TR October Day 12

In article <bmfk75$50u$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> Doug Scobie wrote:
>
>>> Although your image looks almost B&W have you tried doing a proper
>>> conversion? Might be a good alternative.
>
>I just tried it and it did look good as black and white. However, as I
>expected, I still preferred the colour version. Just those hints of
>colour make all the difference. I love it when real life imitates art
>(b&w).
>
>I prefer converting all my infrared shots to black and white though, I'm
>not too keen on the weird false colours.

You can always desaturate *nearly* to b&w...

Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland

In article <bmif82$2co$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>>> I prefer converting all my infrared shots to black and white though,
>>> I'm not too keen on the weird false colours.
>>
>> You can always desaturate *nearly* to b&w...
>
>That's a thought, but I do think that true b&w is more acceptable than
>images with strange colours, even if toned down. The natural reaction
>to weird colours is; "that's not realistic" but the natural reaction to
>b&w is "that's a black and white photograph", even if it's a strange b&w
>photograph. I think there's a certain acceptance of b&w, even weird
>b&w. What would you prefer to have hanging on your wall?

I doubt if I would hang an IR at all.
>
>As for desaturation, I don't usually do that, I use the channel mixer to
>convert to monochrome, typically using the sharpest colour channel.
>I've often found that the red and blue channels are blurred but the
>green channel is sharp, or sometimes the red channel is the sharpest
>(probably due to the weird IR focusing). So if I want to print the
>image I need the best sharpness, whereas desaturation would be fine for
>web use.

The green should always be sharpest because of the Bayer interpolation.
Half the pixels are green, only a quarter each red & blue.


Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland