As does the photoshop grayscale conversion. It's just a preset channel's adjustment followed by a conversion. Paul
> I'm not using fixed values, but I use those as my starting point. I'm > also getting more than a greyscale conversion (As that's simply > luminance with all hue removed, Even the 60/40/0 preserves some of the > balance between channels). > > -Adam > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > If you apply fixed values in the channel mixer, you're doing the same > > thing photoshop's grayscale conversion does. You're just making it more > > difficult. The channel mixer is only an advantage if one varies the mix > > to obtain different results. > > Paul > > On Oct 31, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> > >>> I just tested this technique. > >>> > >>> I took your Beast.jpg photo and used it as a test. If you do step 3 > >>> as stated, you're essentially eliminating what you did in Step > >>> 2a,b,c; there's no point to adding the HSV Adjustment Layer. I first > >>> followed exactly what you have listed above and got the exact same > >>> result you did, then I eliminated steps 2abc ... the result was again > >>> bit for bit identical. All this method is doing, as listed, is > >>> throwing away the AB channels and presenting a the Luminosity channel > >>> as B&W. > >>> > >>> Then I used the Channel Mixer layered method I normally use and > >>> obtained results which I prefer. The CM layered method allows precise > >>> balancing of the curve that translates RGB into monochrome and can > >>> be used to emulate any B&W film's response curve you want. I > >>> modified the green curve in a layer under the CM layer, which > >>> rendered the foliage with more delicacy. > >>> > >>> Godfrey > >>> > >>> > >> Godfrey, > >> > >> Would you mind posting your workflow for this method? I'm using the > >> non-layer Channel Mixer method: > >> > >> Open Channel Mixer > >> Set Monochrome > >> Set Red to +60 > >> Set Green to +40 > >> Tweak for basic tonality > >> Add contrast curve if necessary > >> > >> and would rather like a quick into to a non-destructive method. My > >> experience with layers is sadly lacking, so I'm not sure where to > >> start when adapting this method to layers. > >> > >> -Adam > >> >
