Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1

Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1

2002-08-02 by david_bookbinder@sprynet.com

I use Picture Window Pro together with Elements all the time. 
I think they are quite complementary. I don't right off recall 
which features of Picture Window Pro are missing from Picture 
Window, but PWP does have the equivalent of the channel mixer, 
as well as several other features particularly useful for black 
and white work. And, it performs all operations on either eight 
or 16-bit files. You should probably download both trial versions 
and see which one best suits your needs. 

- David

= = = Original message = = =

I'm having a ball learning to use Photoshop Elements.
But, one feature that Adobe left out of the "Elements"
Version of Photoshop is the Channel Mixer.  I can
already see that this is a very powerful tool for digital
b&w work.  I want it!  Reality is I'm retired on a fixed
income.  The full version of Photoshop is a lot of money
for a lot of features I'll never use ~ or am I being a 
"penny wise and a pound foolish?"

Anyway, Picture Window, by Digital Light & Color,
claims some pretty sophisticated filtering capabilities.
Does Picture Window 3.1 allow one to manipulate b&w
RGB images like Photoshop's channel mixer?

Would Picture Window compliment Photoshop Elements
or be redundant?  At $49.95 it looks like heck of a buy.

Thanks,
stephentucker@...



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 "flames."
- 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/


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1

2002-08-02 by Truman Prevatt

I would go with PW Pro. I have Photoshop and use it some. But PWP is 
much more intutive and easier to use. There may be some functionality in 
Photoshop not in PWP, but from what I have found you won't need it very 
often if at all. The good news is PWP is fully functional on 16 bit 
data. Not even Photoshop can claim that.

I think the Pro version for I think $89.00 is a better deal the regular 
version. At least that was the conclusing I came to some time back.

Truman

steve1t wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I'm having a ball learning to use Photoshop Elements.
> But, one feature that Adobe left out of the "Elements"
> Version of Photoshop is the Channel Mixer. I can
> already see that this is a very powerful tool for digital
> b&w work. I want it! Reality is I'm retired on a fixed
> income. The full version of Photoshop is a lot of money
> for a lot of features I'll never use - or am I being a
> "penny wise and a pound foolish?"
>
> Anyway, Picture Window, by Digital Light & Color,
> claims some pretty sophisticated filtering capabilities.
> Does Picture Window 3.1 allow one to manipulate b&w
> RGB images like Photoshop's channel mixer?
>
> Would Picture Window compliment Photoshop Elements
> or be redundant? At $49.95 it looks like heck of a buy.
>
> Thanks,
> stephentucker@...
>

RE: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1

2002-08-02 by Shire,Stanley

There is, I believe, a better way to convert RGB to grayscale than with
Channel Mixer. Russell Brown has a nice pdf tutorial and video on his
web site. 
http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html
 
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
 <mailto:sshire@...> sshire@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...] 
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:54 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1
 
I would go with PW Pro. I have Photoshop and use it some. But PWP is 
much more intutive and easier to use. There may be some functionality in

Photoshop not in PWP, but from what I have found you won't need it very 
often if at all. The good news is PWP is fully functional on 16 bit 
data. Not even Photoshop can claim that.

I think the Pro version for I think $89.00 is a better deal the regular 
version. At least that was the conclusing I came to some time back.

Truman

steve1t wrote:

> I'm having a ball learning to use Photoshop Elements.
> But, one feature that Adobe left out of the "Elements"
> Version of Photoshop is the Channel Mixer. I can
> already see that this is a very powerful tool for digital
> b&w work. I want it! Reality is I'm retired on a fixed
> income. The full version of Photoshop is a lot of money
> for a lot of features I'll never use - or am I being a
> "penny wise and a pound foolish?"
>
> Anyway, Picture Window, by Digital Light & Color,
> claims some pretty sophisticated filtering capabilities.
> Does Picture Window 3.1 allow one to manipulate b&w
> RGB images like Photoshop's channel mixer?
>
> Would Picture Window compliment Photoshop Elements
> or be redundant? At $49.95 it looks like heck of a buy.
>
> Thanks,
> stephentucker@...
>







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

 
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.
gif> 
Click
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075965.3644786.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http:/www.lensexpress.com>  here to find your
contact lenses!

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]

Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1

2002-08-02 by Robert Morrison

I think the problem with this and many other techniques (including Jeff
Schewe's working with individual channels in layers) is that they can't be
done in 16-bit mode.  Almost all the files that I work with in photoshop
(either a RAW digital file or scanned film files) are available in 16 bit
mode.  This seems to be one advantage for working in the channel mixer or
just using straight grayscale conversion.  It's ironic that Jeff, who is a
big proponent of 16 bit workflows, suggests a non-16-bit BW conversion
methodology.  I'm curious to know whether anyone has compared these
methodologies in actual prints...is there a loss of tonal quality using one
of the non-16-bit workflows vs. just using the channel mixer on a 16 bit
file...and the critical issue is...can you see the difference in the actual
print. It doesn't seem that these methodologies are actually remapping
values...like a curve or level adjustment...but you have obviously given up
the 16 bit data...so if you then wanted to do a curve or level adjustment
you would be out of luck.

Robert

done On 8/2/02 6:24 AM, "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> There is, I believe, a better way to convert RGB to grayscale than with
> Channel Mixer. Russell Brown has a nice pdf tutorial and video on his
> web site. 
> http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html
> 
> 
> 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: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:54 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Adobe Channel Mixer versus Picture Window 3.1
> 
> I would go with PW Pro. I have Photoshop and use it some. But PWP is
> much more intutive and easier to use. There may be some functionality in
> 
> Photoshop not in PWP, but from what I have found you won't need it very
> often if at all. The good news is PWP is fully functional on 16 bit
> data. Not even Photoshop can claim that.
> 
> I think the Pro version for I think $89.00 is a better deal the regular
> version. At least that was the conclusing I came to some time back.
> 
> Truman
> 
> steve1t wrote:
> 
>> I'm having a ball learning to use Photoshop Elements.
>> But, one feature that Adobe left out of the "Elements"
>> Version of Photoshop is the Channel Mixer. I can
>> already see that this is a very powerful tool for digital
>> b&w work. I want it! Reality is I'm retired on a fixed
>> income. The full version of Photoshop is a lot of money
>> for a lot of features I'll never use - or am I being a
>> "penny wise and a pound foolish?"
>> 
>> Anyway, Picture Window, by Digital Light & Color,
>> claims some pretty sophisticated filtering capabilities.
>> Does Picture Window 3.1 allow one to manipulate b&w
>> RGB images like Photoshop's channel mixer?
>> 
>> Would Picture Window compliment Photoshop Elements
>> or be redundant? At $49.95 it looks like heck of a buy.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> stephentucker@...
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> <http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.
> gif> 
> Click
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075965.3644786.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
> 019182:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http:/www.lensexpress.com>  here to find your
> contact lenses!
> 
> 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]
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.