<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Sorry, maybe it's my fault not to mention that I do not compare the raw bw with the one generated by digikam processing.... <BR>
When it has to do with bw conversion, I do it either in Photoshop with the famous Russel Brown technique, or (and better) in Adobe Lightroom, by working directly on the raw. These results are far superior to any in-camera processing that I have seen (non only in my cameras)<BR>
Unfortunately all open source raw converters can't do very well the job (yet). And yes, when it come to new DSLRs (like your canon 50D, my Olympus E-3 etc) in camera bw raw processing is fairly good. But when you have the FULL color information available, you can ALWAYS try different process methods to get what every time YOU want <IMG SRC="cid:1264847699.29645.4.camel@vasilis-desktop" ALIGN="middle" ALT=";-)" BORDER="0"><BR>
<BR>
So, actually, my opinion is that it is wise to have the full color information available, so that you can work on it as you want. When you shoot directly to bw, you lose some information, so your work possibilities are less. Fortunately, when you shoot raw, you have all the information available when you want it <IMG SRC="cid:1264847764.29645.7.camel@vasilis-desktop" ALIGN="middle" ALT=":-)" BORDER="0"><BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<BR>
<HR NOSHADE LENGTH="155">
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#800000">Vasilis Yiannakos</FONT><BR>
<FONT COLOR="#3333ff">billyiannakos(at)gmail.com</FONT><BR>
<A HREF="http://www.yiannakos.gr">www.yiannakos.gr</A><BR>
<A HREF="http://oximata.yiannakos.gr">oximata.yiannakos.gr</A><BR>
<FONT COLOR="#800000">Athens, Hellas</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 02:14 -0800, davidvincentjones wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
I am not sure what you mean (or imply) by "random". I am usaware of anything
random in my raw data and I would never 'hang my hat' on the JPG format.
I am using a Canon 50D and when I use the B/W setting my tests indicate
better results than shooting in Color and then converting. I do not use the
DK 'filtering' or other options; they do not appear to be helpful personally
for me.
In most instances I find very 'acceptable' results using DK although I must
admit to using UFRaw for some batch work and on rare occasions I use
CinePaint for part of the process when dealing with extremly difficult
highlights and if I am pushed into "dodging and burning". I do not
subscribe to Gimp due to the 8 bit limitation which becomes, to me, quite
apparent in monochrome.
For me, there is an entirely different 'feel' in working in the B/W mode
that I am better able to capture with the 'long shoulder' and B/W settings
on my camera. ... maybe that's just me.
I am fairly comfortable sticking, for the most part, with DK for both
monochrome as well as color. A little more sophisticated adjustment in some
areas of luminescence would be most welcome for sure .... but I am sure that
it will come in good time. After 50 years in a darkroom, DK is a real
winner.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>