File :-(, x, )
hopper
is there any difference if i shoot in B&W or just do it later on photoshop?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Yes. If you do it later in photoshop, you can choose how much of which channel (red, green, or blue) you want to use for the B&W conversion, which can give you much better results than the default conversion.
>> Anonymous
I prefer Adobe Lightroom though, it gives u much more values to play with and gives a way more satisfying result.
>> hopper
so, i must ask why people use the B&W option?
is it because they dont have PS or are they just lazy?
doesn't really matter i guess...
>> Anonymous
some people prefer to let the camera and the photographer do all the work I guess. And some just like to use a computer to enhance the photo.
>> Anonymous
digital b&w is kind of lame.

use film. its not hard.
>> Anonymous
>>275855
Yes, you'll regret it later on.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>275861
>so, i must ask why people use the B&W option?
Why did you ask your original question?

Because you didn't know that you could get better results doing it later in Photoshop. Most people don't realize that there's a difference, just like you didn't.

>>275866
Photographer's still doing the work by editing the shot in post. Unless you've hired someone to do your postprocessing for you.

>>275867
True, B&W film isn't difficult, but it's still a lot less convenient than digital, especially if you eventually want to get the shot on a computer. Assuming you already have the camera, digital involves:
1. Take picture
2. Postprocess to get best results

and film involves
1. Find somewhere that'll sell you B&W film. Means either a trip to the store or a trip to a website that'll sell you film and wait for shipping time.
2a. Finish off whatever film's already in the camera, if any
2b. Shoot however many shots are on the roll. Exposure's a bit trickier with film, but B&W negative is pretty forgiving, so that's not too big of an issue. Still, LCDs and chimping are nice. And if you want to adjust how much of each color is used in making the B&W, you either need to use filters or use different varieties of film.
3. Get the film developed. Involves either another trip to the store (assuming you've even got a lab in your area that can handle traditional B&W. People out in the boonies might not) or an hour or so babysitting a developing tank. If you're shooting chromogenic, the "finding a lab" step isn't as difficult, but you're still talking an hour of waiting around (and paying for developing)
4. Scan pictures
5. Remove the dust and pubes from the scan (unless shooting chromogenic B&W, in which case the scanner can probably do that for you)
>> Anonymous
>>275872

buy some bw film while i am in town, no problem
shoot on film, no problem
bring to my local chemist, develop it, no problem
fuck you
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>275875

>bring to my local chemist, develop it, no problem

What??

If your letting the chemist develop it you might as well shoot digital, the shit they put that though means your going to have bullshit quality and have no say in how its developed.

Heres an idea, take of your hipster cloths and give your leet camrea to somone who gives a shit?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>275875
>fuck you
That response seems unwarranted unless your only goal is to get me to argue with you. It's not like I'm saying you're dumb or wrong or something for shooting film. You're welcome to do so. I frequently shoot B&W film myself, and actually have a spool of PanF+ 50 sitting in my developing tank right now waiting to be developed.

All I'm saying is that it requires a significantly larger amount of effort than digital. Even if that "significantly larger" effort isn't particularly large in the grand scheme of things, doing it digitally is nearly zero.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>275886
"Hunters , after all, aren't cooks"
>> Anonymous
I shoot in RAW and shoot black and white mode. I get a nice helpful monochrome preview on my live view but get a colour image to edit as I see fit in pshop/digiKam.