Back from the Dead

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:14:09 +0100, "Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
>>> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
>>> get-go.
>>>
>> No it won't.
>>
>> It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
>> convert to mono.
>
> Interesting. I've not heard that before, but I've not made any effort
> to look into it, either.
>
> I thought that I'd read here or in another photo group that some
> people do shoot in this mode and feel that the results are better than
> desaturating a color image in Photoshop. More contrast or something.
>
> Anyone with any other opinions on this?

Yes, such a theory, if ever true, is no longer so.

--
john mcwilliams

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:14:09 +0100, "Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
>>> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
>>> get-go.
>>>
>> No it won't.
>>
>> It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
>> convert to mono.
>
> Interesting. I've not heard that before, but I've not made any effort
> to look into it, either.
>
> I thought that I'd read here or in another photo group that some
> people do shoot in this mode and feel that the results are better than
> desaturating a color image in Photoshop. More contrast or something.
>
> Anyone with any other opinions on this?
>
>
>
>
>
While I will admit that I have seen some photos in B&W that had true
artistic worth, I find the idea of actually discarding color information
right up there with bleeding all the blood from a person to improve
their appearance. To me, color is 90% of the information in a picture.
True, there are 'minimalists' who insist on painting a picture with
only vertical strokes from a 1 camel hair brush in India ink, but I am
not pleased by their work, only impressed by their compulsiveness.

On 2008-07-22, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:14:09 +0100, "Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com. ..
>>> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
>>> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
>>> get-go.
>>>
>>
>>No it won't.
>>
>>It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
>>convert to mono.
>
> Interesting. I've not heard that before, but I've not made any effort
> to look into it, either.
>
> I thought that I'd read here or in another photo group that some
> people do shoot in this mode and feel that the results are better than
> desaturating a color image in Photoshop. More contrast or something.
>
> Anyone with any other opinions on this?
>

Both methods are equally inferior to a proper Photoshop b+w conversion.

Shooting b+w in the camera throws away useful colour information.
Desaturating in Photoshop throws away useful colour information.
The b+w adjustment in CS3 allows you to use all that useful colour
information to produce your b+w image. If you have a Photoshop <= CS2
then the channel mixer does a similar, if slightly more fiddly, job.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:14:09 +0100, "Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
>>> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
>>> get-go.
>>>
>> No it won't.
>>
>> It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
>> convert to mono.
>
> Interesting. I've not heard that before, but I've not made any effort
> to look into it, either.
>
> I thought that I'd read here or in another photo group that some
> people do shoot in this mode and feel that the results are better than
> desaturating a color image in Photoshop. More contrast or something.
>
> Anyone with any other opinions on this?

Like they said, my (very limited) b&w experience would also suggest that
shooting in colour and then channel mixing (and/or playing with layers)
is indeed the best way to get a good black and white image. Effectively
you have three images, one thru a red filter, one green, and one blue.
The channel mixer approach means you can have as much or as little of
each effect as you want. Plus you can easily use layers to get, say,
red-filtered skies and green-filtered skintones all in the same image,
and all from just one colour snap...

If you use the camera's monochrome mode, you have just one rendition.
Shoot in colour and you get three. (Admittedly the blue image is
perhaps not all that useful...)

savvo wrote:
> On 2008-07-22, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Anyone with any other opinions on this?
>>
>
> Both methods are equally inferior to a proper Photoshop b+w conversion.
>
> Shooting b+w in the camera throws away useful colour information.
> Desaturating in Photoshop throws away useful colour information.
> The b+w adjustment in CS3 allows you to use all that useful colour
> information to produce your b+w image. If you have a Photoshop <= CS2
> then the channel mixer does a similar, if slightly more fiddly, job.

And Lightroom "does it better" than PS CS3. Has the same adjustments
available as they're using the same Camera Raw engine, but it's laid out
a bit better, so it's 'better' in that it's easier to use.

--
john mcwilliams

Jack Hollis wrote:
<snip>
> 2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
> the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
> Is that true?
<snip>
> Jack Hollis

Probably is for a grainy film like TriX.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:27:57 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>I was using a Prime Film PF3650U scanner and each frame took a little
>>over 90 seconds from start to finish. Add in the time to open up the
>>scanner and move the film to the next frame and it was about 2 minutes
>>each.
>
>That's great. Puts my Minolta Dimage slide/negative scanner to shame.
>
>'Course I can't complain. I bought it used for $70 and scanned a few
>hundred slides with it.
>--
>Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

The PF3650 costs $250 and uses USB2. I imagine USB1 would be twice
the time.