b&w - a digital after thought?

Brian, that all does sounds mightily interesting! I guess these DSC200IRs don't show up on eBay much, do they? :) Being able to do IR photography with a digital would be a nice thing. I wish I had jumped into digital in those early 1990s.
 
richard_l said:
However, in a previous thread - "lens filter" - richard_l noted, "...in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually 'paint' over the image".

Tom wrote:
"Sorry, but this is incorrect."

Dear Tom:

If you have a black and white image of a red rose bush with green leaves, and the rose and the leaves are the same shade of gray, how in the world are you going to emulate the effect of a red or green filter? I'm assuming you understand how colored contrast filters work.
Click to expand...

Then put the stupid red filter one when you took that shot. :bang: and forget about Photoshop. Sometimes I really tend to think that tinkering with my stuff in Photoshop is some kind of undermining of my skills. :confused:
Personally, I fo use my P&S digicams in B&W mode with the use of colour filters, but what I do more often is to use B&W film. :p I believe in silver crystals and the beauty related to them.
Yes, digital may be smoother than any fine grain film, and yes it does not show much variation in detail in prints less than 8X12 (which most people don't do), and yes it is easier and arguably cheaper. But what is the problem with me liking film grain?? Which may of us here like. I believe at the end of the day we will be using what we like, not what is better. But the pros will definitely go digital, no doubt.

Ooops got to stop....don't go into this digital-film battle. It is not right. It is not the way...... :bang:
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
What is the difference? If the results cannot be distinguished from one another what is the importance of the way these results were obtained? After all, taking a photograph is an artificial, mechanical way of recording one's subject matter in a way that is influenced by the method, be it physical (filter) or digital. To differentiate by the tool used seems to be, to me, irrelevant. Your argument sounds a bit like: "If you didn't come by train, you are not here"
Click to expand...
I'm getting angry. I never claimed that any one way is better than another. I merely made a statement that a filter emulator requires a color image in order to work. Tom said that was incorrect. Then he waffled around and tried to make it look like I was advocating a certain type if photo manipulation when that was never, ever my intention. Some of you guys are infuriating!
 
GeneW said:
Could any of the R-D1 owners respond to this? Isn't the R-D1 set for some very good B&W modes, including B&W modes that emulate filters?

Gene
Click to expand...

Epson R-D1 conversions from RAW into B&W (in the PhotoRAW) program are gorgeous. I constantly get questions about them from other prof. photogs.

S
 
To Jaap & everybody

From the start of my digital live (my analog live started 45 years ago) I used the 105% bicubic smoother resample photoshop trick thanks to Scott Kelby.
Today I made a very short test with Photozoom Pro evaluation package. I must admit that the result looks sharper.

Thanks for the tips.

I think we will better off with forums on tips & tricks and evaluations of products by us than with philosophic discussions.
For me only the result counts, not the tool used!
(Did the quality of wooden furniture improve since the invention of the circle saw?)

Enjoy your toys and publish great shots in the gallery!

Greatings from a digital/film shooter

Wim
 
I ask how the DMR compares to the Canons and Leica sends out a newsletter with links to DMR examples - Boy, am I starting to feel special!

A DMR portfolio of small pictures by Martin Trippen is available at:

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/portfolio/index_e.html

Three full sized 28.+meg tif photos and one 3.1meg jpg picture by Photographers Oliver Richter and James van Leuven can be downloaded at:

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/downloads/index_e.html

An interesting choice of lenses for the Richter/van Leuven set - Long and Short - 280mm, 180mm, and 19mm. However, as you might expect for photos posted by Leica for product demonstration, they are excellent.
 
richard_l said:
I'm getting angry. I never claimed that any one way is better than another. I merely made a statement that a filter emulator requires a color image in order to work. Tom said that was incorrect. Then he waffled around and tried to make it look like I was advocating a certain type if photo manipulation when that was never, ever my intention. Some of you guys are infuriating!
Click to expand...
My post was not meant to get you angry, Richard. I merely tried to point out that the way to arrive at a result is irrelevant if the result is the same, which appears to be what you are saying in this post, so we seem to agree. The post I quoted said the opposite. If I misunderstood put it down to the fact that English is actually my third language after Dutch and German. I don't think my post has anything to do with Tom's opinion......
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
My post was not meant to get you angry, Richard. I merely tried to point out that the way to arrive at a result is irrelevant if the result is the same, which appears to be what you are saying in this post, so we seem to agree. The post I quoted said the opposite. If I misunderstood put it down to the fact that English is actually my third language after Dutch and German. I don't think my post has anything to do with Tom's opinion......
Click to expand...
I just meant that an emulator is automatic, or at most a canned procedure. To simulate a filter by other means may involve manipulations specific to the image on which one is working. It does not mimic the action of a filter, it merely mimics the result. This does not mean that it is inferior; on the contrary, it can theoretically give the best results, although in practice it can be slow and painstaking.

I was just trying to explain to Tom why I made the statement that a contrast filter emulator requires a color image in order to work. (Which he had summarily dismissed as incorrect.) If I had guessed how much controversy that innocent (and factual) statement would elicit, I would have kept quiet.

I personally do not like filter emulators. I use optical filters with black & white film. I know how I want my images to look, and I do not like the look I get when converting my color film or digital images to black and white, so I just don't go that route.

Peace.
 
I normally use a Nikkor R60 (Nikon SP Vintage) filter on the Kodak with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm F2.8 lens on it. The color correction on it is good enough not to require "refocussing" using the IR index. The 500mm F8 Reflex-Nikkor with a rear-mount R60 filter does not require re-focus for IR. This holds true for Infrared film or a CCD. If I want to use it in "visible", a Hot mirror filter works. At work we have some "Dichroic" Narrow-Pass filters. Some Day, (TIME), those will be fun to play with.

But I keep a full range of Nikkor Filters (R60, O56, Y48, etc) for the DCS200IR, they work "almost" the same on it as they would on a camera loaded with B&W Infrared Film. The Spectral Response of the Monochrome CCD is slightly different from B&W Infrared film, and extends farther into the IR region. If I want an image that looks like "regular" B&W with a yellow filter, I would use the Hot-Mirror filter and the Y48 filter. The images on the previous post are with the R60 filter. I hope that answers the original question.
 
Last edited:
zeos 386sx said:
Richard,

I apologize for having quoted you at the beginning of this thread. I never meant to get you involved in arguments.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. There was no way of knowing that would happen. Thanks anyhow. :)
 
I've just come across this thread, and read the postings, all I can say is OH GOD not again!!!!!!! :bang:
No reply necessary, I won't be looking at it again!!
 
Yup, There goes SWEENEY again talking about his Damned ancient Digital Camera Again! Can't blame you John.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Yup, There goes SWEENEY again talking about his Damned ancient Digital Camera Again! Can't blame you John.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was talking abou you, Brian. :)

BTW, for anyone who wants to do IR but doesn't have a camera like Brian's, it may still be possible. If you can take a picture of the IR beam from a TV remote, then you may be able to take IR photos. I took the attached image with an ordinary Oly C-3000Z using a B+W 092 filter.
 
richard_l said:
I took the attached image with an ordinary Oly C-3000Z using a B+W 092 filter.
Click to expand...


Would that be an emulation or a simulation?

Tom

PS: I'M KIDDING RICHARD. Don't want to start any hair fires. ;)
 
Zeos,

My reference to "sloth" was to indicate laziness on MY part, not yours or anyone else's. Seems from your response you may have though I meant some reflecting on you.

Glad the links were helpful, however, you also should note they are a couple of years old by now. The 1Ds has been superseded by the 1Ds MkII, an even better camera. There is also a (less expensive) pro Canon model called the 1D MkII that has a 1.3 sensor and amazing output quality. If you are looking at serious digital tools, you should give those cameras a look. I do not know where you live, but any sizable metro center should have both those available for rent. Rent one of each for a weekend and prepared to be amazed. :)

Tom

PS: Man I gotta remember "If you didn't come by train, you are not here" line. I intend to shamelessly and ruthlessly plagiarize that statement the very next chance I get. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom