>
>Silver Effects Pro 2. Several of us here use it. In my book, it’s the bee’s
>knees. You start on the left
>side of the interface with a whole mess of presets. Pick one that seems
>closest to what you want. Then
>shift to the right side where you have a bodacious supply of buttons and
>sliders and control points and
>filter emulators and film emulators and tinting, vignetting and border
>options. This is where the
>admonishment from yesterday concerting Lightroom, i.e., you gotta learn them
>sliders, holds true. Almost
>any look is possible with SFX and the right paper, and as AG pointed out to me
>a year or so ago, the
>results are discernibly not from wet darkrooms because they don’t contain the
>flaws that come out of a
>wet darkroom. <Down, AG! You said it, not me. <g>>
>
>The other difference with SFX is that it is not necessary to emulate the look
>of wet darkroom. You’re
>working on a new plane of black & white. You can go for the look you think
>best fits the image.
>
So essentially, SFX takes digital B&W beyond what is routinely possible
with film/wet B&W. If so, then this sounds promising.
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|