On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My experience with BW, which is considerable, suggests that the differences between films are mainly in grain, speed, dynamic range and different degrees of tonal separation at various points in the range. The all seem to translate color in a nearly identical fashion. ...
That's not been my experience, Paul. The differences are subtle, but there are clearly differences. If you pull the tech sheets (if Kodak and Ilford still produce them) you'll see the spectral curves do differ quite a bit.
In regard to discussions of conversion recipes on the list, most have been in regard to street photography and people shots. Filtration is rare in that type of photography.
Also not true. When I was shooting film, I would use yellow, orange and two different densities of green filters for street photography, depending upon the expected subjects and the day's lighting. I would remove all filters as light levels went down. The filters help mediate skin tones for the look you're trying to obtain.
As I said in a previous post, I can see the advantages of color channel manipulation in landscape photography. But for street portraiture, it appears to be unnecessary, and in some cases, counterproductive. The grayscale conversion renders color very close to the way film renders color. The initial RAW conversion allows control of the range. A curves adjustment after a BW conversion provides a level of control over midrange contrast th! at is very much in keeping with one could do with exposure, development and paper choice, were one working with film.
Working with film, I would pick film type, developer and processing methodology as well as filtration, to achieve the same results I now obtain with the layered Channel Mixer rendering approach. Picking a paper grade, dodging and burning, etc, is akin to the work that follows the grayscale translation.
Godfrey
