That was well said, Godfrey. We tend to forget that B&W is an abstraction (and not just a simplification) of what we perceive as the color world.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM, JC O'Connell <[email protected]> wrote: > yeah, but what if you get other bonus stuff in exchange for a BW > only sensor like higher resolution, and better sensitivity, or much lower > cost? > If all you got extra with a BW sensor is lack of color of course nobody > would want it. > > ----------------- > J.C.O'Connell > [email protected] > ----------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Would a B&W ONLY digital camera appeal to you? > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Let's rephrase that question: >> >> "Would you like a camera with two stops more sensitivity, and three or > four times the resolution? > > Don't mix up the subject of resolution and sensitivity. A Bayer mosaic > sensor with a given dimension photosite array has exactly the same > spatial resolution as a non-mosaic sensor with that same set of > dimensions. The only way you get more resolution is to add photosites > and reduce antialiasing requirements. A Bayer mosaic sensor > interpolates chrominance values per output pixel, not the spatial > values of points in the scene it captures. > >> What if you had to give up color to get it?" >> >> Color doesn't come for free. In order to get color, you have to throw > away a lot of light at each sensor site. If all you ever photograph are > technically easy subjects like models in the studio, barns, or cats in > plenty of light, then incrementally better performance isn't a big deal. If > you find yourself pushing the performance envelope of your camera and having > to convert to B&W, not for specific effect but because the noise is less > obnoxious in B&W than in color, an added stop of performance can be worth > it. > > Here's the deal: > > The key to B&W photography is that it is a non-linear capture of a > color universe abstracted into a set of monochromatic tonal > relationships. One of the vectors is the translation of chrominance to > luminance. When we were working with B&W film, we chose films with > particular spectral characteristics and then added filtration in front > of the lens to tweak those spectral characteristics to match the > particular end tonal relationships we wanted. For instance, red and > green at the same luminance look the same when cast into monochromatic > values. But to capture their perceptual/emotional difference > correctly, we need to differentiate them. So we use filters that > separate them (red filters makes red things brighter, green things > darker, and vice versa). > > When we moved into the digital capture realm, B&W become a rendering > exercise instead of a capture exercise ... it's dependent upon how we > evaluate and translate the chrominance values into luminance, not how > the sensor captures the data that we work from. We pay a small price > for this in terms of putting filters on the photosites, reducing > sensitivity by some amount (not two stops, given the same photosite > array dimensions) to capture the whole range of spectral data, and by > doing so we gain massive amounts of rendering flexibility. > > With a sensor that only captures monochromatic values, we're back to > considering B&W at capture time ... so we have to pull out the filters > again in order to adjust chrominance to luminance translation at > capture time, cutting sensitivity by at least as much as the Bayer > color mosaic does. > > I'd rather have the flexibility. I've worked with monochromatic > digital capture cameras way back in the digital dark ages (1980s) and > have NO interest in going back there. I want the ability to manipulate > chrominance to luminance translation at rendering time, not at capture > time, with a larger, more robust captured dataset. > >> I probably wouldn't drop the dosh on the Leica version though, even if I > had Godfrey's toy budget. > > LOL! > > Sorry, the Leica isn't a toy. I don't consider it as such. A K5 or > K-01 might be a toy to you ... to me the Leica M9 is a serious > instrument for making photographs, as would either the K5 or K-01 be > if I went to purchase them. By making that statement, you are implying > a) that I have a lot of money and b) that I toss money around without > discretion, Larry. > > I don't on either count. I studied and considered what I wanted to > work with for more than a year before I came to the decision, and not > lightly, that it was the Leica M9. And then I saved up the money to > obtain the M9 and bought it. > > Now having spent the money for the camera and the lenses I want to use > with it, and having spent some time to learn to use it, I can say > without a doubt that if I could only have one camera, I'd sell > everything else in a heartbeat. It suits me perfectly and is a tool > worth every penny I've put into it. It is no toy, not to me anyway. It > is just a camera, in the end, but it's price means it's not something > I choose to spend money for without very careful consideration and > deliberation. > > I have NO interest in a B&W only digital camera, at whatever price. I > want to do very high quality B&W, and I don't want to be limited by a > B&W only camera. > > G > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
