On 21/12/04, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hey Cotty how come your big and I'm sure very expensive TV camera has a B/W
viewfinder? You do have colour TV over there don't you? :-)
Most news cameras have mono finders - makes focussing easier os so they
say. I gate what I'm given!
On 22/12/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
I gate what I'm given!
I get what I'm given.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
- From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
Wow! Fabulous BW prints. Forgive my ignorance of commercial lab
equipment, but what's a d-lab 2?
It's an Agfa digital minilab, Paul.
You know, one of those places that can't match an inkjet printer..
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
Well, I'll have to see if I can find one and give them a try.
Although I enjoy printing too much to turn it over to someone else,
and in truth I haven't found a lab around here that can
On 22 Dec 2004 at 8:18, William Robb wrote:
If you want good results from a digital lab, you HAVE TO profile your
files to their equipment.
Since profiling my work-station and print view area I can get a very good
optical match between the screen and a print back from the lab. To do this I
And I thought you were writing some kind of dialect...
Cotty wrote:
On 22/12/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
I gate what I'm given!
I get what I'm given.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Makes it easier to see lighting rations too, I would imagine.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Cotty wrote:
On 21/12/04, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hey Cotty how come your big and I'm sure very expensive TV
Ratios, not rations. I must be hungery (grin) or something.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Graywolf wrote:
Makes it easier to see lighting rations too, I would imagine.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof ==
Not particularly hidden in your description, but easily overlooked, is the
monitor screen temp. Many people run their monitors at too high a temp
(6500 or higher) because, often on uncalibrated or improperly calibrated
monitors, those higher temps look better. IIRC, even one of the
calibration
On 22/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Makes it easier to see lighting rations too, I would imagine.
Yes of course.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 22/12/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ratios, not rations. I must be hungery (grin) or something.
I knew what you meant ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 22 Dec 2004 at 9:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not particularly hidden in your description, but easily overlooked, is the
monitor screen temp. Many people run their monitors at too high a temp
(6500 or higher) because, often on uncalibrated or improperly calibrated
monitors, those higher
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
On 22 Dec 2004 at 9:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not particularly hidden in your description, but easily
overlooked, is the
monitor screen temp. Many people run their monitors at too high a
temp
Hi Shel,
SB And that brings up another point: some eyeglasses have a subtle, or even
SB not so subtle, tint to them, and that can really throw the colors you see
SB off by quite a bit. I remove my glasses when judging color, and even BW
SB tonality, and put them back on again when looking for
On 22 Dec 2004 at 15:04, William Robb wrote:
I find this a bit confusing.
My Samsung has two native colour temps, 6500 and 9300.
At 6500, the colour temp is much warmer than at 9300, I can only
imaging how hot the temp would look at 5000.
Or am I missing something?
Nope it looks pretty
On 22 Dec 2004 at 22:11, Frantisek wrote:
Another question - I use 5000 degree Kelvin fluorescent tube (it's a
graphic design one, with proper full spectrum, Ra index of 95) when
editing on the computer. I was looking for a compact fluorescent (that
is, one with the electronic ballast
Bill, it does take a bit of getting used to, but, once the screen is
properly calibrated, the results speak for themselves ... but, remember,
I'm relating this to what our labs here are using as well. We have
probably been conditioned to using higher color temps. I used to run
9000-something and
Probably not. The color profile for the monitor should bring the image pretty
close to what it is supposed to be. If you were not using a monitor profile then
everything would appear overly cool looking, but with a profile the system knows
how to adjust things properly.
One of the problems
Daylight varies a lot. Sunny noon can be anything from about 4000K to 15000K or
more. The Japanese seem to like 5000K for photographs. The Europeans like 6500K.
Here in the US we seem to like about 5500K. At least those are the values my
graphics card suggests for standards. And that goes with
The world is full of options. Personally, when I want BW I prefer
shooting BW film - nothing matches the tonality of Tri-X, IMO (and that's
not to say nothing is as good - just different)... anyone who scoffs at
someone elses choice of film is a person of limited perception and
understanding,
I certainly agree with that paragraph. BW is about the play of light and
shadow. Often the soft light that makes a great color photo does not work at all
in BW.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
One of the
On 21 Dec 2004 at 14:33, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
When shooting real BW, one is concentrating on tonality, and
would often be using the light in a scene differently than when shooting
color. So, converting color to BW is often not the ideal way to get the
best BW result.
Now that I have found
]
Date: 12/21/2004 3:02:52 PM
Subject: RE: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
On 21 Dec 2004 at 14:33, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
When shooting real BW, one is concentrating on tonality, and
would often be using the light in a scene differently than when shooting
color. So, converting
On 21/12/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
One of the things that's often overlooked in discussions of this sort is
lighting. When shooting real BW, one is concentrating on tonality, and
would often be using the light in a scene differently than when shooting
color. So, converting
On 21 Dec 2004 at 15:49, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I suspect that your technical skills will be very helpful in this area,
plus you're familiar with BW work. I'd like to see your results when you
get everythng dialed in.
As essentially futile as I know it is I've just taken a few QD pics (all
The fact that I stare down a mono electronic viewfinder for a couple of
hours a day may play a part here - I tend to think more in mono terms
than colour, oddly enough.
Hey Cotty how come your big and I'm sure very expensive TV camera has a B/W
viewfinder? You do have colour TV over there don't
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:33:16 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, there's got to be at least a dozen or so different methods of
converting color to BW in Photoshop. They all have some value. Juan
likes to use the channel mixer, I find it too limiting - but then, Juan
I used to think in mono when I shot a lot of BW film. I would pick out
the various colors with almost equivalent reflective values and think
about the filtration I needed to separate them. Now, I think in color.
If I want a BW, I tweak the color exposure as though I'm applying that
filtration
Wow! Fabulous BW prints. Forgive my ignorance of commercial lab
equipment, but what's a d-lab 2?
Paul
On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:37 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 at 15:49, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I suspect that your technical skills will be very helpful in this
area,
plus you're familiar with
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
Wow! Fabulous BW prints. Forgive my ignorance of commercial lab
equipment, but what's a d-lab 2?
It's an Agfa digital minilab, Paul.
You know, one of those places that can't match an inkjet
On 20 Dec 2004 at 18:07, Mark Erickson wrote:
While I see the value in being able to play with the channel mixer and in
effect try different filters after the fact, my feeling is that the C-41
process black and white films yield smoother tonal transitions than
converted color film. Anyone
I think almost everyone here admires classic BW film. Some of us have had good
results converting color digital images, but I would think a large majority
still recognize the benefits and beauty of classic BW. On the other hand, I've
never been a big fan of C41 BW. It seems to me that it is a
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: tonality of different BW workflows?
I've never been a big fan of C41 BW. It seems to me that it is a
format that was created for the convenience of the labs.
The moder spate of them (this excludes XP-2) were created to fill
33 matches
Mail list logo
