File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I am new but I am not a fag.

That being said, is taking a B&W photo in the camera the same as taking a regular colored exposure and grayscaling it in PS?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTDCamera ModelQV-R51Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:12 00:19:48RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length8.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width434Image Height378
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>I am new but I am not a fag.
False
>taking a B&W photo in the camera the same as taking a regular colored exposure and grayscaling it in PS?
False
>> Anonymous
there shouldnt be any diffrence
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242199
There is, though. When you're converting a color shot to grayscale, there's a choice of how much of each of the red/green/blue channels you use for the conversion. The camera might pick a different mix than Photoshop does.

Additionally, when you do it in camera, you lose the opportunity to tweak it manually later (unless you're shooting RAW), which is a bad thing.
>> Anonymous
Tonality
>> Anonymous
Threadstarter here, thanks ac. I will always shoot in color. Messing around with the 'degree' of grayscaleness (sorry) in PS sounds interesting.
>> Anonymous
>>242201
this man is a fagot, he is right about the tweaking of the channels in ps later. though not shooting in raw is simply retarded. that is if you know what you are doing. if you are running around shooting snap shots of your buddies, an occasionally a nice sun set, shoot it jpg fine. though if you are doing any professional work at al you must be shooting raw. there is no argument to this.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242234
>though not shooting in raw is simply retarded
Eh. There are some good arguments against RAW in specific circumstances.

In this particular one, though, the argument against it is that he's shooting with a Casio QV-R51.
>> Anonymous
i shoot everything in color, then change to b+w in photoshop or lightroom. why? because playing with the color channels before you convert to b+w can greatly affect the image. i reccomend using photoshop to convert to black n' white, and shoot everything color.
>> Anonymous
>>242234
i dunno about that. ken rockwell says its ok to shoot jpg for pro stuff. even med quality still looks pretty nice.
>> Anonymous
>>242304
not all "pro work" requires super high resolution ultra high quality photos. It all depends on what the final destination is. For example, in real estate, you're talking about a web page, or a brochure. 800x600 pics are fine.
>> Anonymous
also, you ever notice that most people who turn up their noses at things that aren't "pro" usually aren't themselves?

these are the same types of people who buy L lenses because they're expensive and they're "the best", not because they actually need them to shoot whatever the hell they're shooting.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
yeah, rawfags enjoy being able to shoot up to 90 photos a trip before changing cards

>>242223
>Threadstarter
Hurr, twisted threadstarter
pic related
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242315
I've got 4G cards and can shoot about 289 RAW+JPEGs on it. The ability to do postprocessing without a double-jpeg-compression quality hit and the ability to change white balance and (to a certain extent) exposure in post are worth the extra disk space to me.
>> Anonymous
>>242304
He's wrong. Shoot raw.
>> Anonymous
shoot raw, use raw import tool in PS. select the saturation of colours to go into your greyscale...profit?
>> Anonymous
I shot RAW+JPEG for maybe two days before I noticed I never do anything with the JPEGs.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242367
I basically just use the JPEGs for preview images because I've got a mongrel Linux workflow on a machine that takes a nontrivial amount of time to open a RAW. If I used MacOS or Windows as my primary OS and could just run Lightroom or Aperture, I'd shoot all RAW.
>> Anonymous
I use only jpgs. I have no reason to use RAW, despite what the RAW snobs would lead everyone to believe.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242372
Yeah, that's what I thought too until I tried using RAW and found out how much better it was.
>> Anonymous
>>242380

I've tried RAW already and I was not impressed enough to see the point for my uses.
>> Anonymous
>>242380
QFT.
been raw for over 2 years now and would NEVER go back.
its not snobbery, i just prefer it so much more.
>> Anonymous
>>242380
Agreed. It's practically a necessity when shooting in artificial light. You'll need the additional exposure latitude anyway.
I can save 300+ 23mb raws on a 8GB sdhc. Don't bother with JPEG+RAW, you won't want the JPEGs after you see the RAWs anyway. Bottom line is, do it if you can.
>> Anonymous
>>242196

YOU LOOK LIKE A HOMO
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>242403
God help me, I've lol'd every time I've read this.