Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t748062-re-possible-to-extract-high-resolution-b-w-from-a-raw-file.html)

David Dyer-Bennet 05-10-2011 03:57 PM

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?
 
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:33:02 AM UTC-5, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> The problem is that monochrome image sensors are not
> equally sensitive to all colors, and instead map
> different colors to different intensity levels.
>
> That means there has to be some form of a "color"
> filter. If it were not a Bayer filter used to encode a
> broad range of color information it would mean the
> camera would have the option of only using one type of
> "film". You could buy, for example, a camera that
> matched Kodak Tri-X or one that matched Ilford HP5;
> which is not nearly as nice as having a Bayer filter and
> being able to use the same camera to emulate virtually
> any monochrome film.


In 30+ years of shooting film kind of seriously, I never once
found myself caring about the color rendering of a given B&W
film (modern panchromatic films). Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4, HP5,
whatever.

I know some people did care. But lots and lots didn't.

For me, the draw is really the increased ISO sensitivity, plus
not having to worry about color balance. I shoot in low light
a lot.

> To put it mildly, even for B&W the functionality of the
> Bayer pattern encoding is extremely useful.


For people doing serious B&W landscape I can see the color rendering
mattering a lot more, and of course the ability to retroactively
apply the standard (plus anything you can dream up) B&W filters to
alter tone rendering is very useful. I make use of it myself when
converting color to B&W, but I'd be willing to give it up for the
other benefits I see.

Not sure I'd be willing to buy a second body costing more than my main
one to do the dedicated B&W, though; it may well be a hopeless idea
economically.

Wolfgang Weisselberg 05-16-2011 01:57 PM

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?
 
Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> You low competence level as a photographer is not
> significant to the requirements of others.


The fact that you have no arguments shows clearly in the ad
hominem.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg 05-17-2011 12:14 PM

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?
 
Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:


>>> You low competence level as a photographer is not
>>> significant to the requirements of others.


>>The fact that you have no arguments shows clearly in the ad
>>hominem.


> He pointed out the level,


and you used it to denigrate and to imply he didn't know what he
was talking about.

> I merely said it wasn't significant.
> to others.


TO THE REQUIREMENTS of others.
You imply more competent photographers had different (higher)
requirements, 'but you wouldn't understand'.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg 05-20-2011 11:59 PM

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?
 
Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:


>>>>> You low competence level as a photographer is not
>>>>> significant to the requirements of others.


>>>>The fact that you have no arguments shows clearly in the ad
>>>>hominem.


>>> He pointed out the level,


>>and you used it to denigrate and to imply he didn't know what he
>>was talking about.


>>> I merely said it wasn't significant.
>>> to others.


>>TO THE REQUIREMENTS of others.
>>You imply more competent photographers had different (higher)
>>requirements, 'but you wouldn't understand'.


> That's idiotic. What I said was quite pertinent.


You call ad hominem insults pertinent?

-Wolfgang


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.