I’ve seen your black and white images and stand by my opinion. Why don’t you stop trying to forcefeed people FilmPack for black and white images? Just because you don’t see a difference doesn’t mean others don’t.
This “challenge” of yours is a farce in any case. With enough time and a good model, it would be possible to force PhotoLab/FilmPack to create something approaching a good crisp contrasty black and white image. I can replicate almost any processing myself in PhotoLab, given a RAW file and a finished image.
The issue is that the workflow isn’t there. Everything in FilmPack for black and white leads to images like the one we discussed: a colour photo desaturated.
Can you not leave it alone Joanna? There is no need to drive the people towards second-rate tools (FilmPack for BW) when they have easy access to better ones (Silver EFX for BW), fit for the purpose. Perhaps one day FilmPack will handle BW better. Today is not that day.
I would hope you took the time to look at my website B&W photos, all of which are taken on Fuji Acros 100 film, mainly 5" x 4" and 120. All processed in Photoshop.
So, it would appear it is my B&W photography style that you don’t like and not the fact that I prefer to use one tool over another.
You have said it yourself. It is possible to produce excellent B&W images in PL/FP. It’s just that you prefer to yse another tool that only works from TIFF images, whereas I prefer to work directly from RAW.
I am not encouraging folks to “leave” SFX - simply mentioning that, for those who prefer staying in one app, there is a way that is capable of producing excellent results that most of the world, except you, seem,to enjoy.
I do not criticise your choice of software. You are free to use whatever you prefer. But there really is no need to denigrate other people’s choices and preferences
Why are you looking for trouble? Just leave it alone, Joanna. No one needs a rehash of this discussion yet again. Just drop the FilmPack is fine for BW processing schtick. For most people who grew up shooting black and white and developing their own prints, it’s not. The whole paradigm of FilmPack BW is to create desaturated colour images. Photoshop has been able to desaturate colour images and create second-rate BW images for thirty years. We don’t need FilmPack for this.
Silver EFX turned that paradigm on its head and creates images which really look like they were conceived as BW images and even shot in BW. The photographers and programmers who created Silver EFX are a completely different team than those who created FilmPack and now maintain Silver EFX. They were visionaries who had real ties to the analogue world and high end photography.
If desaturated colour images are what makes your world go around, then no you don’t need Silver EFX. It’s of no help to you. I suggest you ignore the conversations about Silver EFX as you simply don’t see or feel what it does.
Why should I when it is the truth. The only problem is that you have a grudge (or two) against FilmPack.
So, it had to happen. Since you failed to offer an image for comparison, here is one of mine, processed in SFX and FilmPack, both with the Fuji Acros 100 emulation…
They are different framings so I can tell which is which. But, can you?
You still haven’t commented on the B&W images on my website yet. What’s the problem? Does good B&W photography annoy you?
Total codswallop!!! If that were the case, how come it provides colour filters to adjust the rendering of various colours, just like physical filters on a camera?
According to your hype. The only difference I see is that SFX never allows you to see the colour image before applying its default B&W preset, whereas FilmPack allows you to choose your preferred film rendering from the get go.
So, you’re saying the engineers who implemented FilmPack weren’t? And where did you get that pile of hogwash from?
I use FilmPack every week for my colour work. I do fantastic work with FilmPack. There are longposts here where I discuss the nuances of different Color Renderings with examples. But FilmPack BW is incredibly depressing stuff. I’m using Silver EFX from Nik v3, I’m not sure if DxO have removed the original BW film treatments in Silver EFX to the anodyne ones in FilmPack.
I will give you this – you certainly feel more strongly about this issue than I do.
For what it’s worth, I don’t particularly like any of the versions above.
I get a sneaking feeling that your opinion is based on your long experience with SFX and relatively little experience and experimentation with FilmPack.
I have SFX from the latest Nik Collection v7 and, due to lack of experience, found it more difficult to get the results I wanted, and find easy, with FilmPack.
But, as you can see, I got virtually the same result from both, because that is the result I want. So, as I said before, your opinion of FilmPack seems to be based more on my style of B&W printing than the tool I use to achieve the result.
I have printed B&W for other photographers and their styles can be markedly different from mine, but FilmPack gives me their style just as easily as mine.
I suppose because, in giving advice to others, I feel it is important to let them choose from the experience of users of both tools, without necessarily trashing the other. I agree that both SFX and FilmPack are equally competent - it’s just that, from my experience, FilmPack is more convenient as it doesn’t require me to create TIFF files from RAW originals before working on them.
Thus proving my point that the end result is all down to personal taste
Thank you for “forcing” me to use SFX but, due to my lack of familiarity, the UI was definitely harder to use. You obviously use different presets and it would be interesting to see which you use to get “your style”
I’ve read every single post of this thread with MUCH (amusement) interest…
I actually don’t think this is true… I believe you feel just as strongly… the problem is, from an outsiders perspective, I think you are losing this battle.
You both have ‘chimed in’ on this. However, Joanna is the only one that has offered to “let’s see if we can get the same results from both programs.”
You continue to post and argue. All the while stating that you’re too busy and not at all interested. That’s actually not helpful to me and others who are trying to figure this stuff out.
I actually DO get the strong impression that you have an issue with Joanna or their work… not so much any program in particular.
@Joanna I would be interested in some higher contrast, dramatic type black and white stuff with FP… in particular in landscape and portraiture.
I’m sure you’re too busy but I was hoping for a little comparison by yourself and @uncoy. But, alas, I don’t think that will happen.
It’s NOT about winning or losing a battle, it’s about using (mastering) the software at your disposal – rather than losing, to imagine what’s worth achieving.
.
Auf Deutsch haben wir ein schönes Sprichwort:
„Sich in etwas zu verbeißen, sollte man den Ratten überlassen."
In German we have a nice saying:
“You should let the rats get their teeth into something.”
Compared to screen reproduction, photo paper as a reflective medium can only display limited contrast. The maximum darkness and brightness depend on the type of paper chosen.
Shadow tones that are still visible on the screen can no longer be separated on paper. On the other hand, bright areas can be distracting on the monitor, while they contribute to the “brightness” on paper.
I think that for convincing B&W the representation needs to be adjusted accordingly.
Indeed. Something I sometimes have difficulty explaining to my clients, who say they want the print to look exactly like the screen on the back of their camera.
For this, I find the Shadow Fine Contrast to be absolutely invaluable, realising that, on screen, things might look a bit “crunchier” than they will appear on the print. That is made a lot easier with PL’s soft proofing. My biggest pain point is when someone complains that their high contrast image looks flat on matt paper, only to realise that their “fluffy” paper is absorbing a lot of the light and further reducing possible contrast.
And I go to the extent of inviting the photographer to present me with sample paper and, even, sitting next to me whilst I work with the image.
Yes of course. And I apologize I probably wasn’t clear what I was asking.
In light of the above comment of MATTE paper dulling out black and white images, is there a type of paper that is better in that respect? IE does glossy present black and white better than matte in how it absorbs and dulls the ink?
So more a technical question vs a personal preference.
The problem with glossy is reflections from any sources of light behind the viewer.
I’ve found satin style papers work best, as long as they are not too shiny or textured.
Which is why I go with Baryta, which tends to also give a more “darkroom” look and feel. I did try Baryta Matte - Personally, I didn’t like it as, once more, it dulled down the contrast and strength of tonality
