Color vs. Black and White

[Chuck Nacke]

Then you can make things "really fun" and start doing Duo-Tone, Tri-Tone and Quad-Tones......

I do all of my B & W conversions in PS and layers, I always keep the image as a 16bit TIFF in

aRGB color.

[John Mitchell]

I generally use PhotoShop Elements to convert RGB colour TIFF's to black and white. You can get some effective results with their preset styles or do manual adjustments. I find that colour file sizes are usually reduced only about 25% when converted to b&w depending on the image.

[ReeRay]

As an aside I always shoot RAW +JPEG in B+W giving me both options when processing. Using this method also keeps me focused on the content when I'm shooting and not being influenced or distracted by colour. I don't use the JPEG file, merely an insight to the rendition.

[John Crellin]

 

 

 

OK. I may have done myself in on this one. 

 

This is something I always forget to check before submitting images, but for some reason I was paying attention today. 

 

In looking at the image size of the B&W images I'm making, by stripping out all of the color, they are way under Alamy's lowest size of 17m. My greyscale conversions are coming out to be only 7m.

Going by memory I think Alamy guidelines specify all images must be submitted as 8 bit colour - not actually "grayscale" files. So, for instance in Photoshop for my occasional B&W submissions I select "grayscale" mode discarding the colour then convert back to "RGB color" for Alamy submission - which restores the file size.

 

John Crellin

 

 

 

Omg! So easy! It was a final step that I missed/forgot about/didn't know!

 

Thank you!

 

 

  STOP. LISTEN. EMERGENCY. 

 

Forgive my bluntness but you are doing this all wrong. You are throwing away most of your data in ACR when you are converting to grayscale in ACR and opening as a single channel grayscale file in Photoshop. You are obviously opening it into a Gray Gamma Color Space. This is the default in ACR when you hit the Convert to Grayscale tickbox. Effectively you are throwing away a huge amount of data and then adding back three identical channels at the end if you do what John says. This is not good practice at all.

 

What you should be doing is opening the file into an RGB color space - AdobeRGB is a good one. You do this in ACR by clicking on the link at the bottom of the screen which will probably say something like Gray Gamma 2.2 16 bit bla bla. Click on this and then in the dialog box that opens up, choose AdobeRGB for your color space. You should also choose 16 bit for your conversion. Do all your Photoshop work and then at the end convert it to 8 bit if you want to save disk space. I tend to save mine as PSDs with any layers and then export the JPEGS from Lightroom.

 

The important thing is to keep the file as RGB the whole time. You would see this clearly if you used any of the split toning in ACR. It has to be RGB as it is a coloured monochrome.

 

If you used Lightroom, this wouldn't happen as you automatically open in an RGB color space if editing in Photoshop.

 

Just to be clear I was talking about the final step only - Alamy want an rgb 8 bit jpeg file in Adobe RBG colour space. How you keep all the original information is up to your workflow (I always keep the original RAW file). What you submit to Alamy, if B&W, will not have all the information your camera recorded... 

 

Going to grayscale and back is a handy way to create B&W - but obviously there are huge considerations about which colours to favour (akin to a filter in monochrome film photography) and I find it is useful to look at each colour channel alone as monochrome before deciding how to achieve the best end result.

 

John

[Bryan]

Are people actually selling B&W images here? I see them used as interior decoration in shops/cafes etc, but are they being bought through Alamy?

 

I have found that genuine archival stuff sells (scans from B&W negs of long gone scenes), but is it worth uploading B&W versions of up to date stuff? 

[SFL]

I prefer not to use Grayscale when I convert colour images to BW as they get rid of all the channels (R, G & B which leads to loss of data (hence smaller size file)

 

Instead, I will convert them to BW in Lightroom then take them to PS for further editing or I use BW layer in PS.  That way the images maintain Colour Space (Adobe RGB in my workflow) and Channels, so that I can create masks from channels if necessary for local adjustments etc....  But of course it is my workflow.  I am not saying it is the best way.

 

Sung

 

edit: spelling correction

[MDM]

 

 

 

 

OK. I may have done myself in on this one. 

 

This is something I always forget to check before submitting images, but for some reason I was paying attention today. 

 

In looking at the image size of the B&W images I'm making, by stripping out all of the color, they are way under Alamy's lowest size of 17m. My greyscale conversions are coming out to be only 7m.

Going by memory I think Alamy guidelines specify all images must be submitted as 8 bit colour - not actually "grayscale" files. So, for instance in Photoshop for my occasional B&W submissions I select "grayscale" mode discarding the colour then convert back to "RGB color" for Alamy submission - which restores the file size.

 

John Crellin

 

 

 

Omg! So easy! It was a final step that I missed/forgot about/didn't know!

 

Thank you!

 

 

  STOP. LISTEN. EMERGENCY. 

 

Forgive my bluntness but you are doing this all wrong. You are throwing away most of your data in ACR when you are converting to grayscale in ACR and opening as a single channel grayscale file in Photoshop. You are obviously opening it into a Gray Gamma Color Space. This is the default in ACR when you hit the Convert to Grayscale tickbox. Effectively you are throwing away a huge amount of data and then adding back three identical channels at the end if you do what John says. This is not good practice at all.

 

What you should be doing is opening the file into an RGB color space - AdobeRGB is a good one. You do this in ACR by clicking on the link at the bottom of the screen which will probably say something like Gray Gamma 2.2 16 bit bla bla. Click on this and then in the dialog box that opens up, choose AdobeRGB for your color space. You should also choose 16 bit for your conversion. Do all your Photoshop work and then at the end convert it to 8 bit if you want to save disk space. I tend to save mine as PSDs with any layers and then export the JPEGS from Lightroom.

 

The important thing is to keep the file as RGB the whole time. You would see this clearly if you used any of the split toning in ACR. It has to be RGB as it is a coloured monochrome.

 

If you used Lightroom, this wouldn't happen as you automatically open in an RGB color space if editing in Photoshop.

 

Just to be clear I was talking about the final step only - Alamy want an rgb 8 bit jpeg file in Adobe RBG colour space. How you keep all the original information is up to your workflow (I always keep the original RAW file). What you submit to Alamy, if B&W, will not have all the information your camera recorded... 

 

Going to grayscale and back is a handy way to create B&W - but obviously there are huge considerations about which colours to favour (akin to a filter in monochrome film photography) and I find it is useful to look at each colour channel alone as monochrome before deciding how to achieve the best end result.

 

John

 

 

My point is that you shouldn't go to grayscale at all. It's far better to keep the file as RGB and there are numerous ways of doing a conversion to monochrome nowadays in Photoshop. The best way I think is to use a Black and White adjustment layer which is a totally non-destructive method and gives similar control with colour sliders to going to monochrome in ACR or Lightroom. But there are also other adjustment layer methods like desaturating using a HSL layer.

 

You soon find out the importance of keeping the file in RGB if you ever do your own printing. You can't really print a grayscale file successfully on an inkjet printer - it needs to be RGB to control the inevitable colour casts. Similarly if you are sending a file out to a professional lab for printing, it should be RGB, not grayscale.

 

The original raw is not relevant to this conversation. I always keep my raw files as well just in case I need to rework them from scratch. I am talking solely about the best ways to get good quality monochrome digital images (and prints). Most images need some work when opened in Photoshop, even if it is just a bit of spotting. I don't want to do Photoshop work multiple times on the same image. I always use adjustment layers for non-destructive editing in Photoshop and I often have colour and black and white versions of the same image in the one file. I keep everything as 16-bit until the final save or perhaps permanently depending on the image. The difference between 16 an 8 bit can be really evident in monochrome - the blue channel is often like noisy muck, particularly evident in skies. I save as PSD and keep all my PSDs as well.

[SFL]

 

 

 

 

 

OK. I may have done myself in on this one. 

 

This is something I always forget to check before submitting images, but for some reason I was paying attention today. 

 

In looking at the image size of the B&W images I'm making, by stripping out all of the color, they are way under Alamy's lowest size of 17m. My greyscale conversions are coming out to be only 7m.

Going by memory I think Alamy guidelines specify all images must be submitted as 8 bit colour - not actually "grayscale" files. So, for instance in Photoshop for my occasional B&W submissions I select "grayscale" mode discarding the colour then convert back to "RGB color" for Alamy submission - which restores the file size.

 

John Crellin

 

 

 

Omg! So easy! It was a final step that I missed/forgot about/didn't know!

 

Thank you!

 

 

  STOP. LISTEN. EMERGENCY. 

 

Forgive my bluntness but you are doing this all wrong. You are throwing away most of your data in ACR when you are converting to grayscale in ACR and opening as a single channel grayscale file in Photoshop. You are obviously opening it into a Gray Gamma Color Space. This is the default in ACR when you hit the Convert to Grayscale tickbox. Effectively you are throwing away a huge amount of data and then adding back three identical channels at the end if you do what John says. This is not good practice at all.

 

What you should be doing is opening the file into an RGB color space - AdobeRGB is a good one. You do this in ACR by clicking on the link at the bottom of the screen which will probably say something like Gray Gamma 2.2 16 bit bla bla. Click on this and then in the dialog box that opens up, choose AdobeRGB for your color space. You should also choose 16 bit for your conversion. Do all your Photoshop work and then at the end convert it to 8 bit if you want to save disk space. I tend to save mine as PSDs with any layers and then export the JPEGS from Lightroom.

 

The important thing is to keep the file as RGB the whole time. You would see this clearly if you used any of the split toning in ACR. It has to be RGB as it is a coloured monochrome.

 

If you used Lightroom, this wouldn't happen as you automatically open in an RGB color space if editing in Photoshop.

 

Just to be clear I was talking about the final step only - Alamy want an rgb 8 bit jpeg file in Adobe RBG colour space. How you keep all the original information is up to your workflow (I always keep the original RAW file). What you submit to Alamy, if B&W, will not have all the information your camera recorded... 

 

Going to grayscale and back is a handy way to create B&W - but obviously there are huge considerations about which colours to favour (akin to a filter in monochrome film photography) and I find it is useful to look at each colour channel alone as monochrome before deciding how to achieve the best end result.

 

John

 

 

My point is that you shouldn't go to grayscale at all. It's far better to keep the file as RGB and there are numerous ways of doing a conversion to monochrome nowadays in Photoshop. The best way I think is to use a Black and White adjustment layer which is a totally non-destructive method and gives similar control with colour sliders to going to monochrome in ACR or Lightroom. But there are also other adjustment layer methods like desaturating using a HSL layer.

 

You soon find out the importance of keeping the file in RGB if you ever do your own printing. You can't really print a grayscale file successfully on an inkjet printer - it needs to be RGB to control the inevitable colour casts. Similarly if you are sending a file out to a professional lab for printing, it should be RGB, not grayscale.

 

The original raw is not relevant to this conversation. I always keep my raw files as well just in case I need to rework them from scratch. I am talking solely about the best ways to get good quality monochrome digital images (and prints). Most images need some work when opened in Photoshop, even if it is just a bit of spotting. I don't want to do Photoshop work multiple times on the same image. I always use adjustment layers for non-destructive editing in Photoshop and I often have colour and black and white versions of the same image in the one file. I keep everything as 16-bit until the final save or perhaps permanently depending on the image. The difference between 16 an 8 bit can be really evident in monochrome - the blue channel is often like noisy muck, particularly evident in skies. I save as PSD and keep all my PSDs as well.

 

 

+1

 

MDM explained much better than I did.

[SFL]

Are people actually selling B&W images here? I see them used as interior decoration in shops/cafes etc, but are they being bought through Alamy?

 

I have found that genuine archival stuff sells (scans from B&W negs of long gone scenes), but is it worth uploading B&W versions of up to date stuff? 

 

B&Ws do sell.  Although, in my case, they account for only 1.4% of total number of sales and one of them sells both in colour and B&W.  None of them are archival materials. 

 

I think that It really depends on subject matters.  Some are suitable for BW but not all.

 

Sung

[John Crellin]

"The original raw is not relevant to this conversation"

 

Not sure what you mean here I only use TIFFs for Alamy as an intermediate going to JPEG and all I was ever trying to help with is what to do about getting a JPEG Alamy will accept if you have a grayscale monochrome. I do actually keep 8 bit sRGB TIFFs for other reasons but getting another 16 bit ARGB TIFF from the original RAW is always easy to do and for me getting the raw processing right is pretty much all I normally do.

 

Not sure if I am right on this but I am suspicious that converted raw already has lost information compared to RAW, particularly in highlight overhead which is quite extensive with modern cameras.

 

John Crellin.

[MDM]

"The original raw is not relevant to this conversation"

 

Not sure what you mean here I only use TIFFs for Alamy as an intermediate going to JPEG and all I was ever trying to help with is what to do about getting a JPEG Alamy will accept if you have a grayscale monochrome. I do actually keep 8 bit sRGB TIFFs for other reasons but getting another 16 bit ARGB TIFF from the original RAW is always easy to do and for me getting the raw processing right is pretty much all I normally do.

 

Not sure if I am right on this but I am suspicious that converted raw already has lost information compared to RAW, particularly in highlight overhead which is quite extensive with modern cameras.

 

John Crellin.

 

We are talking at cross purposes here John. I wasn't saying that changing the raw image to mono before the raw conversion is any different from opening a colour image and converting to mono in Photoshop as long as you open the file into an RGB color space.

 

What I am saying is that you should not open an image into Photoshop into a Gray Gamma Color Space - this gives a single channel grayscale file - this is not generally desirable.

 

The raw file should be opened into an RGB Color Space even if it is a monchrome image. If you go into the conversion options in ACR (clicking at the bottom of the ACR dialog) you will get an option for the Color Space in Photoshop after the conversion. The default in ACR is Gray Gamma (for some reason unknown to me), change this to AdobeRGB and it should stick for all future conversions. You will then have a 3 channel RGB file so no need for further conversions to make up file size and there are all sorts of other advantages including the ones I mentioned above in relation to printing. If you use Lightroom, this is never an issue as there are no options to open into a Gray Gamma Color Space - there are four options and they are all RGB.

 

I hope this explains what I mean.

[kimba]

I'm not seeing this in Photoshop: (clicking at the bottom of the ACR dialog) ...

 

Anyway, I think I get it - just keep the images in RGB space. 

 

And, the B/W images I edited yesterday passed QC. I just did a few as a test.

[MDM]

When you try to open a raw file in Photoshop, the Camera Raw (Adobe Camera Raw or ACR as it's known) dialog opens up. At the bottom of the dialog you should see a link (this is actually a very odd thing to have in a user interface like this, a button would be much more sensible I think) which will say something like AdobeRGB, 16 bit; 6000 by 4000 (24 MP); 300 ppi. Click on that and you will get a whole new dialog of preferences for raw conversions into Photoshop.

[kimba]

Ohhh, ok. I know what you are talking about now. 

 

Thank you!

[Betty LaRue]

Kimba, you have some nice images. I enjoyed taking a peek at your Bodie ghost town stuff. I remember many years ago visiting Calico ghost town on the Mohave dessert.

I did enlarge one to get a closer look at the details of the image. H5WN27 is of an old safe, I believe. Yet in your caption, there is no mention of a safe. You just have a very generic caption about Bodie ghost town.

 

Captions seem to carry a high weight now. I suggest you revisit your captions and be more specific.

"An old (brand) safe presently on display in: (details of town you already have there.)

Someone might simply search for an image of an old safe, not the ghost town. And if mentioned in the caption, it might be placed higher in the search.

 

Betty

[John Mitchell]

Are people actually selling B&W images here? I see them used as interior decoration in shops/cafes etc, but are they being bought through Alamy?

 

I have found that genuine archival stuff sells (scans from B&W negs of long gone scenes), but is it worth uploading B&W versions of up to date stuff? 

 

Nope, not here, only through a certain POD site. Have had a few zooms, though.

 

As suggested, the dreaded PU option might open some doors, so I'm thinking that perhaps it's worth uploading more b&w (if you don't mind the pricing). Also, one would think that b&w PU sales would have a higher likelihood of being legit than colour ones. But who knows...

[kimba]

Kimba, you have some nice images. I enjoyed taking a peek at your Bodie ghost town stuff. I remember many years ago visiting Calico ghost town on the Mohave dessert.

I did enlarge one to get a closer look at the details of the image. H5WN27 is of an old safe, I believe. Yet in your caption, there is no mention of a safe. You just have a very generic caption about Bodie ghost town.

 

Captions seem to carry a high weight now. I suggest you revisit your captions and be more specific.

"An old (brand) safe presently on display in: (details of town you already have there.)

Someone might simply search for an image of an old safe, not the ghost town. And if mentioned in the caption, it might be placed higher in the search.

 

Betty

 

Thank you Betty!

 

Those are some of the new images I'm uploading and because there were so many, I did a bulk keywording/captioning session. Once I get everything processed, uploaded and the first pass of keywording done, I'll go back and rework the keywords. 

 

Sometimes I do a basic keyword session for an image just to get them up and running, then I'll go back when I have more time and "fix" them, adding more specific details. 

[John Mitchell]

 

Kimba, you have some nice images. I enjoyed taking a peek at your Bodie ghost town stuff. I remember many years ago visiting Calico ghost town on the Mohave dessert.

I did enlarge one to get a closer look at the details of the image. H5WN27 is of an old safe, I believe. Yet in your caption, there is no mention of a safe. You just have a very generic caption about Bodie ghost town.

 

Captions seem to carry a high weight now. I suggest you revisit your captions and be more specific.

"An old (brand) safe presently on display in: (details of town you already have there.)

Someone might simply search for an image of an old safe, not the ghost town. And if mentioned in the caption, it might be placed higher in the search.

 

Betty

 

Thank you Betty!

 

Those are some of the new images I'm uploading and because there were so many, I did a bulk keywording/captioning session. Once I get everything processed, uploaded and the first pass of keywording done, I'll go back and rework the keywords. 

 

Sometimes I do a basic keyword session for an image just to get them up and running, then I'll go back when I have more time and "fix" them, adding more specific details. 

 

 

Yes, very nice images. I love ghost towns, forgotten and deserted places in general.

[Chuck Nacke]

Kimba,

 

Betty gave you some excellent advice. 

 

I spend more time researching my caption information then I do

preparing images in LR or PS.

[kimba]

Kimba,

 

Betty gave you some excellent advice. 

 

I spend more time researching my caption information then I do

preparing images in LR or PS.

 

I know she did! 

[Betty LaRue]

 

Kimba, you have some nice images. I enjoyed taking a peek at your Bodie ghost town stuff. I remember many years ago visiting Calico ghost town on the Mohave dessert.

I did enlarge one to get a closer look at the details of the image. H5WN27 is of an old safe, I believe. Yet in your caption, there is no mention of a safe. You just have a very generic caption about Bodie ghost town.

Captions seem to carry a high weight now. I suggest you revisit your captions and be more specific.

"An old (brand) safe presently on display in: (details of town you already have there.)

Someone might simply search for an image of an old safe, not the ghost town. And if mentioned in the caption, it might be placed higher in the search.

Betty

 

Gotcha. We all have our ways of working. I pretty much have all my info done before uploading, but I do sometimes think of a new tag or two to add later.

 

Thank you Betty!

 

Those are some of the new images I'm uploading and because there were so many, I did a bulk keywording/captioning session. Once I get everything processed, uploaded and the first pass of keywording done, I'll go back and rework the keywords. 

 

Kimba, you have some nice images. I enjoyed taking a peek at your Bodie ghost town stuff. I remember many years ago visiting Calico ghost town on the Mohave dessert.

I did enlarge one to get a closer look at the details of the image. H5WN27 is of an old safe, I believe. Yet in your caption, there is no mention of a safe. You just have a very generic caption about Bodie ghost town.

Captions seem to carry a high weight now. I suggest you revisit your captions and be more specific.

"An old (brand) safe presently on display in: (details of town you already have there.)

Someone might simply search for an image of an old safe, not the ghost town. And if mentioned in the caption, it might be placed higher in the search.

Betty

 

 

Thank you Betty!

 

Those are some of the new images I'm uploading and because there were so many, I did a bulk keywording/captioning session. Once I get everything processed, uploaded and the first pass of keywording done, I'll go back and rework the keywords. 

 

Sometimes I do a basic keyword session for an image just to get them up and running, then I'll go back when I have more time and "fix" them, adding more specific details.

 

Sometimes I do a basic keyword session for an image just to get them up and running, then I'll go back when I have more time and "fix" them, adding more specific details.

Gotcha. We all have our ways of working.