Digital BW, The Print

I typically use the split channels method to render B&W from colour but have recently 
begun playing with the channel mixer.  I guess I need some help as to what the sliders do 
- I am simply fiddling in the dark at the moment.  Should the sum of the Red, Green and 
Blue slider percentages ideally add to 100?  What is the purpose of the Constant slider?  If 
a channel is raised beyond 100% what does this mean? (I found that some quite dramatic 
effects can be produced by say raising the red to 200% and having -50% for the other two 
channels but it seems that skies can get torn up by doing this.)

Thanks

Steve

Hi Steve.

When using channel mixer, I usually start out by inspecting the 
individual Red, Green and Blue channels.  Channel mixer will "mix or 
blen" these channels together to give you a composite image, and if 
you check the monochrome box, a composite B&W image.  For many 
images, I find red and green to have the most useful information, and 
blue tends to have more noise.  This can vary tremendously from image 
to image.

So, when I open channel mixer, I now have a little feel for what I 
want to do.  I generally try to keep the sum of the 3 sliders to add 
up to 100, or thereabouts.  For many images 40R, 50G and 10B isn't a 
bad starting point.  Increasing the Red slider increases the 
influence of the red channel in your final output.  I try to get the 
most pleasing overall tonality in channel mixer, then I add a curve 
adjustment layer on top of it.

There are probably lots of tutorials on channel mixer on the web.  
Here is one link to a lot of B&W actions.

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> I typically use the split channels method to render B&W from colour 
but have recently 
> begun playing with the channel mixer.  I guess I need some help as 
to what the sliders do 
> - I am simply fiddling in the dark at the moment.  Should the sum 
of the Red, Green and 
> Blue slider percentages ideally add to 100?  What is the purpose of 
the Constant slider?  If 
> a channel is raised beyond 100% what does this mean? (I found that 
some quite dramatic 
> effects can be produced by say raising the red to 200% and having -
50% for the other two 

> channels but it seems that skies can get torn up by doing this.)
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve

Steve,
The sum of rgb adding to 100% just preserves the luminence of the orignal. You don't 
have to stick with that if you like the effects of another sum. Red skies can get torn 
up as you're only using 30% or so of the info that is recorded in the red pixels. It 
often helps to add some additional info, such as from the L channel to your red using 
channels as layers for a smoother outcome.
The constant slider is described by Adobe thus: "Drag the slider or enter a value for 
the Constant option. This option adjusts the grayscale value of the output channel. 
Negative values add more black, and positive values add more white. A -200% value 
makes the output channel completely black, and a +200% value makes the output 
channel completely white. "
Sarah

snip>

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" 
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > I typically use the split channels method to render B&W from colour 
> but have recently 
> > begun playing with the channel mixer.  I guess I need some help as 
> to what the sliders do 
> > - I am simply fiddling in the dark at the moment.  Should the sum 
> of the Red, Green and 
> > Blue slider percentages ideally add to 100?  What is the purpose of 
> the Constant slider?  If 
> > a channel is raised beyond 100% what does this mean? (I found that 
> some quite dramatic 
> > effects can be produced by say raising the red to 200% and having -
> 50% for the other two 
> > channels but it seems that skies can get torn up by doing this.)
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Steve

Sarah

Thanks.  I guess I get the notion of, say, 50% red, 25% blue, 25% green.
The luminance stays the same and we are choosing the weighting of RGB.  But
what about a channel value greater than a 100% or negative channel values?

Steve

> From: jessupsa <sjessup@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:25:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Understanding channel mixer
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> The sum of rgb adding to 100% just preserves the luminence of the orignal. You
> don't 
> have to stick with that if you like the effects of another sum. Red skies can
> get torn 
> up as you're only using 30% or so of the info that is recorded in the red
> pixels. It 
> often helps to add some additional info, such as from the L channel to your
> red using 
> channels as layers for a smoother outcome.
> The constant slider is described by Adobe thus: "Drag the slider or enter a
> value for 
> the Constant option. This option adjusts the grayscale value of the output
> channel. 
> Negative values add more black, and positive values add more white. A -200%
> value 
> makes the output channel completely black, and a +200% value makes the output
> channel completely white. "
> Sarah
>

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> I typically use the split channels method to render B&W from
> colour but have recently
> begun playing with the channel mixer.  I guess I need some help
> as to what the sliders do
> - I am simply fiddling in the dark at the moment.  Should the sum
> of the Red, Green and
> Blue slider percentages ideally add to 100?  What is the purpose
> of the Constant slider?  If
> a channel is raised beyond 100% what does this mean? (I found
> that some quite dramatic
> effects can be produced by say raising the red to 200% and having
> -50% for the other two
> channels but it seems that skies can get torn up by doing this.)

In the general case, the Channel Mixer just lets you do any linear mixing of
channels, either to a RGB target (in which case there are three sets of
sliders) or to monochrome. It is really only widely useful in the latter
case, so I can't help wondering why Monochrome isn't the default. Also, the
constant slider is really just there for completeness--it's rarely useful,
either.

And you're right that in general you want the other three values to add up
to 100. For an underexposed image, you might correct for it by making the
sum larger, but in general I think it's best to do that afterward with
Curves or Levels.

And you're right that you can get some really dark IR-like skies by
subtracting green or blue from red.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the Channel Mixer isn't likely to
produce a finished image. It just gives you a fairly simple global way to
mix them, but you still need to apply a curve to get the different zones in
the right place.

I sometimes use split channels, too, in images where I need a very different
mix in different part of the picture. I split them, layer them, and then
paint the layer masks to control the mix. However, for even more control,
duplicate an image, use the Channel Mixer twice to optimize different parts
of the picture, then layer them and paint the layer mask. Or sometimes, I
just use the channel mixer, then use the history brush to paint back some of
the original image, if the mix produces generally pleasing results but a few
clipped highlights here and there.

--

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

>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wow sounds like a lot of work.  I started playing with channel mixer as a
result of some desaturated colour work - take a colour image and work it up
to satisfaction, then apply a channel mixer layer with dramatic mix (eg Red
200%, Green -50%, Blue -50%) and then set the opacity of this layer at
around 65% for a colour/B&W hybrid.  I am still not conceptually getting
what is happening when, with monochrome checked, a channel is set to greater
than 100% or at a negative value.....but I like the results.

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>

> 
> In the general case, the Channel Mixer just lets you do any linear mixing of
> channels, either to a RGB target (in which case there are three sets of
> sliders) or to monochrome. It is really only widely useful in the latter
> case, so I can't help wondering why Monochrome isn't the default. Also, the
> constant slider is really just there for completeness--it's rarely useful,
> either.
> 
> And you're right that in general you want the other three values to add up
> to 100. For an underexposed image, you might correct for it by making the
> sum larger, but in general I think it's best to do that afterward with
> Curves or Levels.
> 
> And you're right that you can get some really dark IR-like skies by
> subtracting green or blue from red.
> 
> The main thing to keep in mind is that the Channel Mixer isn't likely to
> produce a finished image. It just gives you a fairly simple global way to
> mix them, but you still need to apply a curve to get the different zones in
> the right place.
> 
> I sometimes use split channels, too, in images where I need a very different
> mix in different part of the picture. I split them, layer them, and then
> paint the layer masks to control the mix. However, for even more control,
> duplicate an image, use the Channel Mixer twice to optimize different parts
> of the picture, then layer them and paint the layer mask. Or sometimes, I
> just use the channel mixer, then use the history brush to paint back some of
> the original image, if the mix produces generally pleasing results but a few
> clipped highlights here and there.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>>

Conceptually: it's 200% red minus 100% Cyan (B+G); therefore 100% R with 0G
and 0B should look  the same.

Seth 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 



Wow sounds like a lot of work.  I started playing with channel mixer as a
result of some desaturated colour work - take a colour image and work it up
to satisfaction, then apply a channel mixer layer with dramatic mix (eg Red
200%, Green -50%, Blue -50%) and then set the opacity of this layer at
around 65% for a colour/B&W hybrid.  I am still not conceptually getting
what is happening when, with monochrome checked, a channel is set to greater
than 100% or at a negative value.....but I like the results.

>  I am still not conceptually getting
>what is happening when, with monochrome checked, a channel is set to greater
>than 100% or at a negative value...

I think you're making it more complicated than it really is. The 
Channel Mixer just does addition.

Remember that each of R, G, B for each pixel is just a number, 0 to 
255 (in 8-bit mode). Channel Mixer in monochrome mode just takes each 
number, multiplies it by the percentage set, and adds them all up to 
get the luminance number for the result. If the sum is more than 255, 
it gets clipped to 255; if it's less than 0, it gets clipped to 0.

Each channel contributes to the sum according to the percentages, in 
proportion to the brightness of that channel. Where the R channel is 
bright, it contributes a lot to the sum. Where the R channel is dark, 
it contributes little or nothing to the sum, so the end result comes 
mainly or entirely from the G and B channels. And so on.

Where all the channels are dark, the result will be dark regardless 
of the percentages.

Increasing the percentage of R means that R values will contribute 
more to the sum. So areas that are bright in Red will be brighter in 
the result.

If you set R to a negative value, that reverses the contribution of 
the R channel. So areas that are bright in Red will become *darker* 
in the result. This is exactly as if you inverted the R channel and 
then added it in at the same positive percentage.

There's nothing magic about 100% per channel. The magic combination 
is 30% red, 59% green, and 11% blue. That mixture is what Photoshop 
uses when you just use Desaturate, and it corresponds to some notion 
of "normal" luminance perception. If you want red tones to be lighter 
than "normal", use more than 30% for the R channel (and don't worry 
if it goes over 100). If you want them to be darker than "normal", 
use less than 30% (and don't worry if it goes below 0).

This is like using colored filters. They reduce the effect of certain 
colors of light on the result. With colored filters, you have to 
compensate for the lost light by increasing the exposure. That allows 
more of the colors that aren't filtered out to get to the film. Same 
thing here. If you reduce the percentage of one channel, you will 
probably want to increase the percentage of the other channels to 
compensate for the overall loss of brightness. Making them add up to 
100 is like using the filter factor out of the book: it gets you into 
the right ballpark. Your creative vision may require a different sum. 
Keep the histogram palette open and check it for clipping while you 
adjust the percentages.

There ought to be a button that says "scale my percentages to add up 
to 100", but there isn't. So you have to do it manually.

   -Paul (another one)

I just want to add that "Desaturate" is still not the best way to convert to
B&W.  Learn to use Channel Mixer.

Also, most noise for low light or under exposed areas shows up in the blue
channel.  The less blue you use the better.
Just like film, the green is usually the best channel, so 40R60G or 35R65G
will usually be good.  EACH subject has its best setting.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Paul Williamson [mailto:kb5mu@...] 
==
==There's nothing magic about 100% per channel. The magic 
==combination is 30% red, 59% green, and 11% blue. That mixture 
==is what Photoshop uses when you just use Desaturate, and it

At 3:13 PM -0500 2/17/05, Seth wrote:
>Conceptually: it's 200% red minus 100% Cyan (B+G); therefore 100% R with 0G
>and 0B should look  the same.

No. You're confusing channels (brightness values) with filters. In 
channels, the values R, G, and B are independent and can't be 
interchanged that way.

Try it and see.

   -Paul

Whoops, you're right!!!

Totally different effects. 

(KB9BGV)

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Paul Williamson [mailto:kb5mu@...] 
==
==No. You're confusing channels (brightness values) with 
==filters. In channels, the values R, G, and B are independent 
==and can't be interchanged that way.
==
==Try it and see.
==
==   -Paul

Thanks Paul.  I'm slowly getting it.  It's understanding the greater than
100% and -% that needed explaining. Cheers, Steve

> From: Paul Williamson <kb5mu@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:19:20 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Understanding channel mixer
> 
> 
>>  I am still not conceptually getting
>> what is happening when, with monochrome checked, a channel is set to greater
>> than 100% or at a negative value...
> 
> I think you're making it more complicated than it really is. The
> Channel Mixer just does addition.
> 
> Remember that each of R, G, B for each pixel is just a number, 0 to
> 255 (in 8-bit mode). Channel Mixer in monochrome mode just takes each
> number, multiplies it by the percentage set, and adds them all up to
> get the luminance number for the result. If the sum is more than 255,
> it gets clipped to 255; if it's less than 0, it gets clipped to 0.
> 
> Each channel contributes to the sum according to the percentages, in
> proportion to the brightness of that channel. Where the R channel is
> bright, it contributes a lot to the sum. Where the R channel is dark,
> it contributes little or nothing to the sum, so the end result comes
> mainly or entirely from the G and B channels. And so on.
> 
> Where all the channels are dark, the result will be dark regardless
> of the percentages.
> 
> Increasing the percentage of R means that R values will contribute
> more to the sum. So areas that are bright in Red will be brighter in
> the result.
> 
> If you set R to a negative value, that reverses the contribution of
> the R channel. So areas that are bright in Red will become *darker*
> in the result. This is exactly as if you inverted the R channel and
> then added it in at the same positive percentage.
> 
> There's nothing magic about 100% per channel. The magic combination
> is 30% red, 59% green, and 11% blue. That mixture is what Photoshop
> uses when you just use Desaturate, and it corresponds to some notion
> of "normal" luminance perception. If you want red tones to be lighter
> than "normal", use more than 30% for the R channel (and don't worry
> if it goes over 100). If you want them to be darker than "normal",
> use less than 30% (and don't worry if it goes below 0).
> 
> This is like using colored filters. They reduce the effect of certain
> colors of light on the result. With colored filters, you have to
> compensate for the lost light by increasing the exposure. That allows
> more of the colors that aren't filtered out to get to the film. Same
> thing here. If you reduce the percentage of one channel, you will
> probably want to increase the percentage of the other channels to
> compensate for the overall loss of brightness. Making them add up to
> 100 is like using the filter factor out of the book: it gets you into
> the right ballpark. Your creative vision may require a different sum.
> Keep the histogram palette open and check it for clipping while you
> adjust the percentages.
> 
> There ought to be a button that says "scale my percentages to add up
> to 100", but there isn't. So you have to do it manually.
> 
>    -Paul (another one)
>

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> Wow sounds like a lot of work.  I started playing with channel mixer as a
> result of some desaturated colour work - take a colour image and
> work it up
> to satisfaction, then apply a channel mixer layer with dramatic
> mix (eg Red
> 200%, Green -50%, Blue -50%) and then set the opacity of this layer at
> around 65% for a colour/B&W hybrid.  I am still not conceptually getting
> what is happening when, with monochrome checked, a channel is set
> to greater
> than 100% or at a negative value.....but I like the results.

If a channel's gain is set to greater than 100%, it boosts the contrast of
that channel. This is sometimes useful, especially if combined with a
negative value in another channel, but can lead to blown highlights in areas
that are predominately that color.

If a gain is set to a negative value by itself (along with a postive
constant), that would invert the image. However, negative values are
primarily useful, as you found out with your sky experiments, for darkening
a part of the picture that's a different color from the rest, as opposed to
creating a negative effect.

You can do a lot of bogus thins with the Channel Mixer, and it's certainly
not the be-all end-all of B&W conversions, but people use it because often
it provides an easy way to do some fairly obvious things. Indeed, if I just
want to use a single channel as-is, and discard the other two, I prefer the
channel mixer over Split Channels because the latter clobbers the file name
and discards the EXIF info.

--

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

Steve Kale wrote:
> Thanks.  I guess I get the notion of, say, 50% red, 25% blue, 25% green.
> The luminance stays the same and we are choosing the weighting of RGB.  But
> what about a channel value greater than a 100% or negative channel values?

Perhaps I'm still not understanding something, but I'm not convinced 
that making the numbers add up to 100% will necessarily keep the 
luminance the same.

Consider an image that was pure red.  Using your numbers above, you keep 
50% of the red value and don't add anything else because there is no 
blue or green.  At that point your image would (I would think) have only 
half the luminance of the original.

	Walt

> From: Walt Farrell [mailto:wftemp1@...]
>
> Perhaps I'm still not understanding something, but I'm not convinced
> that making the numbers add up to 100% will necessarily keep the
> luminance the same.

To the extent that the image has colors in it, it won't. But it's a good
starting point, because it at least avoids blown highlights as long as the
individual numbers don't exceed 100%.

--

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

Hello Steve,

Dittos on what the others said.  I've found that if I stray very far
from a sum total of 100 that things begin to look "strange", but
there's no particular significance to + or - values.  I recently did a
formal portrait of a caucasian man and ended up with R=80, G=40,
B=-20.  

I also use a Hue/Sat layer for further adjustments after Ch-Mix.  It's
quick (if you can make up your mind <g>), easy, and allows a wide
variety of effects.

Also, in a recent landscape, before doing the BW conversion I first
intensified the Cyan just a tad.  It resulted in a darker sky right
out of the starting gate.  All that was required later was a modest
gradient.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Steve, try Convert to B&W Pro at www.theimagingfactory.com.  It's pretty
cool, and effortless.  You can pick the "film" you want (TriX, FP4 etc.),
the filter, and the paper grade. Often after converting the b&w image I will
tone it with a hue-saturation layer and the TZ-BWTone filters (platinum,
kallitype, lots).

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Understanding channel mixer
> 
> 
> 
> I typically use the split channels method to render B&W from 
> colour but have recently begun playing with the channel 
> mixer.  I guess I need some help as to what the sliders do
> - I am simply fiddling in the dark at the moment.  Should the 
> sum of the Red, Green and Blue slider percentages ideally add 
> to 100?  What is the purpose of the Constant slider?  If a 
> channel is raised beyond 100% what does this mean? (I found 
> that some quite dramatic effects can be produced by say 
> raising the red to 200% and having -50% for the other two 
> channels but it seems that skies can get torn up by doing this.)
> 
> Thanks
>

Ken 

I am more trying to understand how the mixer works and what the scales mean.
For most of my B&W conversion I really like using the split channels
approach - being able to Pin Light the blue channel for greater contrast is
quite cool, for example.  I started playing with the dramatic effects that
can be created by mixer if you do, say, 200% red, -50% green, -50% blue.  I
was also using a Channel Mixer Layer over a colour image and reducing the
layer opacity so that some colour crept through.  OK not B&W but very cool.
So it's the conceptual issue of what a slider value of greater than 100% or
less than 0 that was what I was trying to understand.

Thanks

Steve

> From: Ken Carney <kcarney1@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:06:59 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Understanding channel mixer
> 
> 
> Steve, try Convert to B&W Pro at www.theimagingfactory.com.  It's pretty
> cool, and effortless.  You can pick the "film" you want (TriX, FP4 etc.),
> the filter, and the paper grade. Often after converting the b&w image I will
> tone it with a hue-saturation layer and the TZ-BWTone filters (platinum,
> kallitype, lots).
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.com
>

You're right. Every image is different.

That's why a convert-to-BW program isn't a great idea. 

 Going back to when we had to send three color printers to publications, the
Magenta (Green) was the one used for B&W because it's tone was closest. It
was then put in register with a lighter (very light) black printer.

Blue is still the noisiest and normally can be a minimal value.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Walt Farrell [mailto:wftemp1@...] 

==> Thanks.  I guess I get the notion of, say, 50% red, 25% 
==blue, 25% green.
==> The luminance stays the same and we are choosing the 
==weighting of RGB.  
==> But what about a channel value greater than a 100% or 
==negative channel values?
==
==Perhaps I'm still not understanding something, but I'm not 
==convinced that making the numbers add up to 100% will 
==necessarily keep the luminance the same.
==
==Consider an image that was pure red.  Using your numbers 
==above, you keep 50% of the red value and don't add anything 
==else because there is no blue or green.  At that point your 
==image would (I would think) have only half the luminance of 
==the original.
==

Steve,

To try and answer what happens when Channel Mixer settings are over 
100 or less than zero, lets assume we have a single color image whose 
pixels have RGB values 113, 57, 179.  In Photoshop, if you open up 
Curves and mouse over this image you will see it has a tonal value of 
87.  Curves calculated this as follows  .30(113) + .59(57) + .11(179) 
= 87.

If you then create a Channel Mixer adjustment layer and set it to 
monochrome, to retain the same luminance value, you will need to set 
the red slider to 30% and the green slider to 59% and the blue slider 
to 11%.  Changing these sliders to anything else will change the 
resulting tone.  Which is ok, because black and white is all about 
tone.

Now, lets assume we change our Channel Mixer red slider to 200% and 
the green slider to -50% and the blue slider to -50%.  This is how we 
are telling Photoshop to calculate our tone  2.0(113) - .50(57) - .50
(179).  Our resulting tone would be 108.  Which would give us a 
lighter image since 108 is lighter than 87.  You cannot make Channel 
Mixer calculate a tone greater than 255 or less than 0.  Anything 
over 255 is collapsed to 255 and anything less than 0 becomes 0.  
Almost all the experts agree that when using Channel Mixer to keep 
the total percent as close to 100 as possible.

Regarding constant, constant allows us to add or subtract black from 
the image.  A negative constant adds black and a positive constant 
subtracts black.

Now, the second half of this email is opinion.  I personally do not 
like using the same adjustment layer to both convert my image to 
black and white and to adjust tone.  I have several reasons for this 
but one of the major reasons is this forces the tonal change to be 
more of a global change (e.g. keep the channel mixer as close to 100% 
as possible, which means you change one, you need to change 
another).  I usually like to selectively change tone.  If you care to 
learn more about how I convert to black and white, you can go here, 
but be forwarned, it is a long read.  
http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_TMSIntro.htm.

Finally, we need to be conscious of what channel mixer does.  Many of 
us look at our images and what to darken the sky or lighten the green 
foliage.  So we open up Channel Mixer, Levels or Curves and start 
working on the channel level.  What we need to be aware of is when we 
think blue sky or green foliage, we are thinking on the color range 
level.  Whereas Channel Mixer works on the color channel level.  In 
our example of the RGB image with values of 113, 57, 179.  Its color 
range is blues.  However, it has information in all three channels.  
So when we use Channel Mixer, or Levels or Curves to adjust channels, 
we are affected ANY pixel that has data in the channel being 
adjusted.  When we work at the color range level, we are only 
affecting pixels whose dominant color is in that color range.  The 
Hue/Saturation adjustment works on the color range level.  But I 
rarely use it to adjust tone.  Instead, I use Levels or Curves in a 
two step process that basically selects the color range and then 
applies the Levels or Curves adjustment. You can read more about it 
here.  
http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_PSComparison.htm#ColorRange

For the first half of this email, I hope it helped.  For the second 
half, thanks for listening.

Thomas

I don't necessarily try to make the channels add up to 100; I
generally watch the histogram if I am trying to get a "full range" of
gray values.  It tells you what the actual distribution of the values
is.  You easily check to make sure that you do not truncate your data
on either end in this manner.

Of course, you might not always *want* your values to span from 0 to
255...but I often start this way and then adjust as desired.

Just my $.02... 8*)

Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walt Farrell
<wftemp1@h...> wrote:
> Steve Kale wrote:
<snip...> 
> Perhaps I'm still not understanding something, but I'm not convinced 
> that making the numbers add up to 100% will necessarily keep the 
> luminance the same.
> 
> Consider an image that was pure red.  Using your numbers above, you
keep 
> 50% of the red value and don't add anything else because there is no 
> blue or green.  At that point your image would (I would think) have
only 

> half the luminance of the original.
> 
> 	Walt

Here Here!  A voice of sanity on Channel Mixer.  Besides, one may wish 
to
create an image that has tweaked highlights similar to the tonal range 
achieved by using
infrared film; possibly the green channel in such a case will go beyond 
the an exact percentile of contributing its textbook tonal share of 
100.

By the way, for those who use CR in photoshop, by desaturating 
(adjust/sautration) the image using advanced settings, and then
visiting the the calibrate section of CR, all of the sliders in that 
section act very much the same way as the Channel Mixer.
(You can use this if you wish to preordain your color RAW image to b&w 
from the start.  This hint courtesy of Dr. R. Brown.)

Peter G.

On Feb 19, 2005, at 7:04 AM, e5bowman wrote:

> . . . I don't necessarily try to make the channels add up to 100
>
> Just my $.02... 8*)
>
> Eric . . .
>

Thanks a lot Thomas!

> From: rgb2bw <jnk0941@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:44:58 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Understanding channel mixer
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> To try and answer what happens when Channel Mixer settings are over
> 100 or less than zero, lets assume we have a single color image whose
> pixels have RGB values 113, 57, 179.  In Photoshop, if you open up
> Curves and mouse over this image you will see it has a tonal value of
> 87.  Curves calculated this as follows  .30(113) + .59(57) + .11(179)
> = 87.
> 
> If you then create a Channel Mixer adjustment layer and set it to
> monochrome, to retain the same luminance value, you will need to set
> the red slider to 30% and the green slider to 59% and the blue slider
> to 11%.  Changing these sliders to anything else will change the
> resulting tone.  Which is ok, because black and white is all about
> tone.
> 
> Now, lets assume we change our Channel Mixer red slider to 200% and
> the green slider to -50% and the blue slider to -50%.  This is how we
> are telling Photoshop to calculate our tone  2.0(113) - .50(57) - .50
> (179).  Our resulting tone would be 108.  Which would give us a
> lighter image since 108 is lighter than 87.  You cannot make Channel
> Mixer calculate a tone greater than 255 or less than 0.  Anything
> over 255 is collapsed to 255 and anything less than 0 becomes 0.
> Almost all the experts agree that when using Channel Mixer to keep
> the total percent as close to 100 as possible.
> 
> Regarding constant, constant allows us to add or subtract black from
> the image.  A negative constant adds black and a positive constant
> subtracts black.
> 
> Now, the second half of this email is opinion.  I personally do not
> like using the same adjustment layer to both convert my image to
> black and white and to adjust tone.  I have several reasons for this
> but one of the major reasons is this forces the tonal change to be
> more of a global change (e.g. keep the channel mixer as close to 100%
> as possible, which means you change one, you need to change
> another).  I usually like to selectively change tone.  If you care to
> learn more about how I convert to black and white, you can go here,
> but be forwarned, it is a long read.
> http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_TMSIntro.htm.
> 
> Finally, we need to be conscious of what channel mixer does.  Many of
> us look at our images and what to darken the sky or lighten the green
> foliage.  So we open up Channel Mixer, Levels or Curves and start
> working on the channel level.  What we need to be aware of is when we
> think blue sky or green foliage, we are thinking on the color range
> level.  Whereas Channel Mixer works on the color channel level.  In
> our example of the RGB image with values of 113, 57, 179.  Its color
> range is blues.  However, it has information in all three channels.
> So when we use Channel Mixer, or Levels or Curves to adjust channels,
> we are affected ANY pixel that has data in the channel being
> adjusted.  When we work at the color range level, we are only
> affecting pixels whose dominant color is in that color range.  The
> Hue/Saturation adjustment works on the color range level.  But I
> rarely use it to adjust tone.  Instead, I use Levels or Curves in a
> two step process that basically selects the color range and then
> applies the Levels or Curves adjustment. You can read more about it
> here.  
> http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_PSComparison.htm#ColorRange
> 
> For the first half of this email, I hope it helped.  For the second
> half, thanks for listening.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

If you belong to any Yahoo Groups, this is
important...

Sharing a tidbit of information:

Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
you're doing and where you are going--similar to
cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
group you visit.

Take a look at their updated privacy statement:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy
About half-way down the page, in the section on
cookies, you will see a link that says "web beacons".

Click on the phrase "web beacons". That will bring you
to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network."

In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt
out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new
method of snooping.

Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted.
Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next
screen. Be careful, because on that page there is a
"Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo*
the opt-out.

Feel free to forward this to other groups.








.

Dennis,
             I think everyone should thank you, profoundly, that didn't know about this little sneeky. 
  I guess one wouldn't mind so much if you were asked first, but this shows that they may well have something to hide!!
   
  John_e

"Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> wrote:
  
If you belong to any Yahoo Groups, this is
important...

Sharing a tidbit of information:

Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
you're doing and where you are going--similar to
cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
group you visit.

Take a look at their updated privacy statement:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy
About half-way down the page, in the section on
cookies, you will see a link that says "web beacons".

Click on the phrase "web beacons". That will bring you
to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network."

In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt
out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new
method of snooping.

Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted.
Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next
screen. Be careful, because on that page there is a
"Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo*
the opt-out.

Feel free to forward this to other groups.








.


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

I am a little confused on how this would opt out me. It never asks  
for my user name and password which is what is required to be part of  
these e-groups. So how will it not track me any longer, or is it just  
will not track me when I use this computer with this browser?
Mark

On Dec 10, 2005, at 4:33 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:

>
> If you belong to any Yahoo Groups, this is
> important...
>
> Sharing a tidbit of information:
>
> Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
> track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
> you're doing and where you are going--similar to
> cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
> group you visit.
>
> Take a look at their updated privacy statement:
> http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy
> About half-way down the page, in the section on
> cookies, you will see a link that says "web beacons".
>
> Click on the phrase "web beacons". That will bring you
> to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network."
>
> In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt
> out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new
> method of snooping.
>
> Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted.
> Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next
> screen. Be careful, because on that page there is a
> "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo*
> the opt-out.
>
> Feel free to forward this to other groups.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia 
<mark@c...> wrote:
>
> I am a little confused on how this would opt out me. It never asks  
> for my user name and password which is what is required to be part 
of  
> these e-groups. So how will it not track me any longer, or is it 
just  
> will not track me when I use this computer with this browser?
> Mark
> 


It doesn't track just Yahoo related areas, it tracks EVERYTHING! 
Every web site you go to, every advertisement that you click on, etc. 
They use this to channel advertisement to you when you are on the 
Yahoo website. Summation: get rid of it!

> Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
> track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
> you're doing and where you are going--similar to
> cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
> group you visit...


Google also keeps track of every search you do.  

These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases of as much
personal information as possible about everyone.  The apparent purpose it to
target advertising more accurately.  I wonder what else the information will
ultimately be used for.

It may be that the paranoids got it wrong.  It's not the CIA or FBI we ought
to worry most about.  

I expect when the public becomes more informed about this the inflated real
estate prices will not be the only bubble that pops.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@c...> wrote:
>
> I am a little confused on how this would opt out me. It never asks  
> for my user name and password which is what is required to be part of  
> these e-groups. So how will it not track me any longer, or is it just  
> will not track me when I use this computer with this browser?
> Mark
> 
You were logged in right? So you had a cookie to associate your
instruction with the ip on which you were active.  

Is there a new law in the US that makes them let you opt out? This is
not new so I wonder why they are asking now.

For a bit of privacy clear your cookies now and again.  Use various
computers (unless you login they are tracking "ip"s not people).  

When the ads look strangely relevant you know you've been found!

Not very black and white printing though so I'll shut up and go make a
print.

Ken

"It's not the CIA or FBI we ought
to worry most about."

Absolutely. It's not the FEDs that worry me, it's the marketing 
people that scare me.

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> > Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
> > track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
> > you're doing and where you are going--similar to
> > cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
> > group you visit...
> 
> 
> Google also keeps track of every search you do.  
> 
> These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases of 
as much
> personal information as possible about everyone.  The apparent 
purpose it to
> target advertising more accurately.  I wonder what else the 
information will
> ultimately be used for.
> 
> It may be that the paranoids got it wrong.  It's not the CIA or FBI 
we ought
> to worry most about.  
> 
> I expect when the public becomes more informed about this the 
inflated real

> estate prices will not be the only bubble that pops.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I opted out, but I didn't read it the same as others. If I read it
correctly, web beacons are site specific...as in certain Yahoo
advertisers will be using them. If you go to a site that employes
them, your info gets collected. That's why Yahoo said they require
those sites that use them to state so in their privacy policies and
offer you a way out. I believe that by opting out with Yahoo, I'm just
telling Yahoo not to aggragate my info into their marketing research.
They don't really say what anyone else might be doing with it. 

My take on it,

Charlie

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis W.
Manasco" <dmanasco@i...> wrote:

>
> 
> If you belong to any Yahoo Groups, this is
> important...
> 
> Sharing a tidbit of information:
> 
> Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to
> track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what
> you're doing and where you are going--similar to
> cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every
> group you visit.
> 
> Take a look at their updated privacy statement:
> http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy
> About half-way down the page, in the section on
> cookies, you will see a link that says "web beacons".
> 
> Click on the phrase "web beacons". That will bring you
> to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network."
> 
> In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt
> out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new
> method of snooping.
> 
> Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted.
> Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next
> screen. Be careful, because on that page there is a
> "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo*
> the opt-out.
> 
> Feel free to forward this to other groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
>

At 8:43 AM -0800 12/10/05, Paul Roark wrote:

>These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases of as much
>personal information as possible about everyone.  The apparent purpose is to
>target advertising more accurately.  I wonder what else the information will
>ultimately be used for.

Scares the hell out of me too.

This systemic invasion of privacy is like something out of a Phillip 
K. Dick novel:

Recording of personal choices, analysis of personality and drives, 
prediction of movement and decision, entrapment by manipulation of 
selection and situation...

Ugh.

Throw in the possibility that the government might want to "analyze" 
the data to "guard against" almost anything, and it curls up into 
something that PKD would have written a whole series about.

The best advice I can see is to clear cookies daily (if not more 
often) and put up with the hassle of signing on repeatedly. And 
surfing from behind a firewall with a transient IP address. Either 
that or pulling the plug and becoming a hermit...


-=-Dennis


>The apparent purpose is to target advertising more accurately

The __alleged__ purpose is to target advertising more accurately


















.

You guys are all getting paranoid...pass the hooch and let me in on the
conspiracy.

> From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:48:32 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups please read this
> 
> At 8:43 AM -0800 12/10/05, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
>> These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases of as much
>> personal information as possible about everyone.  The apparent purpose is to
>> target advertising more accurately.  I wonder what else the information will
>> ultimately be used for.
> 
> Scares the hell out of me too.
> 
> This systemic invasion of privacy is like something out of a Phillip
> K. Dick novel:
> 
> Recording of personal choices, analysis of personality and drives,
> prediction of movement and decision, entrapment by manipulation of
> selection and situation...
> 
> Ugh.
> 
> Throw in the possibility that the government might want to "analyze"
> the data to "guard against" almost anything, and it curls up into
> something that PKD would have written a whole series about.
> 
> The best advice I can see is to clear cookies daily (if not more
> often) and put up with the hassle of signing on repeatedly. And
> surfing from behind a firewall with a transient IP address. Either
> that or pulling the plug and becoming a hermit...
> 
> 
> -=-Dennis
> 
> 
>> The apparent purpose is to target advertising more accurately
> 
> The __alleged__ purpose is to target advertising more accurately

I'm reminded of Scott Mcnealy's (Sun Micro Systems) comment in 1999, " You have no 
privacy.  Get over it!"

Jim
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

>
> You guys are all getting paranoid...pass the hooch and let me in on the
> conspiracy.
> 
> 
> > From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@i...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:48:32 -0600
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups please read this
> > 
> > At 8:43 AM -0800 12/10/05, Paul Roark wrote:
> > 
> >> These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases of as much
> >> personal information as possible about everyone.  The apparent purpose is to
> >> target advertising more accurately.  I wonder what else the information will
> >> ultimately be used for.
> > 
> > Scares the hell out of me too.
> > 
> > This systemic invasion of privacy is like something out of a Phillip
> > K. Dick novel:
> > 
> > Recording of personal choices, analysis of personality and drives,
> > prediction of movement and decision, entrapment by manipulation of
> > selection and situation...
> > 
> > Ugh.
> > 
> > Throw in the possibility that the government might want to "analyze"
> > the data to "guard against" almost anything, and it curls up into
> > something that PKD would have written a whole series about.
> > 
> > The best advice I can see is to clear cookies daily (if not more
> > often) and put up with the hassle of signing on repeatedly. And
> > surfing from behind a firewall with a transient IP address. Either
> > that or pulling the plug and becoming a hermit...
> > 
> > 
> > -=-Dennis
> > 
> > 
> >> The apparent purpose is to target advertising more accurately
> > 
> > The __alleged__ purpose is to target advertising more accurately
>

Steve, sorry to break this to you, but the NSC has been doing this for
several years. Congress said they wouldn't fund it, got that formality
out of the way, then did fund it through backdoors. NSC simply
contracts with private vendors, much cheaper.

As well, Google's been doing it for a year now...certainly through
Gmail accounts (condirice@...) because they stated that openly,
but almost certainly through the Google browser. 

It's a little late to be worrying about privacy, which Bork claimed
was not a right in any case. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> You guys are all getting paranoid...pass the hooch and let me in on the
> conspiracy.
> 
> 
> > From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@i...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:48:32 -0600
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups please
read this
> > 
> > At 8:43 AM -0800 12/10/05, Paul Roark wrote:
> > 
> >> These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases
of as much
> >> personal information as possible about everyone.

This thing doesn't bother me at all and I'd hardly suggest it scares the
hell out of me - there's a long list of things that are way ahead on that
front.  I don't buy the conspiracy theory that big business or big
government is tracking everything I do for an evil purpose.  Have fun.

> From: djon43 <djon43@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:51:33 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups please read this
> 
> 
> Steve, sorry to break this to you, but the NSC has been doing this for
> several years. Congress said they wouldn't fund it, got that formality
> out of the way, then did fund it through backdoors. NSC simply
> contracts with private vendors, much cheaper.
> 
> As well, Google's been doing it for a year now...certainly through
> Gmail accounts (condirice@...) because they stated that openly,
> but almost certainly through the Google browser.
> 
> It's a little late to be worrying about privacy, which Bork claimed
> was not a right in any case.
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> You guys are all getting paranoid...pass the hooch and let me in on the
>> conspiracy.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@i...>
>>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:48:32 -0600
>>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups please
> read this
>>> 
>>> At 8:43 AM -0800 12/10/05, Paul Roark wrote:
>>> 
>>>> These companies appear to be making huge and detailed databases
> of as much
>>>> personal information as possible about everyone.

It isn't evil purposes that need worry. It's quite the opposite. There
is nothing so dangerous as a good purpose gone awry. Remember your
Shakespear and "men doing evil in the name of" thing?
In any case why worry about what you can't control. Just be sure to
CYA as best you can.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> This thing doesn't bother me at all and I'd hardly suggest it scares the
> hell out of me - there's a long list of things that are way ahead on
that

> front.  I don't buy the conspiracy theory that big business or big
> government is tracking everything I do for an evil purpose.  Have fun.
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Steve Kale
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:59 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] If you belong to Yahoo groups 
> please read this
> 
> This thing doesn't bother me at all and I'd hardly suggest it 
> scares the hell out of me - there's a long list of things 
> that are way ahead on that front.  I don't buy the conspiracy 
> theory that big business or big government is tracking 
> everything I do for an evil purpose.  Have fun.

	It's neither.  It's a UN deal :).