Paul, As I told Godfrey - perhaps you missed the post - this was not a conversion. The pic was shot on Tri-X.
I have to chuckle a bit as it seems, more and more, that when people see a B&W (greyscale, whatever) photo, especially on the net, the immediate thought is that it had been "converted". Not laughing at you, but at the idea of how ingrained the "digital workflow" has become. As for the sharpening, I believe I used only selective sharpening - just the dog and the backpack and case. I may take another look at the original and trace the workflow. Maybe with my meager skills the pic can be improved. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > I had to nod when I read Godfrey's comment. Love the shot, but I found > the BW conversion a bit odd myself. However, I find it hard to express > what that oddity cold be other than to say that it might be worth going > back to the channel mixer. Sometimes it's worth seeing how the > PhotoShop direct grayscale conversion looks and compare that to channel > mixer results. While you may not end up using the direct conversion, it > an sometimes help define a direction. I think that my impression of the > current rendering is that the whites all seem a bit muddy, yet there > appears to be almost too much contrast in the midtone grays. Perhaps > it's due to sharpening. I'm not sure where you might go on this -- if > anywhere other than where you're at -- but it might merit a second > look. > http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/pooch.html
