Digital BW, The Print

Mike,

The "Desaturate" command simply removes all the color information from all
three channels and each channel continues to contribute 1/3 of the info to
composite image. With "Channel Mixer" you gain control of the three channels
and can independently set the amount each channel contributes to the
composite image.

I don't know that I would upgrade to PS7 from Elements for this alone but
there are so many other reasons to move up you really should do it as soon
as you can.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "michaeladawson_ajax" <mike.dawson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:44 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question


> I read several of the replies and they are all correct but I don't
> believe they addressed the exact intent of the question.
>
> The replies all focused on using curves and channels to mimic the
> effects of putting different filters on the camera.
>
> Unless I missed it, though, no one has addressed the issue that B&W
> film is not neutral in its response to the color spectrum.  Its
> pretty good compared with decades ago.  But my understanding is that
> it is still not truly panchromatic.
>
> In other words the film responds slightly differently to red, green,
> blue wavelengths of light.  And each manufacturer creates films with
> slightly different response characteristics.  So desaturating in
> Photoshop yields an image which is different than what would be
> obtained by B&W film.  Using the channel mixer allows one to simulate
> the response of B&W film to different wavelengths of light.
>
> Then there's the whole issue of film grain.  And even that has a
> Photoshop plug-in available.
>
> Mike
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "millerhillsteve"
> <steverob@s...> wrote:
> > I currently am using PS Elements as I can't afford Photoshop and
> frankly, my
> > prints are pretty damn good, but I've seen references to using the
> channel
> > mixer instead of simply switching the mode to greyscale. What are
> the
> > differences in desaturating an image when switching to greyscale?
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Why should I care how any film sees color? I'm shooting digital, so 
comparisons to film are irrelevant to me. Who can perceive a slight difference 
in color rendition when converted to greyscale in a practical picture taking 
situation? I can't imagine the viewer would have a problem with it.  I'm still left 
with the question: How does desaturating using channel sliders differ from 
simply converting to greyscale?

Steve

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michaeladawson_ajax" <mike.dawson@w...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:44 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question
> 
> 
> > I read several of the replies and they are all correct but I don't
> > believe they addressed the exact intent of the question.
> >
> > The replies all focused on using curves and channels to mimic the
> > effects of putting different filters on the camera.
> >
> > Unless I missed it, though, no one has addressed the issue that B&W
> > film is not neutral in its response to the color spectrum.  Its
> > pretty good compared with decades ago.  But my understanding is that
> > it is still not truly panchromatic.
> >
> > In other words the film responds slightly differently to red, green,
> > blue wavelengths of light.  And each manufacturer creates films with
> > slightly different response characteristics.  So desaturating in
> > Photoshop yields an image which is different than what would be
> > obtained by B&W film.  Using the channel mixer allows one to simulate
> > the response of B&W film to different wavelengths of light.
> >
> > Then there's the whole issue of film grain.  And even that has a
> > Photoshop plug-in available.
> >
> > Mike
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "millerhillsteve"
> > <steverob@s...> wrote:
> > > I currently am using PS Elements as I can't afford Photoshop and
> > frankly, my
> > > prints are pretty damn good, but I've seen references to using the
> > channel
> > > mixer instead of simply switching the mode to greyscale. What are
> > the
> > > differences in desaturating an image when switching to greyscale?
> > >
> > > Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "millerhillsteve" 
<steverob@s...> wrote:
> Why should I care how any film sees color? I'm shooting digital, so 
> comparisons to film are irrelevant to me. Who can perceive a slight 
difference 
> in color rendition when converted to greyscale in a practical 
picture taking 
> situation? I can't imagine the viewer would have a problem with 
it.  I'm still left 
> with the question: How does desaturating using channel sliders 
differ from 
> simply converting to greyscale?
> 
> Steve
> 

Take a look at the photos at this website to get an idea:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/channelmixer/channelmixer.html

The website allows you to download the free channel mixing info and 
apply them in your own color to grayscale conversions.  It also 
illustrates the differences between just converting to grayscale and 
using several different settings for channel mixing.

-- Herb

Did you ever use filters to shoot BW film?  The standard grayscale convert
gives you about 60% Green channel, 30% Red channel and 10% Blue channel.
Using the channel mixer in monochrome mode with either a digital RGB image
or scanned color film gives you the ability to "play" with the effects of
various filters that people traditionally use for BW.  The differences can
be quite striking for some imagery...particularly landscapes.

Also as mentioned below different BW film have different tonal
characteristics.  For veteran BW photographers they may want to try to
emulate the tonality of the particular film that they used to use.

Saying that grayscale is grayscale or once you've seen one BW image you've
seen them all...is certainly missing the point of BW photography...it can be
fine art...were the subtlest changes can make a huge difference in the
impact of the final image.  Certainly not all viewers will appreciate the
differences...but for a trained viewer...these types of differences separate
art from fine art.

Robert

 7/31/02 12:49 PM, "millerhillsteve" <steverob@...> wrote:

> Why should I care how any film sees color? I'm shooting digital, so
> comparisons to film are irrelevant to me. Who can perceive a slight difference
> in color rendition when converted to greyscale in a practical picture taking
> situation? I can't imagine the viewer would have a problem with it.  I'm still
> left 
> with the question: How does desaturating using channel sliders differ from
> simply converting to greyscale?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "michaeladawson_ajax" <mike.dawson@w...>
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:44 PM
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question
>> 
>> 
>>> I read several of the replies and they are all correct but I don't
>>> believe they addressed the exact intent of the question.
>>> 
>>> The replies all focused on using curves and channels to mimic the
>>> effects of putting different filters on the camera.
>>> 
>>> Unless I missed it, though, no one has addressed the issue that B&W
>>> film is not neutral in its response to the color spectrum.  Its
>>> pretty good compared with decades ago.  But my understanding is that
>>> it is still not truly panchromatic.
>>> 
>>> In other words the film responds slightly differently to red, green,
>>> blue wavelengths of light.  And each manufacturer creates films with
>>> slightly different response characteristics.  So desaturating in
>>> Photoshop yields an image which is different than what would be
>>> obtained by B&W film.  Using the channel mixer allows one to simulate
>>> the response of B&W film to different wavelengths of light.
>>> 
>>> Then there's the whole issue of film grain.  And even that has a
>>> Photoshop plug-in available.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "millerhillsteve"
>>> <steverob@s...> wrote:
>>>> I currently am using PS Elements as I can't afford Photoshop and
>>> frankly, my
>>>> prints are pretty damn good, but I've seen references to using the
>>> channel
>>>> mixer instead of simply switching the mode to greyscale. What are
>>> the
>>>> differences in desaturating an image when switching to greyscale?
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

> Also as mentioned below different BW film have different tonal
> characteristics.  For veteran BW photographers they may want to try to
> emulate the tonality of the particular film that they used to use.
>
> Saying that grayscale is grayscale or once you've seen one BW image you've
> seen them all...is certainly missing the point of BW
> photography...it can be
> fine art...were the subtlest changes can make a huge difference in the
> impact of the final image.  Certainly not all viewers will appreciate the
> differences...but for a trained viewer...these types of
> differences separate
> art from fine art.
>
> Robert

Hi Robert,

My particular scanner scans B&W, not as RGB, as all other scanners do, but
using a single ND filter.  I believe, from comparing images scanned on
various other scanners, that the scans I get from my scanner are a lot
sharper (and have no need to sharpen), and have better tonality.

Regards,

Austin

On 7/31/02 1:35 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> 
>> Also as mentioned below different BW film have different tonal
>> characteristics.  For veteran BW photographers they may want to try to
>> emulate the tonality of the particular film that they used to use.
>> 
>> Saying that grayscale is grayscale or once you've seen one BW image you've
>> seen them all...is certainly missing the point of BW
>> photography...it can be
>> fine art...were the subtlest changes can make a huge difference in the
>> impact of the final image.  Certainly not all viewers will appreciate the
>> differences...but for a trained viewer...these types of
>> differences separate
>> art from fine art.
>> 
>> Robert
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> My particular scanner scans B&W, not as RGB, as all other scanners do, but
> using a single ND filter.  I believe, from comparing images scanned on
> various other scanners, that the scans I get from my scanner are a lot
> sharper (and have no need to sharpen), and have better tonality.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Right, the Leafscan 45.  My comments were directed at Steve...who was
shooting digital.  Although I think this is a relevant issue for those of us
either shooting color film and converting to BW or also to even the BW film
shooters who are using non-Leaf scanners.  I have no doubt that the Leafscan
can make a great scan...as you know I've been prowling around considering
getting one...but there are obviously other workflows as well.


Robert

> ...but there are obviously other workflows as well.

Hi Robert,

Most definitely!

When I get some time, I'd like to do some critical testing and see what,
exactly, can be quantified WRT the Leaf scanning B&W w/ a ND, vs other
methods...

Do you shoot mostly 35, or larger formats?

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question


>
(snip)
>
> My particular scanner scans B&W, not as RGB, as all other scanners do, but
> using a single ND filter.  I believe, from comparing images scanned on
> various other scanners, that the scans I get from my scanner are a lot
> sharper (and have no need to sharpen), and have better tonality.
>

Austin,

I am using a Howtek D4000 for my 4x5 scans and for grayscale scanning I can
choose to use any of the three sensors. I have set the software to use the
Blue channel under the assumption that the shorter wave length will give the
sharpest scan. How do you think this compares to using a ND filter?

Martin

Martin Wesley wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:35 PM
>Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question
>
>  
>
>I am using a Howtek D4000 for my 4x5 scans and for grayscale scanning I can
>choose to use any of the three sensors. I have set the software to use the
>Blue channel under the assumption that the shorter wave length will give the
>sharpest scan. How do you think this compares to using a ND filter?
>
>
>  
>
The problem is that most sensors are weakest in the blue channel... I'd 
either go with green or mix channels aftwer scanning..

Just my 2 cents..


Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> (snip)
> >
> > My particular scanner scans B&W, not as RGB, as all other
> scanners do, but
> > using a single ND filter.  I believe, from comparing images scanned on
> > various other scanners, that the scans I get from my scanner are a lot
> > sharper (and have no need to sharpen), and have better tonality.
> >
>
> Austin,
>
> I am using a Howtek D4000 for my 4x5 scans and for grayscale
> scanning I can
> choose to use any of the three sensors. I have set the software to use the
> Blue channel under the assumption that the shorter wave length
> will give the
> sharpest scan. How do you think this compares to using a ND filter?
>
> Martin

Hi Martin,

As far as tonality goes, it is going to be "different", as you are only
getting the blue info...and at the very least, your curve will be WAY off.
You'll probably be able to (assuming high bit mode) make the curves "match",
but it may take a LOT of work...

In regards to sharpness, you should be comparable (if not better, because of
higher resolution), in as such that PMT scanners do not suffer the same
issues with the red and blue channels as CCD scanners do.

You could always simply replace one of the filters with an ND filter ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> >I am using a Howtek D4000 for my 4x5 scans and for grayscale
> scanning I can
> >choose to use any of the three sensors. I have set the software
> to use the
> >Blue channel under the assumption that the shorter wave length
> will give the
> >sharpest scan. How do you think this compares to using a ND filter?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> The problem is that most sensors are weakest in the blue channel... I'd
> either go with green or mix channels aftwer scanning..
>
> Just my 2 cents..

Keith,

For PMTs???  What do you mean by weakest?

Blue (and more so Red), in CCDs suffer from "smear", which basically means
they are fuzzy...and both Blue and Red have higher energy than green, which
is why they smear...

Regards,

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>>      
>>>
>>The problem is that most sensors are weakest in the blue channel... I'd
>>either go with green or mix channels after scanning..
>>
>>Just my 2 cents..
>>    
>>
>
>Keith,
>
>For PMTs???  What do you mean by weakest?
>
>Blue (and more so Red), in CCDs suffer from "smear", which basically means
>they are fuzzy...and both Blue and Red have higher energy than green, which
>is why they smear...
>  
>
OOpss.. I missed the "Howtek" line.. too much going on at once..

I'd still recommend green or channel mixing (particularly if scanning 
color positive materials).. I'll leave the call to you on what you'd 
recommend for color negative or traditional silver B&W negs.. but now 
that I think about it.. Would you recommend a different color for 
chromagenic B&W than silver?


Keith
 
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I'd still recommend green or channel mixing (particularly if scanning
> color positive materials).. I'll leave the call to you on what you'd
> recommend for color negative or traditional silver B&W negs.. but now
> that I think about it.. Would you recommend a different color for
> chromagenic B&W than silver?

Hi Keith,

It's a tough call...it depends on what you want...if you use red and blue
from a CCD, you're going to decrease sharpness...no doubt.  If you don't use
them, you lose information, and won't get as accurate a tonality (or even
detail information too!) as you would by using them in the mix.  Sigh.  I do
believe green is the best of them all though, for sharpness that is...

I like my ND scanner... ;-)

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question


>
> > (snip)
> > Austin,
> >
> > I am using a Howtek D4000 for my 4x5 scans and for grayscale
> > scanning I can
> > choose to use any of the three sensors. I have set the software to use
the
> > Blue channel under the assumption that the shorter wave length
> > will give the
> > sharpest scan. How do you think this compares to using a ND filter?
> >
> > Martin
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> As far as tonality goes, it is going to be "different", as you are only
> getting the blue info...and at the very least, your curve will be WAY off.
> You'll probably be able to (assuming high bit mode) make the curves
"match",
> but it may take a LOT of work...
>
> In regards to sharpness, you should be comparable (if not better, because
of
> higher resolution), in as such that PMT scanners do not suffer the same
> issues with the red and blue channels as CCD scanners do.
>
> You could always simply replace one of the filters with an ND filter ;-)
>
Austin,

I guess I should have specified B&W negs being scanned to grayscale as
opposed to scanning color film. I don't see large differences between the
three channels with conventionally developed B&W film but with pyro
developed films the data seems to be spread over a wider range on the blue
channel compared to the Red and Green.

Given that I am not inclined to attempt replacing one of the filters in the
scanner <G> and the PMT technology, what would you recommend among the three
choices I have available. Take a grayscale scan off a single channel, take
the grayscale scan from the scanner without specifying a specific channel (I
have no idea what the firmware in the scanner does in that case. An average
would seem likely but I would not care to second guess what the designers
might have done.) or scan in RGB mode converting to grayscale in Photoshop?

Thanks,
Martin

On 7/31/02 9:03 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Hi Keith,
> 
> It's a tough call...it depends on what you want...if you use red and blue
> from a CCD, you're going to decrease sharpness...no doubt.  If you don't use
> them, you lose information, and won't get as accurate a tonality (or even
> detail information too!) as you would by using them in the mix.  Sigh.  I do
> believe green is the best of them all though, for sharpness that is...

Good old 60 Green, 30 Red, 10 blue...its the photoshop way! <g>

> I like my ND scanner... ;-)
> 
We know Austin!  and we know that Todd likes his too...right Todd?


$^)>

Robert

on 8/1/02 1:36 AM, Robert Morrison wrote:

>> I like my ND scanner... ;-)
>> 
> We know Austin!  and we know that Todd likes his too...right Todd?

Just remember what momma said, playing with your ND filter too much can make
you go blind...

Todd

Steve,

Adobe's Russell Brown has a tutorial called 'Seeing in Black and White' on
his website (www.russellbrown.com) that explains and shows the effects of
the different ways of converting to B&W, and adds another of his own.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "millerhillsteve" <steverob@...>

 How does desaturating using channel sliders differ from
> simply converting to greyscale?
>

> Austin,
>
> I guess I should have specified B&W negs being scanned to grayscale as
> opposed to scanning color film. I don't see large differences between the
> three channels with conventionally developed B&W film but with pyro
> developed films the data seems to be spread over a wider range on the blue
> channel compared to the Red and Green.
>
> Given that I am not inclined to attempt replacing one of the
> filters in the
> scanner <G> and the PMT technology, what would you recommend
> among the three
> choices I have available. Take a grayscale scan off a single channel, take
> the grayscale scan from the scanner without specifying a specific
> channel (I
> have no idea what the firmware in the scanner does in that case.
> An average
> would seem likely but I would not care to second guess what the designers
> might have done.) or scan in RGB mode converting to grayscale in
> Photoshop?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin

Hi Martin,

I'd suggest doing all the things you mention, and seeing which one gives you
the best results ;-)

Regards,

Austin

In a message dated 8/1/2002 4:26:09 AM Central Daylight Time, 
bobfrost@... writes:


> Adobe's Russell Brown has a tutorial called 'Seeing in Black and White' on
> his website (www.russellbrown.com) that explains and shows the effects of
> the different ways of converting to B&W, and adds another of his own.
> 
> 

Bob,
Thanks so much for this reference.  It opens up lots of possibilities.  
Besides, I loved the Video show.
Billie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am about to convert my 1270 to a dedicated BxW printer and have 
decided to go with the
MIS STANDARD FS INKSET. What is the best choice for glossy papers?	Just bought 
a 1280 (refurb) with the $100 rebate. Did not think the refurbs would 
be  eligible but found out they were and saved a few bucks. After rebate 
$328, not to bad.

	Thanks for any suggestions.
	Bill


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question


(snip)

> > Given that I am not inclined to attempt replacing one of the
> > filters in the
> > scanner <G> and the PMT technology, what would you recommend
> > among the three
> > choices I have available. Take a grayscale scan off a single channel,
take
> > the grayscale scan from the scanner without specifying a specific
> > channel (I
> > have no idea what the firmware in the scanner does in that case.
> > An average
> > would seem likely but I would not care to second guess what the
designers
> > might have done.) or scan in RGB mode converting to grayscale in
> > Photoshop?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I'd suggest doing all the things you mention, and seeing which one gives
you
> the best results ;-)
>
Austin,

I have been working my way though the different methods and a 16-bit
grayscale scan with the blue filter seems as good as the others with a
smaller initial file size. I wanted to check your expertise and make sure I
was not missing something.

Martin

Todd,

Isn't Russell Brown's method better still?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
>
> You might want to try taking your action one step further. I got this from
> Jeff Schewe...
>
> Make each channel a layer, this allows you to adjust the opacity of each
> channel/layer, plus apply layer blend modes too. For instance, and this is
> arbitrary, you could put the red channel above the green, set it's blend
> mode to multiply, and it's opacity to 60%, the green channel could be set
to

> screen at 30%, etc...)
>
> He finds it more intuitive, and powerful, than channel mixer.

Hi Bob,

I dunno. I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought Jeff's way was better -
they both offer a lot of control. The one thing I do like about Jeff's way
is that it's easy for me to toggle the layers on and off to remind myself
what each channel looks like. With Russell's I feel a little like I'm
swinging those sliders almost arbitrarily. OTOH, if I want to do something
tricky to a non primary color (i.e. cyan) I'd rather do it with Russell's
approach. I'm sure whichever method one has the most familiarity with will
serve them best.

Todd Flashner

> Todd,
> 
> Isn't Russell Brown's method better still?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
>> 
>> You might want to try taking your action one step further. I got this from
>> Jeff Schewe...
>> 
>> Make each channel a layer, this allows you to adjust the opacity of each
>> channel/layer, plus apply layer blend modes too. For instance, and this is
>> arbitrary, you could put the red channel above the green, set it's blend
>> mode to multiply, and it's opacity to 60%, the green channel could be set
> to
>> screen at 30%, etc...)
>> 
>> He finds it more intuitive, and powerful, than channel mixer.

I think you've got the answer. As with anything in Photoshop, there are
multiple roads to the same destination. Each image is different and may
require a different method to achieve the desired result. We are
actually fortunate to have so many methods to do a grayscale conversion:
Russell's technique, Jeff Schewe's, channel mixer, Hue/Sat, etc.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
 <mailto:sshire@...> sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Flashner [mailto:tflash@...] 
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:04 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Converting to B&W Workflow question
 
Hi Bob,

I dunno. I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought Jeff's way was
better -
they both offer a lot of control. The one thing I do like about Jeff's
way
is that it's easy for me to toggle the layers on and off to remind
myself
what each channel looks like. With Russell's I feel a little like I'm
swinging those sliders almost arbitrarily. OTOH, if I want to do
something
tricky to a non primary color (i.e. cyan) I'd rather do it with
Russell's
approach. I'm sure whichever method one has the most familiarity with
will
serve them best.

Todd Flashner

> Todd,
> 
> Isn't Russell Brown's method better still?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
>> 
>> You might want to try taking your action one step further. I got this
from
>> Jeff Schewe...
>> 
>> Make each channel a layer, this allows you to adjust the opacity of
each
>> channel/layer, plus apply layer blend modes too. For instance, and
this is
>> arbitrary, you could put the red channel above the green, set it's
blend
>> mode to multiply, and it's opacity to 60%, the green channel could be
set
> to
>> screen at 30%, etc...)
>> 
>> He finds it more intuitive, and powerful, than channel mixer.





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1155066/R=0/*http:/adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-
302> 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]