[Digikam-users] Black and white images

[davidvincentjones]

Remember that "full color" data has already been messed with in an attempt to
convert the R,G1,B,G2 to something that somebody else feels is acceptable. I
am not sure if B/W processed in the camera needs anything more than direct
extraction of individual pixels. There should, in principle anyway, be no
losses as one will get in color spectral fidelity.

I do not subscribe to Photoshop .... I am a Linus worker and find that many
Ps users anyway tend to use their 'paintbrush' to excess.


Vasilis Yiannakos wrote:
> 
> Sorry, maybe it's my fault not to mention that I do not compare the raw
> bw with the one generated by digikam processing.... 
> 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)
> 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 ;-)
> 
> 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 :-)
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Vasilis Yiannakos
> billyiannakos(at)gmail.com
> www.yiannakos.gr
> oximata.yiannakos.gr
> Athens, Hellas 
> 
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 02:14 -0800, davidvincentjones wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Black-and-white-images-tp27353708p27385399.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.