>
>> I just checked my 510, and it will record B&W in RAW, RAW+HQ, RAW+SQ,
>> HQ, and SQ.
>
>The JPEG is fully cooked B&W, the RAW file is "labeled" B&W. Some raw
>converters will see that flag and will present it initially as B&W for
>you. Absolutely no different than, say, a WB setting. It's cooked in
>the JPEG, just a flag in the RAW.
>
Hmmmm.... (tap, tap, tap, ...) More to ponder on.
I've been toying with a RAW colour IR image, getting accustomed to the
saturation settings and seeing how they affect the conversion to B&W. I can
see now that there is a lot more to digital B&W than there is in film. With
film, you composed the photo, measured the speed, added the filter, adjusted
the speed, released the shutter, then sent the film to the processor. Digital
is vaguely similar except that the "processor" stage is terribly intricate, at
least for the time being.
The "saturation" setting is much like adjusting the exposure time with an
enlarger for film processing. You're essentially "pulling" or "pushing" the
image.
I'm slowly gaining an understanding of this, at least by way of the IR
filter. Up until now I've taken "casual" B&W digital photos with little
thought as to the affect of the glass filters. Now, I can see that I
overestimated their effect on the photos and I will have to spend quite a bit
of time before I can do this as readily and properly as with film.
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|