Going to B&W

topic posted Wed, December 10, 2008 - 6:59 PM by  Mickey
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Is it better to render an image to B&W before or after any other image tweaks?
posted by:
Mickey
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Going to B&W

    Thu, December 11, 2008 - 12:32 PM
    That depends on the tweaks you need to do.

    And, really, you shouldn't have to render anything - this is photoshop. Layers and non-destructive effects are your friend.
    • Re: Going to B&W

      Thu, December 11, 2008 - 12:59 PM
      It seems more logical to do your tweeks after you convert to B&W so you can see what effect it has on the B&W
      • Re: Going to B&W

        Thu, December 11, 2008 - 1:52 PM
        That is an interesting thought. I am too inexperienced to know if I would lose the ability to make better changes in color before going to B&W.
        • Re: Going to B&W

          Thu, December 11, 2008 - 2:16 PM
          If your final product is going to be B&W you would be better off seeing what your tweeks do to the B&W - seems logical to me.
          • Re: Going to B&W

            Thu, December 11, 2008 - 3:33 PM
            I agree. Convert to B&W (and how you do that is an interesting question in and of itself... I know quite a few techniques) then alter the B&W image.
  • Re: Going to B&W

    Fri, December 12, 2008 - 7:33 PM
    Back up your original first!!

    I'm a color person, but there are people who "see" tones better than color values. Once in a while I come across an image I think might look better in black and white and what I usually do is first generate the three (RGB) channel images just to see what kinds of values I'm working with. sometimes I simply desaturate to see what that looks like.

    Almost every tweak you make is going to result in information loss...
    • Re: Going to B&W

      Fri, December 12, 2008 - 7:51 PM
      "Almost every tweak you make is going to result in information loss..."

      I should hope not! That's what layers are for. Well, that and a good workflow.

      Personally, I never touch my raw files. Any work I do is in a PSD with layers, and the bottom two layers are the original image and a working copy of it. I do a few edits on the working layer-- spot removal, noise reduction for example-- and every other change is in a layer. I always keep the PSDs intact, and then use them to generate whatever format I might need as output.
      • Re: Going to B&W

        Sat, December 13, 2008 - 5:25 AM
        Another option is to convert the image to Lab (Image > Mode > Lab) and then to look at the different channels. If one works, save with a new filename (FIle > Save as...)
  • Re: Going to B&W

    Sat, December 13, 2008 - 11:57 AM
    I no longer use Photoshop for BW coversions, I use Lightroom. There are so many options, so many settings & presets that it doesn't make sense to do it in PS anymore. You can dial in the exact contrast, sharpness, clarity, shadow detail, hilites, etc and its not destructive. You can come back to it a year later and change everything or even take off the conversion and make it color again.
    • Re: Going to B&W

      Sat, December 13, 2008 - 3:54 PM
      That's almost sacrilege in a Photoshop tribe but it's true - Lightroom 2.1 is the answer.

      Well... it is called Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2

      :-)
      • Re: Going to B&W

        Sat, December 13, 2008 - 5:52 PM
        I second Buck's use of Lab Color conversion. I used that more successfully in my magazine work than simply converting to grayscale in Photoshop. It retains so much more depth and contrast that way.
  • Re: Going to B&W

    Fri, December 26, 2008 - 9:11 PM
    It all depends on what you are doing with the image, if you are going to manipulating the image, making clipping paths, etc, I would do that before going b&w. It can be easier (depending on the image) to do work of that nature while still in color. You have more selection options.

    If you have CS3, there is a new adjustment layer for making an image greyscale. Pre-CS3 I used to use the lab conversion 90% of the time, it doesn't work well with images that have a lot of red (translates to 50% grey). I would use the channel mixer for those images. Now that i have CS3, the Black & White adjustment layer ROCKS!!! You can apply a "filter" to add contrast similar to adding filters to your camera lense. I tend to use the green filter for most images. It works beautifully and is non-destructive. You can make custom "filters". I merge the layers holding down the option key to make sure, it does not flatten, i save the .pds, then convert to greyscale and save as a tiff.

    I highly recommend CS3 for that feature. Huge time saver and works brilliantly.

    I, sometimes make adjustments after the black & white layer if nec. There is no "black & white" answer to your question... it all depends on the image and what you want the end result to be...
  • Re: Going to B&W

    Tue, December 30, 2008 - 1:42 PM
    • Re: Going to B&W

      Wed, December 31, 2008 - 12:19 PM
      cs4 applied most of what Lightroom was all ready giving users. I must agree that we rarely convert to greyscale until the last minute. The Lightroom functionality I must say is the most intuitive and unless you are really savvy with your output settings and know your printer well it is the way to go. Another thing I often do is create a spot colour with a greyscale this takes a bit of knowledge and the printing technique for offset is a bit more complicated but you can get a really nice look for just one extra plate of colour. Make sure when making your conversions you save them as DCS.

      Have fun !

      Byron
      • Re: Going to B&W

        Wed, December 31, 2008 - 12:34 PM
        Next question what does saving as DCS do.

        Thanks for all the great info everybody. That was a pretty nice tutorial video as well. I've not had a need that often for greyscale conversion but this makes for great thought food.

Recent topics in "PHOTOSHOP"