PDA

View Full Version : BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE ROUND 18 (BPX18) - STATUS AND UPDATES



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8

MattKing
10-15-2013, 11:40 AM
Haha no, I should be scared, I don't have a darkroom so I know nothing about printing at all, so I HAD to send a chrome since that has the loophole of being able to use a light jet process by a lab that's still a chemical process, but I had no hand in the creation of the print except scanning the chrome into my computer. (And shooting it of course).

So I'm embarrassed that my critique is an uneducated one, I can only comment on what I see, but I have no idea how easy or difficult it would be to produce so I would prefer to PM you.

I've been waiting till I can get to a computer to hold the print in my hand and comment, but that won't be till Thursday probably so I'll message you then.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Stone:

You don't have to be a printer to be able to comment on the qualities of a print.

Many, many very good photographers have relied on others to do their prints for them, and still have developed an eye for print quality.

They are missing out on a lot of fun, but otherwise they are quite capable of coming to an informed opinion.

Do you ever have someone do a custom print for you? If so, what discussions do you have respecting those?

TheToadMen
10-15-2013, 02:11 PM
My image will be printed and mailed in a week. I'll update after the fact.
I've selected two images so I let my wife decide which one to send after I have both printed.

Bert

Good news and bad news.

I went to the local photo store to have my color negative (6x9 cm) printed. I spoke to one of the employees about a week ago and he said they didn't develop film anymore but still could print (chemically on real photopaper) up to 8x12 inch. But when I went today they told me they don't do it anymore. It is too much trouble to calibrate the machine for just one print but the could also make a nice inkjet print in even larger sizes. I thanked them friendly and went home again....

So, back to square one.

The good news: I found a wonderful professional photolab (fotovaklab Color Utrecht, in Utrecht, Holland). They develop all types and sizes of film, print color and B&W and are very friendly. So I drove 80 kilometers to bring my negative. He promished to print tomorrow and mail it right away. I hope to post my image end of the week. Shipping may take up to two weeks or so across the ocean.

BTW: How do others ship? I think I'll stick the print between two wooden sheets or so?

StoneNYC
10-15-2013, 02:40 PM
Good news and bad news.

I went to the local photo store to have my color negative (6x9 cm) printed. I spoke to one of the employees about a week ago and he said they didn't develop film anymore but still could print (chemically on real photopaper) up to 8x12 inch. But when I went today they told me they don't do it anymore. It is too much trouble to calibrate the machine for just one print but the could also make a nice inkjet print in even larger sizes. I thanked them friendly and went home again....

So, back to square one.

The good news: I found a wonderful professional photolab (fotovaklab Color Utrecht, in Utrecht, Holland). They develop all types and sizes of film, print color and B&W and are very friendly. So I drove 80 kilometers to bring my negative. He promished to print tomorrow and mail it right away. I hope to post my image end of the week. Shipping may take up to two weeks or so across the ocean.

BTW: How do others ship? I think I'll stick the print between two wooden sheets or so?

My print came from Dwayne's Photo wrapped in plastic, then the plastic was taped face up, to solid piece is cardboard, then that piece was inserted into a larger box. Keeping it face out will prevent any pressure from the shipping adventure from scratching the face of the print (which makes me realize I should have NOT stuffed the empty space with bubble wrap... DOH!!!).

My print should have arrived by now, I shipped it priority mail.

The scan itself wasn't the best, I hadn't yet calibrated the betterscanning holders and the scan is SLIGHTLY out if focus, but slight and you have to get close to the treeline with your eye to tell. It's just not worth the hour or two time to pull it out and re-scan it and try and match it to the already produced scan, and then have to go through and dust spot it all...

Someday I'll go re-scan a few of the best ones now that I've perfected my scanning.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

paul_c5x4
10-15-2013, 05:03 PM
BTW: How do others ship? I think I'll stick the print between two wooden sheets or so?

Sandwich the print between two pieces of card - An offcut of mount board is ideal - Then heat seal in a plastic bag.

If you don't have a heat sealer, then try to find some large ziplok bags, failing that, freezer bags. Now that winter is nearly upon us, package a print with the expectation that the envelope will get wet somewhere along the way. I may be going over the top with heat sealing, but after receiving a sodden mess last year, I prefer to be cautious.

anikin
10-16-2013, 10:36 AM
Thank you Reed for your update. Here's the latest list:

SENT:
1 Katie (Katie)
2 Mark (Mark_S)
3 Marco (mesantacruz)
4 Paul (paul_c5x4) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=73541&c=512)
5 Uwe (piu58)
6 Reed (semi-ambivalent)

RECEIVED:
1 Birger (BirgerA)
2 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
3 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Andrej (andreios)
3 Eugene (anikin)
4 Paul (ataim)
5 Nicolas (Dali)
6 Edward (Ed Bray)
7 John (JohnRichard)
8 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
9 Matt (MattKing)
10 Bob (megzdad81)
11 Mike (mjs)
12 Greg (sage)
13 Bert (TheToadMen)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=70646)

This week-end I finally fired up my trusty old Jobo and mixed up some RA-4 chemicals. The color calibration is getting close to what I want, so If I'm lucky, I should whip something up soon. It will be color from me this round.

mjs
10-16-2013, 05:19 PM
My print was mailed today. Whee!!! :)

Mike

anikin
10-17-2013, 10:52 AM
Yay! Thank you Mike! I've added you to the "nice" list:

SENT:
1 Katie (Katie)
2 Mark (Mark_S)
3 Marco (mesantacruz)
4 Mike (mjs)
5 Paul (paul_c5x4) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=73541&c=512)
6 Uwe (piu58)
7 Reed (semi-ambivalent)

RECEIVED:
1 Birger (BirgerA)
2 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
3 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Andrej (andreios)
3 Eugene (anikin)
4 Paul (ataim)
5 Nicolas (Dali)
6 Edward (Ed Bray)
7 John (JohnRichard)
8 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
9 Matt (MattKing)
10 Bob (megzdad81)
11 Greg (sage)
12 Bert (TheToadMen)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=70646)

TheToadMen
10-18-2013, 08:49 AM
I posted the envelope today!! It's on its way from Holland to ........
I added a letter explaining about the image, the camera, exposure, etc.
I hope that the recipient likes it. All comments & feedback are welcome.
Shipping might take one or two weeks, I guess.

Now off to sleeping in my mailbox, waiting for my image from ???????

Bert from Holland

75671

BTW: I didn't send a Bromoil, Albumen or Salt print as I first intended since these were made with digital negatives. It had to be all analogue (film-develop-print).

anikin
10-18-2013, 10:07 AM
Thank you Bert for your update!



BTW: I didn't send a Bromoil, Albumen or Salt print as I first intended since these were made with digital negatives. It had to be all analogue (film-develop-print).

Actually, there is no requirement for all analogue: digital negatives are fine, as long as the original was taken with film. A note from the FAQ:
"Even contact prints made from the hybrid method (film-->PC-->acetate-->paper) is acceptable."

So, next time feel free to mail the Bromoil or Albumen. Actually, if you are going to an effort of making an alternative print, I would be willing to bend the rules and allow digital capture of the original. We'll just keep it secret amongst us, nobody else has to know. What do the other participants think?

Eugene.

Updated list:
SENT:
1 Katie (Katie)
2 Mark (Mark_S)
3 Marco (mesantacruz)
4 Mike (mjs)
5 Paul (paul_c5x4) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=73541&c=512)
6 Uwe (piu58)
7 Reed (semi-ambivalent)
8 Bert (TheToadMen)

RECEIVED:
1 Birger (BirgerA)
2 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
3 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Andrej (andreios)
3 Eugene (anikin)
4 Paul (ataim)
5 Nicolas (Dali)
6 Edward (Ed Bray)
7 John (JohnRichard)
8 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
9 Matt (MattKing)
10 Bob (megzdad81)
11 Greg (sage)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=70646)

Ed Bray
10-18-2013, 01:16 PM
My apologies, I have not been too well for some time and I am currently recouperating after surgery and am unable to spend any time in the darkroom at the moment. I am hoping to be able to be fit enough to get in the darkroom in the next week or so and will get my print out then.

I also apologise if I have missed a print sent to me, I had a great wadge of prints from various forums when I got back from hospital and have not felt well enough since to be able to sort them out. Again, I hope to be in a position to do this very soon.

StoneNYC
10-18-2013, 02:04 PM
My apologies, I have not been too well for some time and I am currently recouperating after surgery and am unable to spend any time in the darkroom at the moment. I am hoping to be able to be fit enough to get in the darkroom in the next week or so and will get my print out then.

I also apologise if I have missed a print sent to me, I had a great wadge of prints from various forums when I got back from hospital and have not felt well enough since to be able to sort them out. Again, I hope to be in a position to do this very soon.

Feel better, take your time


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC
10-18-2013, 02:13 PM
Thank you Bert for your update!



Actually, there is no requirement for all analogue: digital negatives are fine, as long as the original was taken with film. A note from the FAQ:
"Even contact prints made from the hybrid method (film-->PC-->acetate-->paper) is acceptable."

So, next time feel free to mail the Bromoil or Albumen. Actually, if you are going to an effort of making an alternative print, I would be willing to bend the rules and allow digital capture of the original. We'll just keep it secret amongst us, nobody else has to know. What do the other participants think?

Eugene.

Updated list:
SENT:
1 Katie (Katie)
2 Mark (Mark_S)
3 Marco (mesantacruz)
4 Mike (mjs)
5 Paul (paul_c5x4) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=73541&c=512)
6 Uwe (piu58)
7 Reed (semi-ambivalent)
8 Bert (TheToadMen)

RECEIVED:
1 Birger (BirgerA)
2 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
3 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Andrej (andreios)
3 Eugene (anikin)
4 Paul (ataim)
5 Nicolas (Dali)
6 Edward (Ed Bray)
7 John (JohnRichard)
8 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
9 Matt (MattKing)
10 Bob (megzdad81)
11 Greg (sage)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) Image (http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=70646)

My thoughts on that...

As much as I complain about stuff here being "strict" on film only and complaining about scanning, the capture and final product are both analog.

If you allow digital capture, I could simply take a snapshot with my cell phone, send it to Dwayne's photo as a JPEG file, they would print it on print paper with their light-jet chemical process and that would count as an acceptable print...

To me that doesn't exactly sound like something that should be acceptable

This was taken with my cell phone...

75681

So was this...

75682

You're opening the door to a workflow that is mostly digital.

I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...

Slippery slope...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Ken Nadvornick
10-18-2013, 03:51 PM
You're opening the door to a workflow that is mostly digital.

I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...

Slippery slope...

You have redeemed yourself...

:cool:

StoneNYC
10-18-2013, 04:26 PM
You have redeemed yourself...

:cool:

Haha!! And it took posting digital images to do so haha, ironic :)

It was honestly kind of fun, I never used the app to make that B&W "wet plate" image, but I was enjoying the garden when reading the forum and figured it was the perfect time to give it a try.

Not bad for a cell phone. But again I didn't control exposure or depth or anything but focus... It was "fun" to see it instantly, but not very satisfying as an artist...

On the flip side I took two 4x5 portraits of my cousin today while he visited from Seattle and that was very satisfying although I again forgot to adjust for the bellows extension, something that I still haven't seen to get used to, fortunately for me, I can still adjust and compensate slightly in the development process since I realized it after the fact :)

Film for the win!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

TheToadMen
10-18-2013, 04:35 PM
My thoughts on that...
As much as I complain about stuff here being "strict" on film only and complaining about scanning, the capture and final product are both analog.
If you allow digital capture, I could simply take a snapshot with my cell phone, send it to Dwayne's photo as a JPEG file, they would print it on print paper with their light-jet chemical process and that would count as an acceptable print...
To me that doesn't exactly sound like something that should be acceptable.
I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...
Slippery slope...

It was my dilemma too and I decided to play it safe. But then, it's getting harder to make analogue (larger) negatives for contact printing with alt-photo processes (from around 1900). So - if we are going to give some room for maneuvering - i would say that at least the original image must be analogue (negative or positive film) and the actual print must be analogue/chemical (not inkjet) made. If it is an alt-photo process with contact printing, it is allowed to make a scan of the film negative/positive and print a digital negative in the right size for contact printing. Doing this, the only digital manipulating is the applying of the special curve needed for this specific process - without further digital post processing the negative/positive itself. The inter-negative mat be printed with an inkjet printer.
If the original image was shot with any digital camera, it is not allowed.
How does this sounds?

StoneNYC
10-18-2013, 05:07 PM
It was my dilemma too and I decided to play it safe. But then, it's getting harder to make analogue (larger) negatives for contact printing with alt-photo processes (from around 1900). So - if we are going to give some room for maneuvering - i would say that at least the original image must be analogue (negative or positive film) and the actual print must be analogue/chemical (not inkjet) made. If it is an alt-photo process with contact printing, it is allowed to make a scan of the film negative/positive and print a digital negative in the right size for contact printing. Doing this, the only digital manipulating is the applying of the special curve needed for this specific process - without further digital post processing the negative/positive itself. The inter-negative mat be printed with an inkjet printer.
If the original image was shot with any digital camera, it is not allowed.
How does this sounds?

Sounds good to me, can we add slight exposure compensation adjustments for something that you would do in the dark anyway like if the negative is underexposed but you would be able to bring it up in a print or is does that leave room for things like dodging and burning to usually which are not okay if done in Photoshop, also what about dust spotting?

Honestly I just think that you should use your best judgment and try to go along with what would be acceptable.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

TheToadMen
10-19-2013, 04:29 AM
Sounds good to me, can we add slight exposure compensation adjustments for something that you would do in the dark anyway like if the negative is underexposed but you would be able to bring it up in a print or is does that leave room for things like dodging and burning to usually which are not okay if done in Photoshop, also what about dust spotting?

Honestly I just think that you should use your best judgment and try to go along with what would be acceptable.


Well, how much soap do you want on that slippery slope you mentioned ?? :p

I would rather say "no" to these things to avoid too much digital in the analogue process. One can always think of more small & harmless things to accept and in the end we'll get "I Robot" (the book, not the movie).
An old saying in The Netherlands goes: "Als er één schaap over de dam is, dan volgen er meer". :blink:

But seriously, I personally would like to us digital means only then when the analogue opponent isn't available anymore and it has no impact on the image itself. Any adjustments to/in the image itself should be done without digital aids. So no digital dust spotting, red eye reduction, colour adjustments, removing lamp posts, etc.
I don't want to be a hardliner, but would like keep the analogue photography as much analogue as possible - as my personal escape from the hectic digital world ... I live in the digital world, but I am not of the digital world.
And that's why I like APUG so much!!

StoneNYC
10-19-2013, 05:14 AM
Well, how much soap do you want on that slippery slope you mentioned ?? :p

I would rather say "no" to these things to avoid too much digital in the analogue process. One can always think of more small & harmless things to accept and in the end we'll get "I Robot" (the book, not the movie).
An old saying in The Netherlands goes: "Als er één schaap over de dam is, dan volgen er meer". :blink:

But seriously, I personally would like to us digital means only then when the analogue opponent isn't available anymore and it has no impact on the image itself. Any adjustments to/in the image itself should be done without digital aids. So no digital dust spotting, red eye reduction, colour adjustments, removing lamp posts, etc.
I don't want to be a hardliner, but would like keep the analogue photography as much analogue as possible - as my personal escape from the hectic digital world ... I live in the digital world, but I am not of the digital world.
And that's why I like APUG so much!!

So what about printing chromes? To match the chrome slide as much as possible, sometimes I have to make color adjustments because the scan I made's colors aren't correct, and I try and avoid dust but it happens in a scan, so I'm supposed to leave the dust there? As you said "when the chemical process isn't an option" so for me this is not an option as they don't make Cibichrome anymore and yes it "exists" but isn't financially an option for me (especially to give away).

So how do you feel about the image I scanned and sent to Dwayne's (after correcting the colors and dust spotting it in Adobe Ligjtroom (not exactly photoshop, it only let's you adjust darkroom type things).

Thoughts?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

MattKing
10-19-2013, 07:20 PM
I don't think Bert is saying that you shouldn't be able to adjust those things that are inadvertently added or changed by the scanning process (like dust from scanning or colour casts that weren't in the initial transparency).

And the brightness of the image on the screen needs to be set, just as screens and projectors need to be setup for projection.

What needs to be avoided is manipulation or enhancement that effectively changes the original.

TheToadMen
10-19-2013, 07:30 PM
I don't think Bert is saying that you shouldn't be able to adjust those things that are inadvertently added or changed by the scanning process (like dust from scanning or colour casts that weren't in the initial transparency).
And the brightness of the image on the screen needs to be set, just as screens and projectors need to be setup for projection.
What needs to be avoided is manipulation or enhancement that effectively changes the original.

+1