RE: digital bw
Very true! I'd say it took me about a year to be completely comfortable making BW conversions that looked exactly like I wanted them to. Colin, I like me some contrasty BW, but there's nothing like an image displaying the whole array of greys: http://worldofmiserere.com/p265653557/h7fd8153#h7fd8153 I don't remember seeing your gallery before. You have some great shots there, but that enormous copyright blob really spoils the experience. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Very true! I'd say it took me about a year to be completely comfortable making BW conversions that looked exactly like I wanted them to. Colin, I like me some contrasty BW, but there's nothing like an image displaying the whole array of greys: http://worldofmiserere.com/p265653557/h7fd8153#h7fd8153 I don't remember seeing your gallery before. You have some great shots there, but that enormous copyright blob really spoils the experience. I agree on both counts. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On 19 November 2010 09:46, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Very true! I'd say it took me about a year to be completely comfortable making BW conversions that looked exactly like I wanted them to. Colin, I like me some contrasty BW, but there's nothing like an image displaying the whole array of greys: http://worldofmiserere.com/p265653557/h7fd8153#h7fd8153 I don't remember seeing your gallery before. You have some great shots there, but that enormous copyright blob really spoils the experience. I agree on both counts. Thanks guys, on both counts. I have it on my to-do list: Generate custom copyright for WoM. Just haven't got around to it yet... It won't be as invasive or blobby, I promise. WoM has been up for a few months now, but it's always nice to have new visitors :-) —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I apply filters in post, using a BW conversion plugin that I originally downloaded from a link at Mark Roberts software page. The whole procedure is rather simple. 1.) Make the best Color photo possible from file, using the raw converter. 2.) In the picture editing software tweak it if necessary. 3.) Convert to 8 bit, (the BW converter 8 bit only), and convert using the filter I would have used on BW film, (the good part here is that you can try alternate filters if you don't like the results). 4.) Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, (if necessary, thought it's usually not), maybe burn or dodge a bit using the appropriate Photoshop tool. Most of my conversions are well received. I find it's better not to over think the procedure. On 11/18/2010 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I used those filters at one time, but they're not compatible with later versions of PhotoShop. Plus the new BW conversion features of both PS and ACR allow more fine tuning than did the filters. Paul On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:38 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I apply filters in post, using a BW conversion plugin that I originally downloaded from a link at Mark Roberts software page. The whole procedure is rather simple. 1.) Make the best Color photo possible from file, using the raw converter. 2.) In the picture editing software tweak it if necessary. 3.) Convert to 8 bit, (the BW converter 8 bit only), and convert using the filter I would have used on BW film, (the good part here is that you can try alternate filters if you don't like the results). 4.) Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, (if necessary, thought it's usually not), maybe burn or dodge a bit using the appropriate Photoshop tool. Most of my conversions are well received. I find it's better not to over think the procedure. On 11/18/2010 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I used that method to create this BW image from my last years contirbution to the annual. It's a new BW rendering as I couldn't find the earlier example I created, and is probably a bit less dramatic. I chose to use the Yellow filter to keep the tones as close to the color original as possible while still maintaining tonal separation. Any loss of detail can be attributed to the fact that I did the conversion from the PESO and not the original file. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/surfclubmadisonctb%26w_yellow.jpg and the original for those who care. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20surfclubmadisonct.html On 11/19/2010 12:38 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I apply filters in post, using a BW conversion plugin that I originally downloaded from a link at Mark Roberts software page. The whole procedure is rather simple. 1.) Make the best Color photo possible from file, using the raw converter. 2.) In the picture editing software tweak it if necessary. 3.) Convert to 8 bit, (the BW converter 8 bit only), and convert using the filter I would have used on BW film, (the good part here is that you can try alternate filters if you don't like the results). 4.) Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, (if necessary, thought it's usually not), maybe burn or dodge a bit using the appropriate Photoshop tool. Most of my conversions are well received. I find it's better not to over think the procedure. On 11/18/2010 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Hum, for a better comparison, you probably would want to see it on it's web page... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20surfclubmadisonctbwyellow.html On 11/19/2010 4:05 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I used that method to create this BW image from my last years contirbution to the annual. It's a new BW rendering as I couldn't find the earlier example I created, and is probably a bit less dramatic. I chose to use the Yellow filter to keep the tones as close to the color original as possible while still maintaining tonal separation. Any loss of detail can be attributed to the fact that I did the conversion from the PESO and not the original file. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/surfclubmadisonctb%26w_yellow.jpg and the original for those who care. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20surfclubmadisonct.html On 11/19/2010 12:38 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I apply filters in post, using a BW conversion plugin that I originally downloaded from a link at Mark Roberts software page. The whole procedure is rather simple. 1.) Make the best Color photo possible from file, using the raw converter. 2.) In the picture editing software tweak it if necessary. 3.) Convert to 8 bit, (the BW converter 8 bit only), and convert using the filter I would have used on BW film, (the good part here is that you can try alternate filters if you don't like the results). 4.) Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, (if necessary, thought it's usually not), maybe burn or dodge a bit using the appropriate Photoshop tool. Most of my conversions are well received. I find it's better not to over think the procedure. On 11/18/2010 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:07 -0500, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Hum, for a better comparison, you probably would want to see it on it's web page... http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20surfclubmadisonctbwyellow.html I've used that filter occasionally too, but the 8 bit limit means that I try other methods most of the time. It's interesting that the filter will actually load (in CS3, anyway) if an image is in 16 bit mode but the results are odd to say the least. Photoshop usually deactivates 8 bit filters if the image is 16 bit. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ On 11/19/2010 4:05 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I used that method to create this BW image from my last years contirbution to the annual. It's a new BW rendering as I couldn't find the earlier example I created, and is probably a bit less dramatic. I chose to use the Yellow filter to keep the tones as close to the color original as possible while still maintaining tonal separation. Any loss of detail can be attributed to the fact that I did the conversion from the PESO and not the original file. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/surfclubmadisonctb%26w_yellow.jpg and the original for those who care. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20surfclubmadisonct.html On 11/19/2010 12:38 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I apply filters in post, using a BW conversion plugin that I originally downloaded from a link at Mark Roberts software page. The whole procedure is rather simple. 1.) Make the best Color photo possible from file, using the raw converter. 2.) In the picture editing software tweak it if necessary. 3.) Convert to 8 bit, (the BW converter 8 bit only), and convert using the filter I would have used on BW film, (the good part here is that you can try alternate filters if you don't like the results). 4.) Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, (if necessary, thought it's usually not), maybe burn or dodge a bit using the appropriate Photoshop tool. Most of my conversions are well received. I find it's better not to over think the procedure. On 11/18/2010 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On 19 November 2010 12:38, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I find it's better not to over think the procedure. That's pretty good advice, P.J. But can you quantify how long is overthink? 5 mins? 50 mins? Just want to know if I'm overthinking or not :-) —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
It takes me about 10 minutes to process a BW from the time I decide it should be BW. Sometimes if it's shot under difficult lighting a bit more to dodge burn and maybe mess with the contrast. But I usually decided on the level of contrast I'm looking for before I start. On 11/19/2010 6:24 PM, Miserere wrote: On 19 November 2010 12:38, P. J. Allingwebstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I find it's better not to over think the procedure. That's pretty good advice, P.J. But can you quantify how long is overthink? 5 mins? 50 mins? Just want to know if I'm overthinking or not :-) —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
digital bw
I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
The only filters that I feel are necessary/useful in the digital world are Neutral Density filters (for those times you want longer shutter speeds at equiv. apertures or gradient NDs) and maybe polarizers. Other than that, you can do the filter-thing for various BW enhancements with a post-processing product like Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro. http://www.flickr.com/groups/silver_efex_pro/pool/ Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Yeah, LR has sliders for each color (10 or 12 different colors and shades, IIRC). I really like how LR handles BW conversions. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:16 AM, CheekyGeek wrote: The only filters that I feel are necessary/useful in the digital world are Neutral Density filters (for those times you want longer shutter speeds at equiv. apertures or gradient NDs) and maybe polarizers. In most cases, I'd agree with you. I was experimenting at the local dive bar/blues club last night, photographing a friend's gig. The red channel is two to three stops brighter than the blue and green channels. I was experimenting both with and without blue filters, and both with and without in camera white balance. With a blue filter on the camera, I was able to set the custom white balance, however without a blue filter, the ambient color balance was so far out of whack, that the camera would not set a custom color balance. I haven't had a chance to process the photos and see how the best of each set turns out. I suspect that for shooting color, then a filter could actually be useful for bringing radically out of color balance scenes back into balance, if you can handle the loss of light. However, in these situations, what any sane person would do is just convert to black and white in post. This is a situation where: 1) I REALLY wish the histogram could show raw data, rather than JPEG. 2) I wish that lightroom had an extra stop or two of adjustment on color balance. 3) It would be nice to be able to adjust the ISO of each color channel separately, so that color balance could be achieved and still expose to the right on all three channels. Other than that, you can do the filter-thing for various BW enhancements with a post-processing product like Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro. http://www.flickr.com/groups/silver_efex_pro/pool/ Yeah, for what Collin asked, just do it in software. All filters on your camera do is let you choose what information that you throw away before it even gets to the sensor. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
In fact, I've used the LR low-contrast and high-contrast presets for making BW and they do pretty well. I always tinker but on a couple occasions just went almost entirely with the preset, because it was so good. -Tim On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:32 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, LR has sliders for each color (10 or 12 different colors and shades, IIRC). I really like how LR handles BW conversions. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I use Matt Kloskowski's black and white presets as a starting point at times. http://lightroomkillertips.com/2009/presets-better-black-and-whites/ On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Tim Bray wrote: In fact, I've used the LR low-contrast and high-contrast presets for making BW and they do pretty well. I always tinker but on a couple occasions just went almost entirely with the preset, because it was so good. -Tim On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:32 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, LR has sliders for each color (10 or 12 different colors and shades, IIRC). I really like how LR handles BW conversions. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Matthew Montgomery matt...@electricjunk.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Paul the heretic Stenquist wrote: That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Anyone here have a good background in bw printing? Have you found a digital technique that can equal split printing? I haven't yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Split printing involves altering the times for separate high contrast and low contrast filter settings. That way I can burn in low contrast textures for n(1) time while doing high contrast for n(2) time for other purposes. This allows me to emphasize the details of texture while not over-exposing the print. My personal favorite technique. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
The only minor tinkering I've done in this area is use a polarizer on the BW preset and compare that to a post color conversion. Felt the color channel conversion capabilities were superior. --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: From: Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net Subject: digital bw To: pdml pdml@pdml.net Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 11:02 AM I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I haven't looked at the Pentax Photo Gallery in a very long time, but I assure you that what I print is hardly 3 tones. ;-) I capture raw format and use Lightroom (and/or Photoshop) to render BW. Rendering BW is not a Saturday a.m. experiment if you want to be skilled at it. Regards filters, for most things, ND, grad ND and Polarizers are all that are necessary once you're doing digital capture. The traditional spectral translation adjustments afforded by Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, and Blue filters are all more than capably replaced by various techniques in image processing the color channels. Special purpose filters ... Infrared, ultraviolet, effects, etc ... are of course still needed if you are trying to capture something outside of rendering normal visible light to BW. Something you can't do in BW film capture using filters but is quite easy to accomplish with digital capture and image processing is selective change to the spectral translation within a single exposure. For instance, if you have one section of a photo where you want to separate tones arising from clothing but need a different filter for skin tone, you can apply one set of digital filters to one area and a different set of digital filters to the other area of the photo. The traditional selective tonal gradation adjustments performed by dodge and burn operations are also easily performed in image processing. And just like in film and wet lab BW photography, there is a wide assortment of paper types and surfaces which affect the output image. Computer displays remain tricksy things to present photographs with ... prints are a much more stable presentation platform. Digital capture and image processing bring new levels of capability and quality to BW photography. :-) On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Paul the heretic Stenquist wrote: That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Anyone here have a good background in bw printing? Have you found a digital technique that can equal split printing? I haven't yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Split printing involves altering the times for separate high contrast and low contrast filter settings. That way I can burn in low contrast textures for n(1) time while doing high contrast for n(2) time for other purposes. This allows me to emphasize the details of texture while not over-exposing the print. My personal favorite technique. You can't do that in raw conversion but you can do it in Photoshop with layer masks. You can even do two different raw conversions, one with high contrast and one with low contrast, and combine them. BTW: In theory, because of metamerism it's impossible for post-processing of digital captures to emulate all the effects possible with colored filters and BW film. Once you've split the broad-spectrum light into three grayscale channels some information is lost that can never be recovered. In theory. I've never had any trouble getting the effect I wanted in digital post-processing, though. (But, come to think of it, Larry Colen's example might be a case of this happening...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Photoshop allows a large measure of filter effects in converting color to BW, using slider tools that show the preview of the filter's effects. The biggest problem I have when shooting digital is blown highlights that I cannot burn and basically have to replace using cut a paste from an adjoining area. I've gotten to the point that I often have to use exposure compensation of -1 to avoid blown highlights. Jeffery On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Rendering BW is not a Saturday a.m. experiment if you want to be skilled at it. Boy, *that's* the truth! Especially if you're skilled at BW darkroom printing: There's a whole new set of techniques to learn and old ones to unlearn. The latter is harder :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Some good information. Thanks all. But do you ever feel like rendering bw is like rendering lard? It takes a long time and it's messy but good pie crust and pastry are better that way. I feel the same way about the chemical darkroom and only wish days were longer. There is so much I want to do, to study, and to write. But alas ... Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I'm in the process of setting up an old school BW darkroom just because I miss the process/smells/etc. The only film I really plan on shooting from this point forward will be BW that I develop myself. I'm also interested in exploring alternative processes in the monochrome world. However, if you get a really good image that requires a lot of separate gyrations to produce a perfect print, getting consistent prints can be an expensive pain. That's one huge benefit to digital (albeit an obvious one). Once you've got the digital file the way you want it, any number of prints with that same perfection is assured. Of course, that is one more thing to make the old process more singular/valuable. I guess I'd liken it to automobiles and bicycles. The one didn't become totally impractical or unenjoyable just because the other is used (or practical) more often. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Some good information. Thanks all. But do you ever feel like rendering bw is like rendering lard? It takes a long time and it's messy but good pie crust and pastry are better that way. I feel the same way about the chemical darkroom and only wish days were longer. There is so much I want to do, to study, and to write. But alas ... Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Paul the heretic Stenquist wrote: That's probably the result of sloppy conversions. I don't employ filters, but I convert using the ACR BW function, which allows you to control the gray level of each color independently. It's actually superior to BW film in many ways. I believe Lightroom offers similar conversion features. Paul Anyone here have a good background in bw printing? Have you found a digital technique that can equal split printing? I haven't yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Split printing involves altering the times for separate high contrast and low contrast filter settings. That way I can burn in low contrast textures for n(1) time while doing high contrast for n(2) time for other purposes. This allows me to emphasize the details of texture while not over-exposing the print. My personal favorite technique. Paul the heretic Stenquist printed BW in the darkroom for thirty years. And yes, I've done split printing with different contrast filters. I've also used a wide variety of papers and chemicals, along with contrast control development of the film. No darkroom techniques can match the results achievable with digital BW. In digital processing, each tone can be rendered individually, allowing infinite adjustment of grays. Paul Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
Paul the heretic Stenquist printed BW in the darkroom for thirty years. And yes, I've done split printing with different contrast filters. I've also used a wide variety of papers and chemicals, along with contrast control development of the film. No darkroom techniques can match the results achievable with digital BW. In digital processing, each tone can be rendered individually, allowing infinite adjustment of grays. Paul Apologies for the moniker. Just a little turf thing. Thanks. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
No, when doing BW conversion from colour I handle the filtration in post (Note I've been known to do this with both colour film and digital. Provia 100F in particular makes just lovely BW images). BW images online tend to be overly contrasty as that grabs attention (and I say that as someone who tends to like a lot of contrast in his BW). You can do very nice BW conversions with subtle tones but that sort of image really needs to be printed to look good, especially on consumer-grade monitors. -Adam On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: I've been looking at a lot of digital bw work this week. When you digitroids do this, do you employ filters like we filmaniacs do? I'm thinking that this might be a good Saturday a.m. experiment. When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jeffery Smith jsmith...@bellsouth.net wrote: Photoshop allows a large measure of filter effects in converting color to BW, using slider tools that show the preview of the filter's effects. Filter effects isn't the right expression, nor is converting color to BW when you're talking about digital capture to producing BW results. It's somewhat sloppy language that has somehow become the standard. When you make an exposure with a digital camera and save it as a raw file, you are capturing an [x,y] array of linear gamma luminance intensities organized in an RGB mosaic. The process of 'raw conversion' into something intelligible to our eyes involves an interpolation of those RGB values into chrominance values per pixel and gamma correction of the luminance intensities to suit the way our eyes and brain work. A more precise word than 'conversion' is 'rendering'. Rendering an image to monochrome values rather than RGB values, well, since what we appreciate as BW photography is a translation of color values into luminances without chroma, and BW films and colored filters help us to control that translation by separating or smashing together color/intensity values into luminance values, what you're doing with the sliders in Photoshop is directly analogous to putting filters on the lens when exposing BW film. It's not a filter effect: it's filtering, period. ;-) The biggest problem I have when shooting digital is blown highlights that I cannot burn and basically have to replace using cut a paste from an adjoining area. I've gotten to the point that I often have to use exposure compensation of -1 to avoid blown highlights. That's a matter of proper exposure for the digital capture medium, Jeffery, which requires a different approach than metering for film negatives. You should only very rarely have to use negative EV Compensation UNLESS your subject matter is mostly dark and the significant area where you need detail is mostly bright highlights. (I would say if I looked at exposure compensation values for all of my past couple years exposures that my properly exposed photos showed a 100:1 preponderance of +EV valued EV Compensation, not -EV values...) The old adage used for negative film was expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, the notion being to get enough light energy onto the medium to activate the chemicals and record detail where you wanted it in the dark areas, and then control the gamma (or contrast curve) to keep from blocking up the highlights through development techniques. Digital capture sensors, as said above, always capture in a linear gamma. Their behavior at the limits of exposure are different from film media: the highlight limit is a hard stop when the photosite cannot record any additional light energy, the minimum exposure limit is a soft threshold where detail can no longer be distinguished from noise. Another factor: since the capture gamma is linear and has to be stretched and squeezed into a more curvaceous shape for our eyes and brain to interpret it correctly, it turns out that we need to stuff as many bits towards the high end of the range as we can (without hitting the saturation limit) so that we can stretch the values down into the low end without losing too much data along the way. So the goal in exposing properly for a digital sensor is to consider them as more similar to transparency film ... Avoid over-exposure on the highlights like the dickens and let the rest fall where it might ... but with a lot more control since we can push the rendering curve around with great freedom in the raw processing phase. I usually look at a scene with the idea of evaluating a) what's the overall reflectivity of the scene? and b) where are my Zone IX highlight values? A scene which has a lot of bright in it and a small contrast ratio to handle usually means adding exposure from an averaging meter's normal recommendation (most scenes, as it turns out). A scene which has big contrast and small areas of significant Zone IX detail that has to be preserved is one where I will pull down the EV compensation to keep from overexposing the details I want and let the rest fall into blackness (if it's outside the DR of the sensor). These latter are where the Spot metering pattern is helpful in evaluation, but don't let it do the whole job for you... it's pretty dumb in AE mode. Expose for the highlights, and render for the shadows is a simplification of the technique often called Expose to the Right, but it works. It presupposed raw capture, btw, because JPEGs don't have the range of adjustability required for processing high contrast scenes most of the time. But I'm beginning to ramble ... ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
I'll be the first to admit that the digital color stuff still gives me a hard time. I'm not resistant when it comes to modern digital technology (and converted from the typewriter to the word processor very quickly), but all of the parameters in digital photography can be a bit overwhelming after decades in the analog world. I've been leaning toward shooting digital as though it were color slide film, and that's why the -1 exposure comp. The lighting conditions were a bit extreme (shade with some blown out sunlit areas, and theater, with some blown out highlights on the actor's face). I'll try to get my lingo right. ;-) Old habits die hard. I also still think of my Pentax lenses as x mm equivalent, which I need to stop doing. A 25 1.4 isn't all that much like a 50 1.4, even if it is on an Olympus E-1. The field depth is astronomical. Jeffery On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jeffery Smith jsmith...@bellsouth.net wrote: Photoshop allows a large measure of filter effects in converting color to BW, using slider tools that show the preview of the filter's effects. Filter effects isn't the right expression, nor is converting color to BW when you're talking about digital capture to producing BW results. It's somewhat sloppy language that has somehow become the standard. When you make an exposure with a digital camera and save it as a raw file, you are capturing an [x,y] array of linear gamma luminance intensities organized in an RGB mosaic. The process of 'raw conversion' into something intelligible to our eyes involves an interpolation of those RGB values into chrominance values per pixel and gamma correction of the luminance intensities to suit the way our eyes and brain work. A more precise word than 'conversion' is 'rendering'. Rendering an image to monochrome values rather than RGB values, well, since what we appreciate as BW photography is a translation of color values into luminances without chroma, and BW films and colored filters help us to control that translation by separating or smashing together color/intensity values into luminance values, what you're doing with the sliders in Photoshop is directly analogous to putting filters on the lens when exposing BW film. It's not a filter effect: it's filtering, period. ;-) The biggest problem I have when shooting digital is blown highlights that I cannot burn and basically have to replace using cut a paste from an adjoining area. I've gotten to the point that I often have to use exposure compensation of -1 to avoid blown highlights. That's a matter of proper exposure for the digital capture medium, Jeffery, which requires a different approach than metering for film negatives. You should only very rarely have to use negative EV Compensation UNLESS your subject matter is mostly dark and the significant area where you need detail is mostly bright highlights. (I would say if I looked at exposure compensation values for all of my past couple years exposures that my properly exposed photos showed a 100:1 preponderance of +EV valued EV Compensation, not -EV values...) The old adage used for negative film was expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, the notion being to get enough light energy onto the medium to activate the chemicals and record detail where you wanted it in the dark areas, and then control the gamma (or contrast curve) to keep from blocking up the highlights through development techniques. Digital capture sensors, as said above, always capture in a linear gamma. Their behavior at the limits of exposure are different from film media: the highlight limit is a hard stop when the photosite cannot record any additional light energy, the minimum exposure limit is a soft threshold where detail can no longer be distinguished from noise. Another factor: since the capture gamma is linear and has to be stretched and squeezed into a more curvaceous shape for our eyes and brain to interpret it correctly, it turns out that we need to stuff as many bits towards the high end of the range as we can (without hitting the saturation limit) so that we can stretch the values down into the low end without losing too much data along the way. So the goal in exposing properly for a digital sensor is to consider them as more similar to transparency film ... Avoid over-exposure on the highlights like the dickens and let the rest fall where it might ... but with a lot more control since we can push the rendering curve around with great freedom in the raw processing phase. I usually look at a scene with the idea of evaluating a) what's the overall reflectivity of the scene? and b) where are my Zone IX highlight values? A scene which has a lot of bright in it and a small contrast ratio to handle usually means adding exposure from an averaging meter's normal recommendation (most scenes, as it turns out). A scene
Re: digital bw
Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. I don't see less tonality in my digital B/W. I usually shoot in colour and then do the conversion either in Photoshop (via Lab minus a and b) or more recently in Lightroom, because it's easier to control the grey value of the various colours. http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0024.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0020.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0063.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0196.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0087.html Ooops, sorry, the last one was IR. ;-) No filters employed in shooting, with the obvious exception of the IR filter. Recommended reading: Advanced Digital Black White Photography, John Beardsworth, Lark Books Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On 18 November 2010 15:03, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote: I capture raw format and use Lightroom (and/or Photoshop) to render BW. Rendering BW is not a Saturday a.m. experiment if you want to be skilled at it. Very true! I'd say it took me about a year to be completely comfortable making BW conversions that looked exactly like I wanted them to. Colin, I like me some contrasty BW, but there's nothing like an image displaying the whole array of greys: http://worldofmiserere.com/p265653557/h7fd8153#h7fd8153 —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: When I look at the work on Pentax photo gallery, the Bw efforts seem to share a common fault: 3 tones -- near-black, near-white, zone 6. There just is not the tonal variance. I don't see less tonality in my digital B/W. I usually shoot in colour and then do the conversion either in Photoshop (via Lab minus a and b) or more recently in Lightroom, because it's easier to control the grey value of the various colours. http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0024.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0020.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0063.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0196.html http://www.fotoralf.de/fotos/pages/0087.html Ralf, If you see most of your noise in one channel (such as blue) how do you handle it? Larry -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
.Very true! I'd say it took me about a year to be completely .comfortable making BW conversions that looked exactly like I wanted .them to. . .Colin, I like me some contrasty BW, but there's nothing like an image .displaying the whole array of greys: M. When I look again @ my favorite portrait (apx 100, 4x5): http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/modelshot.html In your stuff I see similar tonality in #16 #25. And the blacks of #19 look a bit like TMax. Lots of good stuff there. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: digital bw
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jeffery Smith jsmith...@bellsouth.net wrote: I'll be the first to admit that the digital color stuff still gives me a hard time. I'm not resistant when it comes to modern digital technology (and converted from the typewriter to the word processor very quickly), but all of the parameters in digital photography can be a bit overwhelming after decades in the analog world. I've been leaning toward shooting digital as though it were color slide film, and that's why the -1 exposure comp. The lighting conditions were a bit extreme (shade with some blown out sunlit areas, and theater, with some blown out highlights on the actor's face). I figured that might be the case. Theater work is often a mostly dark scene with spot lit actor/actress faces; clear contrasty sunlight is always a pain. You are on the right track considering exposure as color slide film. :-) I'll try to get my lingo right. ;-) Old habits die hard. I also still think of my Pentax lenses as x mm equivalent, which I need to stop doing. A 25 1.4 isn't all that much like a 50 1.4, even if it is on an Olympus E-1. The field depth is astronomical. Um, the field of view is about the same as a 50mm on 35mm Film, the speed is the same, but the DoF is two stops greater ... f/1.4 behaves like f/2.8. The difference isn't *that* big, really, but it is significant as you move farther away. I've gotten quite comfortable with it now, but then I always did like smaller formats with lots of DoF to work with at wide apertures. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: News from Epson, better digital bw from colour printers
Brian Campbell wrote: Bolo Wrote: It seems to me that ever since Canon released the S800 (and now the S900 and S9000), that Epson has been needing to be competitive again, instead of standing on their laurels. Hmm - does that apply to *ALL* Epson printers? I just purchased a brand new Stylus Photo 1280, and am REALLY pleased with the results (after fighting with Winblows to get my color balances correct.) I think that the availability of the Canon printers has made a serious indent into Epson's near exclusive market of good photo-quality printers. I think a number of factors contribute to this: print speed, print quality, longer-duration inks, individual ink cartridges, etc. A factor for some people are the individual ink cartridges which allow you to replace only the colors you are using. Another important factor is the lack of chipped ink cartridges which dedicate you to Epson, and make it difficult to use a continuous flow system or try different inks. Paul Stenquist wrote: The Epson 1280 is a great printer. I've spoken to a dozen pro photographer reps in the past few weeks and asked them how the photographer's portfolios were printed. Eleven out of twelve were printed on one or the other of the 1200 series Epson printers (quite a few on the early 1200). The other was wet prints. The ink jets were, in many cases, stunning. There is no doubt about that -- I've also seen good prints from the 1270/1280. Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous -- I don't think that the Canon is necessarily a better printer, but it is a realistic alternative to the Epson. It seems to me that Epson has been sitting on its current crop of printers for quite some time and not improving them. For example, all the problems with the 3000 series printer which they never did anything about. The high cost/age of the 2000 printer. Hopefully, with a larger company which is producing some products that are intruding into Epson's market, Epson will have to push to make things excellent across the board. Previously, without viable alternatives, you pretty much had to take what they gave you. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: News from Epson, better digital bw from colour printers
See this month's MacWorld for a review of current Epson and Canon printers in letter size. The Epsons were a bit slower and they noted that the ink system was a bit less accommodating, but they rated them far better overall for picture quality. To me, that's the only thing that matters. Bolo wrote: Brian Campbell wrote: Bolo Wrote: It seems to me that ever since Canon released the S800 (and now the S900 and S9000), that Epson has been needing to be competitive again, instead of standing on their laurels. Hmm - does that apply to *ALL* Epson printers? I just purchased a brand new Stylus Photo 1280, and am REALLY pleased with the results (after fighting with Winblows to get my color balances correct.) I think that the availability of the Canon printers has made a serious indent into Epson's near exclusive market of good photo-quality printers. I think a number of factors contribute to this: print speed, print quality, longer-duration inks, individual ink cartridges, etc. A factor for some people are the individual ink cartridges which allow you to replace only the colors you are using. Another important factor is the lack of chipped ink cartridges which dedicate you to Epson, and make it difficult to use a continuous flow system or try different inks. Paul Stenquist wrote: The Epson 1280 is a great printer. I've spoken to a dozen pro photographer reps in the past few weeks and asked them how the photographer's portfolios were printed. Eleven out of twelve were printed on one or the other of the 1200 series Epson printers (quite a few on the early 1200). The other was wet prints. The ink jets were, in many cases, stunning. There is no doubt about that -- I've also seen good prints from the 1270/1280. Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous -- I don't think that the Canon is necessarily a better printer, but it is a realistic alternative to the Epson. It seems to me that Epson has been sitting on its current crop of printers for quite some time and not improving them. For example, all the problems with the 3000 series printer which they never did anything about. The high cost/age of the 2000 printer. Hopefully, with a larger company which is producing some products that are intruding into Epson's market, Epson will have to push to make things excellent across the board. Previously, without viable alternatives, you pretty much had to take what they gave you. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Quality Digital BW
Is it true that BW quality digital output is limited to quadtone inks, and that only matte paper is available for such output? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/darkroom-rentals/index.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Quality Digital BW
Shel - I use ordinary Epson inks and photo-quality glossy paper for my BW. Whether it is high enough quality is obviously debatable, but I find it acceptable, and I guess that's what counts. It's probably a case of YMMV! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:02 PM, Shel Belinkoff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Is it true that BW quality digital output is limited to quadtone inks, and that only matte paper is available for such output? -- Shel Belinkoff - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Quality Digital BW
On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 08:01 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is it true that BW quality digital output is limited to quadtone inks, and that only matte paper is available for such output? Quadtone for quality: it depends. Quadtone is much better than printing black ink only -- better blending, better detail, less patterning. Black ink only adds a kind of grain to the image, but depending on the film and the print size, it is not always noticeable. APX 25 printed at 4x6 would look like crap this way, but TX printed 16x20 would look fine. Another option is to make duotones in Photoshop, but using this method you can never get a truly neutral print. If you like to print on warmtone or coldtone papers in the darkroom, duotones will suit you fine. As to matte paper, paper choice depends on what inks are used and how they react. I've seen some excellent glossy inkjet papers, but they do not produce a good print with every kind of ink -- for instance, Tetenal's high gloss paper is phenomenal in dye-based printers like the older Epsons and the newer not-so-archival printers, but it absolutely STINKS in the pigment-based machines like the 2000P and the 7500 (the pigment never drops below the surface layer, just sitting on top looking like paint). However, Ilford's new Galerie glossy stuff is great in the 7500, so if the issue with quadtone on glossy was because of the pigments being incompatible with certain papers, that may no longer be a problem. -Aaron p.s. you know it's my busy season when I am 500 messages behind in my PDML reading even AFTER deleting the Queen Mum/motorcycle helmet/smoking threads. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Quality Digital BW
For me it wasn't a matter of quality but cost. I have an HP 1120 printer that I could get the 4 grey carts for but the cost of ink + coated paper was more than setting up my own darkroom. __ Music, Movies, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Digital BW
The Kodak 760M monochrome digital camera was mentioned here a few days ago. Does anyone else make a similar camera - one dedicated to BW photography? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Digital BW Photography
Bob R. wrote: I'm particularly interested in the responses. I personally think that digital is a long way from replacing BW. I doubt that there are many printers available at any cost that can do justice to the full grey scale of a BW print. You haven't seen enough Piezography prints yet!! --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital BW Photography
On Thursday, November 15, 2001, at 05:21 AM, Bob Rapp wrote: I'm particularly interested in the responses. I personally think that digital is a long way from replacing BW. I doubt that there are many printers available at any cost that can do justice to the full grey scale of a BW print. I'm interested, too, but I'll tell you what the kicker is here: bigger prints. I am perfectly happy with the results I get on the Epson 7500 using black ink only printing a 35mm Delta 3200 neg at 8x10. On the other hand, an APX 25 neg printed 5x7 looks grainy and the tonal range seems compressed. This is because rather than using different shades of gray, as the quad tone inksets do, the printer just uses one ink: dark black. This leads to patterning resembling grain in smooth mid-tones. However, if the image is not smooth, and the scan reveals detail in the film's grain, the resulting print can be quite excellent (though not equivalent to a fibre based print). I would imagine that a 4000dpi scan from Tri-X could make a nice 11x14. The bw hockey prints on the wall at the store were done this way. I keep considering moving to quad tone on my old Epson 1200, but I still haven't seen a result that I've been wowed by. And if I'm going to spend $500 on a conversion kit, I want to be wowed. I do find that quite often duotones printed with the full colour inkset look fabulous. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Digital BW Photography
Color - that's pretty much what everyone is discussing when discussing digital cameras. Seems that the cameras only photograph in color but, in order to make BW pictures, the image has to be desaturated. Is that correct? When I've seen desaturated color the tones don't seem to be the same as with true BW photos. So, the digital dunce asks, how close to true BW film photography is desaturated digital color imaging? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
