Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,766   Posts: 1,484,117   Online: 922
      
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 143
  1. #51
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,153
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Bray View Post
    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #52
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,153
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by anikin View Post
    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
    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
    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...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1382123320.792597.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	95.9 KB 
ID:	75681

    So was this...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1382123482.217616.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	87.1 KB 
ID:	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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #53
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,814
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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...

    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  4. #54
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,153
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    You have redeemed yourself...

    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #55
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    951
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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?
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * "So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you." (the original Willy Wonka: Gene Wilder, 1971)
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  6. #56
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,153
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by TheToadMen View Post
    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #57
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    951
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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 ??

    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".

    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!!
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * "So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you." (the original Willy Wonka: Gene Wilder, 1971)
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  8. #58
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,153
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by TheToadMen View Post
    Well, how much soap do you want on that slippery slope you mentioned ??

    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".

    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #59
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,589
    Images
    59
    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.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  10. #60
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    951
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    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
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * "So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you." (the original Willy Wonka: Gene Wilder, 1971)
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin