Black and White
tony cooper
effective in black and white. I shot some today that I have been
messing around with to this end. (I won't link to them for fear of
offending the sensibilities of my friend who thinks that photos that
need post-processing improvements should be discarded as as worthless
as a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.)
I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
Kelby suggests converting to Lab Mode and then changing the Lightness
Channel to Gray Scale. He also recommends working with just one
channel - depending on which works for the image - and then adjusting
that channel.
My best experiences resulted from converting to Gray Scale and then
using a Curves Adjustment Layer followed by Brightness/Contrast
Adjustment Layer. In one, I flattened, duplicated the background
layer, set that to multiply, and then used a Layer Mask to reveal
certain areas that the multiply blend made too dark.
Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
techniques?
(I use Photoshop 7.0)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John McWilliams
Maybe a few years ago I could have given an idea, but I've been spoiled
by CS 3 and 4's tools to make excellent B_Ws. Lightroom has incorporated
some neat tools, too.
--
john mcwilliams
Fenton B Harper
wrote:
None of the above.
You need to learn how to use a good Channel-Mixer tool. Mixing them in
proportions of (approx.) 30%R, 59%G, and 11%B will start you off with the grays
appearing as they do to the human eye. Work it further using the Channel-Mixer
from that starting point.
I prefer the Channel-Mixer in Photoline because it has an option to "Fix to
100%", meaning, as you change one it will change the other two to always keep
the percentage at 100% of all channels combined. You don't have to constantly do
the quick adding in your head to make them add up to 100. It also has an
adjustment to tweak contrast as you do this. It also allows you to go as low a
-200% and as high as +200% for each channel. Allowing for some novel reversals
that make very realistic looking IR images. It also allows you to work on
individual colors (mapping new RGB values to each color channel), or full-color,
as well as its more typical use of working in gray-scale only for B&W work.
Get and learn how to use a good "Channel Mixer".
Fenton B Harper
wrote:
>Sometimes, when reviewing my shots, I see on that I think will be more
Typo correction **
None of the above.
You need to learn how to use a good Channel-Mixer tool. Mixing them in
proportions of (approx.) 30%R, 59%G, and 11%B will start you off with the grays
appearing as they do to the human eye. Work it further using the Channel-Mixer
from that starting point.
I prefer the Channel-Mixer in Photoline because it has an option to "Fix to
100%", meaning, as you change one it will change the other two to always keep
the percentage at 100% of all channels combined. You don't have to constantly do
the quick adding in your head to make them add up to 100. It also has an
adjustment to **set it to a constant** (not contrast) as you do this. It also
tony cooper
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll stay with Photoshop since I use it
for other functions. Photoshop does have the Channel Mixer function,
and I tried it on one of the images I worked in with
less-than-acceptable results. Obviously, I have to read-up on this
tool.
One thing I noticed in using your figures above is that the subject
converts to B&W OK, but the sky is an ugly gray. My other efforts
have resulted in better results in the sky.
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
> techniques?
>
> (I use Photoshop 7.0)
check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
<http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
these are for later versions of ps, but the techniques might still be
applicable:
<http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/BlackWhiteVariationsSM.mov>
<http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/CS3Color_To_BWSM.mov>
AlexanderD
wrote:
This is exactly why color filters were (are) used in B&W photography. You use
the Channel-Mixer adjustments in the same way as adding filter to the front of
your lens. Add a blue filter (more blue %, less red and green) to lighten the
sky, add a red filter (more red %, less blue and green) to darken the blue sky.
This is what you are doing with the channel mixer. Add more green (less red) to
brighten foliage, add more red (less green) to darken foliage. etc.
B&W photography basics 101, only now you use a channel-mixer in a similar
manner.
John McWilliams
Ah, thanks for the top link. That's the process I referred to, but
couldn't recall the steps. You can make an action of this as well, which
is what I did till I got the CS version.
--
John McWilliams
tony cooper
wrote:
Interesting. More than one way to skin a cat.
I'll try Brown's techniques tomorrow.
I've never viewed a Russell Brown video before. Bit of a showman, but
it the suggestions work....
David J Taylor
[]
> My best experiences resulted from converting to Gray Scale and then
> using a Curves Adjustment Layer followed by Brightness/Contrast
> Adjustment Layer. In one, I flattened, duplicated the background
> layer, set that to multiply, and then used a Layer Mask to reveal
> certain areas that the multiply blend made too dark.
>
> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
> techniques?
I'm tempted to say do whichever gives you the best results - the results
which you prefer. There is no one "correct" answer when subjective
results are involved.
My own use of monochrome has been mainly for night shots, where the very
mixed lighting sources can result in some very odd colour balance. Using
monochrome adds mood and reduces the visibility of noise.
David
nospam
McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ah, thanks for the top link. That's the process I referred to, but
> couldn't recall the steps. You can make an action of this as well, which
> is what I did till I got the CS version.
he has assorted actions to download at his site.
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Interesting. More than one way to skin a cat.
very true. there's also this:
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshop/articles/phs8bwconversion.ht
ml
> I'll try Brown's techniques tomorrow.
>
> I've never viewed a Russell Brown video before. Bit of a showman, but
> it the suggestions work....
he's quite entertaining and some of this other videos are *very*
impressive.
Troy Piggins
Hadn't read that before. Thanks for posting. I must go try
this. :)
--
Troy Piggins - I always appreciate critique
[SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin
Pat
Tony, whenever I mention anything about work-flow, people in these NGs
go bizzerk. There are times when how you do things are more important
that what you're doing -- esp. if you are dealing with a large number
of photos. If you're doing 1 or 2, so what. If you're doing 1000
it's another story altogether.
So, given that, if you are doing a large number of photos and you are
just proofing (or something like that) -- and you are primarily using
B&W to speed up the printing, then one very good options is (are your
ready for this) to just go into your printer driver and tell it to
print in grayscale. Quick and simple.
tony cooper
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>[]
>> My best experiences resulted from converting to Gray Scale and then
>> using a Curves Adjustment Layer followed by Brightness/Contrast
>> Adjustment Layer. In one, I flattened, duplicated the background
>> layer, set that to multiply, and then used a Layer Mask to reveal
>> certain areas that the multiply blend made too dark.
>>
>> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
>> techniques?
>
>I'm tempted to say do whichever gives you the best results - the results
>which you prefer. There is no one "correct" answer when subjective
>results are involved.
That's most often the answer when the question is about Photoshop.
There is always more than one way to do anything in Photoshop, and I
have my own pet techniques that I employ because they give me the best
results.
The object of posting the question here is to learn about the
different ways possible. I'd read up a bit on converting to black and
white, and most sources recommend setting to gray scale instead of
desaturation. Yet, there's that Russell Brown video that gets good
results from desaturation.
My Photoshop version has channel mixing. I've used it sparingly in
color images, but never considered it for black & white. This thread
produced that suggestion.
>
>My own use of monochrome has been mainly for night shots, where the very
>mixed lighting sources can result in some very odd colour balance. Using
>monochrome adds mood and reduces the visibility of noise.
This may sound heretical to some, but I've used it successfully with
some failed color shots. Failed in the sense that the shot lacks the
impact that I thought it would have when I took it. Converting that
shot to black and white, though, can provide that impact. There are
some situations where really blowing out the whites *adds* to the
image.
tony cooper
I'm using work flow in a different sense, then. I mean the order of
steps taken in processing a single image. Just for example, some say
sharpen last, but in working in Lab Mode you can sharpen just the
Lightness Channel before you convert back to RPG to produce a .jpg.
You can then still adjust the RPG version without causing noise.
I'm strictly an amateur. I usually print no more than a few images at
a time.
David J. Littleboy
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
Interesting. Thanks. Quite useful, even.
But Photoshop is such a screaming pain in the butt. Picture Window Pro has a
tool that does that, but gives you a single control that lets you select the
filter in a color wheel. Simply, intuitive, easy. Photoshop hides the point
that hue wraps around.
The Photoshop CS3 "Black & White" adjustment layer's default is OK, but all
the other preset settings are so off-the-wall extreme that they're
completely useless. You think they'd give you a red filter that does roughly
what a red filter on B&W film does. No such luck.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Troy Piggins
I'm learning heaps from this thread. Thanks for posting it. In
the past, I've just desaturated and used curves to get the
contrast I want, but these new techniques coming out of the
woodwork are interesting.
David J Taylor
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:42:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> My own use of monochrome has been mainly for night shots, where the
>> very mixed lighting sources can result in some very odd colour
>> balance. Using monochrome adds mood and reduces the visibility of
>> noise.
>
> This may sound heretical to some, but I've used it successfully with
> some failed color shots. Failed in the sense that the shot lacks the
> impact that I thought it would have when I took it. Converting that
> shot to black and white, though, can provide that impact. There are
> some situations where really blowing out the whites *adds* to the
> image.
It makes the image stand out from the crowd!
David
FourthNFifth
wrote:
I like using Photolines channl-mixer for this, you know what color is being
changed by what. The given tutorial example in the above link I found
interesting too. But like you, the more I played with it, it started to be
rather gimmicky. Could have some possible uses but ...
You might find this relatively inexpensive program interesting.
http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/index.html
One of its included filters is their "FilterSIM", that allows you to choose any
one of the 65 Kodak Wratten filters and see how it affects an image when done in
B/W.
In all, it's not a bad editor for someone. It's not the best program I've ever
played but has some merits, and a few features that you won't find in any other
program. It's why I keep it installed.
Check their freebies page too. There's a free B/W-Works program with some quick
B/W presets. Some are fairly well done.
http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/bworks.htm
They also have their free FilterSIM program, but that doesn't include the B/W
option like the one included with their program.
George Faust
Reduced dynamic range has its merits, when used effectively. Something that few
on this newsgroup will ever comprehend.
Quick other-end of the spectrum example. How irritating it can be to keep
getting details in the shadows of a much needed silhouette. How I hate that at
times with the larger dynamic range of digital. Heavy-handed editing is the only
solution.
terrel bardstin
wrote:
Been awhile since I updated mine, so I thought I'd download a later version to
see "what's new".
There's an interesting fun tool in their latest releases. In the "Adjust" menu,
the "B/W Mixer..."
An RBG gradient color-space, with a selector that lets you choose the hue that
you want to enhance for the B/W conversion. Somewhat like those PS tutorials,
but without all the adjustment layers and you get to see what color you intend
to change. One tool that does most of the PS methods, doing the selection right
from a color palette. Interesting way to do it.
Mark Thomas
> In article <nnr9i45b476jfkdql...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
>> techniques?
>>
>> (I use Photoshop 7.0)
>
> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
That is an excellent approach! I've just adopted it.
My old way was to go the channels window and examine the RGB channels
individually to see which ones would give the best result and where, and
then channel mix + selectively erase bits of layers. Slow but
reasonably effective - thankfully I don't do much b&w.
The above method is much more intuitive and more powerful in the way you
can preview the results as you go and selectively lighten/darken via the
channels.. cool.
I'll probably still use the channels window when browsing through images
and looking for likely conversion candidates, though. It's a very easy
way to instantly see the image as if it was taken thru Red and Green
filters (I've not encountered any images where the Blue filtered result
looked useful, but maybe the day will come..).
John McWilliams
As I think I mentioned, later versions of PS and all versions of
Lightroom have more advanced control than this nifty technique.
--
john mcwilliams
Alan Browne
> Sometimes, when reviewing my shots, I see on that I think will be more
> effective in black and white. I shot some today that I have been
> messing around with to this end. (I won't link to them for fear of
> offending the sensibilities of my friend who thinks that photos that
> need post-processing improvements should be discarded as as worthless
> as a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.)
You certainly enjoy misconstruing what people say.
All I said was "strive for proper exposure in order to not have to
rescue the image." and an image with extreme burned out detail is simply
not worth rescue. (Unless perhaps you captured the shooter on the grassy
knoll).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> Sometimes, when reviewing my shots, I see on that I think will be more
>> effective in black and white. I shot some today that I have been
>> messing around with to this end. (I won't link to them for fear of
>> offending the sensibilities of my friend who thinks that photos that
>> need post-processing improvements should be discarded as as worthless
>> as a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.)
>
>You certainly enjoy misconstruing what people say.
>
>All I said was "strive for proper exposure in order to not have to
>rescue the image." and an image with extreme burned out detail is simply
>not worth rescue. (Unless perhaps you captured the shooter on the grassy
>knoll).
Once again you have entered a thread that seems to have captured the
interest of some of the participants, and spurred some positive and
constructive comments about various post-processing techniques, to
whine about how you feel you have been treated.
It ain't all about you, Alan.
The door is open for you to offer some insight into how you would go
about converting an image to black and white. Don't just stand
outside and look for another parade to rain on.
Alan Browne
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:26:34 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> Sometimes, when reviewing my shots, I see on that I think will be more
>>> effective in black and white. I shot some today that I have been
>>> messing around with to this end. (I won't link to them for fear of
>>> offending the sensibilities of my friend who thinks that photos that
>>> need post-processing improvements should be discarded as as worthless
>>> as a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.)
>> You certainly enjoy misconstruing what people say.
>>
>> All I said was "strive for proper exposure in order to not have to
>> rescue the image." and an image with extreme burned out detail is simply
>> not worth rescue. (Unless perhaps you captured the shooter on the grassy
>> knoll).
>
> Once again you have entered a thread that seems to have captured the
> interest of some of the participants, and spurred some positive and
> constructive comments about various post-processing techniques, to
> whine about how you feel you have been treated.
Which is why you put your supercilious and gratuitous taunt above? You
can play your little games Tony, but if you want to raise the dead as
you do above I will remind people that when you don't get your way to
tend to put words into people's mouths that they would never utter.
As to this thread as I don't normally do digital B&W I have little to
add that others haven't spoken about with more experience than I have to
offer.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 21 lines snipped |=---]
>>>
>>> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
>>> techniques?
>>>
>>> (I use Photoshop 7.0)
>>
>> I'm learning heaps from this thread. Thanks for posting it. In
>> the past, I've just desaturated and used curves to get the
>> contrast I want, but these new techniques coming out of the
>> woodwork are interesting.
>
> As I think I mentioned, later versions of PS and all versions of
> Lightroom have more advanced control than this nifty technique.
I'm sure that's helpful for those of you who use PS and
Lightroom.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>As to this thread as I don't normally do digital B&W I have little to
>add that others haven't spoken about with more experience than I have to
>offer.
Perhaps the thread will induce you to do so. It's a legitimate mode of
photographic representation.
Pick up the challenge.
Your images REO Speedwagon and Butter Churns at Shaker would make
excellent black and white images. Butter Churns, in my opinion,
actually looks better in black and white with some adjustments in
Curves.
Irwell
Thanks guys for that useful info, I tried it on some noisy
night shots and it works great, cranked up the contrast for
more impact.
Paul Furman
>
> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
I doubt there is any difference. The main thing in these suggestions is
to play with colors when desaturating and the simplest way in PS is a
color balance adjustment layer with a desaturating adjustment layer
above that.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
ScottTupper
>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
>> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>
>I doubt there is any difference.
There's a huge difference, but the novice will never see it nor know why.
> The main thing in these suggestions is
>to play with colors when desaturating and the simplest way in PS is a
>color balance adjustment layer with a desaturating adjustment layer
>above that.
"Playing with colors" is not the same as adjusting each color-channel while
directly creating the B/W image.
A simple desaturation is how it is done by the complete novice or those only
needing to quickly post something on the web. A diagram or a scan of a text
document where color is not needed and creates smaller file-sizes.
dj_nme
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:49:18 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
>>> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>> I doubt there is any difference.
>
> There's a huge difference, but the novice will never see it nor know why.
You've jumped in and not read the previous discussion in this thread.
It shows though quite clearly that you've just come merely to argue.
>> The main thing in these suggestions is
>> to play with colors when desaturating and the simplest way in PS is a
>> color balance adjustment layer with a desaturating adjustment layer
>> above that.
>
> "Playing with colors" is not the same as adjusting each color-channel while
> directly creating the B/W image.
In this case: it is the same, only better.
It's a separate hue/saturation layer underneath a desaturation layer.
> A simple desaturation is how it is done by the complete novice or those only
> needing to quickly post something on the web. A diagram or a scan of a text
> document where color is not needed and creates smaller file-sizes.
Hey Scott, you obviously didn't read the previous post about using a
method in Photoshop which uses two adjustment layers (one is
"hue/saturation" and the other is "desaturate") stacked on top of the
image to yield a custom colour filter effect which was described quite
clearly.
The same method can be used in Adobe Photoshop, GIMP and Corel
Photopaint, the only difference is that Corel uses the term "lens
object" instead of "adjustment layer".
Carl Gould
Learn how to use a good "channel mixer" tool. The one in Photoshop does not
qualify as a good "channel mixer", it's rudimentary at best. Then you'll
understand what was told to you.
The methods that you refer to are a snapshooter's "cheater" method with much
less control over what you are doing to each color.
There's an "okay" free one from here, the GrayScaler plugin at
http://www.thedigitalartshop.com/filters/free_plugin.html but this is by no
means a really good channel mixer. It's better than the one in Photoshop though,
unless they've improved it in CS4. I think this free one is also compatible with
free IrfanView. It uses values of 0 to 255 for each color-channel instead of
percentages, So try to keep your sum total of all 3 channels at 255 (100%). It
starts you off with default values for the average perceived luminosity as seen
by the human eye.
A much better channel-mixer is found in Photoline.
tony cooper
wrote:
>ScottTupper wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:49:18 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
>>>> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>>> I doubt there is any difference.
>>
>> There's a huge difference, but the novice will never see it nor know why.
>
>You've jumped in and not read the previous discussion in this thread.
>It shows though quite clearly that you've just come merely to argue.
I started this thread. The camera club I attend has a monthly
competition for both color and black and white. Like the "Shoot-In",
they have a mandate each month. I've never entered a black and white,
but I have one - an image I took about a week ago - for next month.
It's a color image that I will change to a black and white.
I'm not O/C, but I do research things when I get into something new.
I've done about 18 variations of taking my original color shot and
using different techniques to make it into a black and white. Some
from suggestions here, some from online tutorials, and some from
books. I've read quite a bit about different ways to do it.
I assure you, there *is* a difference in the results based on how you
go about getting from color to black and white. You don't just change
the mode to Gray Scale or pull the slider to the left in Desaturate
and end up with an image that's a real keeper.
Part of deciding what works, of course, is what looks best to me. In
this case, the subject is the top of a building against a cloudless
sky. My objective is to get the blacks black and whites white, and
that means blowing out the sky to white. A case where blowing out
color is intended. Some techniques work, and some don't.
I won't post the original here because I don't want anyone to
helpfully work on it. My entry will be my own effort, but I think
it's fair to ask about general technique suggestions.
Brought home a ribbon from tonight's meeting for last month's color
competition. Not first, but red.
Ray Fischer
>>
>> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
>> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
>
>Interesting. Thanks. Quite useful, even.
>
>But Photoshop is such a screaming pain in the butt.
Not anymore. In CS4 it's quite easy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
AveryPirams
Yes, for a troll that's never used Photoshop or any editor of any kind. I find
Photoshop the easiest to use by throwing any complementary copies in the
wastebasket. All frustrations in trying to make Photoshop do what any decent
editor of this century is supposed to do, instantly fixed.
dj_nme
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:14:28 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>> ScottTupper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:49:18 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
>>>>> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>>>> I doubt there is any difference.
>>> There's a huge difference, but the novice will never see it nor know why.
>> You've jumped in and not read the previous discussion in this thread.
>> It shows though quite clearly that you've just come merely to argue.
>
> I started this thread. The camera club I attend has a monthly
> competition for both color and black and white. Like the "Shoot-In",
> they have a mandate each month. I've never entered a black and white,
> but I have one - an image I took about a week ago - for next month.
> It's a color image that I will change to a black and white.
Should it matter that it's a colour image that's been converted to
greyscale or starts off as a scanned B&W neg?
> I'm not O/C, but I do research things when I get into something new.
> I've done about 18 variations of taking my original color shot and
> using different techniques to make it into a black and white. Some
> from suggestions here, some from online tutorials, and some from
> books. I've read quite a bit about different ways to do it.
>
> I assure you, there *is* a difference in the results based on how you
> go about getting from color to black and white. You don't just change
> the mode to Gray Scale or pull the slider to the left in Desaturate
> and end up with an image that's a real keeper.
Of course not, most of the contrast in a colour image is the differences
in hue of adjacent areas.
That's why either channel-mixer or the stacked adjustment-layers trick
are so useful, I'm pretty sure that there a few more ways to convert to
greyscale which allow altering the density the various hues end up as in
the final image.
> Part of deciding what works, of course, is what looks best to me. In
> this case, the subject is the top of a building against a cloudless
> sky. My objective is to get the blacks black and whites white, and
> that means blowing out the sky to white. A case where blowing out
> color is intended. Some techniques work, and some don't.
I'm curious: would you blow-out a sky with a dramatic pattern of clouds
that already has sufficient contrast to differentiate it from the ground
or the intended subject?
I personally would be inclined to keep the sky, as it would probably add
to the impact of the picture.
> I won't post the original here because I don't want anyone to
> helpfully work on it. My entry will be my own effort, but I think
> it's fair to ask about general technique suggestions.
>
> Brought home a ribbon from tonight's meeting for last month's color
> competition. Not first, but red.
That's pretty good, I can't claim to have won anything for my photos.
My work hours pretty much exclude me from attending any of the camera
clubs in my city.
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:14:28 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ScottTupper wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:49:18 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
>>>>>> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>>>>> I doubt there is any difference.
>>>> There's a huge difference, but the novice will never see it nor know why.
>>> You've jumped in and not read the previous discussion in this thread.
>>> It shows though quite clearly that you've just come merely to argue.
>>
>> I started this thread. The camera club I attend has a monthly
>> competition for both color and black and white. Like the "Shoot-In",
>> they have a mandate each month. I've never entered a black and white,
>> but I have one - an image I took about a week ago - for next month.
>> It's a color image that I will change to a black and white.
>
>Should it matter that it's a colour image that's been converted to
>greyscale or starts off as a scanned B&W neg?
To whom? In a competition format, unless there's a rule prohibiting a
converted color to black and white, it doesn't matter. In the
competition I'm entering, there is no rule.
Any decent competition has some rules, and there's no rule about what
rules can be set.
Your question is really not answerable. Every image is different. If
the clouds contribute, keep 'em. If the clouds detract, blow 'em out.
In this case, there are no clouds to make a decision about.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
>>>> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
>>>
>>>Interesting. Thanks. Quite useful, even.
>>>
>>>But Photoshop is such a screaming pain in the butt.
>>
>>Not anymore. In CS4 it's quite easy.
>
>Yes, for a troll that's never used Photoshop or any editor of any kind. I find
>Photoshop the easiest to use by throwing any complementary copies in the
>wastebasket.
Which means that
1) You don't know what you're bullshittting about
2) You're a liar who claims he throws out $600 sooftware.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gc5oi4l78r81lf5eh...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:08:47 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au>
> Any decent competition has some rules, and there's no rule about what
> rules can be set.
When I used to belong to a camera club there were always points brought up
about
what is a black and white print then it was pointed out that we do not have
a black and white competition but we have a *monochrome* competition
which meant that I could put in a blue print provided no other colours were
present
other than black.... very very dark blue... or white.
Same went for sepia toned prints but not the antique style where the colours
were weak.