Here's stab at B/W from color. I've got a long way to go to get this right. I dont have CS so I cant do channles etc.

It may also have some compression artifacts. . .



Here it is

at a minimum, i think that the contrast is a little shallow. i think a broader spread between the blacks & whites is essential for a B&W. i tried it & was quite pleased & would present it here, but in my last post, i could only figure out how to attach a file - not sure yet how to just post the image so you can see it w/out having to open the attachment. still playing around w/ that 1. but i will attach this one again until i get that figured out.

you'll notice one overblown spot near the center of the image that i don't like either, but the rest of the image i think represents itself well.

jp

ok, tony, i still haven't figured out how to do that - would you mind sharing the process with me?

with that out of the way, what are _your_ thoughts?

jp

Hey Tony,

I love the shot - very well done.

JP,

I see what you are doing with the photos that are being presented. The alterations that you made on Tony's looks more natural, in my opinion, then what was done to the Teton mountain range that I shot...however, here again I see the same issues where the image seems just a bit too contrasty for my taste.

Of the two images, Tony's version seems to have more highlight detail throughout the image. While over-all, I prefer how Tony processed the shot better (again, the highlight detail), I do like how your version brings out the sky.

Cheers
James


James

I agree with james. I wish we all could site down, monitors side by side and look at the differences. I like the more white, but i dont like the loss of detail. I think, if a guy really knew what he/she was doing, from the begining, more highlights could be saved, while bringing out more detail. I also like the darker sky, but let me tell you, in real life there was almost no contrast between the mountain and the sky!

Thanks you two, I'm glad you took the time to give me your impressions, and for those looky-lues who dont post comments, please, feel free to say what you want about my posts, I have thick skin and would like to read other comments, as I'm sure other's would too - we all learn a great deal when people talk about what they think!

Take care,

to post a picture, you need to have it hosted someplace on the www.

I just make a small file, usually about 100kb or less, upload it in my post, then I'll download it (but copy the address), go to edit and then click on image down in the lower boxes, that will allow you to up load a picture on the NWP server (past address in the window prompt) and use it also as the host. It's a back door, but that's how i do it. . .

tony & james -

i agree about the loss of some of the detail in the highlights. i'm still playing around with the technique to get better at that. i also wonder how much would have been lost w/ the full-size file. obviously there is less data in these files to work with. & i agree w/ you james, that this image came out better than the teton pic of yours. but i still thought that yours benefitted from eliminating the 'film' that seemed to be present in yours. & even tho there was some loss in the highlights, i felt that there was more depth to the image - sort of a layering effect. particularly the clouds in front of the peak. agreed or no?

i'm looking forward to our trip to the pacific NW this spring. & i can assure you that my camera will be clicking. i don't just get many opportunities in Kansas to shoot beautiful landscapes - KWIM?

jp

"i don't just get many opportunities in Kansas to shoot beautiful landscapes"

Where are you in Kansas? I was just there in April at a wedding up near Wichita.

James

Like I said, it's set up to utilize hosting on the WWW. I figured out a way to use the NWP server to host my photos and allow them to show up on the post. Youre right it is a bit difficult. . .