Digital BW, The Print

You must be kidding.
RAW - of course. I never shoot anything else.
Saturation to 0 - BIG NOOOOOOOO.
Either play with the Channel Mixer or use the Plug Ins - already made 
for that.
Otherwise you shoot yourself in a foot.
Do not forget -out BW films weren't just colors with the saturation on 
0.  They have the
reciprocity curve.  You may apply the filters to it.  It changes.  If 
you want to get this
on the digital capture - you can  - but you have to know what you're 
doing, not just a sat=0.
Some of the plugging are great and save time, aggravation, money... some 
are a waste of the above.
You have to decide for yourself, but those for whom after testing they 
work know what they
achieve and know what they save.
Happy converting...
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


flyfishingusa2002 wrote:

> -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"
>