Digital BW, The Print

-Jeez,
You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really 
most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW 
image and turn the saturation down to zero. If you are not shooting 
in RAW then you should be. The colour balance and other tools 
provide a very effective way of controlling contrast etc. 
Why make it more difficult than it needs to be? If you are shooting 
with B/W in mind then the scene needs to have the contrast that you 
desire. Look at the Zone Sytem be one Ansel Adams.

Sierra Gold-- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. Image 
Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> >personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools... 
> >
> 
> For a hobbyist, perhaps...
> 
> But for a pro time IS money..
> 
> I can do variations much more quickly (and easily repeatably) via 
the 
> plug ins than farting around with the channel mixer or actions..
> 
> >but I 
> >do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to 
hold 
> >his hand till he actually learns how to do something... 
> >
> 
> Here we go with implied insults of those who use plugins or 
filters 
> instead of using the basic tools built into PhotoShop instead...  
That 
> kind of implied PhotoShop (or any software) elitism or 
> inferring/implying that others are too LAZY to take the time to 
learn 
> technique X or Y irks the heck out of me... It's really not much 
> different from those who eschew digital b/c with the right tools, 
> darkroom, technique, and time you can do many of the same things 
without 
> going digital...
> 
> That issue aside:
> 
> 1)     Sometimes you also need to replicate the toe or spectral 
> sensitivity of specific films..  I suppose that the time spent 
creating 
> the actions one would need makes sense if you have forever to play 
> around with PhotoShop and your time is near worthless.. Did I 
forget to 
> mention that you'd need numbers  on the spectral responses and the 
data 
> for colored gels (Wratten) pass through as well?  OR you'd need 
specific 
> example images and a book of shots done with different gels - 
that's 
> certainly manageable... NOT Of course, you'd still have to sit 
there 
> comparing on-screen to your sample book until you turn blue..
> 
> 2)    But for those of us who do this for something other than 
JUST fun; 
> for those individuals it's ACTUALLY cheaper to buy a plugin or 
filter 
> that saves us EVEN one hour of work...
> 
> Figure it out, with a pro photog's time going for $150/hour 
minimum in 
> any good market, and a PhotoShop/Graphics person's time going for 
nearly 
> the same, if I save ONE hour total, I've paid for the filter...
> 
> Even if you make $25 an hour... You pay for the filter if you save 
6 
> hours of fiddling over the life of the filter..  Don't process a 
lot of 
> images, have lots of time, is your time not worth much, and not 
faced 
> with deadlines often.. Then many filters and plugins are generally 
a 
> waste... YES, you can accomplish many of the same filters without  
> special plugins or without even Fred Miranda's actions (even you 
imply 
> those might be worth the $$, so where's the break-even point?)..  
But 
> for many, the time saved is worth buying the tool someone else 
already 
> created...  I don't need to re-invent the car everytime I want to 
drive 
> to granny's house... Nor does everyone want or need to understand 
how 
> their VCR works, they are content simply popping a tape in and 
getting 
> it to do what they want..
> 
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"