Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

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

Thread

Raw conversion and B&W

Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Stephen Kobrin

Is there any point in working with the color temperature and tint 
sliders in Adobe Raw if the image is ultimately going to be converted 
to monochrome?  Intuitively, it seems that the color balance should 
affect the tonal range as it affects each of the R, B and G channels 
differently.  However, that is no more than an uneducated guess.  

As an aside, I have just started experimenting with a new Canon Rebel 
XT with the EFS 17-85 lens.  While I have a lot to learn, it is clear 
that the image stabilization really does work well.  I have shot at the 
85mm end of the zoom (135mm in 35mm terms) at a 30th with reasonable 
results.

Steve

Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin"
<kobrins@w...> wrote:
> Is there any point in working with the color temperature and tint 
> sliders in Adobe Raw if the image is ultimately going to be converted 
> to monochrome?  Intuitively, it seems that the color balance should 
> affect the tonal range as it affects each of the R, B and G channels 
> differently.  However, that is no more than an uneducated guess.

Try it and see. I will...though I won't convert to monochrome to get
my B&W... I never convert to monochrome when I'm printing B&W from
color (using QTRgui). There seems no reason to convert, since I use a
traditional Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is seen
in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).

Djon
  
 image stabilization really does work well.  I have shot at the 
> 85mm end of the zoom (135mm in 35mm terms) at a 30th with reasonable 
> results.

This is very interesting. When you say "reasonable," do you mean "as
good as shooting at 1/100? (ie do you gain two steps, the shutter
equiv of 2 full f-stops?). 

> 
> Steve

Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Stephen Kobrin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> 
> 

> Try it and see. I will...though I won't convert to monochrome to get
> my B&W... I never convert to monochrome when I'm printing B&W from
> color (using QTRgui). There seems no reason to convert, since I use 
a
> traditional Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is 
seen
> in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
> color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).
> 
> Djon

Djon,  I am not sure that I understand your comment.  

> This is very interesting. When you say "reasonable," do you mean "as
> good as shooting at 1/100? (ie do you gain two steps, the shutter
> equiv of 2 full f-stops?). 

Yes, to my naked and unprofessional eye.  Canon claims you can gain 
three stops, but I have not tied.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Steve Kale

A pity as you miss out on the opportunity to adjust post capture the light
balance - equivalent to using a filter at capture. As for the Zone system,
it is not really very relevant in today's digital world where one can
determine mid-grey and clipping points (if any) post capture.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>



> ...though I won't convert to monochrome to get
> my B&W... I never convert to monochrome when I'm printing B&W from
> color (using QTRgui). There seems no reason to convert, since I use a
> traditional Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is seen
> in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
> color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).
> 
> Djon

Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Djon

Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is 
> seen
> > in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
> > color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).
> > 
> > Djon
> 
> Djon,  I am not sure that I understand your comment. 

The world is full color. Employing the most basic Zone System, one
envisions the finished B&W print from that color (only incidentally
the negative) before exposure. 

Assuming Zone System experience, it's easy to visualize B&W prints
directly from color TIFFs, adjusting contrast and other factors in
color via Photoshop and then printing with QTRgui...

I know no technical or visual reason to convert to monochrome...
monochrome conversion apparently confuses the issue (evident
repeatedly on this forum), causing obsession with monitors rather than
prints. 
 
 
 stabalization:

When you say "reasonable," do you mean "as
> > good as shooting at 1/100? (ie do you gain two steps, the shutter
> > equiv of 2 full f-stops?). 
> 
> Yes, to my naked and unprofessional eye.  Canon claims you can gain 
> three stops, but I have not tied.

This means an f4 lens is equivalent to a 1.4 lens, but with far
greater depth of field! Sign me up! (though it's sayonara to "bokeh").

Djon

[Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote: As for the Zone system,
> it is not really very relevant in today's digital world where one can
> determine mid-grey and clipping points (if any) post capture.

Steve, If one is more a photographer (Vs print maker) one MAY want to
determine as much as possible in the field or studio, rather than
hunched over a computer. 

"Photographer" has something to do with brief instants, whereas "print
maker" has to do with extended processes...they are not one in the
same and do not need to co-exist (there are many fine printers and
many fine photographers who do only one part of this continuum well).

Comprehensive post-capture adjustments for B&W printing from color
files do not require monochrome conversion in any case. 

Zone System skills come in two flavors: 1) geek flavor (quantitative)
2) sensory flavor (visualization). For obvious reasons, some
traditional printmakers cling more to the geek side. Interestingly,
these two flavors/sides correspond to easily measured personality
characteristics and to thoroughly-documented characteristics of each
of our two brain halves.

For pleasure (the point of photography for me) I engage the
artist/visualization side of photography and of my brain as much as
possible, just as most of us always did with film, just as musicians
and athletes always do. Happily the technology makes the geek aspect
relatively simple, just as it is in tradional wet darkroom work. 

To assert that previsualization (that side of Zone System) is "no
longer relevant in today's digital world" is literally to say that one
side of our brain is no longer relevant!

Djon (R2D2? HAL?)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> > From: Djon <westsidemaurice@y...>
> 
> 
> 
> > ...though I won't convert to monochrome to get
> > my B&W... I never convert to monochrome when I'm printing B&W from
> > color (using QTRgui). There seems no reason to convert, since I use a
> > traditional Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is seen
> > in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
> > color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).
> > 
> > Djon

Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Clayton Jones

Hello Steve,

>Is there any point in working with the color temperature and tint 
>sliders in Adobe Raw if the image is ultimately going to be
>converted to monochrome?  Intuitively, it seems that the color 
>balance should affect the tonal range as it affects each of the 
>R, B and G channels differently.  However, that is no more than 
>an uneducated guess.  

I've found that altering the colors _can_ affect the resulting BW
shades, but to what degree depends a lot on your BW conversion
technique.  But in general, if you do things like intensify a blue sky
you can end up with a darker gray sky.  Also, if there are any colors
that typically convert to middle gray, such as peach or salmon, these
can also be adjusted to affect the final tones.  

Also, a lot depends on the individual image and what things you might
want to emphasize, so the approach may vary from one to another.  For
example, suppose you do a portrait of a woman who is wearing red
lipstick.  You may wish to emphasize or deemphasize that, and act
accordingly.

So you really need to experiment with whatever BW converson technique
you use and different ways of manipulating colors, to determine what
works for you.  There are countless combinations and you will evolve
your own style.  Experience over time counts heavily here.  It's worth
the effort, though, because often you can influence an image easier
while it's in color than later in BW where you'd have to make some
time consuming selections, etc.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Stephen Kobrin

Thanks Clayton.  

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Steve,
> 
> >Is there any point in working with the color temperature and tint 
> >sliders in Adobe Raw if the image is ultimately going to be
> >converted to monochrome?  Intuitively, it seems that the color 
> >balance should affect the tonal range as it affects each of the 
> >R, B and G channels differently.  However, that is no more than 
> >an uneducated guess.  
> 
> I've found that altering the colors _can_ affect the resulting BW
> shades, but to what degree depends a lot on your BW conversion
> technique.  But in general, if you do things like intensify a blue 
sky
> you can end up with a darker gray sky.  Also, if there are any 
colors
> that typically convert to middle gray, such as peach or salmon, 
these
> can also be adjusted to affect the final tones.  
> 
> Also, a lot depends on the individual image and what things you 
might
> want to emphasize, so the approach may vary from one to another.  
For
> example, suppose you do a portrait of a woman who is wearing red
> lipstick.  You may wish to emphasize or deemphasize that, and act
> accordingly.
> 
> So you really need to experiment with whatever BW converson 
technique
> you use and different ways of manipulating colors, to determine what
> works for you.  There are countless combinations and you will evolve
> your own style.  Experience over time counts heavily here.  It's 
worth
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> the effort, though, because often you can influence an image easier
> while it's in color than later in BW where you'd have to make some
> time consuming selections, etc.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Steve Kale

Firstly I did not assert that pre-visualisation was no longer relevant.
Secondly, the Zone system has nothing to do with black and white per se - it
is merely a system for determining appropriate exposure when such exposure
can not be significantly "altered" post shutter release.  All the Zone
system does is provide a rigorous framework for determining middle exposure
and an understanding as to how the rest of the elements will be exposed as a
result.  B&W is merely a simplifying case.  There are many arguments that
support the notion that when capturing with digital one ought to capture the
maximum possible information, even if that results in an exposure different
from one that sets the mid-exposure at a pre-visualised level.  In such
case, you can always produce the pre-visualised result. Alternatively, with
reflection, one can explore, within broader boundaries, new creative
perspectives on the scene.   To be bound to your initial perspective is not
necessarily a good thing.  That is not the same thing as saying that
pre-visualisation and thoughtfulness ahead of image capture are unnecessary
- quite the opposite.  Of course it makes sense to think through the
image/scene as much as possible to a final result.  It simply recognises
that we need not necessarily be bound by it at a later point. Digital
capture and image manipulation opens up new opportunities.  The Zone System
is not Pre-Visualisation.  Don't confuse the two.  The Zone System was
developed to provide a rigorous framework for technically producing the
pre-visualised image.  As the technical tools at hand change it is is not so
strange to suggest that the technical framework be adapted.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:52:03 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote: As for the Zone system,
>> it is not really very relevant in today's digital world where one can
>> determine mid-grey and clipping points (if any) post capture.
> 
> Steve, If one is more a photographer (Vs print maker) one MAY want to
> determine as much as possible in the field or studio, rather than
> hunched over a computer.
> 
> "Photographer" has something to do with brief instants, whereas "print
> maker" has to do with extended processes...they are not one in the
> same and do not need to co-exist (there are many fine printers and
> many fine photographers who do only one part of this continuum well).
> 
> Comprehensive post-capture adjustments for B&W printing from color
> files do not require monochrome conversion in any case.
> 
> Zone System skills come in two flavors: 1) geek flavor (quantitative)
> 2) sensory flavor (visualization). For obvious reasons, some
> traditional printmakers cling more to the geek side. Interestingly,
> these two flavors/sides correspond to easily measured personality
> characteristics and to thoroughly-documented characteristics of each
> of our two brain halves.
> 
> For pleasure (the point of photography for me) I engage the
> artist/visualization side of photography and of my brain as much as
> possible, just as most of us always did with film, just as musicians
> and athletes always do. Happily the technology makes the geek aspect
> relatively simple, just as it is in tradional wet darkroom work.
> 
> To assert that previsualization (that side of Zone System) is "no
> longer relevant in today's digital world" is literally to say that one
> side of our brain is no longer relevant!
> 
> Djon (R2D2? HAL?)
> 
> 
>> 
>>> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@y...>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> ...though I won't convert to monochrome to get
>>> my B&W... I never convert to monochrome when I'm printing B&W from
>>> color (using QTRgui). There seems no reason to convert, since I use a
>>> traditional Zone System frame of reference (ie the real world is seen
>>> in color when you shoot B&W film...I visualize B&W from real-world
>>> color just as I do when I see color on a monitor and print B&W).
>>> 
>>> Djon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

[Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Djon

Steve, there are/were two divergant Zone System tendencies. 

One emphasized number assignment, the other emphasized
previsualization. Two sides of the same coin, appeal IMO to two
fundamentally different kinds of personality. 

You're right that Zone System doesn't simply mean "previsualization,"
but previsualization is central to it. 

Post-processing that's not the result of previsualization is (IMO)
outside Zone System, a matter of manipulation (not a negative IMO).

I happen to resonate more with what I understand, from several of his
students, to be Minor White's angle on Zone System rather than Ansel
Adams'. 

I think Minor's angle emphasized previsualization more than Ansel's.
Minor's students were printing masters but they didn't seem very
interested in densitometry and were obviously drawn to strongly 
emotional images more than to beautiful rock and water with subtle
tonal scales. Like Weston, a better printer early on than Ansel, Minor
appealed more to sensualists.

From small dealings in the Seventies with Ansel and his students, and
from following his books and later work, it seems to me that he grew
more technically than visually with age, the opposite of Minor's growth. 

In Ansel's last (perhaps) book project he focused on quantitative
technical matters (scanning and lithography). This is honorable, an
extension of his angle on the Zone System that he began with Minor White. 

Minor, on by contrast, was a Zen practitioner who photographed people,
content, and meaning...a different side of the brain with different
passions, employing a different angle on the Zone System. Ansel was
also a fine people photographer who could make eloquent connections,
but some forget that in their enthusiasm for numbers.

Minor's Zone System game seemed to make the image he wanted to make. I
think Ansel's was more a matter of process for its own sake...workflow.

++++ Photography and printmaking are part of a continuum and that this
is sometimes forgotten by people at the extremes of the continuum. 

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Firstly I did not assert that pre-visualisation was no longer relevant.
> Secondly, the Zone system has nothing to do with black and white per
se - it
> is merely a system for determining appropriate exposure when such
exposure
> can not be significantly "altered" post shutter release.  All the Zone
> system does is provide a rigorous framework for determining middle
exposure
> and an understanding as to how the rest of the elements will be
exposed as a
> result.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by guy washburn

Djon,

I certainly place my self in the sensualist camp but I
find it deeply curious to work on b&w prints without
looking/working with b&w files before printing. Unless
you previsualize using the same algorithm that the
QTR/gimp uses, it is unlikely that you will ever get
the exact print you envision. Of course no one but you
knows that so your secret is quite safe. In a way it
is more like the result of wet dark room work where
the fruits of your labors are only seen in the
developer not on the easel where most of the
manipulation occurs -- perhaps this is the attraction,
the role of chance? I don't like the amount of wasted
paper it took to make a wet darkroom print sing. With
softproofing using qtr_matte prints just match. From
raw file score to symphony finished print with more
control than we ever had in a wet darkroom (though we
wave our arms less now). Does an inkjet print have
Buddha nature? It does if the artist has skillfully
presented his vision and  shares it's meaning.    

Peace,

Guy
--- Djon <westsidemaurice@...> wrote:

> Steve, there are/were two divergant Zone System
> tendencies. 
> 
> One emphasized number assignment, the other
> emphasized
> previsualization. Two sides of the same coin, appeal
> IMO to two
> fundamentally different kinds of personality. 
> 
> You're right that Zone System doesn't simply mean
> "previsualization,"
> but previsualization is central to it. 
> 
> Post-processing that's not the result of
> previsualization is (IMO)
> outside Zone System, a matter of manipulation (not a
> negative IMO).
> 
> I happen to resonate more with what I understand,
> from several of his
> students, to be Minor White's angle on Zone System
> rather than Ansel
> Adams'. 
> 
> I think Minor's angle emphasized previsualization
> more than Ansel's.
> Minor's students were printing masters but they
> didn't seem very
> interested in densitometry and were obviously drawn
> to strongly 
> emotional images more than to beautiful rock and
> water with subtle
> tonal scales. Like Weston, a better printer early on
> than Ansel, Minor
> appealed more to sensualists.
> 
> From small dealings in the Seventies with Ansel and
> his students, and
> from following his books and later work, it seems to
> me that he grew
> more technically than visually with age, the
> opposite of Minor's growth. 
> 
> In Ansel's last (perhaps) book project he focused on
> quantitative
> technical matters (scanning and lithography). This
> is honorable, an
> extension of his angle on the Zone System that he
> began with Minor White. 
> 
> Minor, on by contrast, was a Zen practitioner who
> photographed people,
> content, and meaning...a different side of the brain
> with different
> passions, employing a different angle on the Zone
> System. Ansel was
> also a fine people photographer who could make
> eloquent connections,
> but some forget that in their enthusiasm for
> numbers.
> 
> Minor's Zone System game seemed to make the image he
> wanted to make. I
> think Ansel's was more a matter of process for its
> own sake...workflow.
> 
> ++++ Photography and printmaking are part of a
> continuum and that this
> is sometimes forgotten by people at the extremes of
> the continuum. 
> 
> Djon
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Firstly I did not assert that pre-visualisation
> was no longer relevant.
> > Secondly, the Zone system has nothing to do with
> black and white per
> se - it
> > is merely a system for determining appropriate
> exposure when such
> exposure
> > can not be significantly "altered" post shutter
> release.  All the Zone
> > system does is provide a rigorous framework for
> determining middle
> exposure
> > and an understanding as to how the rest of the
> elements will be
> exposed as a
> > result.  
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

[Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-01 by Djon

Guy, you and I evidently do understand these matters similarly. Ansel
was almost a sensualist too, while young :-)

I certainly do NOT always get "exactly" the print I envision (that's
only theoretically possible to the digitally preoccupied). I don't
think "exact" is a virtue, for that matter. I do reliably get very
close approximations, just as you and I did in the darkroom, and
occasional happy surprises that may less available to people who play
the game the way you now seem to recommend. 

Some of us are raku-people
 http://www.alfargaleriaazul.com/eng/cour.htm 

Others are Meissen-people http://www.jdweedco.com/china/china5.htm

Djon :-)


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Djon,
> 
> I certainly place my self in the sensualist camp but I
> find it deeply curious to work on b&w prints without
> looking/working with b&w files before printing. Unless
> you previsualize using the same algorithm that the
> QTR/gimp uses, it is unlikely that you will ever get
> the exact print you envision. Of course no one but you
> knows that so your secret is quite safe. In a way it
> is more like the result of wet dark room work where
> the fruits of your labors are only seen in the
> developer not on the easel where most of the
> manipulation occurs -- perhaps this is the attraction,
> the role of chance? I don't like the amount of wasted
> paper it took to make a wet darkroom print sing. With
> softproofing using qtr_matte prints just match. From
> raw file score to symphony finished print with more
> control than we ever had in a wet darkroom (though we
> wave our arms less now). Does an inkjet print have
> Buddha nature? It does if the artist has skillfully
> presented his vision and  shares it's meaning.    
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Guy
> --- Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> 
> > Steve, there are/were two divergant Zone System
> > tendencies. 
> > 
> > One emphasized number assignment, the other
> > emphasized
> > previsualization. Two sides of the same coin, appeal
> > IMO to two
> > fundamentally different kinds of personality. 
> > 
> > You're right that Zone System doesn't simply mean
> > "previsualization,"
> > but previsualization is central to it. 
> > 
> > Post-processing that's not the result of
> > previsualization is (IMO)
> > outside Zone System, a matter of manipulation (not a
> > negative IMO).
> > 
> > I happen to resonate more with what I understand,
> > from several of his
> > students, to be Minor White's angle on Zone System
> > rather than Ansel
> > Adams'. 
> > 
> > I think Minor's angle emphasized previsualization
> > more than Ansel's.
> > Minor's students were printing masters but they
> > didn't seem very
> > interested in densitometry and were obviously drawn
> > to strongly 
> > emotional images more than to beautiful rock and
> > water with subtle
> > tonal scales. Like Weston, a better printer early on
> > than Ansel, Minor
> > appealed more to sensualists.
> > 
> > From small dealings in the Seventies with Ansel and
> > his students, and
> > from following his books and later work, it seems to
> > me that he grew
> > more technically than visually with age, the
> > opposite of Minor's growth. 
> > 
> > In Ansel's last (perhaps) book project he focused on
> > quantitative
> > technical matters (scanning and lithography). This
> > is honorable, an
> > extension of his angle on the Zone System that he
> > began with Minor White. 
> > 
> > Minor, on by contrast, was a Zen practitioner who
> > photographed people,
> > content, and meaning...a different side of the brain
> > with different
> > passions, employing a different angle on the Zone
> > System. Ansel was
> > also a fine people photographer who could make
> > eloquent connections,
> > but some forget that in their enthusiasm for
> > numbers.
> > 
> > Minor's Zone System game seemed to make the image he
> > wanted to make. I
> > think Ansel's was more a matter of process for its
> > own sake...workflow.
> > 
> > ++++ Photography and printmaking are part of a
> > continuum and that this
> > is sometimes forgotten by people at the extremes of
> > the continuum. 
> > 
> > Djon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > > Firstly I did not assert that pre-visualisation
> > was no longer relevant.
> > > Secondly, the Zone system has nothing to do with
> > black and white per
> > se - it
> > > is merely a system for determining appropriate
> > exposure when such
> > exposure
> > > can not be significantly "altered" post shutter
> > release.  All the Zone
> > > system does is provide a rigorous framework for
> > determining middle
> > exposure
> > > and an understanding as to how the rest of the
> > elements will be
> > exposed as a
> > > result.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail 
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-02 by guy washburn

Djon,

Craft is being able to deliver your vision and put it
right there onto that piece of paper. I believe that
the field (or street or studio) is where the happy
accidents should be courted. Those amazing moments
when the light, life and chance collide. Then you
bring that to the light room and put every ounce of
your craft into getting the most out of the print,
shadow detail and highlights right where you want
them. Get past the tools and it is every bit as
passionate as the old ways. Do Raku when you shoot and
Meissen when you process to print. That ravishing
print on the heavy art paper that captures fully the
emotion of what you saw when your heart called you to
make the exposure. What you felt wasn't something to
be left to chance why should it's expression be?

Guy

--- Djon <westsidemaurice@...> wrote:

> Guy, you and I evidently do understand these matters
> similarly. Ansel
> was almost a sensualist too, while young :-)
> 
> I certainly do NOT always get "exactly" the print I
> envision (that's
> only theoretically possible to the digitally
> preoccupied). I don't
> think "exact" is a virtue, for that matter. I do
> reliably get very
> close approximations, just as you and I did in the
> darkroom, and
> occasional happy surprises that may less available
> to people who play
> the game the way you now seem to recommend. 
> 
> Some of us are raku-people
>  http://www.alfargaleriaazul.com/eng/cour.htm 
> 
> Others are Meissen-people
> http://www.jdweedco.com/china/china5.htm
> 
> Djon :-)
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> guy washburn
> <guido02474@y...> wrote:
> > Djon,
> > 
> > I certainly place my self in the sensualist camp
> but I
> > find it deeply curious to work on b&w prints
> without
> > looking/working with b&w files before printing.
> Unless
> > you previsualize using the same algorithm that the
> > QTR/gimp uses, it is unlikely that you will ever
> get
> > the exact print you envision. Of course no one but
> you
> > knows that so your secret is quite safe. In a way
> it
> > is more like the result of wet dark room work
> where
> > the fruits of your labors are only seen in the
> > developer not on the easel where most of the
> > manipulation occurs -- perhaps this is the
> attraction,
> > the role of chance? I don't like the amount of
> wasted
> > paper it took to make a wet darkroom print sing.
> With
> > softproofing using qtr_matte prints just match.
> From
> > raw file score to symphony finished print with
> more
> > control than we ever had in a wet darkroom (though
> we
> > wave our arms less now). Does an inkjet print have
> > Buddha nature? It does if the artist has
> skillfully
> > presented his vision and  shares it's meaning.    
> > 
> > Peace,
> > 
> > Guy
> > --- Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > Steve, there are/were two divergant Zone System
> > > tendencies. 
> > > 
> > > One emphasized number assignment, the other
> > > emphasized
> > > previsualization. Two sides of the same coin,
> appeal
> > > IMO to two
> > > fundamentally different kinds of personality. 
> > > 
> > > You're right that Zone System doesn't simply
> mean
> > > "previsualization,"
> > > but previsualization is central to it. 
> > > 
> > > Post-processing that's not the result of
> > > previsualization is (IMO)
> > > outside Zone System, a matter of manipulation
> (not a
> > > negative IMO).
> > > 
> > > I happen to resonate more with what I
> understand,
> > > from several of his
> > > students, to be Minor White's angle on Zone
> System
> > > rather than Ansel
> > > Adams'. 
> > > 
> > > I think Minor's angle emphasized
> previsualization
> > > more than Ansel's.
> > > Minor's students were printing masters but they
> > > didn't seem very
> > > interested in densitometry and were obviously
> drawn
> > > to strongly 
> > > emotional images more than to beautiful rock and
> > > water with subtle
> > > tonal scales. Like Weston, a better printer
> early on
> > > than Ansel, Minor
> > > appealed more to sensualists.
> > > 
> > > From small dealings in the Seventies with Ansel
> and
> > > his students, and
> > > from following his books and later work, it
> seems to
> > > me that he grew
> > > more technically than visually with age, the
> > > opposite of Minor's growth. 
> > > 
> > > In Ansel's last (perhaps) book project he
> focused on
> > > quantitative
> > > technical matters (scanning and lithography).
> This
> > > is honorable, an
> > > extension of his angle on the Zone System that
> he
> > > began with Minor White. 
> > > 
> > > Minor, on by contrast, was a Zen practitioner
> who
> > > photographed people,
> > > content, and meaning...a different side of the
> brain
> > > with different
> > > passions, employing a different angle on the
> Zone
> > > System. Ansel was
> > > also a fine people photographer who could make
> > > eloquent connections,
> > > but some forget that in their enthusiasm for
> > > numbers.
> > > 
> > > Minor's Zone System game seemed to make the
> image he
> > > wanted to make. I
> > > think Ansel's was more a matter of process for
> its
> > > own sake...workflow.
> > > 
> > > ++++ Photography and printmaking are part of a
> > > continuum and that this
> > > is sometimes forgotten by people at the extremes
> of
> > > the continuum. 
> > > 
> > > Djon
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > Steve Kale
> > > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > > > Firstly I did not assert that
> pre-visualisation
> > > was no longer relevant.
> > > > Secondly, the Zone system has nothing to do
> with
> > > black and white per
> > > se - it
> > > > is merely a system for determining appropriate
> > > exposure when such
> > > exposure
> > > > can not be significantly "altered" post
> shutter
> > > release.  All the Zone
> > > > system does is provide a rigorous framework
> for
> > > determining middle
> > > exposure
> > > > and an understanding as to how the rest of the
> > > elements will be
> > > exposed as a
> > > > result.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________ 
> > Yahoo! Mail 
> > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
> tour: 
> > http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

[Digital BW] Re: Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-02 by Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:
 What you felt wasn't something to
> be left to chance why should it's expression be?
> 
> Guy

Guy, we disagree ultimately, but it's been fun: What I "felt" was in
fact blessed by chance, just as life is. Good fortune is commonly
frittered away by excess..too much "considering." Ansel's biggest gift
was not obsessive craftsmanship, it was his courting of chance, his
presence in the mountains at the right times with adequate craft. I
think he'd have been as great if he shot chromes for Arizona Highways
in the Fifties, completely ignoring B&W.

Djon
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> --- Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> 
> > Guy, you and I evidently do understand these matters
> > similarly. Ansel
> > was almost a sensualist too, while young :-)
> > 
> > I certainly do NOT always get "exactly" the print I
> > envision (that's
> > only theoretically possible to the digitally
> > preoccupied). I don't
> > think "exact" is a virtue, for that matter. I do
> > reliably get very
> > close approximations, just as you and I did in the
> > darkroom, and
> > occasional happy surprises that may less available
> > to people who play
> > the game the way you now seem to recommend.

Re: [Digital BW] Raw conversion and B&W

2005-06-02 by Mark Rabiner

On 6/1/05 5:45 AM, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...> typed:

> Is there any point in working with the color temperature and tint
> sliders in Adobe Raw if the image is ultimately going to be converted
> to monochrome?  Intuitively, it seems that the color balance should
> affect the tonal range as it affects each of the R, B and G channels
> differently.  However, that is no more than an uneducated guess.
> 
> As an aside, I have just started experimenting with a new Canon Rebel
> XT with the EFS 17-85 lens.  While I have a lot to learn, it is clear
> that the image stabilization really does work well.  I have shot at the
> 85mm end of the zoom (135mm in 35mm terms) at a 30th with reasonable
> results.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
Well sure if you wanted to make it look like you shot it with a say green or
yellow-green filter which is often a good idea anyway (yellow-green restores
a true Panchromaticity to panchromatic films which really are not that
panchromatic after all) you just make it look like you shot it with that
filter.! The way it would look like you were looking at a scene though the
lens of an SLR with that filter on it or just holding the filter in front of
the subject up to your eye.
Then when you convert it to RGB its going to have that filters effect.
Foliage lightened. A nice tone to the sky. But the shadows next to the trees
and rocks not darkened like with a yellow.
I¹m sure that¹s half the reason they have that whole new part of Photoshop
in which emulates various real time real glass for real lenses on real
cameras filters with the Wratten names and everything.
And it¹s about time because  I always found it funny the extended metaphor
they were using with the glass round filters which would come up in the pop
up screen when you first opened Photoshop 2 or 3.

In a metaphysical and moral dilemma they put these filters under Image
-adjustments. Instead of under the Filters menu.

Lets see which filter should I use the YELLOW filter
    or MOSAIC TILES?!?!
The 81a warming filter
    or POINTILLIZE?!?
A RED filter 
    or PLASTIC WRAP?!?!
A tungsten correction cooling 80 filter
    or DE INTERLACE!?!

I wonder if I can special order a POINTILLIZE filter from B+W with a multi
coating?
And get it in CUBIST too!

Give me a 52mm ³Nude descending a Staircase² filter with a brass mount!

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

Move to quarantaine

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