I can't seem to find the earlier postings o f this thread. Nevertheless, one thing is true. Pauls picture is brilliant.
It's amazing that some people can earn 200 USD/hour (5-6 times more than I get) by working with Photoshop. Well, we all know, that it's almost an artform - actually much more complicated than taking good photographs ;-) Printing is equally diffucult - it's a science, realy. BTW; inspired by this thread, I just made to grey conversione of the same shot. One using Chanel Mixer, the other using simple conversion (state, condition or whatever the correct english translation is). I don't think there's a great difference. None that couldn't be fixed by using contrast or curves (the chanel mixer has a built-in contrast tool, the other one doesn't). It's a shot of an old building. Perhaps a portrait (skin) would have been different. I don't understand the argument about using color filters. I mean, when using fileters on B&W film, will result in an entirely different picture, compared to a shot without the filteres, won't it? Here are the to conversions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/58418583/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/58418779/in/photostream/ Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. november 2005 04:03 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PESO: Chimp with offspring Paul, There's a notable difference between citing her workflow and quoting her opinion that the other options as "That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their hands.". Her workflow may work for her, but her descriptions of the other options is flagrantly wrong, and your description of her methods indicate she simply moves the requisite adjustments to a different portion of her workflow. That said, you simply cannot adjust colour response after the conversion. She's obviously doing it prior to the conversion or not at all. Once the colour channels are gone, your colour response is fixed. You can tweak levels and curves all you want, but you will not be able to differentiate between a formerly red pixel that gives a certain greyscale level and a green one that gives the same level in the fixed conversion. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'm not tryng to score debating points Adam. Merely citing an example > of how one very good retoucher works. She can alter the color response > very effectively by changing the color before conversion. She can also > do it by masking individual areas -- a sky for example -- and altering > the tonality after conversion. Her method isn't necessarily simple. It > can be quite complex. I only mentioned it as an aside. What I did say > was that you can achieve a very nice conversion by using the photoshop > grayscale conversion and then applying tonality adjustments with > curves after conversion. It will give you results that are > indistinguishable from what can be achieved with the channel mixer in > most cases. > Paul > On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> That's an argument to authority. And incorrect. I'm sure she's quite >> competent, but in this case, she's also wrong. This is the sort of >> argument that I see very often among computer consultants. >> >> Simply put, her method simply can't deal with an image that would >> require filtration with B&W film. Even my basic channel mixer method >> (which takes maybe 10 seconds longer than her method for most images) >> allows me to balance the three channels to taste. Her method allows >> tonality adjustments to the final mix, but absolutely no adjustment >> of colour response which, as most serious B&W Film shooters will >> attest, can be extraordinarily important to a final image. >> considering that many people used to choose film just for it's colour >> response (See the difference between SFX200, Tri-X 400 and an >> Orthochromatic emulsion for starters) >> >> -Adam >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> No, you're incorrect. My retoucher friend knows exactly what she's >>> talking about. She does fantastic work and is in great demand among >>> pro shooters at about $200 an hour. Sometimes she will go back and >>> alter the color image to change the conversion , but she's more >>> likely to tinker with it after the fact. She frequently uses curves >>> and masks after the fact if more control is needed. But she points >>> out that the PhotoShop grayscale conversion provides an accurate >>> translation of a given color scene. It's quite close to what the >>> values would have been if shot without filtration. She did the >>> conversion and some after the fact tuneup on my shot of the shoe >>> shine man. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3451662 >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >>> >>>> Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 31/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to all who commented. By the way, this BW conversion was >>>>>> done the >>>>>> fast and easy way: A simple mode change to grayscale followed by >>>>>> adjustment of the tonal range in curves. In that this simple >>>>>> procedure >>>>>> allows complete control of tonal range and that any more >>>>>> elaborate method >>>>>> takes you to the same place -- grayscale -- I fail to see the >>>>>> need for >>>>>> elaborate "recipes." I mentioned some of these elaborate >>>>>> procedures to a >>>>>> professional photo retoucher a couple of weeks ago. She simply said, >>>>>> "That's all a lot of bullshit for people with too much time on their >>>>>> hands." That being said, I sometimes use the channel mixer >>>>>> because it's >>>>>> fun. But I don't think it's necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's very interesting you say that. I have often suspected it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But it ain't true. This "professional photo retoucher" doesn't know >>>> what >>>> she's talking about. There are some tonal changes that can *only* be >>>> accomplished before the image is converted to grayscale. That's why >>>> those of us who use B&W film often use color filters when shooting. >>>> >>>> A trivially simple example: You can paint an object in 3 shades of >>>> gray, >>>> red and green each of which will translate to exactly the same >>>> shade of >>>> gray with a particular B&W film or greyscale conversion. Once the >>>> image >>>> is in greyscale, you can play with the levels and curves controls >>>> until >>>> the heat death of the universe without them ever changing in >>>> relation to >>>> each other, but using a color filter when shooting B&W film, *or* >>>> adjusting color balance in Photoshop before converting a color >>>> image to >>>> greyscale, will give you control of their relative density. This >>>> applies >>>> to all colors to some extent, and control over these >>>> characteristics are >>>> what the channel mixer procedures and other recipes accomplish. >>>> >>>> What you're dealing with isn't "bullshit for people with too much time >>>> on their hands" but rather "bullshit from a photo retoucher attempting >>>> to conceal a lack of understanding of some very basic photographic >>>> concepts". >>>> >>>> BTW: You can't use digital color balance changes to *exactly* >>>> duplicate >>>> the effects of a physical color filter applied during shooting, but >>>> you >>>> can get pretty close (and that's an entirely different discussion.) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Roberts >>>> Photography and writing >>>> www.robertstech.com >>>> >>
