filters (was black & white yada yada yada)
- Hey Brian, I am a "get it right in the camera" kind of guy most of the time. I still use CP and warming filters on my glass, and from time to time a split ND as well.
______________________________Evan Baumhofer alias "Baume"
--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Brian Lunergan <ff809@...> wrote:
From: Brian Lunergan <ff809@...>
Subject: Re: [photographic-techniques] Digital Photography Secrets For Black And White Shots
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 12:46 PM
J Bryan Kramer wrote:
> The in camera conversion uses a fixed channel selection: 40% R and 30% G and
> B IIRC. Rarely the best choice.
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:00, Baume Foto <baume_fotoarte@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>> the two methods I use to convert to black and white1) shoot RAW. not only
>> does shooting in raw format give me a lot of exposure latitude, but it also
>> gives me the chance to manipulate saturation. I can do this before I've
>> even opened a picture in photoshop. nice, huh?
>> 2) using CS3, I use the image adjust - Black & White function, selecting
>> each color channel for the best desired effect. You could also go with
>> "desaturate" or even hue/saturation. there are always more than one way to
>> accomplish something.
>> ____________ _________ _________ Evan Baumhofer alias "Baume"
>> www.baumefoto. zenfolio. commobile: 402-547-9877
>> baume_fotoarte@ yahoo.com
>> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, J Bryan Kramer <codeburner@gmail. com> wrote:
>> From: J Bryan Kramer <codeburner@gmail. com>
>> Subject: Re: [photographic- techniques] Digital Photography Secrets For
>> Black And White Shots
>> To: photographic- techniques@ yahoogroups. com
>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 8:06 AM
>> You should be doing the B&W conversion in post production since there are
>> -many- ways to do it and the way that the camera would do it is rarely even
>> close to the best way. And doing the conversion in the camera means you are
>> shooting jpegs which is not good either.
Agreeing for the moment that the in-camera method runs a distant second to
what can be done in Photoshop and the like, I would propose that on-camera
(rather than in-camera) filters that proved their worth in the days of film
still have a place in digital photography and quite possibly can do a
better job on a shot, cutting the time at the keyboard afterwards. I'll
take the risk on putting the noses of the post-pro mavens seriously out of
joint by suggesting they can mimic but not equal the resulting image.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]