I was about to say the same. It's clear that Chris does not understand
the concept of converting raw files (which are only in color) to B&W
using the custom conversion features of the raw file editor such as ACR.
Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this in Olympus viewer (and am
not about to try to learn it there) but in ACR you
1) Switch to the HSL/Grayscale panel
2) Click the Convert to Grayscale option
At this point ACR does a default conversion to grayscale but presents
you with 8 color sliders that allow you to vary the luminance of the
reds, oranges, yellows, greens, aquas, blues, purples and magentas that
are still present in the underlying color image. Moving these sliders
has the same sort of effect as using color filters in B&W photography...
except that you're dealing with a positive rather than negative image.
For example, using B&W film you might use a yellow, orange or red filter
to darken the sky and add contrast to the clouds. When dealing with the
positive color digital image you would reduce the luminance of the
blues. Likewise, if you wanted to darken or enhance the foliage you
would use the green luminance slider. No need to understand and use
complementary colors. See the example video (first one on this page)
<http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/convert-color-image-black-white.html>
Using B&W conversion of raw files one does not need to use glass filters
at all except for the case of polarizers, UV filters, ND filters and IR
filters with IR film. For color filters as normally used with B&W film
you can discard them all. Conversion from raw files gives you much more
control without the disadvantages (cost and image quality) of glass
filters. Color balance controls will also allow you to get rid of all
those pesky and expensive CC filters used in commercial film photography.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/14/2014 12:32 PM, Philippe wrote:
I'm still afraid there's a HUGE misunderstanding Chris.
Look carefully here :
http://www.olympusamerica.com/crm/oneoffpages/ask_oly/crm_e_ask_oly_07_07.asp
I've been trying for the start to explain that you don't need to carry glass
filters if you shoot raw/ORF and post process from there.
Your PC/MAC and post-processing software are so much more powerful than the
poor chip on board any camera.
This being said, I'm running short of arguments as you seem to be willing to
stick with settings of no value for what you want to achieve I'm afraid.
Amities
Philippe
Le 14 juin 2014 à 16:32, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Le 13 juin 2014 à 23:51, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Could it be that RAW and HQ with no compression are to be used if the filters
are to function?
Do you mean to say that RAW and HQ are related? I think not.
The size of the raw file doesn't vary whatever SQ HQ LQ you use, does it?
Yes, as it should. I have mine set to SQ with 1/8 compression, which
results in 1.7M or so files.
My tip of the day - just forget about these in camera filters and convert from
the raw, this is where
the information is, without a loss, and leaves much more room for you to adjust
your BW to taste ;-)
Ultimately I will, but the emulated filters are convenient if I should
learn how to use them. I don't want to be carrying multiple filter wallets,
just the one with some cooling and warming filters plus a +1 diopter closeup
and some adapter rings.
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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|