It’s been a long time since I first tried to convert pictures into drawings, or more precisely, since I first tried to define a procedure that allows the simulation of a charcoal, pencil, blood drawing from a picture.

The majority of the online tutorials use automatic Photoshop filters, that I personally consider awful, both artistic, stylization and border identification ones. Images always seem a little bit artificial, the artistic technique they refer in reality are really different, you always notice it’s a filtered picture and not a real drawing and all of those images are extremely similar to each others. It is recommended to work with your own two hands, more than entrust an automatic system.

The best tutorial I found online that I tested, based on this presupposition, is Photo to Pencil Sketch written by Tim Shelbourne (on his web site many other free tutorials are available) and published on Photoshop Photo Effects Cookbook.

The pat result obtained with automatic filters.

The most difficult part of this tutorial is that you have to be a little bit painter to draw some pencil marks in a pleasing way or you suddenly notice that the creator could barely keep a pen in its hand. Moreover, it is practically necessary to have a graphics tablet, because a mouse doesn’t allow a correct drawing. I made attempts for some time and I finally found a rewarding way to remedy those problems. Besides, I found some little expedients that are not reported into the original article. I will guide you through the tutorial above mentioned with a series of personal reflections that will lead you to better results.

Picture preparation

Original pics to convert into a pencil drawing.

First of all, you have to choose the right image. Drawings and pictures works in a deeply different manner. Pictures have sweet tonal transitions, rich details, closed shadows and burned lights are usually not aesthetic. Pencil drawings must build blacks with marks, with discontinuous lines; grey scale is due to density relative to black and white lines. Moreover, drawings are less detailed: blocking, matters, surfaces are part of the paint; drawing is focused on edges, shapes, marks. Understanding all those rough differences is fundamental to obtain a good result.

Therefore, graphical images are the most adapted ones, which would work even with white, black and grey scales only. Poor and high-contrasted picture. Images where little details are not important, but where white and black volumes are indispensable. To make the image ready, it is advisable to considerably augment the contrast, to separate shadows from lights. A global augmentation of the general contrast is not sufficient and appropriate. Try to manually select parts of the picture, substantially augment or reduce brightness. Whiten, blacken, augment the local contrast, zone per zone. During this phase, you already need to have your goal clear and a little bit of practice is required.

It is convenient to prepare the image augmenting the local contrast, blacken or whiten some parts of the pics, eliminating undesired details.

Don’t be scared to force your hand. You can start from an excessively contrasted pictures, with some completely black shadows and a completely white face, where lips and eyes protrude with decision. It is not necessary to work with lot of precision, masks can be rude, selections can be not so precise, parts of the picture can be white or black.

There’s no problem even in using an out-of-focus image or a blur one. Actually, a photo you’d usually throw away is acceptable, as a soft photo can give wonderful results with this technique. so, if you have images with technical errors that you’d throw away with particular sadness, you can try this solution. A bad picture can be the base for a splendid drawing.

Preparing the drawing

Pattern Fill Option to simulate drawing paper.

Tim Shelburne’s tutorial begins creating a base that simulate drawing paper. Once opened and desaturated the image, create a new light-grey fill layer that will be the color of the paper you will use to draw on. Then, let’s go back to New fill layer -> Pattern again. In the second dialogue window, clicking on the arrow next to the icon, open the pattern menu. Clicking on the arrow again, select Greyscale papers. Tim Shelburne suggest the use of Fibers 1 and a Pattern Scale of 340%, to set the layer in Soft Light and 35% of opacity. This is obviously only one of the possibilities. The scale value depend on the image dimension; if it’s big, it is necessary an elevated value. In any case, remember this is a phase that only create a textured surface that seems a drawing paper, so you have to experiment with different patterns, different values, such as opacity and blending mode of the layer itself.

Help trace for your drawing

The second step of our tutorial make us building a trace that helps us drawings and that can be used to define the edges of the image. Duplicate the background and put it over all the other layers. To create borders, Tim Shelburne suggests to use the filter “Stylize -> Glowing Edges” with the following values: Edge Width 3, Edge Brightness 11, Smoothness 10; these values are not fundamental for the final image, even because often this layer only helps in the initial phase of the drawing and can be eliminated. Once the filter is applied, the layer must be inverted, to turn it into positive, put it in Multiply as fusion option and about 15% of opacity.

Pile of used layers. Scratch the mask of the last layer: here’s your drawing!

Our last stage before start drawing is the creation of another background copy, positioned over all the other layers. Let’s apply a little bit of noise, for example with an intensity of 10, to partially brake the the file and have a less photographic image. Select Darken as fusion option and add a black level mask. Drawing in white on this mask, you reveal the image underneath, the prepared trace allow you to choose where to draw. Cross sharp marks to simulate a hard pencil, use soft brushes to obtain the effect of a drawing faded with fingers. Keep the drawing marks separated from each others on the mask to obtain a pencil or pen drawing, mix them both to obtain a charcoal drawing.

The drawing

In his tutorial Tim Shelburne suggest to use a brush from the Dry Media Brushes set. I personally found this solution difficult, most of all for those who doesn’t use a graphics tablet and are not used to draw. I found a quick, practical alternative that achieve, in my opinion, more convincing result.

The option of Photoshop brushes let you modify the characteristics of a brush presets (cross). With Shape Dynamic options it is possible to mix the marks with random directions (square), while Scattering options offsets the marks (circle).

The idea is to find a way to produce defined and precise marks, quickly and more or less automatically, using a brush originally created to scratch (free download at Scratch Grunge Photoshop Brushes), obtained exactly the desired effect. Once installed the set, it is available a 572 pixel preset, with a long and thin shape, perfect to simulate the mark of a pen or pencil.

Pencil drawing with Photoshop.

This brush, when used directly, forms parallel and regular lines that suddenly demonstrate the digital nature of the image. Anyway, using brush options it is possible to effectively solve this problem. Press F5 to open the brushes palette. Brush Tip Shape window allow you to modify the inclination of the mark, for example if you have a preferred drawing direction you want to follow or if you want to modify the space between two marks that I suggest to keep large. In the Shape Dynamics window, modifying Size Jitter and Minimum Diameter controls, you can produce a series of marks with random inclinations, perfect to darken large blocking of the image. Use the Scatter window to offset the initial and ending part of all the marks. It is obviously possible to create presets, to quickly jump from a combination of options to another.

Detail of the drawing in Photoshop. On the background, lines are still rude to give the idea of a mark. Marks revealed the photo underneath, as you probably insisted too much on her face. I suggest to start over, avoiding to draw on the girl skin.

Using these options, it’s easy to mark a huge part of the image. As you build your drawing, it is important to insist on those parts you want to darken, for example not passing the brush on the bright parts, such as the skin. If you exaggerate with all these passages that reveal the photo underneath, you loose the effect of the desired pencil or pen drawing. Insisting on all the dark parts, the effect is extremely convincing. I suggest to mix the random direction of the mark with unidirectional passages, in order to create a certain coherence, a preferred direction for the drawing. It can be useful to add hand marks, with brushes such as Dry Media ones: in this case the effect is more similar to charcoal drawings than pen or pencil ones.

As your drawing take form, it is better to start interpret the image, leaving some zones clearer and darken others, creating some zones with a littler density of mark or leaving some zones totally uncompleted. Consciously select where to apply marks is fundamental for a good result of the drawing.

Drawing finishes

Multiply fusion option, even if sparse lines cross-hatching lightened the image, makes the drawing stronger and with more contrast.

At a certain point, it is impossible to keep on applying the cross-hatching, otherwise the noisy photo is completely revealed. Usually this is the point where I want to modify the image again, in a creative manner, re-invent the matter in front of me. From the moment where you start transforming a photo into a drawing, you must be brave and be ready to draw for real.

As free hand drawing can be difficult, press Ctrl+Shift+Alt+E to copy a snapshot of your pictures into a new layer. Reduce the opacity of the brush and add hand made cross-hatching where you want to adjust the image, such as shadows to cover elements you didn’t want, for example in the background, or to give some more substance in the high lights. This is absolutely the most difficult part, but even the most funny. The image in the article shows a fine cross-hatching on the face, in a way to recover details but cover background, hands, hair as the face emerge from the black of the drawing.

There’s plenty of possibility to paint a drawing in Photoshop.

Once you reached this point, I suggest to duplicate your image once again, with Ctrl+Shift+Alt+E, and put it in Multiply fusion modality. This option darken the image, sometime even too much, but it can be useful to give strength to your drawing. This leads you to deep black as in the original image an effect otherwise impossible. In fact to have achieve this goal, you should scratch the entire mask, but this way you would reveal the picture underneath. To maintain a sort of drawing effect, leave some white spaces between the marks, that enlighten the image. Adding this layer deepens the black color, conserving the cross-hatching effect. Let’s pretend that the layer gives an effect similar to pen or charcoal drawings, while our drawing looks like an hard pencil one. Modifying the layer opacity brings to the desired effect and the right compromise between intensity and tonal gamma of the image. Now, I suggest to slightly regulate contrast and brightness, with a simple adjustment curve.

Your drawing is now ready. It is possible anyway to play around with some effects again. There are infinite way to colour monochromatic images, so you just have to choose the one you prefer.

Conclusions

The illustrated tutorial allows a quick and efficacious transformation of a photography into a pen or pencil drawing. You can find some examples of images modified with this technique on my photoblog, under the tag Drawing.

Moreover, it is possible to find a CS3 Photoshop action, pencil drawing, that automatize the majority of the work detailed in this article.

The photographs obtained using a zone plate in place of an objective, like pinhole photos, undergo significant digital noise and have a distinct character in comparison to that present on normal photographs obtained with an objective.

A zone plate is definitely more luminous than a pinhole, but remains anyway much less luminous than a traditional objective; therefore you often use the high sensitivity of the camera and/or lengthy exposure times. The images obtained are also very soft not only in terms of detail, but also contrast. Often therefore you apply levels and contrast curves in Photoshop in order to give energy to the photograph, while simultaneously amplifying the digital noise present in the image.

In the digital zone plate photographs and pinholes diagonal banding is often present.

The characteristics of the noise are extremely different from those seen in a traditional digital photograph. I have noticed, using both zone plates and pinholes, a strong diagonal banding at high frequency that crosses the entire image. In the shadows the noise then is intense and structured in an unusual way. The utilization of a program that filters the noise, such as Noise Ninja, does not produce the desired results, probably because the disturbance of the image does not occur at the frequencies for which the plug was designed.
In order to eliminate these artifacts a possibility is to apply a Gaussian filter, taking the noise out of focus and smoothing the image. The loss of detail in this case is almost always quite insignificant, considering that the zone plate photographs is already naturally very out of focus.

The visual characteristics of the noise of the photographs zone plate are deeply different from those obtained in the ordinary photographs rendering it difficult to be removed.

Another possibility is to add some grain in order to mask the digital noise. Personally this is a technique I prefer because in a completely out of focus image the grain creates a kind of constant to the eye in a word completely out-of focus, a steady structure allows a sort of system for visual reference to form.

When you add the digital noise in order to stimulate the grain of the film it’s essential to observe the result on a proof print, as the screen rendering causes an entire series of artifacts principally due to problems of aliasing. The images attached to this article are therefore only an indication. In each case, after many attempts with the original file, I have obtained optimal results on A3 size paper, using an Epson 2100 ink jet printer.

In the first place I have developed the raw file converting the photograph in black and white and playing considerably with contrast and curve. I completely burnt out highlights and set the shadows to pure lack, because what was interesting to me was the graphic effect and to amplify the impression of blinding light which is one of the characteristics of the zone plate photographs that attracts me more. The obtained obtained tonal range is typical of underexposed and overdeveloped films, that has a strong and intense grain.

A negative of the image applied as a layer mask gives a more natural grain on the picture.
Notice that in the mask, obtained as a simple negative of the original image, there are diagonal bands crossing the whole picture.

The resultin image, once opened in Photoshop, present a kind of noise that is very hard to remove and that looks badly. After removing all the dots correspond to grains of dust on the captor (in the case of zone plate and pinhole images, given the infinite depth of field, the dust on captor are all quite visible) I made a slight change of sharpen to make a drier noise. I then duplicate the layer and added a very strong monochrome Gaussian noise, more than I really needed, to have a good starting point.

In this way the noise evenly covers the image making it flat and not very bright. You see immediately that this is a uniform layer of noise superimposed to the photo, which does not looks as a real photographic grain, that instead constitute the image of silver salts when we use very sensitive film.

A simple and fast technique to have a nice effect is to simply add a mask to the layer with the uniform noise, to avoid add noise to the highlights.

In this way photography will mantein its contrast and brightness, and the uneven distribution of Gaussian noise looks as analog grain. To achieve this effect simply create a mask that is the negative of picture, and in the channels box, simply press ctrl and click on a channel, invert the selection, return to the pallet layer, make the layer which with the Gaussian noise active and add a layer mask.

The addition of grain covers the digital noise and produces a pleasing effect structuring the image.

Typically, this mask is too contrasted and needs some additional work, for example with the “levels” is easy to obtain the desired results. In general it is appropriate to make the black point a dark gray (using the “output” slide of the levels) in order to apply a minimum of noise even in high lights of the image. Following may be useful to intensify or reduce noise locally, lightening or darkening the layer mask. In this case, for example, I avoided to apply a too intense noise darkening the mask on the man body. To finish fine tune the final effect with the opacity of the layer.

With some experience you can understand the effect watching the picture on the screen, but, at least initially, is certainly appropriate to make print proofs. The final results is nice and realistic. There is the softness, the halos of light typical of zoneplate photographs, but the photographic structure consists of a nice, dry and well designed grain, very close to the the grain of old high sensitivity films.

Talking with Claudio Muzzetto about the article Local techniques of sharpening and noise reduction, we noticed the possibility of another passage that completely eliminates every kind of chromatic noise. The technique is used to reduce the color fringing, (colored halos between lights and shadows, generally due to chromatic aberrations), but can be successfully used to filter the chromatic noise. Once again, I suggest to download the images and observe them 100% zoom to notice the real effects obtained with the described technique.

Once arrived to the two-layers configuration described in the article quoted above, you would notice that some chromatic noise is still present inside the horizontal lines of the background, inside the girl’s pants and t-shirt. For the background, Noise Ninja correctly recognizes the edges, and to avoid a loss in details the plug-in doesn’t apply the filter in such zones. In the case of the t-shirt, the noise is probably recognized as detail; therefore once again Noise Ninja doesn’t filter the image in this point, leaving exactly some residual chromatic noise.

To avoid this problem, let’s move in this direction. Duplicate the Noise layer, which is the layer where noise has already been filtered with Noise Ninja. Name the layer as Anti color fringing and eliminate the level mask. Apply a slight Gaussian filter to the layer; usually an out-of-focus-ray between 2 and 4 pixels is enough. The image will be out-of-focus, but if you modify the blending option of this layer from normal to color, the residual chromatic noise will completely disappear and the image will be back in focus, thanks to the Sharpen Layer over the Anti Color Fringing Layer.

Using an out-of-focus layer in color blending option completely every residual chromatic noise, without loosing any detail.

The bigger the ray of the Gaussian Blur Filter the more the noise is canceled. At the same time though, if the image is plenty of zones where the color change from one to another, the saturation along those borders will decrease unpleasantly. As usual, we’re describing a compromise. In any case, it is possible to add a mask to avoid the application of this layer on some zones of the image. At this point you can head on as described in the quoted article, modifying the masks by hand, adding some monochromatic uniform noise, etc. The advantage is that no residual chromatic color will be yet present in the pic.

It is possible to automate all of these passages downloading the action set Noise and Sharpen.

Concerning analogical photography, once fixed the negative enlarger factor, the detail of a print is principally determined by a good shooting technique (absence of micro blur, correct focusing, correct depth of field and so on) and the resolving power of the shooting objective and the one on the enlarger. The image grain is determined by the film choice, exposition and development. Moreover the development allows controlling the acutance of the image. Furthermore, during the print phase, it is possible to modify both the detail and the picture grain, for example using contrast masks or out-of-focusing some zones with pantyhose interposed between the objective and the enlarger plan, but the interventions are long, laborious, hard to perform and have a somehow limited impact on the acutance and the image grain.

In the case of digital photography, shooting technique, objectives quality and exposition choice strongly influence the details and grain (or better: noise, as analogical grain and digital noise, even if similar, have different origin and characteristics). Anyway, the photographer now has two powerful instruments: sharpen filters and noise reduction filters.

Sharpen e noise reduction integrated in Camera Raw.

Unfortunately those instruments are often hidden to photographer or they are used mechanically and roughly. The consequence is that many old analogical photographers complain the noise and the absence of sharpness in digital images, thinking that it’s a defect inside the shooting system. Actually, this is largely due to the incorrect use of sharpen and anti-noise filters. The correct application of those instruments could bring to result similar to the ones the analogical photographers are used to or even better ones.

The article (in Italian) The sharpening, of whom I strongly suggest the reading, written by Andrea Olivotto, makes wonderful explanation of the digital techniques to control the acutance. It is a complete article, both for the introductive definition and for the advanced techniques, with tons of links to different articles, plug-ins and on-line resources. Russell Brown’s amazing website has a couple of video tutorials about sharpening, as well as on masks, that are intensely used in this article.

Talking about noise reduction, Noise Reduction Tool Comparison makes a complete confrontation of different software. Unfortunately, as software change (and ameliorate) frequently and quickly, the article is a little bit out of date, it would be better to take it as a list of possible software, software to be tested to find the one that better satisfy our needs. I once wrote an article on Camera Obscura about noise reduction as well: Add noise to eliminate noise.

Sharpen and noise reduction workflow

Noise Ninja application on the entire image with no sharpening filter.

Talking about my own workflow, first of all I put the sharpen and noise filter of Camera Raw to zero. Then I almost exclusively use the Smart Sharpen of Photoshop (go and see the finest Russel Brown’s tutorial at Smart Sharpen revealed) to manage the detail and Noise Ninja to reduce the noise. I use those filters because I know them well and the result completely fulfill me, but I’m not stating that this is the best combination. Anyway, the ideas exposed in the article – sharpening, noise reduction and the local application of the filters – can be well exploited no matter what kind of algorithm you will use to augment the acutance or reduce the noise of the image.

As any digital technique, there’s no manna from heaven that solves all of the problems automatically, otherwise it would be part of the firmware inside the digital camera. The most excellent results are obtained adapting the use of the instruments to the type of image on which you’re working and the type of result you’d like to achieve.

Depending on the case, I only use Smart Sharpen or Noise Ninja, possibly selecting the zones on the image where I can apply those filters. For example, I strongly apply Noise Ninja on skies, obtaining clear blues, even when the clouds contrast is augmented for retouch interventions. I apply only Smart Sharpen for detailed zones, such as gardens and hair.

Smart Sharpen filter application on an image with Noise Ninja already applied.

There are cases in which the manual procedure can be automated or completed by the use of surface and edge masks digitally generated. For this goal, I often use the TLR professional sharpening toolkit plug-in, which allows to obtain splendid results on images with both uniform and detailed zones. The results are particularly respectable, most of all when the masks are defined by hand, so that they completely adapt to the image. All these operations are effectuated on two copy layers of the background, one for sharpness and one for noise, where the masks are applied. This way it is possible to modify the intensity of the effect or the zones where the effect itself is applied.

In addition there are cases where this technique needs to be refined. Some images are particularly hard to work with and the choice of this or that software, the choice of the mask and so on are part of difficult compromises. Images with a strong noise, underexposed or shot on high iso sensibility, which still present highly detailed zones mixed with noise, such as sea surface or dresses, are particularly hard to be processed. In this tutorial I will show a solution that will use all of the quoted instruments and that will give back astonishing results in those complex cases.

Recovering wrong pictures

Smart Sharpen applied on the entire image. No noise reduction.

The image I used in this tutorial is part of a job I made some time ago. I set the camera “manual” to take some pictures of a location to paste in a stitch. Then the model straight a strange pose and I suddenly took a picture, without taking care to the exposure. As I was strongly underexposing the camera, I changed the parameters of the exposure, but the image I finally chose was the stolen image itself.

The only possibility in this case is a good editing effort, to turn the picture into a good work. I adjusted the general exposition with Camera Raw of even an entire stop, opening shadows with Fill Light command. I then managed the local contrast with Photoshop, augmenting it in different zones to entirely regulate the gamut of the picture. These operations obviously brought to a considerable and unacceptable augment of the noise. In this case is exceptionally hard to select the uniform zones to the detailed ones by hand, because an intricate mosaic constitutes the background. There are many lines that must be exalted and at the same time flat areas on which the noise is too evident. It is evidently a hyperbole; the best would be taking the picture again correcting the errors. From the didactic point of view though, this is an amazing opportunity to illustrate the technique we’re working on in this article.

The values of the filters and the used settings

Noise Ninja filter application of an image with Smart Sharpen already applied.

To compare the images, the filters have been applied with the same values. To obtain better result, it would be recommendable to accurately choose the parameters of each filter, but this is only a demonstration.

Noise Ninja, with the profile adequate to the ISO sensibility and the right camera model set, has been used with value 15 for strength and smoothness, both for luminance and color. Those relatively high values have been used to demonstrate the consequences of an aggressive use of the reduction noise filter. The contrast has been kept at 10 and sharpen filter at 0, to use Smart Sharpen only for acutance. Smart Sharpen has been used in its base version for a simpler learning, with 130 of amount and 0.8 of radius, kind of standard values for such dimensioned images. The TLR plug-in has been used to generate surface and edge masks, with High Resolution values for the camera and medium for Sharpen Width.

Noise and sharp layers with surface and edge masks respectively. Let’s notice that the blending option for the sharpen layer is luminosity.

Sharpen and noise reduction of Camera Raw have been set to zero and all of the operations have been done at 16 bit. Smart Sharpen and Noise Ninja have been applied under all the adjustment layers, which means that all the filter operations have been applied after the “developing” with Camera Raw and before the tonal corrections in Photoshop. At the end of your work, all the image versions have been flatten, converted to 8bit-sRGB and saved in JPEG format with 10 as compression value. The attached images are all cropped at 100% of the original image; no modification has been made to the native dimension of the picture. To comfortably compare all the images, I suggest downloading them and observing each on 100% zoom, as the aliasing effects could modify the acutance perception and the noise reduction. A compressed file with all the images of the article is available for the download (2.3 Mb).

Simple use of Noise Ninja and Smart Sharpen

Application of Smart Sharpen and Noise Ninja on two copy layers of the background. They also have a edge mask and a surface mask respectively generated from the TLR plug-in professional sharpen toolkit. The noise layer is under the sharpen layer, this last one with luminosity as blending mode.

The first image is the file without any filter. The chromatic noise is particularly annoying on pants, while in uniform background zones the luminance noise is irritating. The image is thick and less detailed because of the loss of sharpness due to the demosaicing process. To obtain an acceptable result, the noise must disappear from clothes, keeping at the same time the natural appearance that they are constituted of. Moreover, the background luminance should be reduced, without compromising its mosaic lines.

Just to be complete, this is the result you get using sharpen and noise reduction integrated in Camera Raw. The chromatic noise disappeared from pants, but their details too. More refined instruments will lead you to richer details. At the same time on the background there are artifacts that I find unpleasant, Noise Ninja is definitely more efficient.

Applying only Noise Ninja on the entire image, the result is amazing on uniform zones, but the algorithm keeps the sharpness of the background mosaic lines as well. Unfortunately though, the details of clothes are irreparably flatten, giving the picture a plastic and false aspect, particularly objectionable. The following application of Smart Sharpen allows to recover some acutance, but visibly augment the residual noise that hasn’t been filtered by Noise Ninja.

In like manner, applying only Smart Sharpen on the entire image doesn’t lead to any good result. The picture is sharpened but noise is amplified unacceptably. Using Noise Ninja after Smart Sharpen as well is disastrous.

Surface and edge mask usage

Edge mask generated by TLR professional sharpen toolkit plug-in. Let’s notice how part of the noise, both on the background and on the shirt, is interpreted from the plug-in as detail. Moreover, details and noise of pants are inextricably mixed.
The surface mask is equal but inverted.

Using Noise Ninja and Smart Sharpen together is one possible solution, trying to separate their effects so that the first one will be applied only on uniform areas and the second one only on the edges of the image. The difference compared to previous results is that no more filters are applied on the entire image. Where sharpen is applied noise reduction is not and vice versa.

TLR plug-in automatically generates some surface and edge masks. Two background-copy layers are created, one with surface mask and Noise Ninja and the other one on top with edge mask and Smart Sharpen. Please remember to put blend option to luminosity of the sharpen layer, so that the chromatic noise won’t be emphasized.

This kind of configuration used on our image allows satisfying results for the background, where the noise is almost completely gone from the flatten areas, while the mosaic lines are correctly accented from the sharpen. The shown example is only the result obtained automatically, adjusting Noise Ninja and Smart Sharpen values; varying layers opacity and ameliorating masks by hand you will achieve excellent results.

Excellent result anywhere, except in highly detailed zones, such as clothes. Augmenting the sharpen improves the acutance, but increases the noise and loose the fabric weft. Moreover TLR can’t generate a correct surface and edge mask. Noise and detail in this case are intimately related to each other and it is hard to separate them in a way that they can be filtered independently. Any solution will be a less satisfying compromise.

Augmenting the luminance detail filtering the chromatic noise

Same two-layers configuration without edge or surface masks.

Thinking about what is the noise, where is evident, which cases are annoying and what you would save of the image would bring to a satisfying solution. The first consideration you should do is that generally the chromatic noise is unpleasant, while the luminance noise, most of all if uniform, is in many cases acceptable. The second consideration is that noise is particularly visible in uniform areas of the image, while where the zone is detailed, even if noise is particularly intense, it always goes unnoticed. It could seem a banal statement, but it is good to underline that the luminance noise in highly detailed zones is rarely irritating.

To put in practice those ideas, let’s take the precedent configuration and simply eliminate the edge mask of the sharpen layer (also the noise layer mask could be eliminated, without the edge mask the surface one is completely unuseful), without forgetting that the blend option of the layer must be luminosity. Once again, compared to the firsts examples, the sharpen and noise reduction are applied separately. Both filters are applied to the totality of the image, but individually are applied to a blank copy of the background, therefore they doesn’t negatively interact as seen before.

Proceeding this way you obtain perfect details into clothes. The grain when visible is sharpen and pleasant, the chromatic noise disappeared but in the meantime the fabric weft is kept perfectly, the details of the fabric are set to the right value from the sharpening. Well, obviously the noise background, without the edge mask, augmented even in the flatten areas. Anyway, the grain obtained is defined and monochromatic, so much that the image could be acceptable without any other intervention.

If in some zones of the image a residual chromatic noise is still present, it is possible to eliminate it with a technique inspired to the one that eliminates the color fringing. The details are illustrated into the article Anti color fringing to eliminate the residual chromatic noise.

It is possible to automatize all of these passages downloading the action set Noise&Sharpen.

Local application of detail augment and noise reduction

Final image, with masks adjusted by hand, following the desired effect.

To obtain the best result ever, at this point it is necessary an intervention by hand on masks. For the definitive version of the image, I kept on pants the sharpen layer over the noise layer without any mask. On the shirt I only applied the noise reduction and no sharpen. I then added a slight Gaussian noise, as explained in the article Add noise to eliminate noise.

As far as background is concerned, I applied surface and edge masks automatically generated by TLR with a little of Dust&Scratches filter to smooth down a bit. This is because in noisy images the grain is interpreted from the plug-in as detail. At the same time, I turned the black zones of the edge mask into grey, so that the background has some details more and an insignificant grain, similar to clothes. Those forethoughts are necessary to avoid the plastic effect of the smooth surfaces obtained with aggressive passages of Noise Ninja. At the end of your work, some modification to the layer transparency to harmonize the image. Obviously the image is a pure example. Following your personal taste, clothes can be too sharpened and unnatural, you could dislike the grain on the background, etc. Anyway those are my personal choices, the important point is that you have two layers at your disposal over the background that make you obtain all of the desired effects, only varying opacity and masks.

In the complex, as the majority of the masks are generated automatically and that manual selections can be quickly done with laze and a shade of tenth pixel, the procedure for the local application of sharpen and the noise filter took at last 5 minutes. The results are astonishing if compared to the initial image. Pants are extraordinary detailed, background is smooth as if shot with 100 ISO and correctly exposed, the grain only give substance to the surfaces and is not visible if printed. The results are so convincing that I saved a shot that was completely wrong and I gave the work as the picture simply wasn’t exposed by the book.

Video tutorial

I realized a short video (in Italian) with a practical demonstration of the editing technique described in the article. This way, even the Photoshop beginner can see how to create surface and edge masks, how to generate sharpen and noise reduction layer, how to work with filters and how to modify the masks to modulate the plug-in effects.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Even if digital pictures noise is often related to analogical films grain, it is generally aesthetically less pleasant than the second one and it is better do everything possible not to have noise. Apart from useful hints while taking pictures, there are many great post-production systems to filter noise keeping the best of the detail, such as Noise Ninja, also available as a Photoshop plug-in.

Noise Ninja works for the majority of situations; it cleans images from its uniform noise zones, such as skies, leaving the detailed parts of the image almost untouched. Moreover, if it is applied with a border mask, such as the one produced by the script TLR Sharpening Toolkit, and a little of manual work to ameliorate the protection mask, the results are excellent.

There are cases where results are not so good as exposed in the introduction. In fact, if the image has been shot with little light and it should have shadows opened and contrast augmented in photo editing, even with a 16-bit raw file, noise is too strong in the image, which is plenty of unaesthetic artifacts or, in jargon, the file crushes.

Applying a strong anti-noise filter all the artifacts are eliminated (even if some stains remain), but the image turns into some plastic aspect. I would like to point out that, even not using a protection mask (for a didactic aim) and applying the filter at the maximum of its power, all the details focused on the left are acceptable.

The application of a filter to remove the noise ameliorates only in a measure the situation. Applied in a weak way, it can’t eliminate the artifacts amplified by the photo editing. Applied in a strong way, it eliminates the noise but the stains of artifacts remain. The big problem is mostly that the picture looks plastic and fake. This smooth and unreal aspect unfortunately is more and more often visible on the Net and also in some publications of a certain level, symptom of a bad aesthetic taste of the author and of a scarce knowledge of the means of photo editing software.

The solution exists and is very simple. To find it, let’s think that the grain is not unpleasant itself, actually it donates body and matter to the image. I would like to eliminate the defects of the noise, without completely flatten the picture. The digital noise is unpleasant because:

• it augments the chromatic noise: pictures with a strong but monochromatic grain effect are pleasant; pictures full of colored pixels are awful.
• the noise is not uniform: the zones with photo editing have more intense noise, therefore the computer work is more evident.
• the strong application of photo editing not only augment the regular grain of the image, but also makes some other artifacts appears such as banding phenomenon, definitely less aesthetic than the analogical grain or the one simulated digitally.
• noise and grain are not the same; the first one is unpleasant, the second one is generally acceptable.

Adding a little of gaussian and monochromatic noise is useful to mask the remaining artifacts, adding a pleasant grain that recalls films and gives body to the picture.

A file with a uniform and monochromatic noise doesn’t have all those drawbacks. It is sufficient to eliminate the unpleasant noise, smoothing the file and adding a uniform noise to remove a sesation of plastic objects from the edited file. As easy as pie.

To obtain a pleasant result, artifacts must be completely eliminated applying a strong anti-noise filter, without hesitating in using maximum filters values. Not to damage the image, it is better to protect with a mask the zones where details must be maintained and where there’s no artifacts. To remove this kind of plastic effect it is recommended to add a slight monochromatic Gaussian noise (for example less than 1,50%). It is a digital noise, but it is small and uniform, so it will be like grain more than noise. In any case it will be an effect more aesthetic than the original noise amplified by the editing. This way the noise will be constant on the entire image, will recall the monochromatic grain of films and will avoid the unpleasant plastic effect of the anti-noise filters.

It actually eliminates the noise to add a slight simulated grain.

Note: to realize the differences, I suggest to download the three pictures and visualize them at 100%, because if the browser window is too small, the downsized picture creates aliasing effects that avoid what is described in the article.

I’ve been always disappointed by black and white print that I obtained with my Epson 2100. A certain tonal dryness, but most of all unpleasant color dominants. Today I found myself in a position where obtaining acceptable and neuter prints was necessary, so I made some attempts with papers and settings till I found the right compromise. The article I’m going to write is not a deep tutorial on how to obtain black and white fine art prints using an Epson 2100. If you need the perfect b&w print, you need alternative third part ink and work with proper print Rip. The article is about some forethought that gives back decent b&w prints with lowest effort.

All of the papers I have tried, either opaque or brilliant, gave unsatisfying results printing only with the black ink, and using Photoshop color management and generic Epson profiles. Black are deep and I can not notice the resolution loss as the Internet forums say. But the response curve is strongly modified, flattening the middle tones. Therefore prints are smooth and without substance.

On Ilfrod Galerie Smooth Gloss Paper, Photoshop color management, and generic Epson profile for glossy paper, I obtained a discreet print, not completely neuter, but surely acceptable.

On Epson Photo Paper (glossy paper), Photoshop color management and generic Epson profile for glossy paper, I obtain a slight magenta dominant, not strongly unpleasant but surely evident, which means a useless print if you’re a little exigent.

Print on Epson Photo Paper using the black ink of the 2100. Let’s notice the flattening of contrast in middle tones.

On Matte Paper Heavyweight, Photoshop management color and generic Epson profile for matte paper (black photo ink), the result is a green dominant, particularly distasteful. Warm and sepia tones are particularly wonderful, I can stand blues, but the green dominants are unwatchable.

I use to work with Photoshop color management and Epson generic profile, obtaining superb results in the color print. As I tested the (awful) results of black and white, I then tried to leave the printer driver to manage the colors. Therefore I printed on Matte Paper Heavyweight, selecting Matte Paper as support and Epson calibration with 1.8 gamma as default. The print is the best I obtained up to now. Contrast and curve similar to the photo inside the monitor, grays more neuter than the ones I obtained with any other combination of paper and color profiles.

It seems like for a domestic use, without searching the absolute perfection, if you want to print decent black and white pictures with the Epson 2100, it is better to avoid the Photoshop color management and standard icc profiles.

Working on the tests I described before, I also solved a problem of my printer that went on for weeks.

The function that pointed the image at the center of the paper suddenly stopped working, without touching the driver or installing any new peripheral. A little 12x18cm image, placed at the center of the paper, would have been printed in an angle and cut of some centimeters, such as the printer would have put it partially outside the printing area, on the upper left side. And this was a problem of every format, from 10×15 to A3+.

I tried to install the latest version, but the problem wasn’t solved yet. Maybe the problem was due to Photoshop and not to the printer driver. Today I saw a solution that allows a correct printing. In the Photoshop window I thick the voice center image, therefore the image is positioned at the center of the paper. Than I remove the tick and Photoshop turns into manual system, but leaves top and left value generated by the automatic function. This way, the image is centered into the paper.

In July I attended a stage of carbon print held by Damiano Bianca. The stage has been programmed and structured with him and, for those who’re interested, it is possible to make arrangements for similar courses, individually deciding arguments, duration, modalities and subscription costs.

I took part in course every afternoon for almost a week, in Rome, inside the Damiano Bianca’s perfectly equipped dark room.

First day has been dedicated to a generic introduction of carbon print, followed by a practical demonstration by Damiano with materials he prepared before the lesson. Then he taught an argument per day, deepening the theoretical and practical aspect of each one.

• enlarged negatives: digital negatives inkjet printed with curves that Damiano developed;
• paper tissue: choice of pigment, support, gelatine preparation, different coiling techniques, paper drying;
• transport paper: paper choice, sizing and hardening techniques, drying
• print: sensitization, drying, exposure, simple transfer, developing phase, finishing touch.

Moreover every day, together with lessons and practices, one or two images were printed, always with materials prepared by Damiano and materials that we prepared the days before. I appreciated all the little skills in preparing every single print component that was the argument of the day, more than familiarizing with procedures and bring some pictures home.

At the end of the stage, one last afternoon has been spent printing with supports prepared during the week.

Pros of the Damiano Bianca’s course

Damiano Bianca, after detaching paper tissue (left hand) from transport paper (on the botton of the bowl), verifies that transportation and detachment happened the right way.

The course is extremely detailed and precise. Damiano Bianca seems answering to every question, adding considerable and interesting historical digressions.

One of the points that mostly impressed me was the theoretical explanation, a possible and reasonable cause that solved the technical problem as answers, together to empirical attempts or working procedures. This way of teaching allows the application of learn notions together to other print techniques, maybe in different environmental conditions or other materials. I attended Workshops where teachers only showed the procedure it usually followed, without any further explanation than “it works”. When my paper didn’t work, the answer simply was to buy in USA the paper he was using. Damiano Bianca is light-years far away. You do not only attend his carbon print workshop, but rather learn how each element react to a determined technique, how to adapt every single procedure to your own needs, why a standard procedure is working, which are the mechanism hidden behind simple and precise gesture of a good printer.

The extraordinary precision held during the entire course is another impressive point. Every detail has been controlled, from room temperature and humidity to drying and hardening time. Every bath heat is fixed with precision, the mixture is attentively prepared, gestures are proper and precise, all the instruments are the most suitable and practical anyone could ask for. This way, any time there’s an error, there’s also a technical explanation of the problem. Therefore, it can be solved or at least a possible strategy to bypass it can be found. Everything we talked since now is referred to carbon print, but it also allows learning a useful operative way for those who wants to push the limits of the rigor of their own dark room experience of both alternative and traditional techniques.

Damiano Bianca starts the developent, or developing phase, of the transport paper.

Order and cleanness are essential. Damiano Bianca no-stops cleans instruments, table and the entire dark room. He is extremely attentive to dangerous chemistry, always uses gloves, avoids touching chemistry and doesn’t let chemistry contaminate himself or even the darkroom. This is another negative point of many other printers/teachers, which use chemical substances with excessive confidence, forgetting the real risks that characterize them, risks that they students have too (I’m talking about another personal experience, when during a stage held by an imprudent printer I breath a dusty cloud of uranium salt…).

Eventually, even if it’s not strictly related to the course, I really appreciated the sympathy of Damiano, his generosity and warm welcome that made me feel at home… ups, in my dark room…

Cons of the carbon print stage

Damiano Bianca controls if the development of the transport print is complete. This happens when the color ends oozing. This case requires a little supplementary time.

The only disadvantage I could underline is the duration of the stage; it is probably too long. Damiano Bianca doesn’t omit anything, doesn’t keep any secret, therefore the information quantity is enormous. After some days, it is hard to follow him, assimilating everything. This is obviously my limit. Damiano on the contrary is patient and pedagogical.

As the arguments and the duration of the workshop can be decided directly with him, I suggest attending no more than two days of course, participating not to a only big course, but some little courses separated by some weeks, in which it is possible to understand in your own dark room the technique he explained. This way, stages can focus on specific arguments, for example one on paper tissue, one on print, one on sizing, etc… Doing this, there’s time to maturate the learned experience and the information Damiano Bianca share can be better appreciated.

Future developments of the Damiano Bianca’s workshop

A perfect carbon print during its final wash, when white borders are cleaned from any gelatine or pigment residue.

Participating to numerous short courses allow planning advanced lessons on carbon. A week is not enough to explore all the arguments and variations Damiano knows or he’s working on. We haven’t got time to see many exciting arguments, for example double transfer, fixed photographic paper as transportation paper, a thick mixture with a few pigments to augment the relief effect, different supports as glass or Plexiglas, toning, etc…

The most thrilling technique I wish to try, for example, is the carbon dualtone, obtained overlapping two different layers of colored pigment on paper tissue, to obtain a print where shadows have the color of the lower layer while lights the upper one. I think, something you could loose your sleep over! And I did not considered Damiano Bianca work on carbon quadri-chrome…

Conclusions about the carbon print workshop

Damiano Bianca carbon print course has been an absolutely formative experience that values more than the subscription fee. Experience that not only made me approach this beautiful technique, but also ameliorate many other print techniques.

The best thing is organizing with Damiano to attend short deep courses on specific arguments, to assimilate all the information learn in each lesson and find time to explore advanced carbon print arguments.

Gypsy Madonna. Original file used to study the influence of black generation curve on color separation in VDB and pigmented print.

Damiano told me about an unknown and fascinating world, the one of the typographic print before computers came into our lives, when there was a precise professional figure whose task was to prepare different channels negatives, someone who only did that job, someone with the adequate knowledge to work, and all of that using only analogue materials. Therefore I was convinced by the importance of black generating curve, once it was exposed.

Color theory says that mixing equal amounts of cyan, magenta and yellow creates the perfect black. Actually though, because of pigments impurity, in the real world those three colors creates an unpleasant brown. This inconvenience is obviated, when printing in quadri-chromic, adding a fourth layer of black pigments that neutralizes shadows and gives deepness and prominence to the print.

CMYK image obtained with a medium (top) and maximum (bottom) black generation curve.

Here comes the black generation curve. In fact the black parts of prints can contain a certain percentage of “black” obtained mixed cyan, magenta and yellow and pure black. Choosing a black generation curve settles on how pigment has to be put inside shadows, middle tones and lights, and how black obtain by the fundamental canal matching.

Photoshop offers this option selecting “Custom CMYK” as working space in “Edit -> Color Settings”. It is possible to choose between different black generation curves. Personally, I use the “Medium” value, while Ron Reeder, in Making a Color Separation of his pigment and platinum print suggests “Maximum”. In the light of what I learned from Damiano, I understood that Ron Reeder choice could be better, so I decided to analyze the influence of black generation on color separation, comparing medium and maximum curve.

Comparison of the black generation curves

CMY channels after the suppression of K channel in CMYK modality with medium (top) and maximum (bottom) black generation curve.

The conversion RGB to CMYK already has differences. The image is less saturated using the maximum curve, as you can notice looking at the foulard the women is wearing and the purple cloth behind the naked foot. The wall and the path lost their faintly dominant that they had using the medium curve too. Even if differences are little and colors will be highly deformed by the successive conversions, the fact that using the maximum CMYK curve is less saturated is very important. In fact the big problem in pigmented VDB prints is the saturation augment obtained in high lights, reason for which I started using a grey scale instead of K channels.

Once eliminated the black channel, differences are evident. It only takes a little of every color to give the dominants and the color only appears in the most saturated part of the image, such as the skirt and the foulard. The case of the medium curve instead uses a lot of color to create shadows, which seems browns anyway. The fact that the image has less color should deform the color itself and make dominants appear.

Image in RGB modality obtained by CMY channels generated by medium (top) and maximum (bottom) curve.

Even if this is not the aim of the study, en passant you can notice that the first case will use less ink. This allows a little saving on expensive printer ink to which, and that is even most interesting, we have to add a probable advantage on picture conservation. It could not be so real for VDB prints, but I’ll bet that a tirage where black is generated by a platinum or palladium image will be more resistant than one where shadows are generated mixing the fugitive pigments of an ink jet printer.

Once the image is reconverted in RGB, the image obtained with a maximum curve keeps on being less saturated than the one that had a medium curve applied. Apart from that, in both cases the passage from CMYK to RGB brought a general augment of the saturation and the appearance of dominants. The use of a maximum black generation curve instead of a medium, even if ameliorate the situation, doesn’t solve the problems related to the conversion from a color space to another. The most unpleasant is the considerable augment of magenta in skin tones, which is for now the biggest problem of this technique.

K Channel has been obtained converting the CMYK file to RGB after the suppression of the color channels derived from a medium (top) and maximum (bottom) black generation curve.

Talking about the K channel, the one obtained with the maximum curve, it shows lots more black than the generated with medium curve. You may notice that black is on the entire image, while the medium curve completely lacks of lights, and that’s the reason why I tried to generate the VDB negative starting from a conversion in grey scale from the starting file, to be used instead of the K channel. It means that the maximum curve will obtain an image, composing the real CMYK channels, that best near the starting one if compared to a medium curve and a grey scale conversion instead of K channel. Using the grey scale conversion will give the same problems that black and white photography without colored filters give, which are image contrast and hues separation that can change depending on colors and their light.

Conclusions about the black generation curve

Maximum black generation curve, used in RGB to CMYK conversion, is the best possible choice to obtain channels for color separation. Even if over-saturation problem is not solved and chromatic dominants incur in CMYK to RGB conversion, maximum curve files are slightly less saturated and contain less color. This means a certain economical saving and allows prints that have a better conservation than the medium curve has.

In any case, the maximum curve biggest advantage is a complete K channel, better than the medium curve result, empty in lights, and better than a grey scale image conversion, which comports even important hues deformations.

The majority of alternative prints and historical processes require negatives of the same size of the final image. Photographers that use mammoth cameras can obtain them directly en prise de vue, while others must enlarge their negatives to obtain the desired image. There’s plenty of analogical techniques that produces negatives adapt for each alternative technique, but digital negatives printed on transparent films are getting more and more common.

The result is a cocktail between chemical photography that is 150-years-old and the most modern digital technologies. A good way to close the circle.

Guides, manuals, articles and tutorials

The most complete and meticulous guide, reference point about digital negatives since a couple of years, surely is Precision digital negatives (PDN for the rest of the article) by Mark Nelson. The site doesn’t give any information, but an e-book is to be bought, for around 80 euros.

I personally think it is quite expensive. The book is redounding, it could be reduced to a quarter, it is terribly pedagogical and pedant, deeply American. But after all, PDN surely is an essential reading. It is the base and the first work that accurately formalized the procedure to obtain digital negatives. It can be resumed in three steps:

• Determination of the reference exposure time, the exact time to gain d-max of a certain process. It fixes the black point of the print.
• Determination of the negative color, who will give back a pure white after an exposure equal to the reference time. This procedure fixes the white point of the print.
• Determination of the characteristic curve of the process. This linearizes the answer of the print between black and white point fixed before.

Damiano Bianca came to similar PDN conclusions in his wonderful italian article Negativi digitali inkjet.

As I do, Damiano Bianca uses a method derived from the three PDN steps and with the help of a useful automatized instrument: the Chart Throb that speed the generation of the response curve necessary to produce digital negatives.

Talking about the process I use, it is quite the same Michael Koch-Schulte describes in his Quick Guide to Making Digital Negatives. Moreover his website contains the interesting article The RNP-Array System, which explores the influence on digital negatives of different color space models.

Those informations help you produce the best digital negatives you can produce nowadays. There are some more websites that, even if they are not really up to date, deserve a reading.

Digital negatives precursor surely is Dan Burkholder, even if he doesn’t use colored negatives. Jeffrey D. Mathias’ Guide to Platinum Palladium Photographic Printmaking contains tons of informations about platinum and palladium prints and also includes a part on digital negatives. This last describes completely different methods compared to PDN, often using several overlapped and registered negative. Ron Reeder is another printer of this prestigious technique; he wrote a wonderful chapter on digital negatives in his guide Pigmented Platinum Manual. Alternative photography proposes many articles about the preparation of digital and analogical negatives for alternative techniques. Last but not least, there’s a famous introduction on Unblinkingeye by Gary Nored inside Making Digital Negatives for Van Dyke Browns.

Where to buy digital negative materials

Pictorico OHP films, the most common in overseas literature, are sold in Europe by Nova darkroom. A similar but cheaper alternative is Agfa Copyjet films, sold by Lotus View Camera in Austria and by Tiflex in France.

Transmission palettes to determine reference time, practically indispensable, are sold by Stouffer. T3110 is the most used, but also the less accurate T2115 is good.

A couple of years ago I printed some VDB on pigmented prints. It is a color print, obtained overlapping a ferric salts black and white print on a cyan-magenta-yellow inkjet print.

I think that one of the first photographer who used this technique has been Dan Burkholder, whom website contains wonderful platinum tirages with delicate pencil color. Ron Reeder proposes wonderful and similar images on his website too, where a detailed manual explains how to obtain those kinds of prints. These two authors prints on platinum instead of silver, but the technique is exactly the same.

The result I obtained in 2005 was nice, but far from Burkholder and Reeder’s. Colors vaguely remembered old handmade postcards spread in the first half of the 20th century, but their problem was brilliant pinks and pale greens in highlights, surely too saturated and luminous for me.

CMY color channels after the suppression of K channels in CMYK modality (top) and the same file after the RGB conversion (bottom).

The defect started during the process of negatives separation. Here’s a resume of the technique: RGB image is converted into CMYK; K channel is saved in a separated file and will be used to produce the negative for ferric salt print; CMY channels contains all the color information used for inkjet print, to whom will be added ferric salt print. The problem is that all inkjet prints need RGB input file; therefore we can do the conversion or let the printer do it for us. The point is that in any case the image will face a CMYK to RGB conversion, which means going from color space with strict gamut to a bigger one. The result is excessive color saturation, with unnatural and brilliant colors. You may notice how face and hand, from natural skin color, takes an unpleasant magenta pink dominant after the conversion.

The effect is peculiarly described in Ron Reeder manual, page four. He adds that the obtained brilliant colors compensate the loss of saturation and luminosity due to platinum image overlapping.

In my opinion, colors are too much brilliant, mostly in high lights. Shadows are acceptable, but, as you may notice in following image, the information contained in K channel is present in low tones only; high lights parts are completely white. This means that once VDB print is overlapped to pigmented print, high lights are exactly as they will come out from the printer, which means too saturated and unnatural colors.

K channel obtained reconverting CMYK file to RGB after the color channels suppression (top) and the image obtained with a simple grey scale conversion of the original image (bottom).

I started thinking about solving the problem redistributing the value of the grey scale, applying a curve that completely cuts high lights, but the only thing I could obtain was dirtying the print and obtaining an unnatural contrasted curve. The image results was flat and dull.

Therefore I tried a gray scale conversion of the RGB image instead of K channel after the elimination of the color channels, to obtain the right negative for VDB print. As you may notice, now high lights contain information, which means that VDB print could dull the saturation even in high lights prints.

At first sight this could make the print too dark and flat, but at least the tonal range is complete, from shadows to high lights, and contains not only shadows, as when using K channel.

Inkjet print requires the normal procedure to obtain CMY channels, return to RGB and partial desaturation, applied mostly on skin, to keep brilliant colors low.

This is theory. It’s been some weeks that I had the files with color channels and the black and white image ready, but I kept on asking myself if this Reeder method variant could work or not. This morning I printed a wonderful VanDyke, with superb blacks and perfect contrast. Unfortunately it was only an old negative that I printed to verify that the new VDB solution correctly worked. Anyway, encouraged by this result and wishing to print new images, I went back to my Roscigno guardian separation files. I printed the digital negative using rough negative color and linearization curve, but I don’t want to re-calibrate the VDB print. I inkjet printed ihe photo on Arche Platine, Cot-320 and Lavis Vinci.

Here’s the first surprises, objectionable surprises. Even before using alternative techniques, I printed using Photoshop color management and the standard color profile of 2100; I didn’t expect any strong dominant. On the contrary, watercolor paper profile gives a horrid greenish dominant, matte paper profile a magenta one. In both cases, Cot-320 is the greenest paper, Lavis Vinci the most magenta.

I obtained the best result with a little hue correction applied by myself before printing, only on shadows, shifting color to magenta. I do not know if a personalized icc profile for any used paper would worth the while, because after the conversion from CMYK to RGB colors are already definitely modified. It is probably better to define a desaturation and correction of the dominants level that must be applied every time, accepting some variations. Background and clothing modifications are absolutely acceptable; the only problem remains the skin.

Talking about the Van Dyke Brown print, nothing to report, apart that the solution is hardly absorbed on the ink, as if it turned paper into a hydrophobic object. I solved this problem slightly augmenting the sensitizer quantity for surface unity and protracting for some seconds the coating. This way brush-strokes intersect and paper can humidify uniformly. A detailed image, such the one I worked on, doesn’t show any irregularity in coating, but it could be a problem for images that have large and regular areas.

Proloco Roscigno Guardian printed on pigmented on Van Dyke Brown. Arche Platine paper 28×38 cm, image dimension 20×30 cm.

First results are decidedly encouraging.

The result is an intense, large and sharp grain, probably due to the fact that draw paper are not suitable to inkjet printer, that it is a very pleasurable result. The print is actually darker than the original, as said before. This is in part due to the rough curve I used, in part because of the grey scale choice – instead of K channel. The image, as CMY channels have been partially desaturated, also has less brilliant colors, that are more pleasing once the print is done though.

VDB print adds rich shadows, which give an incredible three-dimensionality to the red jacket, which forcefully detaches from the background. The green dominant is unpleasant, the magenta one acceptable and a little desaturation of the face would make the image almost perfect. Arche Platine paper is the winner, both for inkjet print tonality and for the Van Dyke Brown refinement print. In particular, Lavis Vinci paper present unpleasant grey stains.

My conclusion is that the idea of realizing a grey scale conversion instead of K channel to obtain a digital negative for pigmented VDB prints is successful. The obtained image presents almost natural colors, united by a particular rendition, half middle fifties hand colored prints and half gum bichromate four-color processes.