Digital BW, The Print

My Howtek drum scanner has made my Polaroid SprintScan 120 redundant and I am selling it. Before I put it up on eBay I thought that I would offer it to the group.

It has seen minimal use and includes updated versions of Silverfast, Polaroid Insight and the 6x24cm anti-Newton glass carrier in addition to the three standard carriers. The unit is under an extended Polaroid service warranty until May '03 and additional extensions can be purchased.

If you are interested, I am asking $1,850 plus shipping. Contact me OFF-LIST at mwesley250@... (if this address is truncated you can find it on the group's homepage).

Martin Wesley





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

I am looking for a plugin like The Imaging Factory's "Convert to B&W Pro" 
that will work with PaintShop Pro.

Any suggestions?

-- Alan Scharf

Having mostly (don't get me started) enjoyed using the Piezography 
driver on my trusty G4 and  humble 1160, I thought my prayers were 
answered when an affordable used 7000 materialized last month. Hah!

The Piezo plugin doesn't work with the large format "Pro" Epsons. For 
a while, ConeTech sold the Piezography24 RIP for these machines, 
Windows only, for around $2K if I recall. So I get a cheap Wintel box 
and I'd be in business for a mere $2500 or so. Except do to the legal 
snafu, the RIP is no longer available from ConeTech. It is from R9, 
who don't even have a website (who are these guys?) for $1500, still 
Windows. Did I just save $500? No.

ConeTech is now touting Imageprint 5 for the big printers, $1500. 
Windows version recommended, the Mac version is "balky". OS X version 
in the works, but not even clear that quad black printing will be 
supported by IP in the future. A friend has IP5 on his 7000 using MIS 
FSN inks, very impressive results, but I will wait. I need to run OS 
X because the school I teach at will convert next year. And even the 
Piezo driver won't work on OS X.

Meanwhile, I stumble across Gimp Print, a free, open 
source/unix-based universal print driver for Mac OS X 10.2. Free? 
This I have to try. Which I did yesterday and today, and I may well 
have just saved $1500.

Gimp Print is not really a RIP, but it does allow a lot more control 
than you get with either the Epson or Piezo drivers. Installation 
(along with the companion Postscript helper ap) was straightforward 
and uneventful. Configuring printers is also a snap, but install the 
Epson driver first if there is one (I did this for my 1160 and 1200). 
In setting the printer up for Gimp Print, you can rename the printers 
and retain both driver options. The nozzle check/alignment utility is 
not accessible through Gimp Print, but ends up readily available from 
the Applications folder. Since there is no OS X Epson driver for the 
7000 yet, I'll have to get its utility via Classic.

I first tried Gimp Print with my 1200 and Gen4 color inks. It was at 
least as good as what I got through the Epson driver, but the 
ConeTech canned HPR profile still needed some tweaking. I'll play 
some more with it later.

The Selenium Tone/Museum Black carts for the 7000 are still 
back-ordered from IJM, so I set about figuring how to do quad black 
printing using the 1160 and the PiezoTone Warm neutral inks in the 
CIS. I used the standard Piezo 21-step ramp for my tests, as I know 
what it should look like (even if it often doesn't). There are many 
settings options available in GP, and some of the defaults (like 360 
dpi) are of no use. Most of what I started with changed. Making it 
work took about 20 sheets of EAM and a half dozen of HPR over about 6 
hours. As neither paper is a choice in GP, I started with the PLPP 
profile. It's an iterative process, and I made my share of mistakes. 
There are probably other ways to accomplish the same goal.

There actually is a "Quad Ink" choice, but that clearly needed 
serious profiling within each tone band-something else for later. You 
can, however, print grayscale very nicely with the default settings 
and quad inks. Dotty, yes, but quick and serviceable.

The real trick, though, is to convert the grayscale image to CMYK, 
and adjust the stepwedge tonalities with a combination of PS curves 
and Gimp's ink adjustments. This is easy to do because the Epson 
driver (which expects an RGB version of the file) is not used. 
Avoiding the Epson driver is part of the reason people buy RIPs, of 
course.

I began by adjusting the highlights using the yellow and magenta 
position inks, aggressively in the 10-0% range, and maxing out at 
about the 50% step. I ran both overlapping the range, as the "yellow" 
cools the magenta position ink a bit and adds some density. For 
whatever reason, my "magenta" ink prints light in both Piezo and 
Gimp. I also bumped the "magenta" level in Gimp Prints "Expert" 
settings to 2.0 from the default of 1.0. Yowzah, the highlights were 
smooth and dot-free, just like Piezo.

I then cut the black way back, hoping to get the kind of shadow 
separation I like in Piezo.  It was then a matter of bringing in the 
cyan to match the magenta/yellow at 50% and the black at about 95%. 
This was harder than I expected, with all the Epson paper profiles. I 
kept getting the same blocked up shadows I've seen with the Epson 
driver. As Epson has part-funded the Gimp project, I suspect they 
supplied the profiles. There was just one odd profile on the list: 
"Ilford Heavy Paper", whatever that is. Well, whatever that is, that 
was it. Bingo, shazaam, it works! Damn thing looks just like 
Piezography: dot-free highlights, smooth transitions, open shadows.

Next step was to try the half-dozen or so dither choices available in 
Gimp-Print. I got the smoothest results with "Ordered", but the 
results might be different on other printers. At least there is a 
choice.

Finally, I recorded an action in PS to convert a grayscale file to 
CMYK, add the tone curve, and send to the printer. Hardly more 
difficult than exporting to Piezo.

The curves aren't finalized yet-I may have to make some major changes 
for the six ink Selenium Tone inks and the 7000. Happy to share them 
as is with anyone looking for an OS X solution and willing to explore 
Gimp Print on their own-I can't offer any tech support:-)

Bruce


-- 
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bruce Kinch <pvx@r...> 
wrote:

Hi Bruce,

I'm very interested in what you've done so far.  I have actually
been slowly going down exactly the same path you are but
I'm not nearly as far along.  I'm currently using an 1160 with
MIS VM inks and am looking at the possibility of a 7000 or 7500.
The gimp-print software is running OK but it seems to be
enough different from the epson drivers that the Roark curves
need significant modification.  The "Quadtone" option seems
to need a lot of calibration work, but directly accessing CMYK
seems like a much better solution.

Anyway, I'd love to have whatever you can share.  Email me
directly if you'd like (roy at harrington.com).  

BTW, have you figured out what to do when faced with a 6
color printer?   The fact that PS doesn't have a CcMmYK
mode, together with the fact that there really isn't a light
C or M with the Piezo inks seems like it could present problems.

Thanks,
Roy

Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

> 
> The curves aren't finalized yet-I may have to make some major 
changes 
> for the six ink Selenium Tone inks and the 7000. Happy to 
share them 
> as is with anyone looking for an OS X solution and willing to 
explore 

> Gimp Print on their own-I can't offer any tech support:-)
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bruce C. Kinch
> Associate Professor of Photography
> The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

I can't help you since I use Photoshop, but during a recent general 
surfing session I came across someone selling a "pro" B&W converter 
plugin for PS and was baffled why anyone would need one with the 
Channel mixer being so straight forward to use.  The big selling 
point was that you could select Channel Mixer settings that 
correspond to specific B&W filters and I could not help but wonder 
why anyone would want to limit themselves to just the standard filter 
sets... like going into the digital domain with its almost limitless 
possibilities and then limiting your possibilities to those that 
existed 50 years ago... hmmm.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Scharf <ascharf@s...> 
wrote:
> I am looking for a plugin like The Imaging Factory's "Convert to 
B&W Pro" 

> that will work with PaintShop Pro.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> -- Alan Scharf

Maybe Channel Mixer becomes straightforward with a lot of experience, but I 
find Convert B/W Pro to be immensely intuitive after 30+ years of black and 
white film exposure, developing and darkroom printing.

For example, the color filter adjustment is a continuous slider that goes 
from 0 (red) all the way round the color wheel to 360 (red again) with 
another slider that lets you apply the selected color filter from 0 to 
100%.  "Exposure" is held constant while you adjust filter color, so you 
simply watch the gray tones come and go as you slide across the filter 
bar.  Separate sliders adjust "negative exposure", "print exposure" and 
paper contrast grade (continuous in 0.1 steps from -1.0 to 5.)  Another 
section of the control panel lets you select color response and gamma to 
match the color sensitivity of five common black and white films (by name), 
or "linear" response, or "Photoshop" response (not sure what that is,) or 
set the color response manually at a half dozen points across the 
spectrum.  The gamma slider is graduated from -100 to +100.  Finally, you 
can apply color, either sepia or blue, either as "tint" (which seems to 
apply it across the whole print) or "tone" (which seems to be proportional 
to the density in the print, with more effect on shadows than highlights) 
and either of these are applied with a slider that goes from 0 (no tone) to 
100 (way too much.)

All changes are visible on a preview image, which can be zoomed and 
panned.  The underlying file is not changed until you click OK.  Filter 
settings are remembered from one image to the next, so you don't have to 
start over from neutral each time.

I'm sure all of this can be done directly in Photoshop with one or more of 
the tools available, but to put it all in one panel with sliders that match 
the way I have thought about black and white film and prints for decades, 
made this particular filter well worth its cost TO ME.

Cheers,
Kip

At 12/2/2002 06:47 AM +0000, Mark Hahn wrote, in part:

>I can't help you since I use Photoshop, but during a recent general
>surfing session I came across someone selling a "pro" B&W converter
>plugin for PS and was baffled why anyone would need one with the
>Channel mixer being so straight forward to use.  The big selling
>point was that you could select Channel Mixer settings that
>correspond to specific B&W filters and I could not help but wonder
>why anyone would want to limit themselves to just the standard filter
>sets... like going into the digital domain with its almost limitless
>possibilities and then limiting your possibilities to those that
>existed 50 years ago... hmmm.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Hahn"
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> I can't help you since I use Photoshop, but during a recent general 
> surfing session I came across someone selling a "pro" B&W converter 
> plugin for PS and was baffled why anyone would need one with the 
> Channel mixer being so straight forward to use.  The big selling 
> point was that you could select Channel Mixer settings that 
> correspond to specific B&W filters and I could not help but wonder 
> why anyone would want to limit themselves to just the standard filter 
> sets... 


But you don't limit yourself..  It's not like the Channel Mixer
becomes disabled when you install this..  In the case of something
like the plugin you describe, having it create channel mixer presets
is a GREAT idea.  It's akin to buying an action (like Fred
Miranda's)...  Not only do you now have the presets, but they can
become starting points for learning how to take advantage of the
different settings available with the Channel mixer.  For someone
REALLY trying to leaarn and digest specific PShop functions, a set of
actions/presets or a plugin like you describe can flatten the learning
curve significantly.  In effect, not only do you get the functions it
contains, but you learn by example..

>like going into the digital domain with its almost limitless 
> possibilities and then limiting your possibilities to those that 
> existed 50 years ago... hmmm.
> 

Not so, as I point out, these resets can become starting points..
Fromthere you can play. It's the difference between handing a child
who has never seen baseball a ball and bat and asking them to hit the
ball without example, on the one hand; and on the other showing them
another child playing baseball instead first..

Keith

I agree.  I became quite adept with channel mixer, but the advantage 
of convert to B&W pro is it's more holistic approach.  It is 
certainly not some beginners substitute.  It builds on the power of 
PS.  

Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Kip Babington 
<cbabing3@s...> wrote:
> Maybe Channel Mixer becomes straightforward with a lot of 
experience, but I 
> find Convert B/W Pro to be immensely intuitive after 30+ years of 
black and 
> white film exposure, developing and darkroom printing.
> 
> For example, the color filter adjustment is a continuous slider 
that goes 
> from 0 (red) all the way round the color wheel to 360 (red again) 
with 
> another slider that lets you apply the selected color filter from 0 
to 
> 100%.  "Exposure" is held constant while you adjust filter color, 
so you 
> simply watch the gray tones come and go as you slide across the 
filter 
> bar.  Separate sliders adjust "negative exposure", "print exposure" 
and 
> paper contrast grade (continuous in 0.1 steps from -1.0 to 5.)  
Another 
> section of the control panel lets you select color response and 
gamma to 
> match the color sensitivity of five common black and white films 
(by name), 
> or "linear" response, or "Photoshop" response (not sure what that 
is,) or 
> set the color response manually at a half dozen points across the 
> spectrum.  The gamma slider is graduated from -100 to +100.  
Finally, you 
> can apply color, either sepia or blue, either as "tint" (which 
seems to 
> apply it across the whole print) or "tone" (which seems to be 
proportional 
> to the density in the print, with more effect on shadows than 
highlights) 
> and either of these are applied with a slider that goes from 0 (no 
tone) to 
> 100 (way too much.)
> 
> All changes are visible on a preview image, which can be zoomed and 
> panned.  The underlying file is not changed until you click OK.  
Filter 
> settings are remembered from one image to the next, so you don't 
have to 
> start over from neutral each time.
> 
> I'm sure all of this can be done directly in Photoshop with one or 
more of 
> the tools available, but to put it all in one panel with sliders 
that match 
> the way I have thought about black and white film and prints for 
decades, 
> made this particular filter well worth its cost TO ME.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kip
> 
> At 12/2/2002 06:47 AM +0000, Mark Hahn wrote, in part:
> >I can't help you since I use Photoshop, but during a recent general
> >surfing session I came across someone selling a "pro" B&W converter
> >plugin for PS and was baffled why anyone would need one with the
> >Channel mixer being so straight forward to use.  The big selling
> >point was that you could select Channel Mixer settings that
> >correspond to specific B&W filters and I could not help but wonder
> >why anyone would want to limit themselves to just the standard 
filter
> >sets... like going into the digital domain with its almost 
limitless
> >possibilities and then limiting your possibilities to those that
> >existed 50 years ago... hmmm.

I scan b&W film as color to take full advantage of the Nikon software 
and it seems to me that even then, converting from rgb to grayscale 
via the channel mixer provides some degree of control over the 
process.  However, given that the basic data scanned is only b&w, I 
can't quite understand why the channel mixer should make a difference 
when converting from a monochrome rgb scan to grayscale.  I don't 
think I am imagining it.  Would B&W Pro be worth it in this case?  I 
think my Nik sharpening plug-in comes from the same company and I am 
really pleased with it.

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> wrote:
> I agree.  I became quite adept with channel mixer, but the 
advantage 

> of convert to B&W pro is it's more holistic approach.  It is 
> certainly not some beginners substitute.  It builds on the power of 
> PS.  
>

The BW Pro plugin is from the imaging factory.
http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

I don't believe that scanning BW film as color would benefit from either this plug or the channel mixer given that the RGB channels would be identical (unless there is higher scanner sensitivity on one of the channels)
That said, I shoot all color neg, scan as color neg and use the plug to convert to grayscale. The advantage here is that the color neg, when converted to grayscale can give the effect of shooting BW film with a filter. This is filtration in post-processing rather than while shooting. I used to shoot BW and carried loads of filters (red, green, blue, yellow, etc). The color neg has eliminated that.
Stan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kobrin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:08 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins


  I scan b&W film as color to take full advantage of the Nikon software 
  and it seems to me that even then, converting from rgb to grayscale 
  via the channel mixer provides some degree of control over the 
  process.  However, given that the basic data scanned is only b&w, I 
  can't quite understand why the channel mixer should make a difference 
  when converting from a monochrome rgb scan to grayscale.  I don't 
  think I am imagining it.  Would B&W Pro be worth it in this case?  I 
  think my Nik sharpening plug-in comes from the same company and I am 
  really pleased with it.

  Steve


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> wrote:
  > I agree.  I became quite adept with channel mixer, but the 
  advantage 
  > of convert to B&W pro is it's more holistic approach.  It is 
  > certainly not some beginners substitute.  It builds on the power of 
  > PS.  
  > 



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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! Terms of Service. 



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

Shire,Stanley wrote:

>I don't believe that scanning BW film as color would benefit from either this plug or the channel mixer given that the RGB channels would be identical (unless there is higher scanner sensitivity on one of the channels)
>
That is true of silver grain films...

For chromagenic films, scanning them in RGB (using all three channels) 
will provide a benefit depending upon how the scanner's firmware 
normally does a B&W scan...

If the scanner in B&W mode simply selects one channel, and RGB scan is 
preferable.. However, some scanners, the SS4000 for example,  still 
actually do a 3 channel scan and balance the channels in firmware before 
outputting, as I understand it.  In such a case, any advannatge to 
scaanning ANY emulsion as a full-on RGB scan is likely to be minor.
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Stephen Kobrin wrote:

>I scan b&W film as color to take full advantage of the Nikon software 
>and it seems to me that even then, converting from rgb to grayscale 
>via the channel mixer provides some degree of control over the 
>process.  However, given that the basic data scanned is only b&w, I 
>can't quite understand why the channel mixer should make a difference 
>when converting from a monochrome rgb scan to grayscale.  I don't 
>think I am imagining it.  Would B&W Pro be worth it in this case?  I 
>think my Nik sharpening plug-in comes from the same company and I am 
>really pleased with it.
>
>  
>

Well,  that depends on:

1)     how the Nikon does a B&W scan

2)    How much chromagenic film you shoot

See my other post on this..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Keith,

> 1)     how the Nikon does a B&W scan

What do you mean by this?  How can it do it in any other way besides as RGB?

Regards,

Austin

I use XP2+, but in this instance was scanning HP4+.  I use a Nikon 
coolscan 2000 and have found that I get much better scans using the 
Nikon color management system in rgb than when I scan in grayscale.  
I have always assumed that if I scan B&W film, it does not matter how 
I convert and just desaturate and then do a mode change.  Last night 
I tried the channel mixer and saw a marked difference between the red 
and blue channels.  

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image 
Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Stephen Kobrin wrote:
> 
> >I scan b&W film as color to take full advantage of the Nikon 
software 
> >and it seems to me that even then, converting from rgb to 
grayscale 
> >via the channel mixer provides some degree of control over the 
> >process.  However, given that the basic data scanned is only b&w, 
I 
> >can't quite understand why the channel mixer should make a 
difference 
> >when converting from a monochrome rgb scan to grayscale.  I don't 
> >think I am imagining it.  Would B&W Pro be worth it in this case?  
I 
> >think my Nik sharpening plug-in comes from the same company and I 
am 
> >really pleased with it.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> Well,  that depends on:
> 
> 1)     how the Nikon does a B&W scan
> 
> 2)    How much chromagenic film you shoot
> 
> See my other post on this..
> Keith
> 
>  
> 
> "Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 

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

Might want to check this one out:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/photokit/index.html

It automates (better than I can) everything I used to spend time in PS doing
or looking up how to do.

No affiliation.  Just a happy customer.

hth,

-- 
Blair Hartsfield
Hart Photography
http://www.hart-photography.com

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Keith,
>
>  
>
>>1)     how the Nikon does a B&W scan
>>    
>>
>
>What do you mean by this?  How can it do it in any other way besides as RGB?
>
>  
>
When doing a B&W scan...

Does it scan and retain the data from all three channels?

or does it simply use, say the Green channel data?
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

> >Keith,
> >
> >
> >
> >>1)     how the Nikon does a B&W scan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What do you mean by this?  How can it do it in any other way
> besides as RGB?
> >
> >
> >
> When doing a B&W scan...
>
> Does it scan and retain the data from all three channels?
>
> or does it simply use, say the Green channel data?
> Keith

Keith,

If it merely used the green channel, it would be losing information.
Typically, scanners that scan B&W in RGB, of which is %99.999999 of them,
they scan in RGB and use some precanned "mix".  This mix is based on someone
else's opinion on what is best...so most people simply do a full RGB scan,
and convert in PS using their own mix.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:
> The BW Pro plugin is from the imaging factory.
> http://www.theimagingfactory.com/
> 
> I don't believe that scanning BW film as color would benefit from 
either this plug or the channel mixer given that the RGB channels 
would be identical (unless there is higher scanner sensitivity on one 
of the channels)
<CLIP>

It depends on the scanner. I scan Tri-x and HP5+ 5x7 negs on a Umax 
Powerlook III using one of the color neg. options and the result is 
three very different channels. It is somehow related to the orange 
mask on color neg. film because I get a different result using the 
Kodak neg. choice or the Agfa neg. etc. choice.

I don't know if other scanners work this way or not but, for me, 
there is different information in each channel.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com/

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley"
> <sshire@c...> wrote:
> > The BW Pro plugin is from the imaging factory.
> > http://www.theimagingfactory.com/
> >
> > I don't believe that scanning BW film as color would benefit from
> either this plug or the channel mixer given that the RGB channels
> would be identical (unless there is higher scanner sensitivity on one
> of the channels)
> <CLIP>
>
> It depends on the scanner. I scan Tri-x and HP5+ 5x7 negs on a Umax
> Powerlook III using one of the color neg. options and the result is
> three very different channels. It is somehow related to the orange
> mask on color neg. film because I get a different result using the
> Kodak neg. choice or the Agfa neg. etc. choice.
>
> I don't know if other scanners work this way or not but, for me,
> there is different information in each channel.

The RGB channels will never be identical (or %99.99999999999999999999999
etc. almost never) when scanning B&W film in RGB.

Austin

BW neg scans in color neg mode

Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results

35mm tmax 100 neg
Tmax developer

The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)

Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb

4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place them in areas of differing densities.

Imacon 848 scan
Marker    R    G    B
1            22    22    22
2            255    255    255
3            240    234    234
4            166    165    159


Nikon Coolscan 1000

Marker    R        G        B
1            5        5        4
2            255    255    255
3            206    199    186
4            174    171    166

Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the scanners.


Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, there are slight differences with red being higher in density than green and blue being ther lowest density.

The similar density differences between the two scans might indicate a slight warm color in the film base.

Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning in RGB and GS modes.
Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW Pro plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make me go with a file that's 3x larger.

Any thoughts appreciated.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kobrin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:08 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins


  I scan b&W film as color to take full advantage of the Nikon software 
  and it seems to me that even then, converting from rgb to grayscale 
  via the channel mixer provides some degree of control over the 
  process.  However, given that the basic data scanned is only b&w, I 
  can't quite understand why the channel mixer should make a difference 
  when converting from a monochrome rgb scan to grayscale.  I don't 
  think I am imagining it.  Would B&W Pro be worth it in this case?  I 
  think my Nik sharpening plug-in comes from the same company and I am 
  really pleased with it.

  Steve


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> wrote:
  > I agree.  I became quite adept with channel mixer, but the 
  advantage 
  > of convert to B&W pro is it's more holistic approach.  It is 
  > certainly not some beginners substitute.  It builds on the power of 
  > PS.  
  > 



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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! Terms of Service. 



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

Stan,

You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS and compare
the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as well as
compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All Channels,
Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see anywhere from
small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in the
different channels.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
> BW neg scans in color neg mode
>
> Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
>
> 35mm tmax 100 neg
> Tmax developer
>
> The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
> figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
>
> Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
> Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
>
> 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
> them in areas of differing densities.
>
> Imacon 848 scan
> Marker    R    G    B
> 1            22    22    22
> 2            255    255    255
> 3            240    234    234
> 4            166    165    159
>
>
> Nikon Coolscan 1000
>
> Marker    R        G        B
> 1            5        5        4
> 2            255    255    255
> 3            206    199    186
> 4            174    171    166
>
> Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
> wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the scanners.
>
>
> Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, there
> are slight differences with red being higher in density than
> green and blue being ther lowest density.
>
> The similar density differences between the two scans might
> indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
>
> Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
> in RGB and GS modes.
> Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW Pro
> plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
> me go with a file that's 3x larger.
>
> Any thoughts appreciated.

Austin:
That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the histo display)
tiny, tiny differences.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Austin Franklin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins


  Stan,

  You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS and compare
  the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as well as
  compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All Channels,
  Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see anywhere from
  small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in the
  different channels.

  Regards,

  Austin


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...]
  > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
  >
  >
  > BW neg scans in color neg mode
  >
  > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
  >
  > 35mm tmax 100 neg
  > Tmax developer
  >
  > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
  > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
  >
  > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
  > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
  >
  > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
  > them in areas of differing densities.
  >
  > Imacon 848 scan
  > Marker    R    G    B
  > 1            22    22    22
  > 2            255    255    255
  > 3            240    234    234
  > 4            166    165    159
  >
  >
  > Nikon Coolscan 1000
  >
  > Marker    R        G        B
  > 1            5        5        4
  > 2            255    255    255
  > 3            206    199    186
  > 4            174    171    166
  >
  > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
  > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the scanners.
  >
  >
  > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, there
  > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
  > green and blue being ther lowest density.
  >
  > The similar density differences between the two scans might
  > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
  >
  > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
  > in RGB and GS modes.
  > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW Pro
  > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
  > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
  >
  > Any thoughts appreciated.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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! Terms of Service. 



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

Stan's data seem clear, but all I can say is that when I scan B&W 
film as rgb, for some negatives, using the channel mixer to convert 
to grayscale makes a big difference.  

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:
> Austin:
> That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the 
histo display)
> tiny, tiny differences.
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Austin Franklin 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... 
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> 
> 
>   Stan,
> 
>   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS 
and compare
>   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as 
well as
>   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All 
Channels,
>   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see 
anywhere from
>   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in 
the
>   different channels.
> 
>   Regards,
> 
>   Austin
> 
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@c...]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
>   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
>   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>   >
>   >
>   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
>   >
>   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
>   >
>   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
>   > Tmax developer
>   >
>   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
>   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
>   >
>   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
>   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
>   >
>   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
>   > them in areas of differing densities.
>   >
>   > Imacon 848 scan
>   > Marker    R    G    B
>   > 1            22    22    22
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            240    234    234
>   > 4            166    165    159
>   >
>   >
>   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
>   >
>   > Marker    R        G        B
>   > 1            5        5        4
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            206    199    186
>   > 4            174    171    166
>   >
>   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
>   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the 
scanners.
>   >
>   >
>   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, 
there
>   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
>   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
>   >
>   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
>   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
>   >
>   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
>   > in RGB and GS modes.
>   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW 
Pro
>   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
>   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
>   >
>   > Any thoughts appreciated.
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   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! Terms of 
Service. 

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

Stan,

What you may perceive as a "tiny difference" in the histogram, can show up
as a significant difference in the actual viewed image.  Did you try that?

Austin

> Austin:
> That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the
> histo display)
> tiny, tiny differences.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Austin Franklin
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
>   Stan,
>
>   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into
> PS and compare
>   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as well as
>   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All Channels,
>   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see anywhere from
>   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in the
>   different channels.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Austin
>
>
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
>   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>   >
>   >
>   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
>   >
>   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
>   >
>   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
>   > Tmax developer
>   >
>   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
>   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
>   >
>   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
>   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
>   >
>   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
>   > them in areas of differing densities.
>   >
>   > Imacon 848 scan
>   > Marker    R    G    B
>   > 1            22    22    22
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            240    234    234
>   > 4            166    165    159
>   >
>   >
>   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
>   >
>   > Marker    R        G        B
>   > 1            5        5        4
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            206    199    186
>   > 4            174    171    166
>   >
>   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
>   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the scanners.
>   >
>   >
>   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, there
>   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
>   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
>   >
>   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
>   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
>   >
>   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
>   > in RGB and GS modes.
>   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW Pro
>   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
>   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
>   >
>   > Any thoughts appreciated.

Steve,

The data may be "clear", but really doesn't give you much information as to
what it really means as related to the actual image.

If you look at the histograms, as I've suggested, of an RGB scanned B&W
image, you will see, what may appear to you, as small differences.  Then,
take a look at the actual image, and thumb through the individual channels,
and you'll see a significant difference.  Point is, it's hard to quantify
the actual differences in an image using the histogram...it merely shows
there really are differences, but gives most people no real idea what the
visual impact of those differences may be.  Sometimes it's clear, other
times, not so.

I think the original issue is, as I read why Stan did this in the first
place, is to determine if his scanners B&W is better/worse than doing a scan
in RGB and converting in PS.  I can't draw any conclusion to that question,
as the data for the scanners B&W scan wasn't presented (do you happen to
have this, Stan?) along with the actual RGB data, and the RGB data all by it
self isn't enough.

Whether any scanner's B&W mode will give you equal results to RGB mode is
really scanner dependant, as every scanner will do this differently.  Almost
all scanners scan B&W in RGB anyway, and then convert based on some "canned"
mix of the three channels.

Austin

>
> Stan's data seem clear, but all I can say is that when I scan B&W
> film as rgb, for some negatives, using the channel mixer to convert
> to grayscale makes a big difference.
>
> Steve
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley"
> <sshire@c...> wrote:
> > Austin:
> > That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the
> histo display)
> > tiny, tiny differences.
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Austin Franklin
> >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> >   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
> >   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> >
> >
> >   Stan,
> >
> >   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS
> and compare
> >   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as
> well as
> >   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All
> Channels,
> >   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see
> anywhere from
> >   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in
> the
> >   different channels.
> >
> >   Regards,
> >
> >   Austin
> >
> >
> >   > -----Original Message-----
> >   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@c...]
> >   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
> >   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> >   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
> >   >
> >   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
> >   >
> >   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
> >   > Tmax developer
> >   >
> >   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
> >   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
> >   >
> >   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
> >   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
> >   >
> >   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
> >   > them in areas of differing densities.
> >   >
> >   > Imacon 848 scan
> >   > Marker    R    G    B
> >   > 1            22    22    22
> >   > 2            255    255    255
> >   > 3            240    234    234
> >   > 4            166    165    159
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
> >   >
> >   > Marker    R        G        B
> >   > 1            5        5        4
> >   > 2            255    255    255
> >   > 3            206    199    186
> >   > 4            174    171    166
> >   >
> >   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
> >   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the
> scanners.
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes,
> there
> >   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
> >   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
> >   >
> >   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
> >   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
> >   >
> >   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
> >   > in RGB and GS modes.
> >   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW
> Pro
> >   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
> >   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
> >   >
> >   > Any thoughts appreciated.

Really, if something makes a task easier for you it is worth it.  For 
me, with *only* 25+ years of tradition B&W experience ;) the Channel 
mixer seemed immediately intuitive after only reading about it in a 
PS for photographers book... but that is just me. 

The starting point doesn't seem so important to me since I have to 
iterate on all three sliders to get a *good* photo on screen.  In 
gerenal I spend about 30 seconds with the channel mixer and then a 
minute or tow with the Curve adjustment and I am there... and I am 
certainly no PS-pro.

Actually, it was my perceived ease of using the Channel Mixer that 
got me to buy a digital camera in the first place... I shot 
everything as if I had B&W film in there... which is good since I can 
only print B&W:)

hope you are having as much fun with your tools as I am with mine:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Kip Babington 
<cbabing3@s...> wrote:
> Maybe Channel Mixer becomes straightforward with a lot of 
experience, but I 
> find Convert B/W Pro to be immensely intuitive after 30+ years of 
black and 
> white film exposure, developing and darkroom printing.
...

Austin:
Do you seriously mean did I look at the image???
What else would I do? Am I missing something here?
I am fairly competent in Photoshop, have been printing traditional color
and black and white for about 40 years and have studied with Ansel
Adams. My monitor is carefully (and regularly) calibrated with an
EyeOne, I build profiles with real software and take my vitamins and
Wheaties each day. Despite this, I still see only very minor differences
in the channels of a grayscale image scanned as a color neg and I
attribute these to a base color. A grayscale is just
that..gray.neutral.no color, and if someone can show me how scanning a
BW neg as an RGB image would allow any (other that very minor) changes
in the image, I'd love to learn this.
Remember Levi Hill.
S.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 

Stan,

What you may perceive as a "tiny difference" in the histogram, can show
up
as a significant difference in the actual viewed image.  Did you try
that?

Austin

> Austin:
> That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the
> histo display)
> tiny, tiny differences.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Austin Franklin
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
>   Stan,
>
>   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into
> PS and compare
>   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as
well as
>   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All
Channels,
>   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see anywhere
from
>   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in
the
>   different channels.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Austin
>
>
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
>   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>   >
>   >
>   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
>   >
>   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
>   >
>   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
>   > Tmax developer
>   >
>   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
>   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
>   >
>   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
>   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
>   >
>   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
>   > them in areas of differing densities.
>   >
>   > Imacon 848 scan
>   > Marker    R    G    B
>   > 1            22    22    22
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            240    234    234
>   > 4            166    165    159
>   >
>   >
>   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
>   >
>   > Marker    R        G        B
>   > 1            5        5        4
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            206    199    186
>   > 4            174    171    166
>   >
>   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
>   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the
scanners.
>   >
>   >
>   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, there
>   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
>   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
>   >
>   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
>   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
>   >
>   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
>   > in RGB and GS modes.
>   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW Pro
>   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
>   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
>   >
>   > Any thoughts appreciated.





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http:/ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;7586687;u?
http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1328027/rand=389261027> 

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]

Can you send me a before and after file? Email attachment off-list would
be great.
sshire@...
 
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:skobrin@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Stan's data seem clear, but all I can say is that when I scan B&W 
film as rgb, for some negatives, using the channel mixer to convert 
to grayscale makes a big difference.  

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:
> Austin:
> That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the 
histo display)
> tiny, tiny differences.
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Austin Franklin 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... 
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> 
> 
>   Stan,
> 
>   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS 
and compare
>   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as 
well as
>   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All 
Channels,
>   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see 
anywhere from
>   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in 
the
>   different channels.
> 
>   Regards,
> 
>   Austin
> 
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@c...]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
>   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
>   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>   >
>   >
>   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
>   >
>   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
>   >
>   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
>   > Tmax developer
>   >
>   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
>   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
>   >
>   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
>   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
>   >
>   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
>   > them in areas of differing densities.
>   >
>   > Imacon 848 scan
>   > Marker    R    G    B
>   > 1            22    22    22
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            240    234    234
>   > 4            166    165    159
>   >
>   >
>   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
>   >
>   > Marker    R        G        B
>   > 1            5        5        4
>   > 2            255    255    255
>   > 3            206    199    186
>   > 4            174    171    166
>   >
>   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
>   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the 
scanners.
>   >
>   >
>   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes, 
there
>   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
>   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
>   >
>   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
>   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
>   >
>   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
>   > in RGB and GS modes.
>   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW 
Pro
>   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
>   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
>   >
>   > Any thoughts appreciated.
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   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! Terms of 
Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http:/ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?
http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=367442212> 

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]

I did this as a curiosity to see if a BW neg scanned as RGB would
actually show any real changes with either channel mixer or with
ConvertToBW Pro.
I did not scan the test neg as a grayscale. Would this be useful?
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:23 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Steve,

The data may be "clear", but really doesn't give you much information as
to
what it really means as related to the actual image.

If you look at the histograms, as I've suggested, of an RGB scanned B&W
image, you will see, what may appear to you, as small differences.
Then,
take a look at the actual image, and thumb through the individual
channels,
and you'll see a significant difference.  Point is, it's hard to
quantify
the actual differences in an image using the histogram...it merely shows
there really are differences, but gives most people no real idea what
the
visual impact of those differences may be.  Sometimes it's clear, other
times, not so.

I think the original issue is, as I read why Stan did this in the first
place, is to determine if his scanners B&W is better/worse than doing a
scan
in RGB and converting in PS.  I can't draw any conclusion to that
question,
as the data for the scanners B&W scan wasn't presented (do you happen to
have this, Stan?) along with the actual RGB data, and the RGB data all
by it
self isn't enough.

Whether any scanner's B&W mode will give you equal results to RGB mode
is
really scanner dependant, as every scanner will do this differently.
Almost
all scanners scan B&W in RGB anyway, and then convert based on some
"canned"
mix of the three channels.

Austin


>
> Stan's data seem clear, but all I can say is that when I scan B&W
> film as rgb, for some negatives, using the channel mixer to convert
> to grayscale makes a big difference.
>
> Steve
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley"
> <sshire@c...> wrote:
> > Austin:
> > That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the
> histo display)
> > tiny, tiny differences.
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Austin Franklin
> >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> >   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
> >   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> >
> >
> >   Stan,
> >
> >   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into PS
> and compare
> >   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, as
> well as
> >   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All
> Channels,
> >   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see
> anywhere from
> >   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal differences in
> the
> >   different channels.
> >
> >   Regards,
> >
> >   Austin
> >
> >
> >   > -----Original Message-----
> >   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@c...]
> >   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
> >   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> >   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
> >   >
> >   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
> >   >
> >   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
> >   > Tmax developer
> >   >
> >   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
> >   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these two)
> >   >
> >   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
> >   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
> >   >
> >   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to place
> >   > them in areas of differing densities.
> >   >
> >   > Imacon 848 scan
> >   > Marker    R    G    B
> >   > 1            22    22    22
> >   > 2            255    255    255
> >   > 3            240    234    234
> >   > 4            166    165    159
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
> >   >
> >   > Marker    R        G        B
> >   > 1            5        5        4
> >   > 2            255    255    255
> >   > 3            206    199    186
> >   > 4            174    171    166
> >   >
> >   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans as I
> >   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the
> scanners.
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes,
> there
> >   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
> >   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
> >   >
> >   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
> >   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
> >   >
> >   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between scanning
> >   > in RGB and GS modes.
> >   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the ConvertToBW
> Pro
> >   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to make
> >   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
> >   >
> >   > Any thoughts appreciated.





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233351.2658116.4039490.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1341247/R=0/*https:/www.gotomypc.com/tr/yh/grp/300_mapG/g22l
p?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233351.2658116.4039490.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1341247/rand=636333118> 

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]

> I did this as a curiosity to see if a BW neg scanned as RGB would
> actually show any real changes with either channel mixer or with
> ConvertToBW Pro.
> I did not scan the test neg as a grayscale. Would this be useful?

Hi Stan,

I think so.  It might give some insight into how the two aforementioned
scanners convert RGB to grayscale.

Austin

Hi Stan,

> Austin:
> Do you seriously mean did I look at the image???
> What else would I do? Am I missing something here?

It wasn't meant that if you didn't, you were a dunderfutzen!  It wasn't my
first thought do simply thumb through the channels...

> I am fairly competent in Photoshop, have been printing traditional color
> and black and white for about 40 years and have studied with Ansel
> Adams. My monitor is carefully (and regularly) calibrated with an
> EyeOne, I build profiles with real software and take my vitamins and
> Wheaties each day.

OK, you get a gold star!

> Despite this, I still see only very minor differences
> in the channels of a grayscale image scanned as a color neg and I
> attribute these to a base color.

I'm not sure what you mean by "base color", as in the actual color of the
film?  The majority of differences I saw in the one B&W negative I scanned
as RGB were in the mid-tones.  How would the base color manifest it self
prominently different in the mid-tones?

> A grayscale is just
> that..gray.neutral.no color, and if someone can show me how scanning a
> BW neg as an RGB image would allow any (other that very minor) changes
> in the image, I'd love to learn this.

Perhaps you could explain why "convert to grayscale" in Photoshop uses a
"mix" of the three channels, instead of just using one...

The scanner (at least all but the Leaf, that I am aware of) scans everything
as RGB anyway...whether you have selected B&W or color, and then converts
the RGB data to grayscale using some canned "mix" of the three color
channels.  Perhaps there is a scanner that simply takes one of the color
channels and calls that grayscale...and sends you only that channel when you
ask for grayscale data.

What people are saying, is they get better results by getting the RGB data
from the scanner and applying their own "mix" of the three channels in PS
when they convert to grayscale.  This makes sense, as different films will
have different "colors", and simply using a single mix in the scanner will
give inconsistent results across films.  I also believe you certainly can do
at least as equal a job in PS using your own mix, if the mix the scanner has
chosen happens to be perfect, but somehow I doubt it, so it leads one to
believe you certainly could do better.  It's also subjective.  What's
important in the image to one person (such as using a lot of the red channel
may make the image fuzzier) may be different to another.

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

Two non-technical points.  First, scanning in B&W mode using my Nikon 
Coolscan 2000 produces awful images -- flat and difficult to 
correct.  Using rgb turns on the Nikon firmware and I get a much 
better result. Second, I do find that I generally see a significant 
difference across channels when converting to b&W.  

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> The data may be "clear", but really doesn't give you much 
information as to
> what it really means as related to the actual image.
> 
> If you look at the histograms, as I've suggested, of an RGB scanned 
B&W
> image, you will see, what may appear to you, as small differences.  
Then,
> take a look at the actual image, and thumb through the individual 
channels,
> and you'll see a significant difference.  Point is, it's hard to 
quantify
> the actual differences in an image using the histogram...it merely 
shows
> there really are differences, but gives most people no real idea 
what the
> visual impact of those differences may be.  Sometimes it's clear, 
other
> times, not so.
> 
> I think the original issue is, as I read why Stan did this in the 
first
> place, is to determine if his scanners B&W is better/worse than 
doing a scan
> in RGB and converting in PS.  I can't draw any conclusion to that 
question,
> as the data for the scanners B&W scan wasn't presented (do you 
happen to
> have this, Stan?) along with the actual RGB data, and the RGB data 
all by it
> self isn't enough.
> 
> Whether any scanner's B&W mode will give you equal results to RGB 
mode is
> really scanner dependant, as every scanner will do this 
differently.  Almost
> all scanners scan B&W in RGB anyway, and then convert based on 
some "canned"
> mix of the three channels.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> >
> > Stan's data seem clear, but all I can say is that when I scan B&W
> > film as rgb, for some negatives, using the channel mixer to 
convert
> > to grayscale makes a big difference.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley"
> > <sshire@c...> wrote:
> > > Austin:
> > > That was the first thing that I did (look at the channels in the
> > histo display)
> > > tiny, tiny differences.
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Austin Franklin
> > >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > >   Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:51 PM
> > >   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> > >
> > >
> > >   Stan,
> > >
> > >   You can just scan the B&W negative, in RGB, and bring it into 
PS
> > and compare
> > >   the three channels.  You can compare RGB using the histogram, 
as
> > well as
> > >   compare them visually by hitting <ctl> ~, 1, 2 and 3...for All
> > Channels,
> > >   Red, Green, Blue...  Depending on the image, you will see
> > anywhere from
> > >   small tonal differences, to quite noticeable tonal 
differences in
> > the
> > >   different channels.
> > >
> > >   Regards,
> > >
> > >   Austin
> > >
> > >
> > >   > -----Original Message-----
> > >   > From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@c...]
> > >   > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:21 PM
> > >   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > >   > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > BW neg scans in color neg mode
> > >   >
> > >   > Quick on-the-fly-between-classes test results
> > >   >
> > >   > 35mm tmax 100 neg
> > >   > Tmax developer
> > >   >
> > >   > The scans were made on an Imacon 848 and a Coolscan 1000 (I
> > >   > figured that the greatest differences would show with these 
two)
> > >   >
> > >   > Both scanners set to scan at 8 bit, color neg mode.
> > >   > Scan sizes were matched as closely as possible to 25mb
> > >   >
> > >   > 4 Markers placed in the same areas on each file. Tried to 
place
> > >   > them in areas of differing densities.
> > >   >
> > >   > Imacon 848 scan
> > >   > Marker    R    G    B
> > >   > 1            22    22    22
> > >   > 2            255    255    255
> > >   > 3            240    234    234
> > >   > 4            166    165    159
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > Nikon Coolscan 1000
> > >   >
> > >   > Marker    R        G        B
> > >   > 1            5        5        4
> > >   > 2            255    255    255
> > >   > 3            206    199    186
> > >   > 4            174    171    166
> > >   >
> > >   > Did not correct for density differences between the scans 
as I
> > >   > wanted make no changes to the raw data as it came from the
> > scanners.
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > Interpret this data as you will. My conclusion is that yes,
> > there
> > >   > are slight differences with red being higher in density than
> > >   > green and blue being ther lowest density.
> > >   >
> > >   > The similar density differences between the two scans might
> > >   > indicate a slight warm color in the film base.
> > >   >
> > >   > Big conclusion (YMMV): Very minimal difference between 
scanning
> > >   > in RGB and GS modes.
> > >   > Very minor tonal changes when converting with the 
ConvertToBW
> > Pro
> > >   > plugin. Not enough (if I were shooting a lot of BW film) to 
make

> > >   > me go with a file that's 3x larger.
> > >   >
> > >   > Any thoughts appreciated.

Excuse the tone of my last post. Way too many students doing PS
restoration projects, me trying to give each a reasonable workflow and
hanging a faculty show into the wee hours.
 
Your points are interesting. Steven Kobrin is going to email me his file
when he returns from a trip so that I can see what you guys are
experiencing.
I will get the gs scan of the test neg done in a day or two.
S.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:22 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Hi Stan,

> Austin:
> Do you seriously mean did I look at the image???
> What else would I do? Am I missing something here?

It wasn't meant that if you didn't, you were a dunderfutzen!  It wasn't
my
first thought do simply thumb through the channels...

> I am fairly competent in Photoshop, have been printing traditional
color
> and black and white for about 40 years and have studied with Ansel
> Adams. My monitor is carefully (and regularly) calibrated with an
> EyeOne, I build profiles with real software and take my vitamins and
> Wheaties each day.

OK, you get a gold star!

> Despite this, I still see only very minor differences
> in the channels of a grayscale image scanned as a color neg and I
> attribute these to a base color.

I'm not sure what you mean by "base color", as in the actual color of
the
film?  The majority of differences I saw in the one B&W negative I
scanned
as RGB were in the mid-tones.  How would the base color manifest it self
prominently different in the mid-tones?

> A grayscale is just
> that..gray.neutral.no color, and if someone can show me how scanning a
> BW neg as an RGB image would allow any (other that very minor) changes
> in the image, I'd love to learn this.

Perhaps you could explain why "convert to grayscale" in Photoshop uses a
"mix" of the three channels, instead of just using one...

The scanner (at least all but the Leaf, that I am aware of) scans
everything
as RGB anyway...whether you have selected B&W or color, and then
converts
the RGB data to grayscale using some canned "mix" of the three color
channels.  Perhaps there is a scanner that simply takes one of the color
channels and calls that grayscale...and sends you only that channel when
you
ask for grayscale data.

What people are saying, is they get better results by getting the RGB
data
from the scanner and applying their own "mix" of the three channels in
PS
when they convert to grayscale.  This makes sense, as different films
will
have different "colors", and simply using a single mix in the scanner
will
give inconsistent results across films.  I also believe you certainly
can do
at least as equal a job in PS using your own mix, if the mix the scanner
has
chosen happens to be perfect, but somehow I doubt it, so it leads one to
believe you certainly could do better.  It's also subjective.  What's
important in the image to one person (such as using a lot of the red
channel
may make the image fuzzier) may be different to another.

Regards,

Austin


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 the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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

Hi Stan,

No problem...you slid in a bit of humor, and having "conversed" with you for
some time now, I wasn't at all offended.  I mean, after all, you do
credential your self as a "PS 6 ACE" ;-)

I did two very quick scans, one "true" grayscale (the Leaf scanner scans
grayscale using a single neutral density filter, instead of RGB and
converting), one RGB (as my scanner scans grayscale NOT in RGB).  Please
don't comment on the tonality of the scan, yes, to make it a decent image,
it needs adjustment...but for the purposes of this test, it doesn't matter.
I set the scanner to scan at 8" x 8" at 100 PPI...so the files aren't that
big.  I just put them on the web, they are TIFF files, so they are
uncompressed.  I used the EXACT same setpoints, cropping and tonal curves
for each...

http://www.darkroom.com/Leafscan/B&W01.TIF
http://www.darkroom.com/Leafscan/RGB01.TIF

"Thumb" through the channels, compare the two scans, and let me know what
you think.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:49 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
> Excuse the tone of my last post. Way too many students doing PS
> restoration projects, me trying to give each a reasonable workflow and
> hanging a faculty show into the wee hours.
>
> Your points are interesting. Steven Kobrin is going to email me his file
> when he returns from a trip so that I can see what you guys are
> experiencing.
> I will get the gs scan of the test neg done in a day or two.
> S.
>
> Stan Shire
> Associate Professor/Department Chair
> Photographic Imaging
> Community College of Philadelphia
> Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
> Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops
>
> 215 751-8320
> sshire@...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:22 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
> Hi Stan,
>
> > Austin:
> > Do you seriously mean did I look at the image???
> > What else would I do? Am I missing something here?
>
> It wasn't meant that if you didn't, you were a dunderfutzen!  It wasn't
> my
> first thought do simply thumb through the channels...
>
> > I am fairly competent in Photoshop, have been printing traditional
> color
> > and black and white for about 40 years and have studied with Ansel
> > Adams. My monitor is carefully (and regularly) calibrated with an
> > EyeOne, I build profiles with real software and take my vitamins and
> > Wheaties each day.
>
> OK, you get a gold star!
>
> > Despite this, I still see only very minor differences
> > in the channels of a grayscale image scanned as a color neg and I
> > attribute these to a base color.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "base color", as in the actual color of
> the
> film?  The majority of differences I saw in the one B&W negative I
> scanned
> as RGB were in the mid-tones.  How would the base color manifest it self
> prominently different in the mid-tones?
>
> > A grayscale is just
> > that..gray.neutral.no color, and if someone can show me how scanning a
> > BW neg as an RGB image would allow any (other that very minor) changes
> > in the image, I'd love to learn this.
>
> Perhaps you could explain why "convert to grayscale" in Photoshop uses a
> "mix" of the three channels, instead of just using one...
>
> The scanner (at least all but the Leaf, that I am aware of) scans
> everything
> as RGB anyway...whether you have selected B&W or color, and then
> converts
> the RGB data to grayscale using some canned "mix" of the three color
> channels.  Perhaps there is a scanner that simply takes one of the color
> channels and calls that grayscale...and sends you only that channel when
> you
> ask for grayscale data.
>
> What people are saying, is they get better results by getting the RGB
> data
> from the scanner and applying their own "mix" of the three channels in
> PS
> when they convert to grayscale.  This makes sense, as different films
> will
> have different "colors", and simply using a single mix in the scanner
> will
> give inconsistent results across films.  I also believe you certainly
> can do
> at least as equal a job in PS using your own mix, if the mix the scanner
> has
> chosen happens to be perfect, but somehow I doubt it, so it leads one to
> believe you certainly could do better.  It's also subjective.  What's
> important in the image to one person (such as using a lot of the red
> channel
> may make the image fuzzier) may be different to another.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

I've been watching this thread for a while now and thought I'd share
something I found on Russell Brown's web site.  Although this thread
deals with scanning B&W negs 
and his method is more geared towards converting color images to
greyscale I thought it might be of interest to some here.  He uses
two Hue/Saturation adjustment 
layers on top of a full range color image.

He has a quicktime movie of it here  (7.5Megs)
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/moviesps/ColortoB&W.mov

He also has 820 kb pdf document here
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/pdf/colortoB&W.pdf

I'm not sure if this would be of any use for an RGB scan of a B&W neg
but you never know.  It is very reminiscent of filtering for B&W
shoots.

> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 4 Dec 2002 02:42:13 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1163
> 
> Convert to B&W plugins


Stanley:

Isn't point is that shooting in digital color and converting using the
plug-ins, channel mixer, etc, gives tremendous control over the output and
major advantages over b/w film?


Andy

Two points:
1.	Shooting color, scanning in RGB and converting to grayscale give
tremendous flexibility. The effect is that of shooting BW film with a
filter. The advantage here is that you are (in effect) deciding which
filter in post-processing.
2.	You mention digital color. Of course the effect is the same but
I've pretty much given up on shooting digital for anything that I might
deem "important."
I've designated the CP5000 to family pix and quickie snapshots. For me,
the resolution just isn't there. It keeps getting better but for now
I'll stick to the Mamiya 7 with the 6x7 frame size and scan the negs.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Levin [mailto:alevin@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:11 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 


> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 4 Dec 2002 02:42:13 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1163
> 
> Convert to B&W plugins


Stanley:

Isn't point is that shooting in digital color and converting using the
plug-ins, channel mixer, etc, gives tremendous control over the output
and
major advantages over b/w film?


Andy


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 the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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

> Isn't point is that shooting in digital color and converting using the
> plug-ins, channel mixer, etc, gives tremendous control over the output and
> major advantages over b/w film?

Andy,

I don't understand.  What control (or anything for that matter) is lacking
in scanning B&W films as grayscale if your ultimate goal is grayscale?

Austin

Using the Channel mixer/plugins gives you the flexiblity to choose 
a "filter" after shooting (ie. green, yellow, orange etc.), with B&W 
film you get one chance and if you don't like it, tough.  Also, you 
get infinitely variable filters digitally, while with film you only 
get the choice of what you happen to have with you (I am usually 
lucky if I have just one filter with me).  It gives you much more 
control and flexiblity over traditional methods.

mark

...
> I don't understand.  What control (or anything for that matter) is 
lacking
> in scanning B&W films as grayscale if your ultimate goal is 
grayscale?
> 
> Austin

Mark,

I still don't understand.  Why can't you get the exact same effect in PS on
a file that is grayscale?  All a filter does is shift/modify the tonality,
and you can easily do that in PS to a grayscale file.

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
> Using the Channel mixer/plugins gives you the flexiblity to choose
> a "filter" after shooting (ie. green, yellow, orange etc.), with B&W
> film you get one chance and if you don't like it, tough.  Also, you
> get infinitely variable filters digitally, while with film you only
> get the choice of what you happen to have with you (I am usually
> lucky if I have just one filter with me).  It gives you much more
> control and flexiblity over traditional methods.
>
> mark
>
> ...
> > I don't understand.  What control (or anything for that matter) is
> lacking
> > in scanning B&W films as grayscale if your ultimate goal is
> grayscale?
> >
> > Austin

> I still don't understand.  Why can't you get the exact same effect in PS
on
> a file that is grayscale?  All a filter does is shift/modify the tonality,
> and you can easily do that in PS to a grayscale file.

It's not the same thing. Shoot a Macbeth colour chart in both colour and
B&W. When you scan the colour image in colour, and use the channel mixer in
PS to convert to greyscale, you can alter the translation of tonal
relationships between the colours, much as you can do with colour filters
when shooting B&W film. As the channel mixer is adjusted, the grayscale
portion of the Macbeth chart doesn't change much, whereas the tonal
placement of colour patches can be drastically changed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moreno Polloni [mailto:mp@...]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:03 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
>
>
> > I still don't understand.  Why can't you get the exact same effect in PS
> on
> > a file that is grayscale?  All a filter does is shift/modify
> the tonality,
> > and you can easily do that in PS to a grayscale file.
>
> It's not the same thing. Shoot a Macbeth colour chart in both colour and
> B&W. When you scan the colour image in colour, and use the
> channel mixer in
> PS to convert to greyscale, you can alter the translation of tonal
> relationships between the colours, much as you can do with colour filters
> when shooting B&W film. As the channel mixer is adjusted, the grayscale
> portion of the Macbeth chart doesn't change much, whereas the tonal
> placement of colour patches can be drastically changed.

Moreno,

It may not be the "same thing" but you certainly can get the EXACT same
results in your final grayscale output.  You can do manipulation to the
grayscale data and arrive at the EXACT same resultant output as you can by
manipulating the RGB data then converting to grayscale.

Austin

> It may not be the "same thing" but you certainly can get the EXACT same
> results in your final grayscale output.  You can do manipulation to the
> grayscale data and arrive at the EXACT same resultant output as you can by
> manipulating the RGB data then converting to grayscale.

Let say there's a grayscale image of an 18% blue patch, an 18% red patch,
and a greyscale strip.

With the channel mixer and an RGB image, I can alter the tonal values of the
blue and red patches, making one darker and lighter without affecting any
changes on the tonal values of the greyscale strip.

In a greyscale image, the colour patches appear identical, both middle grey.
I can manipulate the greyscale data, but it makes no distinction between the
red and blue patches because they are both the same grey value. If I change
the value of one colour patch, the value of the other colour patch is also
changed in the same manner, as well as the corresponding grey patch on the
greyscale.

How can you manipulate the greyscale image to separate or blend different
colour values as you would via the channel mixer, if there are (obviously)
no colour values in the greyscale image?

> > It may not be the "same thing" but you certainly can get the EXACT same
> > results in your final grayscale output.  You can do manipulation to the
> > grayscale data and arrive at the EXACT same resultant output as
> you can by
> > manipulating the RGB data then converting to grayscale.
>
> Let say there's a grayscale image of an 18% blue patch, an 18% red patch,
> and a greyscale strip.
>
> With the channel mixer and an RGB image, I can alter the tonal
> values of the
> blue and red patches, making one darker and lighter without affecting any
> changes on the tonal values of the greyscale strip.
>
> In a greyscale image, the colour patches appear identical, both
> middle grey.
> I can manipulate the greyscale data, but it makes no distinction
> between the
> red and blue patches because they are both the same grey value.
> If I change
> the value of one colour patch, the value of the other colour patch is also
> changed in the same manner, as well as the corresponding grey patch on the
> greyscale.
>
> How can you manipulate the greyscale image to separate or blend different
> colour values as you would via the channel mixer, if there are (obviously)
> no colour values in the greyscale image?

Moreno,

If the original image is real color data, not B&W scanned as RGB, yes.
Doing as you suggest to a B&W image scanned in RGB doesn't work.

But that begs the question, why?  If you are drastically altering the
reality of the tonality, that more becomes art than photography, at least in
my book.

Austin

> If the original image is real color data, not B&W scanned as RGB, yes.
> Doing as you suggest to a B&W image scanned in RGB doesn't work.

That's what Mark and I were trying to say.

> But that begs the question, why?  If you are drastically altering the
> reality of the tonality, that more becomes art than photography, at least
in
> my book.

Funny you should say that. I've photographed art for a book (not your book)
as well as art magazines, that required a bit of experimentation with colour
filters to achieve a representative B&W rendition. They were technical
exercises, but if you want to call it art, that's ok with me.

Another instance where one could use the channel mixer to create "art" would
be when shooting a portrait and you want to minimize acne or an excessively
ruddy complexion.

> 
> Subject: RE: Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I still don't understand.  Why can't you get the exact same effect in PS on
> a file that is grayscale?  All a filter does is shift/modify the tonality,
> and you can easily do that in PS to a grayscale file.
> 
> Austin


Austin

In "theory" you are right, but in practicality I think you are  mistaken.

Once the color values are gone obviously you lose the ability to make
adjustments based solely on them, which is one basic idea of filtration in
b/w photography, to change the greyscale values of different colors with
similar densities so you can more clearly distinguish between them as
greyscale objects. 

You can isolate the greyscale objects themselves according to shape, or
density (more difficult, ie "dark red jacket in evergreen trees")  but this
is significantly more difficult than having the color range tools to work
with.    




Andy

Ummm, do you consider choosing a specific B&W film type based on how 
it responds to colors more art than photography as well?  And why 
does a yellow filter generally render skies appear more "realist"?  
Is using color filters with B&W film not photography either?  In my 
digital transformation from color to B&W I rarely even go as extreme 
as a orange filter.

mark

...
> But that begs the question, why?  If you are drastically altering 
the
> reality of the tonality, that more becomes art than photography, at 
least in

> my book.
> 
> Austin

Of course, if you know your film and chemistry well enough, you can 
use Technical Pan film and get the same "art" by traditional darkroom 
methods...

why are some folks so bent on making digital manipulation seem like 
cheating?

mark 

...
> Another instance where one could use the channel mixer to 
create "art" would
> be when shooting a portrait and you want to minimize acne or an 
excessively
> ruddy complexion.

> why are some folks so bent on making digital manipulation seem like
> cheating?

Mark,

Yes, some believe that, but I for one do not.  BUT...is it art or
photography?  Does it even matter?  To some, yes, and obviously to others,
no.  Either view isn't right or wrong.

I have no problem with someone manipulating the hell out of an image, and
with someone who doesn't do any (which is me), and I leave that as a
personal preference to the creator of the image.  I, personally, think my
images are just perfect with no filters, no digital manipulation (I don't
even USM), only setpoints and tonal curves and an occasional dust spotting
here and there.  But, that's me...and I don't impose my "standards" on
others creativity.

I also think some people do overdo the "fiddly" stuff though, and IMO, that
takes away from the image...but again, that's just my personal opinion.

Regards,

Austin

Austin, Austin, Austin and Mark, Mark, Mark:
Is photography not art?
If I vary the tonal scale of the negative by utilizing the Zone System
or burn a sky or bleach a highlight or dodge a shadow, have I left the
realm of Photography and entered the Art Zone?
When I used to do silver prints (before I got religion and an Epson) I
cannot now recall ever making a print that wasn't manipulated in some
way. It would seem that even varying paper grades would move me into
art. Am I impure? 
What's wrong with an orange filter? Why limit your vision? 
S.
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Ummm, do you consider choosing a specific B&W film type based on how 
it responds to colors more art than photography as well?  And why 
does a yellow filter generally render skies appear more "realist"?  
Is using color filters with B&W film not photography either?  In my 
digital transformation from color to B&W I rarely even go as extreme 
as a orange filter.

mark

...
> But that begs the question, why?  If you are drastically altering 
the
> reality of the tonality, that more becomes art than photography, at 
least in
> my book.
> 
> Austin


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 the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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

Dontcha love this stuff.
This list gives me more technical and intellectual stimulation than I
get at the college and it's pretty intense there.
Half of our faculty are major techies (Brooks and RIT) and the rest are
the result of art/photo MFA programs. The tech contingent spends lunch
comparing dLogE curves, and I'm teaching our oldest faculty member how
to build profiles. The artsy folk are looking at prints and deciding if
Somerset Velvet or Photorag works best with the image from a scan of a
pinhole paper neg.
 
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Shire,Stanley [mailto:sshire@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:02 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Austin, Austin, Austin and Mark, Mark, Mark:
Is photography not art?
If I vary the tonal scale of the negative by utilizing the Zone System
or burn a sky or bleach a highlight or dodge a shadow, have I left the
realm of Photography and entered the Art Zone?
When I used to do silver prints (before I got religion and an Epson) I
cannot now recall ever making a print that wasn't manipulated in some
way. It would seem that even varying paper grades would move me into
art. Am I impure? 
What's wrong with an orange filter? Why limit your vision? 
S.
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins

Ummm, do you consider choosing a specific B&W film type based on how 
it responds to colors more art than photography as well?  And why 
does a yellow filter generally render skies appear more "realist"?  
Is using color filters with B&W film not photography either?  In my 
digital transformation from color to B&W I rarely even go as extreme 
as a orange filter.

mark

...
> But that begs the question, why?  If you are drastically altering 
the
> reality of the tonality, that more becomes art than photography, at 
least in
> my book.
> 
> Austin


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 the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233351.2658116.4039490.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1341247/R=0/*https:/www.gotomypc.com/tr/yh/grp/300_mapG/g22l
p?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233351.2658116.4039490.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1341247/rand=500157645> 

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]

Stan,

> Is photography not art?

Well, yes and no...  Some is, some isn't.

> Why limit your vision?

Who said anything about limiting vision?  If YOUR vision requires you to do
heavy manipulations, then that's your vision, and that, perhaps, works well
for you.  If mine does not require it, and I achieve my goal without it,
then why is that a problem?

Austin

Bravo!
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 

> why are some folks so bent on making digital manipulation seem like
> cheating?

Mark,

Yes, some believe that, but I for one do not.  BUT...is it art or
photography?  Does it even matter?  To some, yes, and obviously to
others,
no.  Either view isn't right or wrong.

I have no problem with someone manipulating the hell out of an image,
and
with someone who doesn't do any (which is me), and I leave that as a
personal preference to the creator of the image.  I, personally, think
my
images are just perfect with no filters, no digital manipulation (I
don't
even USM), only setpoints and tonal curves and an occasional dust
spotting
here and there.  But, that's me...and I don't impose my "standards" on
others creativity.

I also think some people do overdo the "fiddly" stuff though, and IMO,
that
takes away from the image...but again, that's just my personal opinion.

Regards,

Austin





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1327986/R=0/*http:/ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870027;7586687;a?
http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1327986/rand=922102954> 

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]

Hi Stan,

>Dontcha love this stuff.
>This list gives me more technical and intellectual stimulation than I
>get at the college and it's pretty intense there.
>Half of our faculty are major techies (Brooks and RIT) and the rest
>are the result of art/photo MFA programs. The tech contingent spends
>lunch comparing dLogE curves, and I'm teaching our oldest faculty
>member how to build profiles. The artsy folk are looking at prints
and >deciding if Somerset Velvet or Photorag works best with the image
from >a scan of a pinhole paper neg.

Reminds me of the instructions for how to tell the difference between
a mathematician and an engineer:

You have them sit at either end of a long sofa, and exactly in the
middle you place a sack with a million dollars in it.  You tell them
that in a series of successive moves they each can move one half the
distance toward the sack.  Whichever one gets there first gets to keep
the money.

The mathematician immediately gets up, throws his hands up in a
gesture of futility, and walks out saying, "That's ridiculous.  Anyone
with even a glimmer of intelligence knows that if you keep moving half
the distance you'll never get there.  The engineer picks up the sack
and walks out saying, "That's close enough for all practical purposes"

Regards, - cj

or to make it really sticky... IS photography art? :0  ...no, no, 
ignore that I said that:)

mark

PS  The people you think over do the fiddly stuff probably just do it 
poorly... no matter how you get there, digital or traditional, fiddly 
or not, in the end it should just look like it is *right*.

mark

...
> > why are some folks so bent on making digital manipulation seem 
like
> > cheating?
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Yes, some believe that, but I for one do not.  BUT...is it art or
> photography?  Does it even matter?  To some, yes, and obviously to
> others,
> no.  Either view isn't right or wrong.
...
> here and there.  But, that's me...and I don't impose my "standards" 
on
> others creativity.
> 
> I also think some people do overdo the "fiddly" stuff though, and 
IMO,
> that
> takes away from the image...but again, that's just my personal 
opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
...

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moreno Polloni [mailto:mp@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:03 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
> >
> >
> > > I still don't understand.  Why can't you get the exact same effect in PS
> > on
> > > a file that is grayscale?  All a filter does is shift/modify
> > the tonality,
> > > and you can easily do that in PS to a grayscale file.
> >
> > It's not the same thing. Shoot a Macbeth colour chart in both colour and
> > B&W. When you scan the colour image in colour, and use the
> > channel mixer in
> > PS to convert to greyscale, you can alter the translation of tonal
> > relationships between the colours, much as you can do with colour filters
> > when shooting B&W film. As the channel mixer is adjusted, the grayscale
> > portion of the Macbeth chart doesn't change much, whereas the tonal
> > placement of colour patches can be drastically changed.
> 
> Moreno,
> 
> It may not be the "same thing" but you certainly can get the EXACT same
> results in your final grayscale output.  You can do manipulation to the
> grayscale data and arrive at the EXACT same resultant output as you can by
> manipulating the RGB data then converting to grayscale.

There are pairs of colors that render identically in (some particular)
B&W emulsion that are different on a color emulsion.  To separate them
in the B&W version, you need to mask them manually.  In the color
version, you can separate them by their color.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

I think the "why limit your vision" was directed to Mark re: "I rarely
even go as extreme as an orange filter."
I agree with you.art is whatever it is. 
S.
 
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Convert to B&W plugins
 
Stan,

> Is photography not art?

Well, yes and no...  Some is, some isn't.

> Why limit your vision?

Who said anything about limiting vision?  If YOUR vision requires you to
do
heavy manipulations, then that's your vision, and that, perhaps, works
well
for you.  If mine does not require it, and I achieve my goal without it,
then why is that a problem?

Austin


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 the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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

if anyone only shoots a photo when they *know* they are going to get 
a perfect negative, that will not require any manipulation 
(traditional or digital), they are missing many good shots... you 
have to do your manipulations one way or another... using the Zone 
System up front to get a perfect negative or a lot of experience in 
the darkroom or on the computer to get a good print from a less than 
perfect negative/image... but it will always be your vision that gets 
you a good print and not your technical perfection.  Manipulation 
doesn't have any place in my vision, but sometimes it is a neccesary 
step to get my prints closer to my vision.

mark

...
> > Why limit your vision?
> 
> Who said anything about limiting vision?  If YOUR vision requires 
you to
> do
> heavy manipulations, then that's your vision, and that, perhaps, 
works
> well
> for you.  If mine does not require it, and I achieve my goal 
without it,
> then why is that a problem?
...

Amen to that Mark,

I think you hit the nail on the head.  

The other thing that I was confused by in this thread was the question of art.  
Since when did art become a bad word?  And since when did the determining 
factor as to whether or not something is a work of art become tied to the 
process it took to make it? (or the process it didn't take?)

Justin

Mark Wrote:

> if anyone only shoots a photo when they *know* they are going to get 
> a perfect negative, that will not require any manipulation 
> (traditional or digital), they are missing many good shots... you 
> have to do your manipulations one way or another... using the Zone 
> System up front to get a perfect negative or a lot of experience in 
> the darkroom or on the computer to get a good print from a less than 
> perfect negative/image... but it will always be your vision that gets 
> you a good print and not your technical perfection.  Manipulation 
> doesn't have any place in my vision, but sometimes it is a neccesary 
> step to get my prints closer to my vision.
> 
> mark
>

Mark,

> you
> have to do your manipulations one way or another... using the Zone
> System up front to get a perfect negative

Using the "Zone System" up front is hardly manipulation.  What you are doing
is capturing as much information as you can on the film.  How is that
manipulation?

> ...or a lot of experience in
> the darkroom or on the computer to get a good print from a less than
> perfect negative/image...

but...if that less that perfect negative is missing a chunk of tonality,
that could have been captured by taking the time and understanding to do it
right in the first place (yes, I did say "do it right"), there is nothing
you can do, the information is gone.

> but it will always be your vision that gets
> you a good print and not your technical perfection.

Hum.  Well, with "some" level of technical competence you certainly increase
your odds of being able to get a "good" print...at least as far as the type
of work we are talking about, and as the subjective term "good" relates.

Regards,

Austin

You are "Manipulating" the development times for the film far from
"normal". This is definitely a form of "manipulation."

> Using the "Zone System" up front is hardly manipulation.  What you are doing
> is capturing as much information as you can on the film.  How is that
> manipulation?
 
> but...if that less that perfect negative is missing a chunk of tonality,
> that could have been captured by taking the time and understanding to do it
> right in the first place (yes, I did say "do it right"), there is nothing
> you can do, the information is gone.

Depends on how much info is missing. Photoshop can do a LOT to make a
bad negative into an excellent print.

> > but it will always be your vision that gets
> > you a good print and not your technical perfection.

Nope, it takes both

Can't tell you how many times I've seen a Great image but a bad print.
Spoils the whole presentation.

:)

Hi Jerry,

> You are "Manipulating" the development times for the film far from
> "normal". This is definitely a form of "manipulation."

That isn't manipulating the image.  What you are doing is acquiring higher
"fidelity" (accuracy of reproduction).

> > Using the "Zone System" up front is hardly manipulation.  What
> you are doing
> > is capturing as much information as you can on the film.  How is that
> > manipulation?
>
> > but...if that less that perfect negative is missing a chunk of tonality,
> > that could have been captured by taking the time and
> understanding to do it
> > right in the first place (yes, I did say "do it right"), there
> is nothing
> > you can do, the information is gone.
>
> Depends on how much info is missing. Photoshop can do a LOT to make a
> bad negative into an excellent print.

Yes, that's true...but you can't create tonality at the ends when it's cut
off.  You can't unblock highlights or shadows....you can't discern tones
when you've combined them...without "making them up".

> > > but it will always be your vision that gets
> > > you a good print and not your technical perfection.
>
> Nope, it takes both

Ah, we agree on that one ;-)

> Can't tell you how many times I've seen a Great image but a bad print.
> Spoils the whole presentation.

Right, or someone who spent a WHOLE LOT OF TIME on a bad image...trying to
make it a good image...

Regards,

Austin

...
> Using the "Zone System" up front is hardly manipulation.  What you 
are doing
> is capturing as much information as you can on the film.  How is 
that
> manipulation?
...

No, you are altering your characteristic curve to make it easier to 
get all the information off you negative using traditional techniques.

...
> but...if that less that perfect negative is missing a chunk of 
tonality,
> that could have been captured by taking the time and understanding 
to do it
> right in the first place (yes, I did say "do it right"), there is 
nothing
> you can do, the information is gone.
...

Yeah, and if you miss the shot entirely trying to get it *right* you 
have lost more than just a bit of shadow detail.

...
> Hum.  Well, with "some" level of technical competence you certainly 
increase
> your odds of being able to get a "good" print...
...

no arguement here!  ...so let's leave it at that... in agreement! :)

mark

back to one of the original subjects of this thread:

http://www.slonet.org/~mhd/2photo/digital/colbw.htm

excellent web site for all kinds of technical film stuff.

mark

...
> I don't understand.  What control (or anything for that matter) is 
lacking
> in scanning B&W films as grayscale if your ultimate goal is 
grayscale?
> 
> Austin

I just wanted to say that I just received the pictures that Clayton promised
to send if you sent him a few stamps to cover postage. True to his word I
received the pictures within a few days of mailing my stamps to him.

The pictures are fantastic. I am truly impressed with his work and gained a
great respect for his advice with this group.

Thank you, Clayton I truly appreciate all your support and positive input to
this group.

John Masiello