[Zig]

Below, I have deliberately enunciated pretty much every jot and tittle of my modus operandi. This is not a complex and convoluted thing I have just done once, to be finicky: it is what I do with so many of my shots that I feel are keepers. It may help explain why I have no qualms about permanently deleting anything that doesn't quite cut my mustard! Besides, I believe that if refining something good is of benefit, then a job worth doing is worth doing well...

I was aiming for an emulsion-like feel here. This is one of my mates, Nick, a keen gardener.
I really wanted the soft and diffused light of a ever-so-slightly overcast late summer evening, so as to retain texture and detail.
EXIF= 1/60s, f5.6 with an ISO of 400; Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 on Canon 1Ds MkII
I realise that f8 might have appeared the better aperture but I went for f5.6 because I was confident that a full depth of field was available as I made use of hyperfocal distance...I would never have attempted this with 21mm dialled into my previous Canon 16-35: firstly I would have lost the edges somewhat; secondly, close focus distance was poorer with the 16-35; also, I 'd have had to choose f11 with the 16-35. As I was working hyperfocally, I could accept a small degree of blur at the horizon as I knew that both the subject and the foreground would be in focus...how lovely to have a depth of field scale! Also, I confess that with the weight of the kit and working hand-held, I needed the faster shutter speed.
ISO 400 was handy: on the MkII, noise begins at 400, and it is remarkably film-like: not visibly apparent unless with close scrutiny from about A4-size..and yet I wanted to work with the texture rather than avoid it.
I wanted to retain a feel of integrity, so as to mirror the "honesty" of gardening and also the subject's own personal integrity and honesty...thus there were choices and compromises to be made: I could have kept the "film plane" perpendicular, or even corrected this in pp afterwards...but this would have necessitated cropping the shot, which I purposefully wished to avoid. The compromise, then, was a degree of distortion. I felt that not only was such distortion acceptable, it also could add a quaint, almost storybook quality to the shot, perhaps echoing an idea of "childlikeness" or implied innocence. As Nick is a Christian, I liked the implicit subliminal idea of the original "garden of innocence", Eden.
Ideally, I would have liked the foreground plant to be more to the left, so that the eye could wander into and across the frame to the summer-house. If I had done this, I would have lost the strength and balance of the 3 pots on the left side.
I then checked carefully around the edges of the frame. As I was not going to crop, I needed all the lines to work. I liked the implicit "question mark" shape as the eye moves along the vegetation...and I was sure I could get the shot without the hanging basket either obscuring my subject or sticking an unsightly wire into the air above the summer-house.
I shot, as I usually do, in raw: the foreground shadow attests to quite a high dynamic range...and I didn't want to blow out the sky completely. This gave me about 4 stops to have to overcome, so I converted at low-contrast to maximise my chances of retaining detail.
Now I faced a challenge: I really wanted to replicate some red or orange filtration: with mono, this reveals detail in the sky as blues darken. However, red or orange filtration also darkens green foliage..I did not want to risk this blocking up. I chose to emulate some green filtration: this has the effect of lightening greens in vegetation as well as adding a tiny bit of detail to the sky. I worked in RGB on the resulting 16-bit tiff but converted to black and white anyway. I never convert to greyscale because of the large amount of information lost by this.
I then selectively dodged highlights and burned shadow detail with a large, soft brush set to around 3% opacity. As an aside, it often still puzzles me as to why so many people do not, yet had I not had darkroom experience it would be anathema to me too!
My final stage with the actual image was to layer in the smallest amount of Smart Sharpen at my chosen output size: I say "layer" for the following reason: sometimes the sharpening algorithm will be just right for a line or curve, yet it will leave artefacts on, say, leaves and grass. If I sharpen a duplicate of the image on a second layer rather than the original, I can vary the opacity with the slider...also, I can use the erase tool set to a wide and soft brush, thereby selectively sharpening only that which I wish to.....Seemples!!
Almost done.
The very final thing is the border. I used a sim of a 5x4 negative from OnOne software so as to give it that "integral emulsion border" look.
One thing I forgot to mention: when working on the black and white, at the ending stages I loaded one of my preset tone curves that simulates neutral midtones with slightly warm highlights, to give the appearance of "gallerie"-style paper or even a slightly bastardised fixer bath in the final stages of film negative processing.
Now...I know this all seems rather longwinded, but to be honest I'm so familiar with some of my time-honoured tweaks that they are second nature to me.
I hope that such an inclusion of detail may provide you with real, "hands-on" tips.
As always, please ask away if you require any more details.

[Toad]

A real tour de force - both as a photograph and as a detailed tutorial of your style and methodology. I really have nothing more to ask. I agree with the creative decisions that you made and I also feel that it would have been an error to realign to the film plane.

This post is a photo course in a jar. Thanks ZIg

[shuttertalk]

Wow, I'm amazed at the thought process and attention to detail behind every step. I respect every decision made.

If every photographer took and processed photos like you, there would be no bad photos in the world.

[Toad]

I am not quite following your technique of using a large soft brush at 3% - how you are dodging exactly. Additional clarity would be great.

[Irma]

Beautiful picture Zig... when I saw it I wish I could go and sit with him quietly and admire his garden, all his work... Transmits peace ... I know the term has been many times misused but I would say this is "Zen photography"...

Thanks a lot for you step by step post processing. It is always very interesting to see how other photographers work their post processing to make such beautiful bw images....

[Zig]

I've been away in the north of England for a few days seeing my folks, so only able to thank you all now.

Dodging for Toad
Righto Toad: Let's say I've a photo that has too many dark areas...for instance, some snow that looks a bit dirty-grey rather than white. Now, I wish to lighten it, but locally rather than lighten the whole pic. What I wish to do specifically is to lighten the detail in the highlights: I don't want to in this case lighten shadows or midtones, as I'll end up with a pale blotch as if i'd just spilt bleach on an area of the pic. So...I go to the dodge tool(right-click on the relevant box on my palette...next to the burn tool and the sponge...or I can press "O" on the keyboard). When I choose this tool, I get a "range" and "exposure" box as a subset of my brushes. In "range" one has a choice of "shadows, midtones, highlights". Now, the dodge brush lightens...so, if I wanted to locally lighten a very dark area, I'd set the dodge tool to "shadows". But , I wish to make some snow lighter, ie, white: so I set the dodge tool to "highlights".
The dodge(and burn) tools behave as any brush...or rather, one has to choose a type of brush set to either dodge, burn or sponge mode.
I set the softness of the brush to maximum...in the same way as I'd soften any brush in PS. This ensures I don't get a stark light streak from my onscreen brush head when I waggle my mouse around to and fro on my desk.
Remember I have an "exposure" box too: if I set this to 100%, then as soon as I clicked my mouse to make the dodge brush work, I'd immediately get a white out and obliteration of my highlights. In fact, so sensitive is the dodge tool, that one should really have it set from between 3% and 6%: this way, when one waggles the mouse to and fro so that the onscreen brush oscillates over the snow, the changes take place gradually. This is a direct analogue of moving a piece of cardboard around over photographic paper in a darkroom.
After a second of two of this "rubbing" action, lo and behold, snow gets lighter. It also lightens colours but in fact alters colour caste too: In fact, the colours are quite surreal, which is why I often have a lo-contrast pic and do ALL of the highlight rendering with a dodge tool.
I'm getting longwinded here, so brevity will have to suffice for now: to add weight to dark areas, then use the "burn" tool, set to "shadows" in the range box, again with values of 3%-6%...any more and see those darks just go black and block out...again exactly as if you developed too long in a darkroom.
There's only so much I can explain about this in words: it really needs either Youtube, dvd examples or screenshots...mercifully tutorials on these techniques are out there and have been for several years.
I will post another showcase example in a few minutes and try to "highlight" my dodging!

[Toad]

Zig - thanks for the explanation. I feel a bit guilty in that as we both come from a darkroom background, I feel that I wasted your time explaining what dodging is (although I am sure it is valuable for many readers). What I really wanted to know, and what I should have specifically asked, is why you would use a 3% opacity - which seems like hardly any effect all all to me. Nevertheless, your explanation answered all my questions. I may have a few more eventually because even though I rarely work in B&W, I do have a couple of pieces right now that are screaming for it.

Thanks for your detailed information. Note to self: ask what you want to know - don't generalize.