B&W Pics (Page 3): Snazz, I too love B&W, Yes, with digital I was taught to shoot in color. Then convert it to B&W later. By doing so you have more information in the orginal image.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Snazz,
I too love B&W, Yes, with digital I was taught to shoot in color. Then convert it to B&W later. By doing so you have more information in the orginal image. However, with better softwaer now it is very possible to recover the color.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Snazz,
I too love B&W, Yes, with digital I was taught to shoot in color. Then convert it to B&W later. By doing so you have more information in the orginal image. However, with better softwaer now it is very possible to recover the color.

this is a farm all 300. the seat is not the orginal one but its mor comfortable

C. David Loc: Wisconsin

I also learned to shoot in color, and in PS later. The Farmall H are good. After I edit to BW, I also look at a sepia tint to the pic also. I think it adds another look and feel to the subjects.

phoneguy55 Loc: upstate NY

if shooting in RAW.....isn't all of the color data there....no matter what setting the camera is on. ( ie...sepia, B&W...etc) I thought the setting only dictated the display on camera, but all of the total data including color is still in the RAW file. I don't shoot B&W , or convert into B&W , so I was just wondering.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

sparky192 wrote:

well i guess part of the problem is that I live in... (show quote)

HEY,in a few days I'll be 64. I've spent my entire life as a photographer. They forced me into digital kicking and screaming...I was literally in tears more than once. You just have to stick with it...a little, tiny bit at a time...every now and then a big chunk suddenly makes sense. The learning curve sort of snowballs. I've been totally digital for about ten years now and every single day I have an ...OH WOW!!! moment. I can not imagine returning to the film world.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

phoneguy55 wrote:

if shooting in RAW.....isn't all of the color data there....no matter what setting the camera is on. ( ie...sepia, B&W...etc) I thought the setting only dictated the display on camera, but all of the total data including color is still in the RAW file. I don't shoot B&W , or convert into B&W , so I was just wondering.

Think of RAW as your digital negative. Everything that chip can record is there...you then process it any ole way you want. Your RAW file is always there to go back to. I own a small weekly famlly newspaper and a commercial studio. Sometimes folks will come in and want a photo of Johnny making the big basket at the basketball game. His photo was in the newspaper in B&W. They are shocked when I open the RAW file and make them a color print...very pleasantly shocked....

sparky192 Loc: Manitoba, Canada

64??? You young pup, I will be 70 in March.
I guess part of my problem is reluctance... It used to be that a photograph was proof positive of an event. Now you could put a stock car on a picture of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and folks would believe it.
It just seems that we have a whole new art form that has destroyed a former science.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

sparky192 wrote:

64??? You young pup, I will be 70 in March.
I guess part of my problem is reluctance... It used to be that a photograph was proof positive of an event. Now you could put a stock car on a picture of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and folks would believe it.
It just seems that we have a whole new art form that has destroyed a former science.

Ah, remembering what never was. The Soviets were particularly good at modifying the old technology to alter the appearance of history. Stalin's enemies were notorious for disappearing from photos as well as life.
Photography has always been an art form that involved aspects of science. Ansel Adams would roll in his grave if he was characterized soley as a technician or scientist.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Sparky192,
Since the invention of an image they have been able to manipulate it. My G grandfather was a photographer when it was all new then. I have seen his work and know how he did some of it. He died in 1968 at the age of 101. His heyday was to take pictures of the doughboys before they ship out to europe from Newport News Virginia.

By the Way, what is the lense in your profile picture?

architect Loc: Chattanooga

sparky192 wrote:

well i guess part of the problem is that I live in... (show quote)

I am an old dog, and I love learning new tricks. If Photoshop is too much money, buy the latest Elements. Any of the books by Scott Kelby have great step by step lessons, delivered with humor. Learning new tricks will be worth the effort, and will help keep your old brain from freezing. I do NOT miss the stinky chemicals, or time spent in the darkroom at all.

sparky192 Loc: Manitoba, Canada

my lens...
if you look back a couple of weeks or so, I wrote a piece on that lens. It is a home made macro extender made from a pringles chip can. I published a couple of shots I took with it and they are almost microscopic.
Sparky

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

I remeber, thanks for reminding me very nice!!!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

sparky192 wrote:

I have a darkroom I will trade for the knowledge to run photoshop. I find the tutorials leave out too much detail. I have been trying to get fire on a spitfire fighter foor 2 days...Cant get the damned prop off.Is there a book photoshop for real old dummies??
Ansel Adams must be rolling in his grave.

How about PhotoShop CS5 All-In-One for Dummies? I've got it and it's great and easy to understand, especially when used with the help part of CS5 which accesses online Adobe-approved websites and blogs.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

photosbyhenry wrote:

My nickles worth if you please. When you shoot a c... (show quote)

A lot of people aren't aware that Ansel Adams did a lot of shooting in color as well. So would he shoot in color and convert? Possibly. But then again, being a purist, he probably didn't because he was a B&W artist at heart.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

C. David wrote:

I also learned to shoot in color, and in PS later. The Farmall H are good. After I edit to BW, I also look at a sepia tint to the pic also. I think it adds another look and feel to the subjects.

I don't believe that's an H. Unless the photos are fooling me, the wheelbase is too short, the H was taller, and H front wheels were together in the middle and not wide set. Smaller Farmalls like the "A" were meant for cultivating and thus had the wide front tires. As a child and teen my family truck-farmed with my grandparents and they had two H's and a Super H from the late 1940s and early 1950s which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Wait... I just caught that the photographer says it's a Model 300 and it says 300 on the hood. That makes more sense and it's likely a later model in the 1960s or 1970s too.