Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,851   Posts: 1,582,868   Online: 923
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,881
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Nah, not relying on a computer in an age where everyone else does is what makes me happy, and if I am happy, I am going to make my best art, especially when selling prints is my career. I have a strict internal policy against digital and my darkroom, it just works.

    I like seeing talent raw, not cooked.

    i think there is something to be said for this.
    i don't use a comp when i am in my dr either
    but i don't think it is cheating to use one.
    i see it a little different between raw and cooked
    instead i see it like using extracts to make beer
    or grains AND extracts or all grain.

    all are able to make delicious beverages.
    it is just personal preferences.
    and it is good to see some people using all grains
    when making homebrew. i like using a combination ....

  2. #52
    Regular Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    573
    Surely there can be no such thing as cheating when we are seeking to create an image? Are we not in danger of wearing our analogue credentials as some kind of scout badge? We use photography to express ourselves in our images. Working with analogue tools suits us or we wouldn't be on this forum, but if a photographer chooses to manipulate their images with an addition of some digital techniques that doesn't make them a cheat, neither does it make them, or their work, inferior...


    RR

  3. #53
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I dunno...people should do whatever pleases them but I wouldn't do this. An imperfect analogy would be a painter projecting a paint-by-numbers template onto a canvas and filling in the colors with a brush and calling it "painting."
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  4. #54
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I mean, why not just Photoshop a perfected digital negative and contact print it and call it analog. Technically, it is. It has no more of an intermediate digital step between negative and silver print than does what's being described here. Why use a negative in an enlarger at all? Where is the line one doesn't cross.

    I watched a video on platinum printing last night and it was done just exactly as I describe above.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Then why don't we just keep the thread focused on analog selective masking (which is what we've been discussing anyway). It can be a useful thing to have in one's toolbox of skills/techniques. It doesn't have to be complicated either. It's just a tool to help you burn and dodge a difficult negative where it might otherwise not be possible with only two hands, a kind of intermediate between standard burn/dodge techniques and silver masking. I agree inkjet masks (which also involve scanning etc.) are off topic for APUG.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    272
    yes, please continue the analog masking talk! I'm new to printing and find this very interesting. Yes digital is everything wrong with the world...blabbity blabbity blah....lets not beat the dead horse thats been dead for quite some time.


    Soooo...I shoot 6X7 and sometimes 35mm. No LF yet. What would be the best way for me to go about doing some of these selective masking techniques? Film plane or paper plane? I'd imagine at the paper it may be easier as I'm working with a larger image. I have a Beseler 23C II with the VC head, so that should work should I decide to do it at the film plane. I do not have a glass carrier though. Any thoughts?

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    806
    Ctein and Barry Thornton have both written some pretty good guides to masking in their books.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,802
    Film masking should always be done with sheet film. For 6x7 use you'd want 4x5 TMX100 exposed by contact with a 5-mil frosted mylar sheet
    in between. For developer, highly diluted HC-110 works best. I won't go into details here. But then somehow you have to register the images
    together for printing, and then tape them together with dimensionally-stable mylar tape. 35mm is a little easier to visually register over a light
    box using the sprocket holes. But the idea is to learn the basics, and then if you want to get serious, buy a film punch and matching register
    contact frame. You don't need register pins in the carrier because the mask will be taped in register to the original neg to begin with. And you don't need scan & PS controls to do even advanced masking. That's a huge myth. But if that's what you like, there are suitable forums for that too. But I must stress that at this point in history, TMX has the best properties for small format masking, esp once you go advanced.
    For large format film FP4 also does a good job, but is a tad too grainy too be ideal with 35mm or roll film negs. (Yeah, yeah... I can anticipate
    all the calculator-crowd arguments to this remark, but I've thoroughly tested all the reasonable options, so save yourself a headache).

  9. #59
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    752
    There is deep technical knowledge in techniques of masking intermediate photographs to produce final photographs but there hasn't been a parallel effort in unpacking the conceptual challenges.

    Photographs can be usefully classified as primary photographs, secondary photographs, tertiary photographs and so on. A primary photograph is camera-original material that has absorbed light from the original subject. A secondary photograph is a photograph of that primary photograph...and so on. The idea that taking photographs of photographs is "printing" tends to make people blind to what is actually going on. Photography is making pictures out of light sensitive substances while printing includes a broad range of processes that make pictures by laying down ordered marks. That prints can be contrived to resemble photographs does not negate the principle that "different" is not "the same".

    In common practice the primary photograph is a film negative and secondary photography is performed using photographic emulsion coated on paper rather than film base. A secondary photograph will treat the primary photograph as subject matter. But it also can include blurry images of additional subject matter for example the photograph-maker's hands, a burning card, a dodging wand, and perhaps a mask. Even if the mask is electronically produced the final result remains a photograph. But the introduction of a digitally contived element does imbue a photograph with a quality I call "The Curse of The Hidden Pixel".

    The "curse of the hidden pixel" is fatal to an expectation that a photograph is causally linked to material reality by chemical and physical processes. If no such expectation is entertained there is no problem. Pragmatically though I reckon hidden pixels are incorporated in photographs as often to deceive as to entertain. And I can't refrain from absolute contempt for an art where success is equated with successful deception.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  10. #60
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,636
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    In common practice the primary photograph is a film negative and secondary photography is performed using photographic emulsion coated on paper rather than film base.
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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