Difference between changing photo into B&W using Photoshop..

David wrote:
> I often shoot with RAWs just so I can change the photo to B/W and apply
> filter and toning effects.
>
> Is there a way to mimic this using Photoshop CS2?

Yes, most people use photoshop, that's kinda unique to use a raw
converter and frankly probably a better idea. I've done so in the PS CS1
raw converter but it is a bit of a fudge to crank down saturation & play
with the white balance & color calibration tab. Normally people bring it
all the way into PS & look at the individual color channels to find what
they want and that's rather more precise though the raw converter
ultimately would give better results if you can figure out what you want
from there.

> If not, what would be the closest approximation and what are the
> differences?
>
> David
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Difference between changing photo into B&W using Photoshop.. 

The difference is that the in-camera software is essentially a simple
desaturation operation.
In Photoshop there are many ways to convert to black and white emphasizing
or even changing tone with specified color values. This is analagous to
taking a black and white photo on film using selective color filters.
If this is important to you then the upgrade to CS3 may be worthwhile as it
has a very good tool built into it that can be used in the raw converter or
in Photoshop for this purpose .
 >> Stay informed about: Difference between changing photo into B&W using Photoshop.. 

Paul Furman wrote:
> David wrote:
>> I often shoot with RAWs just so I can change the photo to B/W and
>> apply filter and toning effects.
>>
>> Is there a way to mimic this using Photoshop CS2?
>
> Yes, most people use photoshop, that's kinda unique to use a raw
> converter and frankly probably a better idea. I've done so in the PS CS1
> raw converter but it is a bit of a fudge to crank down saturation & play
> with the white balance & color calibration tab. Normally people bring it
> all the way into PS & look at the individual color channels to find what
> they want and that's rather more precise though the raw converter
> ultimately would give better results if you can figure out what you want
> from there.
>
>> If not, what would be the closest approximation and what are the
>> differences?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
At the prices I've seen quoted for PhotoShop, I would question your
statement that most people use it. I am now using PSP 9 and am very
happy with it.
If I were a professional, more affluent or worked for a company paying
the tab, I might well be a PS user, a lot more documentation for starters.
Tried the Gimp, didn't like the layout and found it not easy to learn,
but probably a very capable package and you can't beat the price.
Dave Cohen
 >> Stay informed about: Difference between changing photo into B&W using Photoshop.. 

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:25:55 GMT, "fac" <fac.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
<n2Mij.87812$YL5.1146@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:

>The difference is that the in-camera software is essentially a simple
>desaturation operation.

Some cameras are more capable than that.

>In Photoshop there are many ways to convert to black and white emphasizing
>or even changing tone with specified color values. This is analagous to
>taking a black and white photo on film using selective color filters.
>If this is important to you then the upgrade to CS3 may be worthwhile as it
>has a very good tool built into it that can be used in the raw converter or
>in Photoshop for this purpose .

Photoshop Elements also has multiple B&W conversion options, and for a
lot less money and complexity than CS3.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Difference between changing photo into B&W using Photoshop..