I agree with you to an extent. By TX, etc., mode, I was thinking more along the lines of a good rendering following the spectral and grain characteristics of the film, which would then be adjusted afterwards with curves, levels, what have you, just as if one were working in a darkroom starting with a negative developed from film which was chosen for certain characteristics. As it is now, there's no reasonable, or base, starting point for a B&W conversion, although there are numerous ways of making one and getting good results. But for some - myself included - it would be nice to start with something closer to the "original source" in some ways. With film, the best way to optimize the results was also by eye, but you had a starting place that was consistent and known. You chose it when you bought the film.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > That would be worthwhile if it would really work. But I think you're > always going to be better off doing the conversions in post > processing. As I'm sure you've seen, the conversion parameters are > rarely identical for two different shots. The best way to optimize > the conversion is by eye. > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > This thread on facial recognition got me to thinking about what > > feature I'd like to see on a good DSLR. How about a DSLR > > that can take good B&W photos, possibly taking a clue from > > some of the good B&W conversion software that's out there > > and offer something like Tri-X mode, Agfa 100 mode, and > > Ilford mode, etc. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
