Digital BW, The Print

I guess you are trying to turn this into a stupid pissing match...

I studied at the School of the Art Inst. Chicage which is one of the 
top art schools in the country, so I hardly consider myself 
a "hobbiest."  I sell my prints and have gallery representation.  
True, I am an artist and fine art photographer instead of being a 
commercial photographer, but I don't want to be a commercial 
photographer.  When I was right out of school I took a number of 
commercial jobs and really hated them.  Your 1099s tied to 
photography may be higher than mine (or not), but that doesn't make 
me any less serious about my work than you.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone, but in this case I think that the 
best you can expect from a plugin is a good starting point.  I spent 
about two minutes making my own action to set up some adjustment 
layers and starting points and then add about one minute per print 
tweaking them up to perfection.  I believe that people who buy my 
prints appreciate the attention to detail that I give to each print 
instead of just "pushing a big button" and saying it is good enough.

I guess I don't understand why you ever have to try and match a 
certain film.  My belief is that you should try and make each print 
as good as humanly possible.  In the film world you have choose a 
film and live with it, then you pick a filter and you have to live 
with it... why the heck would you want to limit yourself in the 
digital darkroom to what was available to photographers 50 years 
ago????  The whole point to Sir Ansel's system was to give you more 
control over your material and images. 

You make such a big deal about how much money you supposedly make as 
a photographer and how little time you have... I'm somehow *not* in 
awe.

Where's my break point?  $0.00  I don't use a plugin and frankly, I 
bet I can do a quality b&w conversion faster than most people can 
navigate their plugin menu and I'm managing mine variably across all 
tones and maintaining complete control.

A VCR does one thing and as long as you can push the buttons it does 
the same thing no matter what you know so there isn't point to 
learning how it works.  With Curves and Channel Mixer, it does help 
to know what they do if you are trying to precisely control you image 
processing.  If you never learn how to do a quality conversion from 
RGB -> Greyscale then you will never know how to make the required 
adjustments when your plugin does a less than perfect job... and that 
will end up costing you more time (and frustration) than the time 
saved not learning how to do the conversion in the first place.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

mark

--- 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"