>> |
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)
|