve information. That original information has to be interpolated because the image sensor in a digital camera can only record scene luminosity (no color) in a linear manner. Our eyes are non-linear which is why a Raw converter has to edit the Raw file so it looks like what humans see.

Consequently if you use different Raw converters to convert the same Raw file each Raw converter will produce a somewhat different conversion because each Raw converter uses somewhat different interpolation algorithms.

That's why Adobe makes sure that Photoshop Camera Raw and LR Develop module both use the same Raw conversion application Adobe Camera Raw -ACR. So we can be sure when we move image files between Photoshop and LR they are speaking the same Raw conversion language.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Okay then thanks. I usually do a variety of different kinds under different settings, so then I have all my pictures pre-made to choose from. But if I shoot in color and turn it into black and white, what camera settings should I use then?



I have no idea what is going on here. I purposely under expose bump the contrast and light in post to do that. I also shoot in camera bw high or low key high contrast and do it on jpeg.

I cant even read through this thread its so full of b.s. I cant take it.


----------



## KmH (May 11, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> If you select RAW then the picture profiles have no effect -- they are meaningless. Select anyone you want since it won't matter in any way.


The picture profiles won't effect the Raw file, but they will effect the JPEG basic that is embedded in the Raw file so that JPEG can be displayed on the rear LCD as a photo, or as the JPEG's histogram.


----------



## harmonica (May 11, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Okay thanks, I understand now.  What about for video, since my camera does not shoot RAW video, and only H.264.  It can only record 8bit, but if you shoot flat then add later, you loose data, and 8-bit goes to 6 bit, if shooting flat.  What then?
> ...



Okay thanks.  But even if I get the light right, I still have to color grade in post, or set the color settings in camera.  Any thoughts on how to get video right, with no RAW?


----------



## hamlet (May 11, 2014)

KmH said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > There is a bit of a failure of communication here. Raw files simply  retain all of the information so you can later in your computer edit it  to whatever you want.
> ...



I knew i should have put a caveat in there.


----------



## timor (May 12, 2014)

Photography is about light. Not post processing. If your sensor doesn't catch the proper light you can fake in photoshop something to certain point only. Just few days ago Amazon patented specific way to set up the light so post processing could be eliminated. If you have trouble with b&w digitals, I can teach you how to shoot a real b&w film in such a way, post processing will be unnecessary.


----------

