Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
If you already have PS CS2 or CS3 (or the new CS4), ACR is good enough if you know how to set up color-response in Grayscale conversion mode. But this involves work, and who wants work when you can get a cheeseburger fries and a drink for $2 in under 1 minute at less-than-reputable drive-ins?
Either Silver Efex Pro or the now-discontinued Imageworks B&W Converter Pro (my preferred plug-in for B&W conversion). Exposure 2 is a very close third.
Either Silver Efex Pro or the now-discontinued Imageworks B&W Converter Pro (my preferred plug-in for B&W conversion). Exposure 2 is a very close third.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
How does it lack "honesty" or "character"?
TimF
Established
True, but isn't it also a strength in that the user can make their pictures appear any way they wish, just as a skilled darkroom worker can produce many variants starting from the same neg?
Saint Ansel's old adage that the neg is the score, the print is the performance still holds true.
Nh3
Well-known
True, but isn't it also a strength in that the user can make their pictures appear any way they wish, just as a skilled darkroom worker can produce many variants starting from the same neg?
Saint Ansel's old adage that the neg is the score, the print is the performance still holds true.
In digital terms that would be something like the RAW file is music and post-processing with photoshop the performance.
Working with photoshop is one of the most boring and tedious tasks ever, and at the same time there is always the option to "undo" what you had just "done".
Imagine listening to a Jazz musician who stop every now and then to redo the solo he had just started because it did sound right to him.
In other words the comparison is false
taxi38
Taxi Driver
Because it doesnt exist.________ Yes I know this is a silly trite answer but its because of its lack of solidity in that the pp is essential and infinatly variable that it does appear a little sad that all this digital revolution can come up with is an attempted copy of a shot taken with film.It seems an expensive way to go around in circles.I do intend to "go digital"but it will be to take digital photographs and not to pretend that Im using film.
This is not a critism of anyone who wants to do this sort of thing,I just find it amusing,regards,Neil.
Cranialpush
Member
kevin m
Veteran
I feel the same way about waving a dodging tool around in the dark over every print I need more than one copy of.
TimF
Established
I'd say the file is the score and the print (still) or uploaded to a website version is the performance. Yes, it's true that a PS worker can undo their work whereas a darkroom worker can't. The latter can only throw rejected prints in the bin.
The jazz musician analogy is a false one whether compared with darkroom or lightroom, far more apposite would be to compare that musician abandoning a take in a studio session because it wasn't right. Those are also versions you don't get to hear (see), at least not until the record company wants to exploit the catalogue! ;
gavinlg
Veteran
So very agreed. Back in school if I had to spend one more day in the darkroom I would have snapped.
peterm1
Veteran
I should be honest up front. I do not have an M8 (damn) and I have only just made the decision to start shooting in RAW mode. But I do shoot a Panasonic L1 (the twin brother of the Leica Digilux 3.) I also shoot a Nikon D200.
The reason for only now changing to RAW is that until recently I have not had software that has native support for a wide variety of RAW files. Being a long time Photoshop Elements user (I have access to Photoshop 6 but find it frankly too powerful for nine tenths of my needs and too reliant on high end user skills for even basic conversions.) I was recently away from home for an extended period on business when I had a system collapse that required reinstallation of everything. As I did not have my Photoshop Element disks I downloaded a Corel Photo Draw time limited trial copy from the Web.
I was so impressed that I bought it. It claims to have support for the full gamut of RAW types and best of all it has lots of wizards that speed up post processing workflow - while leaving the user the choice of also working from first principles as in Photoshop, when necessary. I fully realise that the knives may be out for me, for such a heresy but it truly is a good product that does not demand such high end skills as Photoshop.
Black and white conversion is done from a GUI (a color wheel that allows the user to select the filter effect for the particular picture.) Plus it has built in camera noise reduction filters that work very well-for the JPG shots and various other functions like this that are only available in P/S with plugins.
My recent experiences means I cannot speak highly enough of it.
The reason for only now changing to RAW is that until recently I have not had software that has native support for a wide variety of RAW files. Being a long time Photoshop Elements user (I have access to Photoshop 6 but find it frankly too powerful for nine tenths of my needs and too reliant on high end user skills for even basic conversions.) I was recently away from home for an extended period on business when I had a system collapse that required reinstallation of everything. As I did not have my Photoshop Element disks I downloaded a Corel Photo Draw time limited trial copy from the Web.
I was so impressed that I bought it. It claims to have support for the full gamut of RAW types and best of all it has lots of wizards that speed up post processing workflow - while leaving the user the choice of also working from first principles as in Photoshop, when necessary. I fully realise that the knives may be out for me, for such a heresy but it truly is a good product that does not demand such high end skills as Photoshop.
Black and white conversion is done from a GUI (a color wheel that allows the user to select the filter effect for the particular picture.) Plus it has built in camera noise reduction filters that work very well-for the JPG shots and various other functions like this that are only available in P/S with plugins.
My recent experiences means I cannot speak highly enough of it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Because on film (which I like a lot as well btw) I have fewer darkroom choices. Even then I do not have the result on my negative. I would have to spend more time in the darkroom than in the computer. Digital gives infinitely more control over the final image nevertheless. But I agree, if the purpose of a digital capture is solely to recreate all the imperfections of film and nothing more it makes more sense to shoot film and the digital film copy would just be kitsch.
With the M8 the negative (RAW file)has also the option of postprocessing into something that has a similar visual impact to film, although it is usually technically better, better control of gradation, dynamic range, grayscale, sharpness etc. One of the major advantages of digital in this respect is the ability to "dodge and burn" sharpness locally in the image. It leaves open all other artistic options as well, as opposed to film, which has them limited the moment you choose which one to load.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Good answer. Digital is 100 times more versatile depending on what you do with the digital negative
zeitz
Established
I've spent my whole life trying to get the best sharpness and eliminate grain. With digital I have it. So I never add grain back. Yes, digital pictures look like they come from a digital camera.
Digital is here. In a few years pictures that don't look digital will look odd because that is what we'll get used to. Where do we roll back to if we don't like digital? Tintype, wet plate, uncoated lenses, pre-exotic glass lenses, pre-asphere? Each one looked different and looked right at the time. With each change there was a group that continued to work with the classic (previous generation) tools. But eventually we move on.
If you like grain, add it. If you don't like grain, leave it out. In the end, do you like the picture? Or does you're client like the picture? It is not my job to make everyone on this forum like my pictures.
Digital is here. In a few years pictures that don't look digital will look odd because that is what we'll get used to. Where do we roll back to if we don't like digital? Tintype, wet plate, uncoated lenses, pre-exotic glass lenses, pre-asphere? Each one looked different and looked right at the time. With each change there was a group that continued to work with the classic (previous generation) tools. But eventually we move on.
If you like grain, add it. If you don't like grain, leave it out. In the end, do you like the picture? Or does you're client like the picture? It is not my job to make everyone on this forum like my pictures.
