Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,753   Posts: 1,483,906   Online: 1160
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,468
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    ...not to mention discussed on DPUG instead of APUG. IMHO we really shouldn't be talking about films in relation to scanning here, and that includes using scans to judge the properties of a film. It's no real way to judge their properties as they pertain to analog printing methods. DPUG could really get rolling if the people who scan to print had their discussions there, and APUG would also benefit as a result. How many film problems posted here are indeterminable because of the variables associated with scanning?
    I disagree, this is Analog Photography User's Group, not Analog Printing User's Group. A scanner is a tool, it can tell me about the density range, colour and other properties of a film. It can tell you properties about the film, which is useful to us, it doesn't need to say jack about analog printing to be relevant here.

    Making recommendations to people on APUG that is based on doing analog printing (when they've asked about film, not paper and it's clear they don't do analog printing (same as vast majority)) is unethical, especially when some of the people asking have incorporated the film into their workflow in a commercial sense and the advice ends up bad when analog printing is assumed when the vast majority of cases analog printing isn't done. I have seen many people make recommendations on how to treat someone's film that are based on analog printing as their default response to someone who obviously isn't doing analog printing but using film without making that clear to them - even when this person was using film in a commercial and critical scenario - that is really dodgy and unethical and it is an ignorant attitude to take. It is more likely to drive film users away to digital.

    Almost all film is scanned before display including printing. You would therefore end up seeing all discussions end up on DPUG even though majority of the questions and things being discussed by people are analog issues.


    DPUG is not for any kind of analog discussion.

    Things like colour correction belong on APUG, I can tell someone an image needs to be corrected towards magenta more because it is green.

    Things like how to colour correct a scan belong on DPUG. However every member of APUG, is an ambassador of APUG. Make it a better place. We want to see more people on here trying film for the first time. Without making it too hard on them and telling them printing is the only way or to go away, etc. You want these people to be enthusiastic about it and tell all their friends and other budding photography peers.


    Anything that relates to the film side belongs on APUG, not DPUG. DPUG isn't a place for it, it merely has a niche scanning subsection (which isn't for stuff relating to film, but scanner/scanning talk, not film developer talk with an aside about scanning that wouldn't be enough to make it relevant to a digital forum) under a site that caters for digital photographer's needs - unnecessary the site should be closed down, there is a million and one other digital photography forums.



    Being helpful is a virtue. On the other hand telling people to go elsewhere to a place that doesn't meet their needs is just *effed* in the head. That's harming the community at large and going to be bad for film user population and film usage at large. Because I am certain one reason APUG is here is to provide a commuity of peers to support analog photography users (and not just analog photography users that are financially well off enough to afford the time, space, and equipment to also be analog printing users), so that growth can be achieved in the uptake of any analog photographic tools and materials. I'd prefer my favoured materials for photography to stick around rather than be an elitist p***k (I'm not pointing this at you btw) about how they're supposed to be used.
    Last edited by Athiril; 03-14-2011 at 02:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    I partly agree. I think the best action towards both film usage AND analog printing is to tell the benefits of analog printing and why film users should at least try it; without assuming it as a default, because it isn't (unfortunately).

    I can only say that analog color printing from negatives is both easy and rewarding. In many cases, it also saves from many complicated hard-to-debug things. Letting the commercial labs do the printing is like rolling dice, and scanning as another option seems to be too difficult for many people. But RA-4 printing is surprisingly straightforward. You'll never have surprising problems with grain. You'll always have the same standard curves and contrast that have been designed to look good. You won't normally have color crossover or "purity" problems; color balancing works without messing up the colors like most image editing software do. Etc.

    I do both and I have high level of theoretical and also practical information on scanning and digital image processing, but still (or that's why) I prefer the method that is designed to work by engineers that knew what they are doing.

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Athiril please drop it.

    You have been around long enough to know that discussing scans/scanning at APUG is a dead horse and bringing it up just breeds hate and discontent.

    DPUG is not anti analog, hybrid stuff belongs there. It is part of why it was started.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #24
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I disagree, this is Analog Photography User's Group, not Analog Printing User's Group. A scanner is a tool, it can tell me about the density range, colour and other properties of a film. It can tell you properties about the film, which is useful to us, it doesn't need to say jack about analog printing to be relevant here.

    Making recommendations to people on APUG that is based on doing analog printing (when they've asked about film, not paper and it's clear they don't do analog printing (same as vast majority)) is unethical, especially when some of the people asking have incorporated the film into their workflow in a commercial sense and the advice ends up bad when analog printing is assumed when the vast majority of cases analog printing isn't done. I have seen many people make recommendations on how to treat someone's film that are based on analog printing as their default response to someone who obviously isn't doing analog printing but using film without making that clear to them - even when this person was using film in a commercial and critical scenario - that is really dodgy and unethical and it is an ignorant attitude to take. It is more likely to drive film users away to digital.

    Almost all film is scanned before display including printing. You would therefore end up seeing all discussions end up on DPUG even though majority of the questions and things being discussed by people are analog issues.


    DPUG is not for any kind of analog discussion.

    Things like colour correction belong on APUG, I can tell someone an image needs to be corrected towards magenta more because it is green.

    Things like how to colour correct a scan belong on DPUG. However every member of APUG, is an ambassador of APUG. Make it a better place. We want to see more people on here trying film for the first time. Without making it too hard on them and telling them printing is the only way or to go away, etc. You want these people to be enthusiastic about it and tell all their friends and other budding photography peers.


    Anything that relates to the film side belongs on APUG, not DPUG. DPUG isn't a place for it, it merely has a niche scanning subsection (which isn't for stuff relating to film, but scanner/scanning talk, not film developer talk with an aside about scanning that wouldn't be enough to make it relevant to a digital forum) under a site that caters for digital photographer's needs - unnecessary the site should be closed down, there is a million and one other digital photography forums.



    Being helpful is a virtue. On the other hand telling people to go elsewhere to a place that doesn't meet their needs is just *effed* in the head. That's harming the community at large and going to be bad for film user population and film usage at large. Because I am certain one reason APUG is here is to provide a commuity of peers to support analog photography users (and not just analog photography users that are financially well off enough to afford the time, space, and equipment to also be analog printing users), so that growth can be achieved in the uptake of any analog photographic tools and materials. I'd prefer my favoured materials for photography to stick around rather than be an elitist p***k (I'm not pointing this at you btw) about how they're supposed to be used.
    Agree. All Athiril did was ID the elephant in the room. I shoot film, as much and as often as I can. My lab uses a hi-end scan/print line. They're experienced custom printers, whether optical or digital, and their work is superb.I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one here who uses such a service. Likewise, I don't get the dismissive snub about digital printing when the post was about film.
    Film shooters hereabouts can't have too many friends.

  5. #25
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Where did the idea that discussion of film is off limits at DPUG come from? That is just not true, and one can see that if they visit DPUG.

    It's really much more simple than this: 1) Almost everything discussed here can be discussed at DPUG (though for certain things, APUG will generally give better information). DPUG is simply for those using anything from 99% to 0% analog methods and materials. 2) But not everything discussed on DPUG can be discussed here. This site is only for 100% analog methods and materials.

    Kind of like, "All insects are bugs, but not all bugs are insects." And we have all known that since pre-school.

    My point was simply that if a scanner is being used to judge ones film, then the discussion is more suited to DPUG, as that site covers both digital and hybrid methods. Talking about scanning here, and using scanners and computers to make general statements about films muddies too many threads on this site and runs the risk of breeding misconceptions about analog materials.

    If this means that 90 percent of APUGers really should be posting on DPUG, so be it. Both sites would be improved IMO. But habits and routines die hard. Good luck getting that to happen.

    At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-14-2011 at 06:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #26
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Agree. All Athiril did was ID the elephant in the room. I shoot film, as much and as often as I can. My lab uses a hi-end scan/print line. They're experienced custom printers, whether optical or digital, and their work is superb.I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one here who uses such a service. Likewise, I don't get the dismissive snub about digital printing when the post was about film.
    Film shooters hereabouts can't have too many friends.
    CGW,

    I use a lab too. That's not the issue, because I don't need to know anything about scanning to get good work from a lab.

    APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. We are an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes.
    Scanners are nothing more than "specialized digital cameras" and they require a different set of skills outside APUG's scope.

    DPUG is perfect for film scanning questions.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #27
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    "At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP."

    You first!

  8. #28
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    "At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP."

    You first!
    I answered the OP before making any sort of point along these lines. Then, I wrote six paragraphs about the area in a non-inflammatory fashion, split between two posts on two separate days. This information does not support your opinion that I am pressing the issue to the point of uselessness and distraction. You, on the other hand, are just trying to cause trouble with that statement.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-14-2011 at 07:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #29
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    I answered the OP before making any sort of point along these lines. Then, I wrote six paragraphs about the area in a non-inflammatory fashion, split between two posts on two separate days. This information does not support your opinion that I am pressing the issue to the point of uselessness and distraction. You, on the other hand, are just trying to cause trouble with that statement.
    Right. Disagreement/criticism=causing trouble. OK...

  10. #30
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    I have no problems in underexposing or overexposing Ektar. It's a bit more contrasty than the Portra family, but still remarkably high in latitude. "Bleeding out" and "losing number of colors" is typical internet nonsense. What does those words mean anyway? First define the problems. Then check your workflow first if you have such problems. With today's color neg films, including Ektar, the film most probably has recorded the scene perfectly.

    I'm trying not to take your comments personally, but frankly it's hard because you're criticising my exact words. I find it unpleasant to be discarded out of hand so readily.

    All you need to do is do some bracketing tests for yourself. Don't just shoot a shot, look at the print, and say "that's fine" -- compare the box speed vs over exposures up to 2 to 3 stops of overexposure. You will see there is a very specific effect whereby the colors bleed out, aka leach out, aka fade out aka whatever the hell you want to call it. The color goes bye bye. It's not just desaturation.. it's rapid desaturation.

    I'm overall impressed with it as a film, but this is not something to ignore. If you want to say "I disagree" that's fine, but please refrain from calling me "internet nonsense" please. I've actually done some testing and the results match up with some other online bracketing results you can find and compare.

    As a matter of fact I'll find it for you. Here:
    http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2...film-test.html
    Edit: And another here that also concurs with loss of color and contrast:
    http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...2-2-stops.html
    /Edit

    So, with all due respect, the film is nice and I like the way it works, but it's not as perfect and forgiving as you suggest, and it's NOT a processing error. It's just one of the quirks of the film.

    At half the price of Portra, I'm willing to work around such flaws. Even manipulate such flaws to my advantage (intentional desaturation, etc).
    Last edited by Markster; 03-15-2011 at 01:30 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added second link
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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