Please make your topic titles more explicit (Page 3): UHH is not Wikipedia. The search function is an embarrassment where using google against the site is more effective than the...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Agree. Just yesterday I was searching UHH to see if it is possible to put color
back on a B&W RAW file shot in monochrome. Could not find.
Finally I found the answer by means of Duck and Go.
I still do not know how to accomplish it on DPP4 (Canon). Thanks for starting.

UHH is not Wikipedia. The search function is an embarrassment where using google against the site is more effective than the internal search. A casual review of any day's posts will show a UHH population that is unlikely to open a post like: How do you update CR2 from monochrome to color?

BTW, a RAW file is captured in color. The B&W conversion is applied in the processing. The sensor, hence the resulting CR2 file, captures in color. Within DPP, did you try setting the picture style = "Standard", from Monochrome?

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

CHG_CANON wrote:

UHH is not Wikipedia. The search function is an em... (show quote)

Thanks. No, not yet. I am having problems with my PC (I use it for work, too) and being very careful
on what I do. I am keeping it running 24/7 till I can take it to the tech assistance.
I know UHH is not Wikipedia, so I have tried many diverse concatenations and got zilch, zero.
I pretty much prefer to look for before asking.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

...
BTW, a RAW file is captured in color. The B&W conversion is applied in the processing. The sensor, hence the resulting CR2 file, captures in color. Within DPP, did you try setting the picture style = "Standard", from Monochrome?

RAW editors are nice like that!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Pistnbroke wrote:

Topic titles like "F 2.8" or "FX Lens " don't help anyone pick out the topics to look at . And please put the make of camera you are using . Its so frustrating and seems to be a feature of this site.

You always have the option to choose not to look at topics or not respond to topics if the information supplied is too vague. I often choose not to. Keep in mind, frustration is something which can be controlled. Don't let it become your master!

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Longshadow wrote:

RAW editors are nice like that!

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

CHG_CANON wrote:

UHH is not Wikipedia. The search function is an em... (show quote)

Yes, I see. And thanks again. I thought that the pull-down menu was used to show the camera
setting by the time of the photo.
When I take a shot in B&W it is because I wanted it. But on that one photo I could not remember
the condition of the sky.

Dear OP: Please, pardon me for intruding (grossly intruding) on your Topic. My bad and I acknowledge
it. Sorry.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Pistnbroke wrote:

Topic titles like "F 2.8" or "FX Lens " don't help anyone pick out the topics to look at . And please put the make of camera you are using . Its so frustrating and seems to be a feature of this site.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Agree. Just yesterday I was searching UHH to see if it is possible to put color
back on a B&W RAW file shot in monochrome. Could not find.
Finally I found the answer by means of Duck and Go.
I still do not know how to accomplish it on DPP4 (Canon). Thanks for starting.

I search UHH through google. Just add "site:www.uglyhedgehog.com" to your search and google will search the entire UHH site.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

dsmeltz wrote:

I search UHH through google. Just add "site:www.uglyhedgehog.com" to your search and google will search the entire UHH site.

Thanks for your input. I do not use google and pretty much care for my privacy, and I
multiply it by 1000 for others. I used duckduckgo and did not see any UHH references.
I think my problem is somehow insignificant compared to the OP's worries.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Thanks for your input. I do not use google and pretty much care for my privacy, and I
multiply it by 1000 for others. I used duckduckgo and did not see any UHH references.
I think my problem is somehow insignificant compared to the OP's worries.

The same syntax appears to work in duck. Try it.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

dsmeltz wrote:

The same syntax appears to work in duck. Try it.

I suppose it should. But that, IMHO, would be the same problem of privacy
if I used that syntax to search a specific name on the regulation site I use for
evaluating requests of high complexity tests for my city health system.
I prefer to avoid it.
But I thank you for showing the way.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

I suppose it should. But that, IMHO, would be the same problem of privacy
if I used that syntax to search a specific name on the regulation site I use for
evaluating requests of high complexity tests for my city health system.
I prefer to avoid it.
But I thank you for showing the way.

How? The syntax simply restricts the search results. It is no more risky that doing the search without it.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

dsmeltz wrote:

How? The syntax simply restricts the search results. It is no more risky that doing the search without it.

We are breaking the rules. Maybe I will start a thread on "Chit-Chat" about it.
Google knows more than it should, including some/many DNA sequences of
of incautious people. Just saying...