Digital BW, The Print

Clinton

(and all the other experts of course)


For aesthetical and practical reasons I am a fervent believer in
BO-printing,too.

Today  I again came across your favourite conversion method

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn7.htm

similar to Russel Brown's one mentioned in Katrin Eismann's standard
work "Photoshop Restoration and Retouching"

I seem to remember that you have tried the PS plug-in

http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

"Convert to B&W"

some time ago yourself (In the meantime this has become my standard
conversion tool). 

What's the main difference, please - not talking about the price, of
course. Does it have certain advantages? Why do I ask you this question:

I used to be a LEICA M6 man, available photography /street photography
being my field. ISO values of 800 / 1600 / 3200 were very much the
standard then. As I had to give up the wet darkroom, I ventured out
onto the thin ice of small digicams. Right now I have a CANON S60. I 
am pleased that it has a 28mm (equivalent) lens. But I could do with 
 a higher ISO rating and improved S/N ratio of its sensor. In one of
your recent posts you quite rightly pointed out that the megapixel war
will come to an end very soon and that other sensor features will
become more and more important - I for one am longing for smallish
high ISO sensors of course.

Things being as they are, I am trying to make the best of it. "Noise
Ninja" coming to the rescue. And yes, perhaps I should minimize the
information in the blue channel in order to improve the results when
pushing things to their limit in an available-light indoor-situation.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Chatzebussi

Hello Chatzebussi,

>For aesthetical and practical reasons I am a fervent believer in
>BO-printing,too.

There are lots of us!

 
>Today  I again came across your favourite conversion method
>http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn7.htm
>similar to Russel Brown's one mentioned in Katrin Eismann's 
>standard work "Photoshop Restoration and Retouching"
>I seem to remember that you have tried the PS plug-in
>http://www.theimagingfactory.com/
>"Convert to B&W"  some time ago yourself (In the meantime this 
>has become my standard conversion tool). 
> 
>What's the main difference, please - not talking about the price, 
>of course. Does it have certain advantages? 

I tried the plugin demo back when I first began using digicams and was
trying to get the Tri-X look (which I never accomplished with any
satisfaction and eventually abandoned).  I remember that the results
weren't convincing enough for me to want to pay the money.  It may be
a fine conversion tool, it just didn't give me what I was looking for
at the time, so I'm not in any way suggesting it's not a good tool.  I
subsequently tried lots of techniques and settled on the one I wrote
about because it seemed to give the best bang for the buck (comparing
complexity/time/effort to results).  I can't really give a comparison
between the two.  I hope this helps.


>In one of your recent posts you quite rightly pointed out that 
>the megapixel war will come to an end very soon and that other 
>sensor features will become more and more important 

Actually I didn't say exactly that.  I was expressing my agreement
with what someone else said, and I don't seem to remember "very soon"
as being part of the idea.  I don't have a particular timetable in
mind for the ideas I was discussing.  Here is the actual quote from my
post:

"Someone pointed out that once the MP race hits diminishing
returns they'll turn to improving the DR and other attributes of the
sensors themselves. I agree..."



>I for one am longing for smallish high ISO sensors of course.

They are certainly geting better at it.  For a pocket cam I just got a
new Casio Z-750 (7mp on 1/8 chip) to replace my Z-50 (5 mp on 1/2.7
chip), which is a bit over a year old I think, and the difference is
huge.  For the first time I actually have a usable ISO 400, and these
cams are the size of a deck of cards.  Amazing.  They keep getting
better and better and I think it will continue.


>Any suggestions?

Nope.  Just keep experimenting, that's what we're all doing.  

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton

That was quick. Thanks! Sorry about not quoting you correctly.- I take
it then that sensors will get smaller, more powerful and more
sensitive at a pace of one ore more quality steps per annum ... oooff!
LEICA was somehow slower (and perhaps more sustainable)in their
development ...

(Enjoy sommertime - xmas is lurking around the corner with lots of
nice new digicams to choose from ...)

73's

chatzebussi 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> Hello Chatzebussi,
> 
> >For aesthetical and practical reasons I am a fervent believer in
> >BO-printing,too.
> 
> There are lots of us!
> 
>  
> >Today  I again came across your favourite conversion method
> >http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn7.htm
> >similar to Russel Brown's one mentioned in Katrin Eismann's 
> >standard work "Photoshop Restoration and Retouching"
> >I seem to remember that you have tried the PS plug-in
> >http://www.theimagingfactory.com/
> >"Convert to B&W"  some time ago yourself (In the meantime this 
> >has become my standard conversion tool). 
> > 
> >What's the main difference, please - not talking about the price, 
> >of course. Does it have certain advantages? 
> 
> I tried the plugin demo back when I first began using digicams and was
> trying to get the Tri-X look (which I never accomplished with any
> satisfaction and eventually abandoned).  I remember that the results
> weren't convincing enough for me to want to pay the money.  It may be
> a fine conversion tool, it just didn't give me what I was looking for
> at the time, so I'm not in any way suggesting it's not a good tool.  I
> subsequently tried lots of techniques and settled on the one I wrote
> about because it seemed to give the best bang for the buck (comparing
> complexity/time/effort to results).  I can't really give a comparison
> between the two.  I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> >In one of your recent posts you quite rightly pointed out that 
> >the megapixel war will come to an end very soon and that other 
> >sensor features will become more and more important 
> 
> Actually I didn't say exactly that.  I was expressing my agreement
> with what someone else said, and I don't seem to remember "very soon"
> as being part of the idea.  I don't have a particular timetable in
> mind for the ideas I was discussing.  Here is the actual quote from my
> post:
> 
> "Someone pointed out that once the MP race hits diminishing
> returns they'll turn to improving the DR and other attributes of the
> sensors themselves. I agree..."
> 
> 
> 
> >I for one am longing for smallish high ISO sensors of course.
> 
> They are certainly geting better at it.  For a pocket cam I just got a
> new Casio Z-750 (7mp on 1/8 chip) to replace my Z-50 (5 mp on 1/2.7
> chip), which is a bit over a year old I think, and the difference is
> huge.  For the first time I actually have a usable ISO 400, and these
> cams are the size of a deck of cards.  Amazing.  They keep getting
> better and better and I think it will continue.
> 
> 
> >Any suggestions?
> 
> Nope.  Just keep experimenting, that's what we're all doing.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm