Hi Everyone:
I bought an ebook entitled Black and White in Photoshop CS4 Lightroom: A
complete integrated workflow solution for creating stunning monochromatic
images in Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Lightroom, and beyond by L. Alsheimer B.
O'Neil Hughes.
It's good enough so far and helping to
.
I'm not so much interested in getting a film look or emulating a
particular film's spectral characteristics as in making a good
monochromatic rendering. The translation of color tone to grayscale
tones is a subtle thing as you have to find ways to separate colors
which would otherwise render
on 2012-01-06 14:15 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
I'm not so much interested in getting a film look or emulating a
particular film's spectral characteristics as in making a good
monochromatic rendering.
same here
The translation of color tone to grayscale
tones is a subtle thing as you have to find
Interesting Christine.
FYI, I use this plug in for PS:
Black and White Studio
http://powerretouche.com/
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
The translation of color tone to grayscale
tones is a subtle thing as you have to find ways to separate colors
which would otherwise render to the same perceptual tone on luminance
alone.
a tool that would really be
on 2012-01-06 16:12 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, steve harley wrote:
a tool that would really be helpful would be at a level above channel
sliders, a tool to help the user visualize those tone equivalences, and/or
let the user specify areas where contrast between
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to
calculate or experiment with color mapping values; for example a user might
point to a pair of colors in the image, or an select area with a color
Y'all really owe it to yourselves to try Nik Software's Silver Efex
Pro 2 (plug-in for PS LR)
http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php
15 day trial: https://www.niksoftware.com/site/
Videos:
Tried it. Wasn't terribly impressed.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Y'all really owe it to yourselves to try Nik Software's Silver Efex
Pro 2 (plug-in for PS LR)
http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php
15 day trial:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to
calculate or experiment with color mapping values; for example a user might
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
what i'm envisioning is a tool which works on a higher level than having to
calculate or experiment
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather use my eyes ... they're my tools. It's really not all that
difficult a problem to see what adjustments are pleasing or useful by
tweaking things yourself. I don't need a specialized tool to do it.
I agree
On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If the instructions in the book are for Photoshop's Channel Mixer,
just be aware that you are working there with the RGB channel data,
post raw-conversion. This is close but not quite exactly the same as
applying channel modifications on
Thanks, Cotty. Looks interesting. Might check it out. Cheers, Christine
On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Cotty wrote:
Interesting Christine.
FYI, I use this plug in for PS:
Black and White Studio
http://powerretouche.com/
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
Thanks, Darren. I've heard of this software and mean to do the 15 day trial.
The features look very interesting to me. I'm going to spend the next year
really learning BW, selective coloring, and desaturation of color stuff. I'll
use the paw 2012 to give that study a focus point. Cheers,
Having started the book, I can assure you the authors didn't mean to present
these numbers as if set it stone; experiment to taste is their mantra;
presenting the film chart numbers was just to offer a guideline--a starting
point. The bigger problem for me is that I have no visual reference
on 2012-01-06 19:04 Paul Stenquist wrote
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Huntm...@pobox.com wrote:
It's not quite what you're after, but you know that you can
interactively drag the picture to interactively brighten or darken
that
: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase.
Jostein
On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may be able to undo the knee on
the film captures but its going to be
impossible to undo the clipping
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only film in
general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-)
Your arguments has a flip side that goes:
If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film
either. Unless you
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only film in
general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-)
Your arguments has a flip side
...but it was a real hassle
to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude
is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide
and colour negative film.
I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS,
similar to my
hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw processing, Godfrey.
Both depressing and encouraging...
Jostein
On 12/14/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views
in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant
Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
thanks, jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Jostein
On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, dont forget there is much
BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all
but a very few films, of any format, either BW or color. My old
mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch
BW film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I
visited with some
If you only shot 35mm (like the vast majority of people, including on this
list), missing 35mm is all that counts.
-Adam
Who still shoots 35mm and MF film, and will go LF in the future
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
OK, but to put it shortly, FILM STILL RULES
when it comes to top quality imaging
to compare.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
Cotty wrote:
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
For full effect, I suppose I should put it in ALL CAPS and repeat it a
hundred times...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Don't worry. I seem to get it for you. :-(
On 12/14/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
For full effect, I suppose I should
Perfect solution! =)
Jack
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the
present
moment) - by using film.
These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/
Regards
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what
that means?
Jack
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote:
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film,
rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look
more like grain as opposed to pixels.
That's what I read in Ken's translation: film-grain-like noise.
Kostas
--
As long as PS allows me to effectively reduce objectionable levels of
grain (film like), I'll be fine.
Jack
--- Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote:
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film,
rather they're goal is to
: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
graywolf
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the look is similar. I forgot to
post that in either of these cases
: Re: The Film Look
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the look is similar. I forgot to
post that in either of these cases
the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more
the tonal range captured and the look
of the extreme highlights. Film
in neg films IMHO...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range
: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase.
Jostein
On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may be able to undo the knee on
the film captures but its going to be
impossible to undo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome
About 10-12 years ago I was applying for a job as a lab tech for an
advertising company that did all it's own in house photography printing.
I remember being shown a 4x5 transparency that had been captured on a
digital back, burnt to CD, sent to another company that then transferred
the
I agree - for snow flake photos where grain and noise are killers,
Velvia 50 can't hold a candle to the *ist-D. But for street photography
where I want a certain, um, grainy, effect, there's not substitute for
film. I like Microdol-X, a fine(r) grain developer. IMO with a grainy
film it simply
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what
that means?
Jack
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:07:45 +0100, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different
I know, I know. Use film.
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation
I don't think I can conjure up that much nice without hurting myself
somehow. =)
Jack
--- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means
Everyone will then want the digital look.
Jack
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know, I know. Use film.
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look
Jack Davis wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what
that means
--- mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic
--- mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: The Film Look
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print )
vs. a high defintion live video broadcast
( more like the digital look ).
jco
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Bingo! Image handling is everything.
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: The Film Look
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print )
vs. a high defintion live video broadcast
( more like
as much range but there
isnt a knee, its straight right up to
the point of clipping...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jack Davis
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look
Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the present
moment) - by using film.
These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype
Bob Keefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can usually easily tell the difference between tv shows/movies shot on
film and those shot direct on video, though I'm not certain I can articulate
the difference. Does the same difference in look apply to still photography?
Bob,
The difference that you
wondering: You can
usually easily tell the difference between tv shows/movies shot on film and
those shot direct on video, though I'm not certain I can articulate the
difference. Does the same difference in look apply to still photography?
Do you mean between photography and still video
OK, this has probably been answered before. But I was watching a DVD of a
movie last night that had been originally shot in 16mm (Waiting for
Guffman -- funny, if you get the chance) and got to wondering: You can
usually easily tell the difference between tv shows/movies shot on film and
those
Probably, it takes some skill to shoot on film now
doesn't it.
--- Bob Keefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, this has probably been answered before. But I
was watching a DVD of a
movie last night that had been originally shot in
16mm (Waiting for
Guffman -- funny, if you get the chance)
Ken Waller wrote:
I'm not sure what the distinctive look is that you are referring to Albano,
but I do notice most posted images, that were taken by a digital camera,
exhibit great depth of field.
Yes, they do, thanks to the small area of their imaging chip--a virtue that
will not be shared by
Hi, gang.
I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how
easy is to know which pictures were taken with digital cameras. They have a
very distinctive look (that sucks, imho).
What do you think about this look? (or lack of?)
Regards
AG
-
This message is from the
Someone I shot for wanted that look that current NHL photographs have,
which is basically the digital look. I achieved it by blasting out the
highlights and blocking up the shadows, throwing away much of the tonal
range of the original transparency, to make the colours seem very clean
and
: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Digital Look vs. The Film Look
On 26 Apr 2002 at 9:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, gang.
I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how
At 09:41 AM 4/26/2002 -0300, you wrote:
I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how
easy is to know which pictures were taken with digital cameras. They have a
very distinctive look (that sucks, imho).
What do you think about this look? (or lack of?)
Well... Most
68 matches
Mail list logo
