| | | -
APUG is an analogue community before it's an alt process community. Personally I regret the hybrid separation but I also see the merits of simple, clear rules which everyone can understand. Ultimately, separation of hybrid is the settled will of the community and as such I accept it. There are more important things to worry about in life.
-
 Originally Posted by nsurit  It surprises me that a "troll" who took the side of digital in an analog vs digital war would find themselves in an alternative photographic processes discussion. Think about it.
Biill Barber Easy if the thread is listed as a New Post, you don't always notice what sub forum it's listed as being in.
What might be useful would be a small number articles (in that section on APUG) by a respected Member/Subscriber on Basic scanning for the Web, and for submitting to magazines etc, Making Digital negatives for Alternative processes, Copying prints (of all types) for the web etc (sometimes a camera copy is better than a scan). The articles would be closed to further posts, but have a link to the relevant section of the Hybrid Forum (for further discussion).
I think the Hybrid Forum uses a different database so closer integration isn't possible, but better cross linking would be helpful.
Ian
-
Originally Posted by Ken N Bill, I recon that between the two of us, if we wanted to wake up HybridPhoto we probably could. But the question is "do we want to?"
These forums are "communities". It is so frustrating that in the alt-process world that you can freely discuss 90% of everything involved, but should one person say "hey, I have this one negative with a scratch and I needed to digitize it for repair", but otherwise everything is still the alt-process the poor guy gets crucified for going off the reservation.
As a community, we discuss not only the technology and technique, but things related or sometime barely related to the technology and technique. This is one reason why the OM List is so blasted unique, because we'll as freely discuss our camera haulers as we do our cameras. Unfortunately, other online communities are rarely as free-form as the OM List.
I'm leary of mentioning the presence of my laptop in the darkroom. Talk about a bridge too far. Sometimes we are a bit "Amish" around here, but if that's the rules, I guess that's the rules. I think you are right: we should use the technique that is best suited for the job at hand.
On the other hand, in case of the scatched neg one could mention the possibility of doing a negative retouch, a technique that is more elaborate to do, but allso gives one the oportunity to stay within the "old" techniques.
"Use PhotoShop" for that is the magical thing now a day's into the absurd, I have heard that too often lately.
Oddly I have never heard of a digital negative that can be put into an enlarger to make a carbon print from a digital image.......
Shure, it would be hybrid, but still it could be a part of the old process renewed.
Peter
-
 
Originally Posted by nsurit I would assert that many, if not most. folks doing alternative processes, processes that that date back to the beginning of photography, use negatives that have been created by scanning a negative and enlarging it. There are some who use large format cameras and contact print from a negative, however these are certainly in the minority. \
Bill Barber What evidence are you basing this statement on? The majority of photographers I know who print using alternative processes work from in-camera negatives. In the college where I teach our photography students use 4x5 cameras to make original negatives for our handmade photography course and discussion on negative making for handmade processes here and on the large format forum suggest that many, many photographers are using large format cameras to make negatives specifically so they can explore platinum, cyanotype, kalitype and albumen printing processes etc. I am no doubt a bit biased, but if I want to make a 12x20 palladium print I am going to use a camera and film as part of the process to accomplish it.
-
I agree with you, every student in photography should learn how to work with a TC, it is the most versitile camera there is.
I have learned more about camera-technique with the TC than any other camera I have.
Peter
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Gary, My statement is simply a reflection of my limited experience. It may not reflect the real world, although I suspect that there are many more folks enlarging smaller negatives than those using a 12 X 20 camera. Most of my recent alt. process work has been 6 1/2' square prints made from enlarged 2 1/4 square negatives. I have done some from 4X5 negatives however that is not the format in which I normally work. Regardless of the film format from which my negative originated I've enjoyed working in alternative processes. I've worked from original negatives and also from enlarged ones. I big advantage I see from working with an enlarged negative, other than the obvious of its giving a larger image, is I don't have to worry about the possible damage to my original. I've discovered several ways to damage them. As you know, most alt process work does not have to be done in a darkroom. Non-analog enlargement of ones negatives opens this type of old process photography to those who don't have the luxury of a darkroom and/or a large/ultra large format camera. Kind of makes it available to everyone with an interest in learning a new old way of doing things. Bill Barber
-
The only complaint I have about the APUG vs. hybridphoto dichotomy is that it should be easier to refer users back and forth between threads on the respective sites.
Matt
-
Bill. There's no doubting that digital negatives offer people new ways to work; much the same as digital cameras offer people new ways to work. But APUG is analogue not digital.
-
Amen, brother. They always seem to have trouble finding the woodshed. Bill Barber
-
Ian, "Uncle." There I said it. I recognise a "no possibility" conversation when I see one. I do wonder why negative scans are allowed by those who wish to keep the water pure. Bill Barber
| |
Adv Reply
