I think I will shoot majority in the b&w film art filter, however the processing time is so long I wonder if I should shoot in monotone - so that I "see" in b&w - and then add the art filter to the raw image instead.  My question is - is there any difference at all to the quality in adding it after rather than at the time?  This is my first experience in using raw files.  I would rather do it in camera, I can see what I'm getting (otherwise I get a shock at the contrast jolt post processing!).. but the processing time.. is crazy.  There are so many decisions to make with this camera...

thanks - I did some tests and I couldn't tell the difference, on screen anyway.  I don't have lightroom though, just OM2.

I don’t consider any shot important enough to spend more time than it takes to actually take the shot in the first place, so I’m personally highly uninclined to mess around trying different “takes” or versions of the same thing. I either get it right first time or not at all, and anyway, there’s no time to spend on it now because here comes another, novel, fresh, different, photo to take.

It’s a bit like when I was making music a lot. In the beginning, I’d spend considerable time tweaking a melody, adjusting this and that. Trying a few different takes and effects, trying a few different patches and mixes, basically twiddling. A composition would be mostly laid down — well, 90% laid down — in no time at all, but the forthcoming weeks and possibly months would see the agonising remaining 10% edge towards what I considered “just right”.

After more than a decade or so of that, I ended up recording synth lines directly into my sequencers (including vintage sequencers e.g CSQ-600) pretty much as it is, unquantised, with no intention to edit. If I fluff it badly I'd maybe take it from the top again, but probably not. Then the mixdown would be the same philosophy - mixing down directly to stereo on DAT, assisted by a midi mute mixer, but the take would be basically a live performance in one go. If I fluffed, I'd take it from the top, but I'd get it down in probably no more than three goes.

Of course, the twiddling habit still persisted, so in reality I really would do about thirty attempts, over several weeks, but the good ones were invariably the ones I did right at the beginning (or right at the end once I'd already decided enough was enough). Post production is something I don’t value. Of course, if one is young and wants to impress, then that’s where one can stretch and grow, “learning the chops” as it were.

But to return to the point of the art filters, I definitely like the idea of committing to a specific in-camera effect, and accepting what it gives me. It either works or it doesn’t. To have the option of infinite twiddling later by shooting raw and then spending all evening trying to decide exactly which effect and exactly how it renders, is either missing some kind of point (I’m not specifying which point) or it’s a trap you’ve just fallen into.

i understand your point ian, often it either is or isnt from the beginning , but still its a matter of getting the most out of what you got right , and this happens post shot


ansel adams spent a lot of time post shot making sure his vision was realized to the fullest  thru printing
with lots of darkroom  magic darkening and lightening thru burn and dodge and printing with papers ect 




while trying to turn crap into gold in photoshop is a pointless , fruitless persuit, it shouldnt keep us from getting our  good shots closer to greatness   thru judicious cropping  or some

---

exposure tweaking .........darkening the perimeter thru an art filter... or changing a color photo into a black and white and so on


nailing a shot and doing little or nothing later is teriffic .......so is a little post production ,when its called for