Digital BW, The Print

First, a very Happy Holiday to all list members celebrating Thanksgiving today.

I'm once again re-evaluating the use of RGB-to-grayscale conversion tools and plugins. I know that a few list members use the film filters from silveroxide.com, and a few use Convert to B&W Pro from imagingfactory.com. I have only ever done a brief evaluation of B&W Pro. Any thoughts as to which product would be preferred? Why would anyone spend $75 per filter through silveroxide when B&W Pro contains most popular film conversions for $99?

Thank you for any insight provided.

Alan Huntley

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

personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools... but I 
do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to hold 
his hand till he actually learns how to do something... but you have 
to ask yourself, "Are all your capture devices color calibrated / 
white balanced exactly the same as these developers' who make the pre-
sets?"  If not, you can't expect the tones in your scan/digital image 
to come out with the same tones as they measure for any given film.

Ok, that said, why not save yourself some money and just buy Fred 
Miranda's little action?  It's only 15 bucks and will probably give 
you just as good a starting point as any of the other "canned" b&w 
conversion tools...

my 2 cents,

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" 
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> First, a very Happy Holiday to all list members celebrating 
Thanksgiving today.
> 
> I'm once again re-evaluating the use of RGB-to-grayscale conversion 
tools and plugins. I know that a few list members use the film 
filters from silveroxide.com, and a few use Convert to B&W Pro from 
imagingfactory.com. I have only ever done a brief evaluation of B&W 
Pro. Any thoughts as to which product would be preferred? Why would 
anyone spend $75 per filter through silveroxide when B&W Pro contains 
most popular film conversions for $99?

> 
> Thank you for any insight provided.
> 
> Alan Huntley
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark Hahn wrote:

>personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools... 
>

For a hobbyist, perhaps...

But for a pro time IS money..

I can do variations much more quickly (and easily repeatably) via the 
plug ins than farting around with the channel mixer or actions..

>but I 
>do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to hold 
>his hand till he actually learns how to do something... 
>

Here we go with implied insults of those who use plugins or filters 
instead of using the basic tools built into PhotoShop instead...  That 
kind of implied PhotoShop (or any software) elitism or 
inferring/implying that others are too LAZY to take the time to learn 
technique X or Y irks the heck out of me... It's really not much 
different from those who eschew digital b/c with the right tools, 
darkroom, technique, and time you can do many of the same things without 
going digital...

That issue aside:

1)     Sometimes you also need to replicate the toe or spectral 
sensitivity of specific films..  I suppose that the time spent creating 
the actions one would need makes sense if you have forever to play 
around with PhotoShop and your time is near worthless.. Did I forget to 
mention that you'd need numbers  on the spectral responses and the data 
for colored gels (Wratten) pass through as well?  OR you'd need specific 
example images and a book of shots done with different gels - that's 
certainly manageable... NOT Of course, you'd still have to sit there 
comparing on-screen to your sample book until you turn blue..

2)    But for those of us who do this for something other than JUST fun; 
for those individuals it's ACTUALLY cheaper to buy a plugin or filter 
that saves us EVEN one hour of work...

Figure it out, with a pro photog's time going for $150/hour minimum in 
any good market, and a PhotoShop/Graphics person's time going for nearly 
the same, if I save ONE hour total, I've paid for the filter...

Even if you make $25 an hour... You pay for the filter if you save 6 
hours of fiddling over the life of the filter..  Don't process a lot of 
images, have lots of time, is your time not worth much, and not faced 
with deadlines often.. Then many filters and plugins are generally a 
waste... YES, you can accomplish many of the same filters without  
special plugins or without even Fred Miranda's actions (even you imply 
those might be worth the $$, so where's the break-even point?)..  But 
for many, the time saved is worth buying the tool someone else already 
created...  I don't need to re-invent the car everytime I want to drive 
to granny's house... Nor does everyone want or need to understand how 
their VCR works, they are content simply popping a tape in and getting 
it to do what they want..


 
Keith Krebs

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

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

-Jeez,
You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really 
most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW 
image and turn the saturation down to zero. If you are not shooting 
in RAW then you should be. The colour balance and other tools 
provide a very effective way of controlling contrast etc. 
Why make it more difficult than it needs to be? If you are shooting 
with B/W in mind then the scene needs to have the contrast that you 
desire. Look at the Zone Sytem be one Ansel Adams.

Sierra Gold-- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. Image 
Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> >personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools... 
> >
> 
> For a hobbyist, perhaps...
> 
> But for a pro time IS money..
> 
> I can do variations much more quickly (and easily repeatably) via 
the 
> plug ins than farting around with the channel mixer or actions..
> 
> >but I 
> >do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to 
hold 
> >his hand till he actually learns how to do something... 
> >
> 
> Here we go with implied insults of those who use plugins or 
filters 
> instead of using the basic tools built into PhotoShop instead...  
That 
> kind of implied PhotoShop (or any software) elitism or 
> inferring/implying that others are too LAZY to take the time to 
learn 
> technique X or Y irks the heck out of me... It's really not much 
> different from those who eschew digital b/c with the right tools, 
> darkroom, technique, and time you can do many of the same things 
without 
> going digital...
> 
> That issue aside:
> 
> 1)     Sometimes you also need to replicate the toe or spectral 
> sensitivity of specific films..  I suppose that the time spent 
creating 
> the actions one would need makes sense if you have forever to play 
> around with PhotoShop and your time is near worthless.. Did I 
forget to 
> mention that you'd need numbers  on the spectral responses and the 
data 
> for colored gels (Wratten) pass through as well?  OR you'd need 
specific 
> example images and a book of shots done with different gels - 
that's 
> certainly manageable... NOT Of course, you'd still have to sit 
there 
> comparing on-screen to your sample book until you turn blue..
> 
> 2)    But for those of us who do this for something other than 
JUST fun; 
> for those individuals it's ACTUALLY cheaper to buy a plugin or 
filter 
> that saves us EVEN one hour of work...
> 
> Figure it out, with a pro photog's time going for $150/hour 
minimum in 
> any good market, and a PhotoShop/Graphics person's time going for 
nearly 
> the same, if I save ONE hour total, I've paid for the filter...
> 
> Even if you make $25 an hour... You pay for the filter if you save 
6 
> hours of fiddling over the life of the filter..  Don't process a 
lot of 
> images, have lots of time, is your time not worth much, and not 
faced 
> with deadlines often.. Then many filters and plugins are generally 
a 
> waste... YES, you can accomplish many of the same filters without  
> special plugins or without even Fred Miranda's actions (even you 
imply 
> those might be worth the $$, so where's the break-even point?)..  
But 
> for many, the time saved is worth buying the tool someone else 
already 
> created...  I don't need to re-invent the car everytime I want to 
drive 
> to granny's house... Nor does everyone want or need to understand 
how 
> their VCR works, they are content simply popping a tape in and 
getting 
> it to do what they want..
> 
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@...] 
> -Jeez,
> You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really 
> most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW 
> image and turn the saturation down to zero. If you are not shooting 
> in RAW then you should be.

Not an option at a wedding yet.  I'd miss 1/2 the shots shotting in RAW.
It just takes too long to write to the card and the buffer fills too
fast.  Maybe my next digital camera, but not this one.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

> From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@...]
>
> You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really
> most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW
> image and turn the saturation down to zero.

If you turn the saturation down in the Camera Raw plugin, the remaining
controls give you a fairly limited ability to adjust the weighting of the
different colors.

The best way I've found is to create a gray proof setup, so that the image
appears on the screen even though it's still RGB. Then, you can yank the
underlying colors all over the place with any of the color adjustment tools,
and watch the B&W image change. In outdoor shots, for instance, it's often
very useful to darken the sky, which can be done by selecting the cyan or
blue color range in Hue/Saturation and turning the lightness way down.
Hue/Saturation lets you grab a narrow range of colors to manipulate,
something that even the channel mixer doesn't let you do.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Ed, 
You need to get a camera that can shoot raw and keep up with you. I 
shoot in Raw and large JPG, that's a option with the 10D. I seldom 
get a jpg from the camera that can match the jpg that I obtain after 
converstion from the RAW file using PS.
I looked at your web site and your shots are great,go to show that a 
good pic does not need to be technically great. I really like your 
street scenes.

Sierra Gold

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 
<ed@l...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@c...] 
> > -Jeez,
> > You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really 
> > most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW 
> > image and turn the saturation down to zero. If you are not 
shooting 
> > in RAW then you should be.
> 
> Not an option at a wedding yet.  I'd miss 1/2 the shots shotting 
in RAW.
> It just takes too long to write to the card and the buffer fills 
too

> fast.  Maybe my next digital camera, but not this one.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed
> http://lightandsilver.com

>The best way I've found is to create a gray proof setup, so that 
>the image appears on the screen even though it's still RGB. Then, 
>you can yank the underlying colors all over the place with any of 
>the color adjustment tools, and watch the B&W image change. In 
>outdoor shots, for instance, it's often very useful to darken the 
>sky, which can be done by selecting the cyan or blue color range in 
>Hue/Saturation and turning the lightness way down.  Hue/Saturation 
>lets you grab a narrow range of colors to manipulate, something that 
>even the channel mixer doesn't let you do.

This sounds much like a method I use (I think it was posted here last
year but I don't remember who - sorry I can't give proper credit):

1) Add Hue/Sat layer but don't change anything yet.
2) Add Chan/Mix layer and do the usual things with it.
3) Back to Hue/Sat layer: move the Hue slider to get the effect you
want (can give red or yellow filter look, etc).
4) Flatten
5) Convert to grayscale mode


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Here's a web site that the author created a few Photoshop actions that you
can download. One of them is a black and white converter that works pretty
well. Has some options as to toning, lighting and film grain.
You can still control the layers it creates to tweak contrast, etc.

http://www.jakerlund.net/index.php

Jake

Jake Hellbach Photography
www.jakehellbachphoto.com



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

> From: Clayton Jones [mailto:cj@...]
>
> This sounds much like a method I use (I think it was posted here last
> year but I don't remember who - sorry I can't give proper credit):
>
> 1) Add Hue/Sat layer but don't change anything yet.
> 2) Add Chan/Mix layer and do the usual things with it.
> 3) Back to Hue/Sat layer: move the Hue slider to get the effect you
> want (can give red or yellow filter look, etc).
> 4) Flatten
> 5) Convert to grayscale mode

Yes, that works too. What I like about my method is that if I make Gray
Gamma 2.2 my default proof setup, all I have to do is hit Ctrl+Y to toggle
between viewing the image as B&W and viewing it as color--no need to create
any layers.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> >personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools... 
> >
> 
> For a hobbyist, perhaps...
> 
> But for a pro time IS money..
> 
> I can do variations much more quickly (and easily repeatably) via 
the 
> plug ins than farting around with the channel mixer or actions..
> 
> >but I 
> >do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to 
hold 
> >his hand till he actually learns how to do something... 
> >
> 
> Here we go with implied insults of those who use plugins or filters 
> instead of using the basic tools built into PhotoShop instead...  
That 
> kind of implied PhotoShop (or any software) elitism or 
> inferring/implying that others are too LAZY to take the time to 
learn 
> technique X or Y irks the heck out of me... It's really not much 
> different from those who eschew digital b/c with the right tools, 
> darkroom, technique, and time you can do many of the same things 
without 
> going digital...
> 
> That issue aside:
> 
> 1)     Sometimes you also need to replicate the toe or spectral 
> sensitivity of specific films..  I suppose that the time spent 
creating 
> the actions one would need makes sense if you have forever to play 
> around with PhotoShop and your time is near worthless.. Did I 
forget to 
> mention that you'd need numbers  on the spectral responses and the 
data 
> for colored gels (Wratten) pass through as well?  OR you'd need 
specific 
> example images and a book of shots done with different gels - 
that's 
> certainly manageable... NOT Of course, you'd still have to sit 
there 
> comparing on-screen to your sample book until you turn blue..
> 
> 2)    But for those of us who do this for something other than JUST 
fun; 
> for those individuals it's ACTUALLY cheaper to buy a plugin or 
filter 
> that saves us EVEN one hour of work...
> 
> Figure it out, with a pro photog's time going for $150/hour minimum 
in 
> any good market, and a PhotoShop/Graphics person's time going for 
nearly 
> the same, if I save ONE hour total, I've paid for the filter...
> 
> Even if you make $25 an hour... You pay for the filter if you save 
6 
> hours of fiddling over the life of the filter..  Don't process a 
lot of 
> images, have lots of time, is your time not worth much, and not 
faced 
> with deadlines often.. Then many filters and plugins are generally 
a 
> waste... YES, you can accomplish many of the same filters without  
> special plugins or without even Fred Miranda's actions (even you 
imply 
> those might be worth the $$, so where's the break-even point?)..  
But 
> for many, the time saved is worth buying the tool someone else 
already 
> created...  I don't need to re-invent the car everytime I want to 
drive 
> to granny's house... Nor does everyone want or need to understand 
how 
> their VCR works, they are content simply popping a tape in and 
getting 
> it to do what they want..
> 
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

my method is to:

action:
create Curves adjustment layer (I)
create Channel Mixer layer (with a generic mix)
create final Curves adjustment layer (may be deleted if not used)

then I tweak the curve I RGB channel for overall contrast and Levels-
type adjust and then the individual channels to get differential 
channel mixing (the Channel Mixer is simply a linear combination and 
this gives you much more subtle and differential control).  The final 
Curve adjust is sometimes easier for overall adjustment than trying 
to do everything in the first one, especially if you did a lot of 
detailed RGB curve tweaks and just want to add an overal smooth s-
cuve for gamma control etc.  The final curve adjust also gives you a 
super easy way to "tone" your image... just tweak the individual 
channels.  I have tried the HSV method, but can visualize RGB much 
better.  Also, it is easier to actually look at your RGB channels and 
see what you are working with since that is a direct PS color working 
space and HSV technically is not (they give you the adjustments, but 
not the actual channels).

mark 

...
> > This sounds much like a method I use (I think it was posted here 
last
> > year but I don't remember who - sorry I can't give proper credit):
> >
> > 1) Add Hue/Sat layer but don't change anything yet.
> > 2) Add Chan/Mix layer and do the usual things with it.
> > 3) Back to Hue/Sat layer: move the Hue slider to get the effect 
you
> > want (can give red or yellow filter look, etc).
> > 4) Flatten
> > 5) Convert to grayscale mode
...

I'm not going to get in the middle of the pissing match part of this discussion, but I must admit that I too don't understand why one would want to mimic a particular film type.  Unless one were trying to match an existing silver print, I don't get it.  However, judging by the tweaks in the b&w converters (and even scanning software), there must be a market for it.
 
Digital gives me far more control over every part of the curve than was/is possible with film and chemistry.  Can someone tell me/us what the big attraction/use is for this 'feature'?
 
Tom Baker

Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
my method is to:

action:
create Curves adjustment layer (I)
create Channel Mixer layer (with a generic mix)
create final Curves adjustment layer (may be deleted if not used)

then I tweak the curve I RGB channel for overall contrast and Levels-
type adjust and then the individual channels to get differential 
channel mixing (the Channel Mixer is simply a linear combination and 
this gives you much more subtle and differential control).  The final 
Curve adjust is sometimes easier for overall adjustment than trying 
to do everything in the first one, especially if you did a lot of 
detailed RGB curve tweaks and just want to add an overal smooth s-
cuve for gamma control etc.  The final curve adjust also gives you a 
super easy way to "tone" your image... just tweak the individual 
channels.  I have tried the HSV method, but can visualize RGB much 
better.  Also, it is easier to actually look at your RGB channels and 
see what you are working with since that is a direct PS color working 
space and HSV technically is not (they give you the adjustments, but 
not the actual channels).

mark 

...
> > This sounds much like a method I use (I think it was posted here 
last
> > year but I don't remember who - sorry I can't give proper credit):
> >
> > 1) Add Hue/Sat layer but don't change anything yet.
> > 2) Add Chan/Mix layer and do the usual things with it.
> > 3) Back to Hue/Sat layer: move the Hue slider to get the effect 
you
> > want (can give red or yellow filter look, etc).
> > 4) Flatten
> > 5) Convert to grayscale mode
...


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

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

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


flyfishingusa2002 wrote:

> -Jeez,
> You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really
> most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW
> image and turn the saturation down to zero. If you are not shooting
> in RAW then you should be. The colour balance and other tools
> provide a very effective way of controlling contrast etc.
> Why make it more difficult than it needs to be? If you are shooting
> with B/W in mind then the scene needs to have the contrast that you
> desire. Look at the Zone Sytem be one Ansel Adams.
>
> Sierra Gold-- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. Image
> Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> > Mark Hahn wrote:
> >
> > >personally, I think they are all expensive pointless tools...
> > >
> >
> > For a hobbyist, perhaps...
> >
> > But for a pro time IS money..
> >
> > I can do variations much more quickly (and easily repeatably) via
> the
> > plug ins than farting around with the channel mixer or actions..
> >
> > >but I
> > >do have a good friend who likes buying things like this just to
> hold
> > >his hand till he actually learns how to do something...
> > >
> >
> > Here we go with implied insults of those who use plugins or
> filters
> > instead of using the basic tools built into PhotoShop instead... 
> That
> > kind of implied PhotoShop (or any software) elitism or
> > inferring/implying that others are too LAZY to take the time to
> learn
> > technique X or Y irks the heck out of me... It's really not much
> > different from those who eschew digital b/c with the right tools,
> > darkroom, technique, and time you can do many of the same things
> without
> > going digital...
> >
> > That issue aside:
> >
> > 1)     Sometimes you also need to replicate the toe or spectral
> > sensitivity of specific films..  I suppose that the time spent
> creating
> > the actions one would need makes sense if you have forever to play
> > around with PhotoShop and your time is near worthless.. Did I
> forget to
> > mention that you'd need numbers  on the spectral responses and the
> data
> > for colored gels (Wratten) pass through as well?  OR you'd need
> specific
> > example images and a book of shots done with different gels -
> that's
> > certainly manageable... NOT Of course, you'd still have to sit
> there
> > comparing on-screen to your sample book until you turn blue..
> >
> > 2)    But for those of us who do this for something other than
> JUST fun;
> > for those individuals it's ACTUALLY cheaper to buy a plugin or
> filter
> > that saves us EVEN one hour of work...
> >
> > Figure it out, with a pro photog's time going for $150/hour
> minimum in
> > any good market, and a PhotoShop/Graphics person's time going for
> nearly
> > the same, if I save ONE hour total, I've paid for the filter...
> >
> > Even if you make $25 an hour... You pay for the filter if you save
> 6
> > hours of fiddling over the life of the filter..  Don't process a
> lot of
> > images, have lots of time, is your time not worth much, and not
> faced
> > with deadlines often.. Then many filters and plugins are generally
> a
> > waste... YES, you can accomplish many of the same filters without 
> > special plugins or without even Fred Miranda's actions (even you
> imply
> > those might be worth the $$, so where's the break-even point?).. 
> But
> > for many, the time saved is worth buying the tool someone else
> already
> > created...  I don't need to re-invent the car everytime I want to
> drive
> > to granny's house... Nor does everyone want or need to understand
> how
> > their VCR works, they are content simply popping a tape in and
> getting
> > it to do what they want..
> >
> >
> > 
> > Keith Krebs
> >
> > "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON
> printer
> > User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> > Publications), at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> > 
> > "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks
> together
> > guys"
>

sorry 'bout that... I'll put any further replies off-list:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> I'm not going to get in the middle of the pissing match part of 
this discussion
...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" 
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> I'm once again re-evaluating the use of RGB-to-grayscale conversion 
tools and plugins. > Thank you for any insight provided.
> 
> Alan Huntley
> 
Not a plugin but try www.dl-c.com for Picture Window 3x for free.  
Infinite mix of RGB in the conversion and instant feedback.  Plus 
lots of other advantages prior to PS CS i.e. 16 bit for everything it 
offers.  I would like dl-c to offer the monochrome conversion as a 
plug-in to PS CS

I have no vested interest in dl-c.

Colin

> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:52:50 -0000
> From: "Richard Corbett" <richard@...-bulldog.com>
> Subject: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:17 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] RGB Convert to Grayscale
> 
> 
>> First, a very Happy Holiday to all list members celebrating Thanksgiving
> today.
> 
> Ok! so hands up all those from Manhattan who are seated at a groaning table
> with a Redskin by their side?

How about a table in Brooklyn with my neighbor, a German woman, and my
martial arts instructor, who is a Chinese man?

But if you don't improve your manners and call him a 'yellowskin' you are
gonna have one hell of a time picking yourself up off the floor.

Jon

Mark Hahn writes:

> If you never learn how to do a quality conversion from
> RGB ->> Greyscale then you will never know how to make
> the required adjustments when your plugin does a less
> than perfect job ...

If you want perfect black and white, your original image capture _must_
be in black and white.  And since there are currently no B&W digital
cameras available, that means that the only way to get the best B&W is
to shoot film.

I'm surprised to see people arguing about the quality of RGB-to-B&W
conversions, when they've already agreed to throw away 2/3 of the image
quality by shooting RGB to start with.  It's like arguing over the best
lens for a disposable.

Tom Baker writes:

> Digital gives me far more control over every part of the curve than
> was/is possible with film and chemistry.  Can someone tell me/us what
> the big attraction/use is for this 'feature'?

As long as you are doing any type of conversion from RGB to B&W, whether
it be with a digital image or with a film scan, you've already lost most
of the information in the image, so your possibilities for B&W are very
limited.

While you may not wish to emulate a specific B&W film, you still need to
shoot B&W if you want the best B&W results.  There is no way around
this.

no, no, no.  

You are getting 1/3 of the information that *would* be present in a 
dedicated b&w sensor of the same dimensions, but since those sensors 
are not being put into pro/sumer cameras it is a non-issue.

mark

...
> I'm surprised to see people arguing about the quality of RGB-to-B&W
> conversions, when they've already agreed to throw away 2/3 of the 
image
> quality by shooting RGB to start with.  It's like arguing over the 
best
> lens for a disposable.

Mark Hahn writes:

> You are getting 1/3 of the information that *would* be present in a
> dedicated b&w sensor of the same dimensions, but since those sensors 
> are not being put into pro/sumer cameras it is a non-issue.

It's still an issue because you still have the option of shooting film
for black and white.

Ummm, most film scanners take 3 simulanious scans, one for each 
channel, to make the RGB file so you do not have the same issues as 
with interpolated sensor data.  You scan b&w and you get exactly the 
same dimensions as you do with RGB, plus, with the channel mixing you 
should be averaging out scanner noise and improving your image.  
Also, since current scanners aren't capturing actual grain clumps the 
benifits of silver based film is lost in the scanning process.  As to 
needing to shoot b&w film for best results, I strongly disagree.  My 
gallery hung a group show with mine being the only "digital b&w" 
printed on an inkjet and it stood up quite well to all the 
traditional emulsion work surrounding it... in fact, not one of the 
other photographers could fault my work, even though they shared your 
hostile feelings toward digital or anything but "real b&w."

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Tom Baker writes:
> 
> > Digital gives me far more control over every part of the curve 
than
> > was/is possible with film and chemistry.  Can someone tell me/us 
what
> > the big attraction/use is for this 'feature'?
> 
> As long as you are doing any type of conversion from RGB to B&W, 
whether
> it be with a digital image or with a film scan, you've already lost 
most
> of the information in the image, so your possibilities for B&W are 
very
> limited.
> 
> While you may not wish to emulate a specific B&W film, you still 
need to
> shoot B&W if you want the best B&W results.  There is no way around
> this.

What????  You are talking apples and oranges here... and scanning 
silver based film also has its down side as well.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn writes:
> 
> > You are getting 1/3 of the information that *would* be present in 
a
> > dedicated b&w sensor of the same dimensions, but since those 
sensors 
> > are not being put into pro/sumer cameras it is a non-issue.
> 
> It's still an issue because you still have the option of shooting 
film
> for black and white.

Mark Hahn writes:

> Ummm, most film scanners take 3 simulanious scans, one for each 
> channel, to make the RGB file so you do not have the same issues as 
> with interpolated sensor data.  You scan b&w and you get exactly the 
> same dimensions as you do with RGB, plus, with the channel mixing you 
> should be averaging out scanner noise and improving your image.

That doesn't help.  The main problem with RGB conversions has nothing to do
with Bayer filtering or anything like that (although that does produce
an additional problem of resolution, which I have previously mentioned).

The real problem is that you cannot duplicate the unique response of
true B&W capture with any conversion from RGB, because the information
just isn't present in an RGB image.  Just as you cannot produce true
infrared from RGB, you cannot produce true B&W from RGB.

> ... even though they shared your hostile feelings toward
> digital or anything but "real b&w."

I'm not hostile towards RGB conversions, I just understand their serious
limitations.  And I can't really see any reason not to simply shoot
black and white to begin with, if that's what I want.

Mark Hahn writes:

> What????  You are talking apples and oranges here... and scanning 
> silver based film also has its down side as well.

Apples and oranges indeed ... RGB is the apple, B&W is the orange.  They
don't mix.

I'm surprised that, on a group dedicated to black and white photography,
conversions from RGB are considered so acceptable.  The results are
always inferior to true B&W.  They may still look okay, but they aren't
B&W, any more than converting only the red channel of RGB is infrared,
or converting only the blue channel is UV.

A true B&W digital camera (one without a Bayer filter) would produce
very nice results indeed, but nobody is marketing one right now.  That
leaves only film for black and white image capture.  So if you want true
B&W, you must shoot film.

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>>From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@...]
>>
>>You guys really need all of the facts. The easist way and really
>>most effective to get a B/W using photoshop is to open your RAW
>>image and turn the saturation down to zero.
>>    
>>
>
>If you turn the saturation down in the Camera Raw plugin, the remaining
>controls give you a fairly limited ability to adjust the weighting of the
>different colors.
>
>The best way I've found is to create a gray proof setup, so that the image
>appears on the screen even though it's still RGB. Then, you can yank the
>underlying colors all over the place with any of the color adjustment tools,
>and watch the B&W image change. In outdoor shots, for instance, it's often
>very useful to darken the sky, which can be done by selecting the cyan or
>blue color range in Hue/Saturation and turning the lightness way down.
>Hue/Saturation lets you grab a narrow range of colors to manipulate,
>something that even the channel mixer doesn't let you do.
>
>  
>
Actually, if you really want to just use PhotoShop's built in tools,  I 
like converting to Lab Color and using the lightness channel.. It keeps 
skintones a bit lighter.. Of course, as many have asaid, the 
channel-mixer is an option as well.


 
Keith Krebs

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

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

Mark Hahn wrote:

>I guess you are trying to turn this into a stupid pissing match...
>  
>
Not at all.. You issued the insults to those who use plugins.. I was 
entirely OUT of the discussion until you crossed that line.  It's not 
about ME.. nor do I want a pissing match.. It's about not taking snide 
little jabs at users of products that they find useful..

>I wasn't trying to insult anyone, but in this case I think that the 
>best you can expect from a plugin is a good starting point.
>
Then just say that... Instead of the gratuitous hand holding comment..

>  I spent 
>about two minutes making my own action to set up some adjustment 
>layers and starting points and then add about one minute per print 
>tweaking them up to perfection.  I believe that people who buy my 
>prints appreciate the attention to detail that I give to each print 
>instead of just "pushing a big button" and saying it is good enough.
>  
>
No-one is debating that..

>I guess I don't understand why you ever have to try and match a 
>certain film. 
>
That's already been answered by others.. But, I'll add as you have, that 
it provides a consistent starting point... and a potentially consistent 
"look" to imagery..

> My belief is that you should try and make each print 
>as good as humanly possible. 
>
Again, that's fine for fine-art....

> 
>You make such a big deal about how much money you supposedly make as 
>a photographer and how little time you have... I'm somehow *not* in 
>awe.
>  
>
It's not about ME, it's about all those commercial photogs.. You asked 
why they would use a plugin instead, and implied they were simply in 
search of hand holding..  I can use channel mixing quite nicely thank you..

>Where's my break point?  $0.00  I don't use a plugin and frankly,
>  
>
Well, that's YOUR position.. No problem with that..

>A VCR does one thing and as long as you can push the buttons it does 
>the same thing no matter what you know so there isn't point to 
>learning how it works. 
>
Actually not true, but we won't go there...

> With Curves and Channel Mixer, it does help 
>to know what they do if you are trying to precisely control you image 
>processing.  If you never learn how to do a quality conversion from 
>RGB -> Greyscale then you will never know how to make the required 
>adjustments when your plugin does a less than perfect job... and that 
>will end up costing you more time (and frustration) than the time 
>saved not learning how to do the conversion in the first place.
>  
>
Curves and Channel Mixer are two different tools..

Let's restrict ourselves to just the Channel Mixer here..

I may agree with you that understanding the process makes for better end 
results in some cases.. HOWEVER, what I'm saying is that you don't HAVE 
to generally understand the conversion process itself to produce usable 
results, as a rule.. Keep in mind that most of those using these plugins 
are NOT as up to speed as many of us in PhotoShop, but do understand how 
it worked with film and a darkroom.. The plugin tries to return them, in 
part, to that familiar interface..

 
Keith Krebs

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

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

> 
> A true B&W digital camera (one without a Bayer filter) would produce
> very nice results indeed, but nobody is marketing one right now.  
That
> leaves only film for black and white image capture.  So if you want 
true
> B&W, you must shoot film.


What about the Foveon filter used in the Sigmas?  I heard that this 
kind of sensor would have real benefits for B&W photographers.  I 
know how the Foveon works but don't have any real technical knowledge 
of how it would be better or worse for that matter than other 
CCD/CMOS sensors, or how it would compare to film....

Steve

Colin,

Can you direct me to information/workflow on using PWP for the B/W
conversion as you mentioned?  I can't find it in the manual or on the site
or 'dope' it out by myself.

Phil Morse

> Not a plugin but try www.dl-c.com for Picture Window 3x for free.
> Infinite mix of RGB in the conversion and instant feedback.  Plus
> lots of other advantages prior to PS CS i.e. 16 bit for everything it
> offers.  I would like dl-c to offer the monochrome conversion as a
> plug-in to PS CS
>
> I have no vested interest in dl-c.
>
> Colin

Anthony G. Atkielski spake thus:

> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:20:18 +0100
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> 
> Mark Hahn writes:
> 
>> What????  You are talking apples and oranges here... and scanning
>> silver based film also has its down side as well.
> 
> Apples and oranges indeed ... RGB is the apple, B&W is the orange.  They
> don't mix.
> 
> I'm surprised that, on a group dedicated to black and white photography,
> conversions from RGB are considered so acceptable.

Therein lies your error. It is a group dedicated to black and white _digital
printing_. During one of the previous times you were involved in one of
these capture debates, I asked you what printer and ink combo you were
using. You weren't using any B/W inkjet method.

What printer and ink combo are you using now?

Just curious...

Jon

scrber writes:

> What about the Foveon filter used in the Sigmas?

It still produces RGB output.  You need a sensor that does not filter
the image into red, green, and blue components, but simply responds to
overall light intensity.  CCDs without filters do exactly this (except
that they also tend to be sensitive to infrared, which must usually be
filtered out), so a CCD without an RGB filter would make an excellent
B&W camera.

But anything that filters light into RGB, be it film or electronic, will
produce results equal in quality to that of straight B&W capture.

> I heard that this kind of sensor would have real benefits
> for B&W photographers.

The Foveon produces information for all three colors for each pixel,
which is a great step ahead for color resolution and overall resolution;
however, this doesn't eliminate the problem that RGB presents for B&W
photography.

Jon writes:

> Therein lies your error. It is a group dedicated to black and white _digital
> printing_.

Then why are people discussing RGB conversions to black and white?

> What printer and ink combo are you using now?

Currently I take my images to a lab for conventional chemical printing.
It's cheaper than ink-jet, and for color images, it produces better
results (for B&W, ink-jet comes much closer to wet printing, but it
requires a dedicated printer, which I don't have).

Mark,

> Ummm, most film scanners take 3 simulanious scans, one for each
> channel,

Correct, but two film scanners do in fact have a grayscale channel, and
that's the Leafscan 35 and Leafscan 45.

> Also, since current scanners aren't capturing actual grain clumps the
> benifits of silver based film is lost in the scanning process.

Please explain what leads you to draw that conclusion.

> As to
> needing to shoot b&w film for best results, I strongly disagree.  My
> gallery hung a group show with mine being the only "digital b&w"
> printed on an inkjet and it stood up quite well to all the
> traditional emulsion work surrounding it... in fact, not one of the
> other photographers could fault my work...

I'm sure the image was fine, but without the ability to 1) see it, and 2)
see it with a duplicate image taken with B&W film (correctly), it is
physically impossible to see whether there would have been any advantage to
shooting B&W film, so this is really a useless data point (WRT any
comparison to B&W film).

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> scrber writes:
> 
> > What about the Foveon filter used in the Sigmas?
> 
> It still produces RGB output.  You need a sensor that does not 
filter
> the image into red, green, and blue components, but simply responds 
to
> overall light intensity.  CCDs without filters do exactly this 
(except
> that they also tend to be sensitive to infrared, which must usually 
be
> filtered out), so a CCD without an RGB filter would make an 
excellent
> B&W camera.
> 
> But anything that filters light into RGB, be it film or electronic, 
will
> produce results equal in quality to that of straight B&W capture.
> 
> > I heard that this kind of sensor would have real benefits
> > for B&W photographers.
> 
> The Foveon produces information for all three colors for each pixel,
> which is a great step ahead for color resolution and overall 
resolution;
> however, this doesn't eliminate the problem that RGB presents for 
B&W
> photography.




Sorry, I must be dumb, but I just don't get it.  Why is shooting 
colour (RGB or whatever) worse than shooting B&W straight?  You 
mention loosing 2/3 data.  Don't you have 3 times more...?  Or is it 
that the colour image is comprised of 3 (black and white) channels 
and that in the conversion process you can only take one of these (be 
it a blend of the three individual ones or not) as the final 
greyscale image.

Thinking out loud, what if you took a picture of a largely b&W or 
desatureated scene in both RGB and with B&W film - do you have a 
disadvantage in RGB then or not?

Sorry for the 101....

Steve

There is a simple experiment that could be run. Set up four color lasers 
against first a white back ground and then a black background and point 
them toward the camera and take an RGB image and take an image on B&W file.

Then one could see how well one could EXACTLY match the B&W image by 
processing the RGB. My guess is you couldn't.  The two types of sensor 
packages (RGB) and intensity (B&W) are making different measurements. 
The question of can RGB duplicate be processed to duplicate every B&W 
image should be easy to answer.

The other question is RGB good enough is a matter of opinion. If I 
though so I would not still be shooting B&W.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> I'm sure the image was fine, but without the ability to 1) see it, and 2)
> see it with a duplicate image taken with B&W film (correctly), it is
> physically impossible to see whether there would have been any 
> advantage to
> shooting B&W film, so this is really a useless data point (WRT any
> comparison to B&W film).
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>

Please! Do we have to have this discussion again? (RGB converted to BW
vs 'real' BW capture)

There is an enormous amount of messages regarding this in the archives
for those who are truly interested. If someone were to post real
examples proving or disproving that one capture method was better than
the other that would also be welcome... In spite of the hundreds of
messages that were posted on this topic last time round not a single
example was shown to actually back up any of the claims made.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

I sense that you use of the term "true b&w" is just emotional.  What IS "true b&w"?  Seems to me that if the final print is b&w, that's true b&w.
 
Tom Baker

"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
Mark Hahn writes:

> What????  You are talking apples and oranges here... and scanning 
> silver based film also has its down side as well.

Apples and oranges indeed ... RGB is the apple, B&W is the orange.  They
don't mix.

I'm surprised that, on a group dedicated to black and white photography,
conversions from RGB are considered so acceptable.  The results are
always inferior to true B&W.  They may still look okay, but they aren't
B&W, any more than converting only the red channel of RGB is infrared,
or converting only the blue channel is UV.

A true B&W digital camera (one without a Bayer filter) would produce
very nice results indeed, but nobody is marketing one right now.  That
leaves only film for black and white image capture.  So if you want true
B&W, you must shoot film.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

I've seen a couple of b&w images out of a Sigma that were really nice.  Based on these images, I think there might be some real utility for b&w with that technology.
 
Tom Baker

scrber <stephen.bate@...> wrote:
> 
> A true B&W digital camera (one without a Bayer filter) would produce
> very nice results indeed, but nobody is marketing one right now.  
That
> leaves only film for black and white image capture.  So if you want 
true
> B&W, you must shoot film.


What about the Foveon filter used in the Sigmas?  I heard that this 
kind of sensor would have real benefits for B&W photographers.  I 
know how the Foveon works but don't have any real technical knowledge 
of how it would be better or worse for that matter than other 
CCD/CMOS sensors, or how it would compare to film....

Steve


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

I remember Rocky and Clubber Lang doing this in Rocky
III - Well, at least that was entertaining...


--- Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
> I guess you are trying to turn this into a stupid
> pissing match...

> > Keith Krebs
> > "Just some guy," 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

when I first started shooting/scanning I was just as hostile toward 
anything but "real photography" as you are and I measured the grain 
in a Tri-X photo and back calculated the resolution needed to do 
resonable job capturing it and it was higher than any available 
scanners at the time and that was just for Tri-X and assuming that 9 
pixels could represent a grain clump which it really can't, and that 
was grainy Tri-X not Techpan.  What resolution are you scanning at?  
(or are you doing everything in a traditional darkroom and just on 
this list to argue with everyone?) :)

No, all that matters *IS* the print.  You don't look at a traditional 
print and say, "I can't tell if this is a good photo because I can't 
compare it to one shot with a different film or through a different 
lens.  You look at the image and either like it or not.  Edward 
Weston shot many of his photos with a crappy meniscus lens, not top 
name German glass... and 8x10" will always beat 35mm... where do you 
draw the line?  When an image is "good," not based on the equipment.

mark

...
> > Also, since current scanners aren't capturing actual grain clumps 
the
> > benifits of silver based film is lost in the scanning process.
> 
> Please explain what leads you to draw that conclusion.
...
> I'm sure the image was fine, but without the ability to 1) see it, 
and 2)
> see it with a duplicate image taken with B&W film (correctly), it is
> physically impossible to see whether there would have been any 
advantage to
> shooting B&W film, so this is really a useless data point (WRT any
> comparison to B&W film).
...

Is there any way to change the color of the cross hairs in photoshop 7. 
I find that when using them with B&W it is almost impossilbe to see them 
in some shades of gray. Nice red cross hairs would sure help, but I 
can't seem to figure out how to change the color - if it can be done.

Thanks
Truman

On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 01:36 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 6
>    Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:16:52 +0100
>    From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
>
> Mark Hahn writes:
>
>> If you never learn how to do a quality conversion from
>> RGB ->> Greyscale then you will never know how to make
>> the required adjustments when your plugin does a less
>> than perfect job ...
>
> If you want perfect black and white, your original image capture _must_
> be in black and white.  And since there are currently no B&W digital
> cameras available, that means that the only way to get the best B&W is
> to shoot film.
>
> I'm surprised to see people arguing about the quality of RGB-to-B&W
> conversions, when they've already agreed to throw away 2/3 of the image
> quality by shooting RGB to start with.  It's like arguing over the best
> lens for a disposable.


Anthony,

Just another perspective. I've experimented with shooting B&W 
traditional film, B&W c-41 film, and Color negative film for B&W output 
on my epson.

The clear winner for me has emerged as color negative film. I like that 
I can choose which colors to "throw away" when converting to grayscale 
using the channel mixer.

And, making selections while the image is still in color--often much 
easier. Not to mention using the saturation adjustment on selective 
colors to to change the tonal response of just those colors.

-bruce

> Is there any way to change the color of the cross hairs in 
> photoshop 7. 
> I find that when using them with B&W it is almost impossilbe 
> to see them in some shades of gray. Nice red cross hairs would sure 
> help, but I can't seem to figure out how to change the color
> - if it can be done.

I don't think you can, but I find that using Caps-Lock to turn the
cursor into a brush-sized circle often makes it more visible.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Anthony G. Atkielski spake thus:

>> Therein lies your error. It is a group dedicated to black and white _digital
>> printing_.
> 
> Then why are people discussing RGB conversions to black and white?

To attract trolls? 

More importantly why are you always involved in these discussions, but never
in discussions of the stated topic of the list?

> 
>> What printer and ink combo are you using now?
> 
> Currently I take my images to a lab for conventional chemical printing.
> It's cheaper than ink-jet, and for color images, it produces better
> results (for B&W, ink-jet comes much closer to wet printing, but it
> requires a dedicated printer, which I don't have).
> 

Fancy that. On a digital B/W printing list for months and with no digital
B/W printer. I wonder if you will get ejected from this list like you did
the Leica User Group _twice_ for instigating fights for no other reason than
to argue.

I certainly hope no other list members take the hook, line, and sinker you
are fishing with.

Jon

scrber writes:

> Sorry, I must be dumb, but I just don't get it.

Few people ever do, and I usually run out of energy before they show any
evidence of understanding.

> Why is shooting colour (RGB or whatever) worse than shooting
> B&W straight?

I'll try again:

RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore that
spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.

> You mention loosing 2/3 data.  Don't you have 3 times more...?

See above.  RGB gives you three numbers per pixel.  The original scene
contained an infinite number of intensites across an interrupted
continuum of light frequencies.  The RGB capture is a one-way function
that distills this vast amount of spectral information into three
numbers.  It works fine if RGB is what you want as a final result; but
proper black and white requires the combined sensitivity curves and
image spectrum to which I allude above, and you cannot reproduce these
from just the three simple numbers of RGB.

For example, you can shoot a scene in true black and white with a
narrowband yellow filter, and you can shoot the same scene in color.  If
you try to reproduce the B&W results you got with the yellow filter
using any conversion from the RGB color image, you'll find that they
don't match; they may not even come close.  It can't be done, because
the color image is missing too much information.

> Or is it that the colour image is comprised of 3 (black and white)
> channels and that in the conversion process you can only take
> one of these (be it a blend of the three individual ones or not)
> as the final greyscale image.

Almost.  When you capture directly in black and white, your capture
device (electronic or film, it doesn't matter) records a single number
per pixel that is a function of _every visible frequency of light_
hitting that pixel.  When you convert from RGB to B&W, you get a single
number that is a function of just three other numbers.  There's no way
that the RGB conversion can come anywhere near the flexibility and depth
of true B&W capture.

> Thinking out loud, what if you took a picture of a largely b&W or
> desatureated scene in both RGB and with B&W film - do you have a 
> disadvantage in RGB then or not?

If the original scene is truly black and white--all frequencies of light
equally reflected by all points in the image--the true B&W capture will
yield exactly the same result as an RGB conversion.  But real-world
scenes like that are scarce.

Tom Baker writes:

> I sense that you use of the term "true b&w" is just emotional.

No.  True black and white is original capture that records image
information as a function of a spectral sensitivity curve (usually a
continuous curve over the entire visible spectrum and perhaps beyond)
and the emission or reflectance curve of the original scene.

"Non-true" black and white would be a simulation of the above using much
more limited information, such as a conversion from RGB to black and
white.

Emotion has no part in this.

> What IS "true b&w"?  Seems to me that if the final print is b&w,
> that's true b&w.

It is, but many kinds of black and white photos can be produced only
with black and white capture of the original scene.

bruce greene writes:

> The clear winner for me has emerged as color negative film. I like that
> I can choose which colors to "throw away" when converting to grayscale
> using the channel mixer.

You have much more flexibility if you shoot the original image in black
and white through a filter.

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> The real problem is that you cannot duplicate the unique response of
> true B&W capture with any conversion from RGB, because the information
> just isn't present in an RGB image.  Just as you cannot produce true
> infrared from RGB, you cannot produce true B&W from RGB.

Since the human eye sees in color, _all_ black and white images are by
definition arbitrary. You may prefer an image in which some infrared or
ultraviolet light has been turned into visible white, but it's no more
"correct" than anything else.

In reality, you can take a digital RGB image and produce very pleasing B&W
prints. The fact that you can't produce _exactly_ the same image you'd get
with B&W film (or a broadband monochrome CCD) means nothing, except to the
extent that you happen to prefer the film result for a particular image. On
the other hand, B&W film and a bag full of filters can't produce nearly the
range of possibilities you can get from an RGB sensor and Photoshop.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> On the other hand, B&W film and a bag full of filters
> can't produce nearly the range of possibilities you
> can get from an RGB sensor and Photoshop.

You can get anything you want in B&W with the right film and filters.
The same cannot be said of RGB conversions in Photoshop.

The one thing you _can_ get from RGB is correct perceptual luminance
(just convert to grayscale).  But if you want anything else, it's very
limiting.

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
> original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore that
> spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
> capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
> the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
> continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
> way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.

Excuse me, but black and white film "collapses all the spectral energy of
the original scene" into just one number.

In theory, you can certainly acheive results with a narrowband filter in
front of B&W film that cannot be attained precisely by using an RGB sensor
and Photoshop. However, there are some practical problems:

1) You only get one particular result with a particular filter. Once it's in
the B&W domain, you've lost all ability to make adjustments to anything but
the grayscale.

2) You can't see the results of your filter choice until hours later.

3) The commercial filters used for B&W photography aren't narrowband anyway.
The blue and green ones are no more narrowband than the filters in a
digicam. The red and yellow ones are actually low-pass filters.

You may indeed like the results you get with filters and B&W film, but
there's no ground on which to argue that these results are unquestionably
superior or more correct, or contain more information.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Could someone frame this.  It seems to say all that needs to be said 
this theoretical  tangent.

>
> Since the human eye sees in color, _all_ black and white images are by
> definition arbitrary. You may prefer an image in which some infrared or
> ultraviolet light has been turned into visible white, but it's no more
> "correct" than anything else.
>
> In reality, you can take a digital RGB image and produce very pleasing 
> B&W
> prints. The fact that you can't produce _exactly_ the same image you'd 
> get
> with B&W film (or a broadband monochrome CCD) means nothing, except to 
> the
> extent that you happen to prefer the film result for a particular 
> image. On
> the other hand, B&W film and a bag full of filters can't produce 
> nearly the
> range of possibilities you can get from an RGB sensor and Photoshop.

Anthony,

I don't think I've ever seen a natural black and white scene!! I gave up
using b&w films about 40 yrs ago when they invented films that recorded the
world as I see it - in color. Do your cones work?

Bob Frost.

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

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

> So
> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.

Bob Frost writes:

> I don't think I've ever seen a natural black and white scene!! I gave up
> using b&w films about 40 yrs ago when they invented films that recorded the
> world as I see it - in color.

So why are you interested in black and white prints?

Tom Baker wrote:
> I must admit that I too don't understand why one 
> would want to mimic a particular film type.  

Perhaps for the same reason an immigrant might cook
a particular dish from his or her "old country" --
comfort food. We have a nature inclination to 
gravitate towards the familiar, and all the more
so if "the old ways" still seem to us a good fit.

After so many years of shooting B&W film, I found,
at least for myself, that there were perhaps two
of three different B&W films which I really liked in 
terms of how they would render tones and colors in a
black to white scale.

And so when I "moved to the new land" of digital, 
as it were, perhaps not altogether surprising if I
went looking for my comfort zone, the want to bring 
with me some of the "old country recipes" --
the want to find those plug-ins which somewhat 
mimiced the films I was most use to using.

So perhaps, as least for some of us, there is
an element of human nature in all of this; our want
to gravitate towards our comfort zone, to not
alway reinvent the wheel, as it were, but rather to
seek out those things which in the past we found
worked well for us.

That is not suggest we are necessarily closed
to trying new things, but only that we might
still like some of our "old country recipes",
as it were, and at times perhaps still want
to use these in this new "digital land".

If that makes any sense.

Hope that perspective is of some help,
CJ

Hello Alan,

 I hate to jump into the hornets nest this question seems to have 
stirred up, but I would like to put my two cents in. For what it's 
worth, when we take a picture with whatever camera we choose, our 
main goal is not to exactly reproduce what we see; which you indicate 
with your question. Your intention is to alter what the eye sees into 
something else that fits your perception of what the image can become 
with your help. If you are using Photoshop, then the tools you need 
are already there; the hard part is always finding them in the right 
combination. 

This is the way I convert into color:

1. Layer>New Adjustment Layer>Hue/Saturation
2. Edit Master>Hue>-(minus)180 Saturation>-(minus)100 Lightness>000 OK
3. Image>Mode>Lab Color with Flatten
4. Channel>delete A(the letter A) channel then delete Alpha2 channel
5. Image>Mode>Grayscale
6. Continue with your adjustments with sharpening being the very last 
step done before saving the final image for printing.

This will give your a B&W image.

Note change only to the B&W image after all the work you want done on 
the color image is complete except the sharpening step.

I hope this helps some with your question without all the scientific 
jargon I've seen in some of the messages so far. If I've stepped on 
any toes, I apologize.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" 
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> First, a very Happy Holiday to all list members celebrating 
Thanksgiving today.
> 
> I'm once again re-evaluating the use of RGB-to-grayscale conversion 
tools and plugins. I know that a few list members use the film 
filters from silveroxide.com, and a few use Convert to B&W Pro from 
imagingfactory.com. I have only ever done a brief evaluation of B&W 
Pro. Any thoughts as to which product would be preferred? Why would 
anyone spend $75 per filter through silveroxide when B&W Pro contains 
most popular film conversions for $99?

> 
> Thank you for any insight provided.
> 
> Alan Huntley
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Would you provide an example of a b&w image that could only be captured with b&w?  Most of us would like to see such an example.
 
Tom Baker

"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
Tom Baker writes:

> I sense that you use of the term "true b&w" is just emotional.

No.  True black and white is original capture that records image
information as a function of a spectral sensitivity curve (usually a
continuous curve over the entire visible spectrum and perhaps beyond)
and the emission or reflectance curve of the original scene.

"Non-true" black and white would be a simulation of the above using much
more limited information, such as a conversion from RGB to black and
white.

Emotion has no part in this.

> What IS "true b&w"?  Seems to me that if the final print is b&w,
> that's true b&w.

It is, but many kinds of black and white photos can be produced only
with black and white capture of the original scene.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

Anthony  -
 
Sobe up.  Your statement:  "You can get anything you want in B&W with the right film and filters.", is simply untrue.

 

Tom Baker

"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
Paul D. DeRocco writes:
You can get anything you want in B&W with the right film and filters.

> On the other hand, B&W film and a bag full of filters
> can't produce nearly the range of possibilities you
> can get from an RGB sensor and Photoshop.

The same cannot be said of RGB conversions in Photoshop.

The one thing you _can_ get from RGB is correct perceptual luminance
(just convert to grayscale).  But if you want anything else, it's very
limiting.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

> Sobe up.  Your statement:  "You can get anything you want in 
> B&W with the right film and filters.", is simply untrue.

It also assumes that you know the effect you're after when you're
shooting the picture. I admire people who have such clear vision, but
personally I often have no idea of what I'm doing while I'm shooting and
prefer to figure out how I want my pictures to look much later in the
process.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Try some lasers half way inbetween the wavelengths of the RGB sensor. 
Works fine with B&W but not so well if RGB (if the filters are any good).

Of course nature is for the most part is close to white light but you 
can get three sources to look white while not white, it fools our eyes 
into thinking it is. But when shown on a color not one in the mixture 
the object will not reflect any light so look black. At best RGB is 
converted to the intensity at a wavelenght other than, red, green or 
blue at best an estimation and at times a poor one.

Truman

Tom Baker wrote:

> Would you provide an example of a b&w image that could only be 
> captured with b&w?  Most of us would like to see such an example.
>
> Tom Baker
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

CJ  -
 
I do understand your point.  And, that's as good a reason as any (better than most, actually) to use those tools.
 
THX
 
Tom Baker

C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote:
Tom Baker wrote:
> I must admit that I too don't understand why one 
> would want to mimic a particular film type.  

Perhaps for the same reason an immigrant might cook
a particular dish from his or her "old country" --
comfort food. We have a nature inclination to 
gravitate towards the familiar, and all the more
so if "the old ways" still seem to us a good fit.

After so many years of shooting B&W film, I found,
at least for myself, that there were perhaps two
of three different B&W films which I really liked in 
terms of how they would render tones and colors in a
black to white scale.

And so when I "moved to the new land" of digital, 
as it were, perhaps not altogether surprising if I
went looking for my comfort zone, the want to bring 
with me some of the "old country recipes" --
the want to find those plug-ins which somewhat 
mimiced the films I was most use to using.

So perhaps, as least for some of us, there is
an element of human nature in all of this; our want
to gravitate towards our comfort zone, to not
alway reinvent the wheel, as it were, but rather to
seek out those things which in the past we found
worked well for us.

That is not suggest we are necessarily closed
to trying new things, but only that we might
still like some of our "old country recipes",
as it were, and at times perhaps still want
to use these in this new "digital land".

If that makes any sense.

Hope that perspective is of some help,
CJ


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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! Terms of Service. 


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

Mark,

> when I first started shooting/scanning I was just as hostile toward
> anything but "real photography" as you are

Er, who are you talking to?  I certainly am not hostile towards digital
imaging in any way what so ever, and you are barking up the wrong tree with
me if you believe so.  What I am is realistic about the capabilities of both
digital and film.

> and I measured the grain
> in a Tri-X photo and back calculated the resolution needed to do
> resonable job capturing it...

Why do you need to resolve to grain?  For what purpose?

> What resolution are you scanning at?

I scan at 5080...but what does that have to do with anything?  Resolution is
spatial, and has not a thing to do with tonality...which is what is being
discussed.

> (or are you doing everything in a traditional darkroom and just on
> this list to argue with everyone?) :)

I haven't had a regular darkroom for printing that is, in probably 8 years.
I do process my own film, as I have a film processor...and I do that so I
have strict control over the development process.

> No, all that matters *IS* the print.  You don't look at a traditional
> print and say, "I can't tell if this is a good photo because I can't
> compare it to one shot with a different film or through a different
> lens.

No, of course not, but you were making a comparison that could not be made
without doing what I suggest...making the same image with both digital and
film.  If you don't understand why, then you simply don't understand the
issue.

> You look at the image and either like it or not.  Edward
> Weston shot many of his photos with a crappy meniscus lens, not top
> name German glass... and 8x10" will always beat 35mm... where do you
> draw the line?  When an image is "good," not based on the equipment.

No one was talking about "good" or "bad" images.  The discussion was a
comparison of converting RGB capture to grayscale or simply capturing using
grayscale in the first place.  That has not a thing to do with the artistic
content of the image.

Regards,

Austin

Tom Baker writes:

> Would you provide an example of a b&w image that could only be
> captured with b&w?  Most of us would like to see such an example.

I guess you missed my explanation about the narrowband yellow filter.

Shoot a scene in straight B&W with a narrowband yellow filter.  The
result will be impossible to duplicate with any conversion of RGB to
B&W, for most scenes.

The reason is simple:  In the first case, parts of the scene that are
truly yellow (spectral yellow) will look bright, and parts of the scene
that are not yellow, or that are only perceptually yellow (green and red
mixed together) will look dark.  In the second case, anything that is
truly yellow OR red and green will look bright.  There isn't any way to
achieve the first result in the second case, because the necessary
information from the original scene is gone.

Since many B&W effects depend on special filters, a lot is lost if you
constrain yourself to conversions from RGB.  Black and white isn't as
simple as it appears to be.

More obvious examples can be given.  You can't get infrared B&W from any
conversion of RGB, nor can you get UV from RGB conversion.  The reason
for this is the same as indicated above.

Tom Baker writes:

> Sobe up.  Your statement:  "You can get anything you want in B&W
> with the right film and filters.", is simply untrue.

The range of what you can obtain is much wider than it is in RGB
conversion.

Well, Kevin...not really.  There are tonal separations that may not show up
in RGB, that will using grayscale capture.  Because of this, you may not get
the image you want.  I don't disagree that you can't get some exception B&W
output by converting...but the point is, really, it simply isn't the same,
and that this difference does in fact matter, to some.

Also, the human eye does not see only in color.  The human eye has two
spectral systems based on two different types of receptors known as cones
and rods. The cones are responsible for colour vision but are much less
sensitive to low light than the rods. In bright light the cones are active
and the iris is stopped down. This is called photopic vision. When in a
darkened area, over a short period of time there are other chemical
adaptations which make the rods become sensitive to light at about a
10,000th of the level needed for the cones to work. After this time we see
much better in the dark but we have very little colour vision. This is known
as scotopic vision.  Both are active at any one time...but it's the
sensitivity of each that changes.

Regards,

Austin

> Could someone frame this.  It seems to say all that needs to be said
> this theoretical  tangent.
>
> >
> > Since the human eye sees in color, _all_ black and white images are by
> > definition arbitrary. You may prefer an image in which some infrared or
> > ultraviolet light has been turned into visible white, but it's no more
> > "correct" than anything else.
> >
> > In reality, you can take a digital RGB image and produce very pleasing
> > B&W
> > prints. The fact that you can't produce _exactly_ the same image you'd
> > get
> > with B&W film (or a broadband monochrome CCD) means nothing, except to
> > the
> > extent that you happen to prefer the film result for a particular
> > image. On
> > the other hand, B&W film and a bag full of filters can't produce
> > nearly the
> > range of possibilities you can get from an RGB sensor and Photoshop.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

You missed one.  You said "You can't get infrared B&W from any
conversion of RGB, nor can you get UV from RGB conversion.  The reason for this is the same as indicated above."  You also can only get a real polorized effect in the camera.  But, your narrow band yellow filter is just talk.  Can we see an example?

 

Tom Baker



"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
Tom Baker writes:

> Would you provide an example of a b&w image that could only be
> captured with b&w?  Most of us would like to see such an example.

I guess you missed my explanation about the narrowband yellow filter.

Shoot a scene in straight B&W with a narrowband yellow filter.  The
result will be impossible to duplicate with any conversion of RGB to
B&W, for most scenes.

The reason is simple:  In the first case, parts of the scene that are
truly yellow (spectral yellow) will look bright, and parts of the scene
that are not yellow, or that are only perceptually yellow (green and red
mixed together) will look dark.  In the second case, anything that is
truly yellow OR red and green will look bright.  There isn't any way to
achieve the first result in the second case, because the necessary
information from the original scene is gone.

Since many B&W effects depend on special filters, a lot is lost if you
constrain yourself to conversions from RGB.  Black and white isn't as
simple as it appears to be.

More obvious examples can be given.  You can't get infrared B&W from any
conversion of RGB, nor can you get UV from RGB conversion.  The reason
for this is the same as indicated above.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

Tom Baker writes:

> But, your narrow band yellow filter is just talk.
> Can we see an example?

I've explained it as clearly as I can.

It seems that this topic is one of those "hard things" that many people often
never quite understand, like relativity or the game-show problem.

You jsut answered your won question. The IR and UV are outside the 
frequency response of the R, G, B filters. Same for the light passed 
through a narrow band yellow filter. If you are happy with what you are 
getting - that's cool, but understand what you are getting and not getting.

Truman

Tom Baker wrote:

> You missed one.  You said "You can't get infrared B&W from any
> conversion of RGB, nor can you get UV from RGB conversion.  The reason 
> for this is the same as indicated above."  You also can only get a 
> real polorized effect in the camera.  But, your narrow band yellow 
> filter is just talk.  Can we see an example?
>
>
>
> Tom Baker

I made the effort to read all posts in this thread just to see how far something stupid 
can go and at one point I was wondering if most of the posters have had too much 
wine and too little turkey but looking back I notice a general tendency on the list 
towards discussions on very subjective topics, on tonalities, most effective B&W film 
imitations, warmth/coolness in inks and papers, etc., generally perception stuff.
Surprising for a list whose purpose is discussing technical aspects of digital printing.
I'm getting really tired of reading half baked opinions glorified as laws of nature on 
non-issues. I'm sure all of you are nice people who mean well, somehow mailing lists 
have this quality of stimulating the silliness even in the best of us making otherwise 
capable people sound stupid and limited.

Andu

Anthony  -
 
I'm essentially theorized to death.  Show us some EXAMPLES of real life photography using the narrow band yellow filter.
 
Tom Baker

"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
Tom Baker writes:

> But, your narrow band yellow filter is just talk.
> Can we see an example?

I've explained it as clearly as I can.

It seems that this topic is one of those "hard things" that many people often
never quite understand, like relativity or the game-show problem.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

> From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...]
>
> I'm essentially theorized to death.  Show us some EXAMPLES of
> real life photography using the narrow band yellow filter.

Heck, I'd like to see an example of a narrowband yellow filter. The yellow
filters I'm aware of are broadband low-pass filters, e.g.,

http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_30_31.htm

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> Heck, I'd like to see an example of a narrowband
> yellow filter.

The same principle applies to any filter, actually ... it also applies
in the absence of a filter.  The narrowband yellow example just helps to
make the illustration a bit more clear.

You could try a Wratten 34A, 98, 102, etc.

I have some vague recollection that these things exist and are used for scientific purposes.  If some ACTUAL EXAMPLES of these in use for our type of work, it might be instructional.  I doubt that such examples exist, or can be produced.
 
Tom Baker

"Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> wrote:
> From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...]
>
> I'm essentially theorized to death.  Show us some EXAMPLES of
> real life photography using the narrow band yellow filter.

Heck, I'd like to see an example of a narrowband yellow filter. The yellow
filters I'm aware of are broadband low-pass filters, e.g.,

http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_30_31.htm

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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! Terms of Service. 


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

...
> Er, who are you talking to? 
...

ummm, I don't know who is who at this point:)

...
> > and I measured the grain
> > in a Tri-X photo and back calculated the resolution needed to do
> > resonable job capturing it...
> 
> Why do you need to resolve to grain?  For what purpose?
...

because in my mind you aren't matching a film's character unless you 
capture the grain... and that is once thing that I actually miss.

...
> > You look at the image and either like it or not.  Edward
> > Weston shot many of his photos with a crappy meniscus lens, not 
top
> > name German glass... and 8x10" will always beat 35mm... where do 
you
> > draw the line?  When an image is "good," not based on the 
equipment.
> 
> No one was talking about "good" or "bad" images.  The discussion 
was a
> comparison of converting RGB capture to grayscale or simply 
capturing using
> grayscale in the first place.  That has not a thing to do with the 
artistic
> content of the image.
...

Maybe you are, but I'm concerned with the final image, everything 
else is almost meaningless once you hang your print.

mark

ps  I guess I only got involved in this long-winded arguement because 
I am home sick with the flu and not out shooting photos... pity.

Hi Mark,

> > Er, who are you talking to?
> ...
>
> ummm, I don't know who is who at this point:)

I assure you, I am not digi-phobic or digi-hostile.

> ...
> > > and I measured the grain
> > > in a Tri-X photo and back calculated the resolution needed to do
> > > resonable job capturing it...
> >
> > Why do you need to resolve to grain?  For what purpose?
> ...
>
> because in my mind you aren't matching a film's character unless you
> capture the grain... and that is once thing that I actually miss.

But grain is only one aspect of a film.  The tonal response curve is
another, and for me, is far more important.  I can change the grain
characteristics substantially by exposure and development.  I can also do so
to the response curve.

> ...
> > > You look at the image and either like it or not.  Edward
> > > Weston shot many of his photos with a crappy meniscus lens, not
> top
> > > name German glass... and 8x10" will always beat 35mm... where do
> you
> > > draw the line?  When an image is "good," not based on the
> equipment.
> >
> > No one was talking about "good" or "bad" images.  The discussion
> was a
> > comparison of converting RGB capture to grayscale or simply
> capturing using
> > grayscale in the first place.  That has not a thing to do with the
> artistic
> > content of the image.
> ...
>
> Maybe you are, but I'm concerned with the final image, everything
> else is almost meaningless once you hang your print.

Right...but that is a different issue than comparison, which is what was
being discussed...converting RGB capture to grayscale, or original capture
in grayscale.  That, as I said, has nothing to do with good or bad images or
image content, so sure, you can make spectacular images either way...but
there are differences that may or may not be significant to different
people, and may or may not be significant depending on the image.  And, to
compare the two, you really need identical curcumstances that show the
advantages/failings of each.

Regards,

Austin

> ps  I guess I only got involved in this long-winded arguement because
> I am home sick with the flu and not out shooting photos... pity.

I hope you get better soon!

Anthony,

Because they are a form of artistic interpretation of a scene that can
provide pleasing results sometimes, as can other monochrome tonings, or
color distortions.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>


> Bob Frost writes:
>
> > I don't think I've ever seen a natural black and white scene!! I gave up
> > using b&w films about 40 yrs ago when they invented films that recorded
the

> > world as I see it - in color.
>
> So why are you interested in black and white prints?

Austin,

One further point on this is that we use our B&W vision - from the rods -
for determining detail, edges, movement, etc., and our color vision - from
the cones - merely adds color to the details provided by the B&W vision. I
suppose it is rather like Lab - the luminosity channel provides the detail,
and the a,b channels the color overlay.

Color vision is believed to be a recent evolutionary add-on to the basic
animal B&W vision. Most animals don't possess the color add-on, and do only
see in B&W.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> Also, the human eye does not see only in color.  The human eye has two
> spectral systems based on two different types of receptors known as cones
> and rods. The cones are responsible for colour vision but are much less
> sensitive to low light than the rods. In bright light the cones are active
> and the iris is stopped down. This is called photopic vision. When in a
> darkened area, over a short period of time there are other chemical
> adaptations which make the rods become sensitive to light at about a
> 10,000th of the level needed for the cones to work. After this time we see
> much better in the dark but we have very little colour vision. This is
known
> as scotopic vision.  Both are active at any one time...but it's the
> sensitivity of each that changes.

Bob Frost writes:

> One further point on this is that we use our B&W vision - from the rods -
> for determining detail, edges, movement, etc., and our color vision - from
> the cones - merely adds color to the details provided by the B&W vision.

All of the precise vision is provided by the cones.  Rods are largely
absence from the fovea, and they bloom readily in bright light.  People
who have only rods, for example (achromatopsia--true black-and-white
color blindness), are normally legally blind, because the vision
provided by rods is almost unusable except for very gross perception.

For fine detail and color, the cones are used.

Bob Frost writes:

> Because they are a form of artistic interpretation of a scene that can
> provide pleasing results sometimes, as can other monochrome tonings, or
> color distortions.

But you said you gave up shooting B&W films 40 years ago.  Does that
mean that you did without B&W for that period, or what?

B&W is not the real world; anyone who shoots or prints in B&W is making
a deliberate choice to put an artistic spin of sorts on an image.  I use
black and white mainly when color would distract from the point of the
photograph.

Street scenes often look best in black and white: if an unimportant
person in a street scene is wearing a day-glo orange jacket, and the
image is in color, his jacket will distract tremendously from the
important content of the image, but if if the image is in B&W, only the
forms in the image will be visible, so it won't matter.

Anthony,

OK; I simplified things too much. For anyone wanting to read more on this, a
really good book is 'Vision and Art; the Biology of Seeing' by Margaret
Livingstone, a neurophysiologist.

Bob Frost.

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

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
>
> All of the precise vision is provided by the cones.  Rods are largely
> absence from the fovea, and they bloom readily in bright light.  People
> who have only rods, for example (achromatopsia--true black-and-white
> color blindness), are normally legally blind, because the vision
> provided by rods is almost unusable except for very gross perception.
>
> For fine detail and color, the cones are used.

> One further point on this is that we use our B&W vision - from the rods -
> for determining detail, edges, movement, etc., and our color vision - from
> the cones - merely adds color to the details provided by the B&W vision. I
> suppose it is rather like Lab - the luminosity channel provides
> the detail,
> and the a,b channels the color overlay.

Bingo, Bob.  Thanks for clarifying that point...it's what I meant by "both
are active at any one time"...  We really only "use" about 1/4th (spatially)
the color information than we do grayscale information.

> Color vision is believed to be a recent evolutionary add-on to the basic
> animal B&W vision. Most animals don't possess the color add-on,
> and do only
> see in B&W.

Was it a plug-in? ;-)

Regards,

Austin

At 08:43 PM 11/28/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Anthony,
>
>I don't think I've ever seen a natural black and white scene!! I gave up
>using b&w films about 40 yrs ago when they invented films that recorded the
>world as I see it - in color. Do your cones work?
>
>Bob Frost.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>



This thread has gotten way silly!  "Natural" black and white or 
color?  C'mon guys - you can't be serious.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Austin,

Not quiet 'Bingo'; as Anthony said, I simplified things too much. We do have
two systems of vision, a luminance system which is the primitive animal
system - they can't see in color, and a color system peculiar to the higher
animals. Where I went wrong in my previous posting, in my attempt to keep
things short, was to say that the luminance system was due to the rods, and
the color system was due to the cones. Only partly true; cones are involved
in both systems, and primitive animals have cones, but only of one type
instead of our three, so no color vision. So it is true that our color
vision depends on cones rather than rods, but only because we have three
types of cones instead of the primitive animal's one type.

The two systems of vision are based in the nerves that connect the rods and
cones to the brain. Some take luminance info from both rods and cones and
discriminate edges, detail, movement, etc, while others take color info from
the three types of cones we have and overlay it on the luminance analysis.

In a very small nutshell, I think that is it, but the book I recommended is
very good, not just for its info on the biology of seeing, but for how it
explains the way that artists have used and do use our vision system to
their advantage, often without knowing anything of how it works.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> Bingo, Bob.  Thanks for clarifying that point...it's what I meant by "both
> are active at any one time"...  We really only "use" about 1/4th
(spatially)

> the color information than we do grayscale information.
>
> > Color vision is believed to be a recent evolutionary add-on to the basic
> > animal B&W vision. Most animals don't possess the color add-on,
> > and do only
> > see in B&W.
>
> Was it a plug-in? ;-)

Hi Johnny,

And, it seemed like such an innocent question! <g>

Thank you for your tip and all who replied. My intention was not to "stir
the hornets nest", but to get some feedback from list members who own
specific tools. Over the years, I have tried several techniques for
converting to B&W:

1. Channel mixer.
2. Fred Miranda's action.
3. The Russell Brown technique.
4. PhotoKit.

Just to name a few... But, I've always been left with the feeling that
something was missing--perhaps, a couple of channels worth of info as
Anthony indicated! <g> I thought, maybe, a filter for converting to
predefined gray values to match the spectral response of a given film might
be useful. It would certainly be an efficient way to work. Sometimes I need
speed, other times I'm willing to "play" with the image in an attempt to
extract all I can from it. I do agree, however, with various responses that
questioned why anyone would want to duplicate an existing film. I guess
sometimes you need that, but it does seem rather limiting. Anyway, my own
experience, to date, seems to indicate that Anthony hit the proverbial nail:
Shoot B&W film if grayscale imagery is the final output. Just finished
scanning, Photoshop'ing, and printing a couple of my 8x10 TriX negs (about
A3 in size) and the prints, IMHO, of course, are simply scrumptious!

Thank you, again, for everyone's input.

Alan Huntley

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

From: "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 3:48 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale


> Hello Alan,
>
>  I hate to jump into the hornets nest this question seems to have
> stirred up, but I would like to put my two cents in. For what it's
> worth, when we take a picture with whatever camera we choose, our
> main goal is not to exactly reproduce what we see; which you indicate
> with your question. Your intention is to alter what the eye sees into
> something else that fits your perception of what the image can become
> with your help. If you are using Photoshop, then the tools you need
> are already there; the hard part is always finding them in the right
> combination.
>
> This is the way I convert into color:
>
> 1. Layer>New Adjustment Layer>Hue/Saturation
> 2. Edit Master>Hue>-(minus)180 Saturation>-(minus)100 Lightness>000 OK
> 3. Image>Mode>Lab Color with Flatten
> 4. Channel>delete A(the letter A) channel then delete Alpha2 channel
> 5. Image>Mode>Grayscale
> 6. Continue with your adjustments with sharpening being the very last
> step done before saving the final image for printing.
>
> This will give your a B&W image.
>
> Note change only to the B&W image after all the work you want done on
> the color image is complete except the sharpening step.
>
> I hope this helps some with your question without all the scientific
> jargon I've seen in some of the messages so far. If I've stepped on
> any toes, I apologize.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Morse" 
<pmorse@c...> wrote:
> Colin,
> 
> Can you direct me to information/workflow on using PWP for the B/W
> conversion as you mentioned?  I can't find it in the manual or on 
the site
> or 'dope' it out by myself.
> 
> Phil Morse
Phil,

I do not allow the internet near my PC at home and do not have 
Picture Window installed on my PC at the office.  Hence the delay in 
responding.  Steps as follows with Picture Window Pro 3.1 which I 
trust have not changed in the new version.

Transformation
Color
Monochrome
Click on Green Box

A `Preview' black and white window should appear top right and a 
filter color cube to the left of centre.  You can see the original 
color image to the left and so can compare side by side following:

With this `Preview' window, 
`Window' on top bar
Zoom 1:1
Again `Window'
Fit 

If you then left mouse click anywhere in the cube you get the mix of 
RGB for that location – or other value systems - with the numbers in 
the panel below.   You get infinitely variable, instant feedback.  
Far superior, in my view, to Photoshop.

When you have what you like click `Apply' and a new `Untitled' image 
appears which you can save to load in the editor of your choice.

If you want you can use the numbers to enter into Photoshop's Channel 
Mixer.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

Colin

Colin,

Thank you for that information.
Phil,

> Steps as follows with Picture Window Pro 3.1 which I trust have not
changed in the new version.

> Transformation
> Color
> Monochrome
> Click on Green Box

It was the click on the green box which threw me off.  I knew I had stumbled
across this function early on using PW but could not find it.  Frustrating
knowing it was there and not being to find it.  I have now installed this in
my workflow and will be eternally grateful.

> You get infinitely variable, instant feedback.  Far superior, in my view,
to Photoshop.  I'd be
> interested in your opinion.

I am unable to compare with PS as I use Elements and currently use the two
layer saturation method of B/W conversion which is tedious and clumsy.  This
and certain other PWP methods seem superior to Elements.

Phil Morse