Scanning ethics ????

[urbantarzan]

As a minimum: black point has to be defined in the scan, then you correct for magenta/ other color casts and finally saturation. A sligt contrast and curves may be needed. Scans may need a little sharpening, but sharpening more than a few points tends to accentuate grain. If you need to manipulate more than that, you might as well have shot in digital format.

[stradibarrius]

My feelings are like what most of you have expressed. If I do it by a traditional method then it is ok. The challenge and fun of ME is trying to get it right in the camera so that it is easy to print.
For me personally, making the shot something that it is not through digital manipulation is not the way I want to achieve my results.

[MaximusM3]

My feelings are like what most of you have expressed. If I do it by a traditional method then it is ok. The challenge and fun of ME is trying to get it right in the camera so that it is easy to print.
For me personally, making the shot something that it is not through digital manipulation is not the way I want to achieve my results.

Absolutely!

[Andrew Horodysky]

This is a good, and valid discussion, for this forum. I'm in the middle of developing a batch of film, which I'll scan (selected frames), to subsequently display in the gallery, here.

And, I too, am under the determined impression that one shouldn't manipulate "straight" imagery outside the limits of what a finished print is intended to look -- in other words, basic techniques employed in a wet darkroom.

[BetterSense]

I don't think you should scan the negative, digitally manipulate it, and then say that it represents the print. I think that you should scan the print, or even rephotograph it with a digital camera. Unless the negative is your actual art object, but I always thought they looked weird, what with the sun all black and everyone with white pupils.

[Colin Corneau]

Half the time, I scan in a print I've made...matching it to the scan is then fairly easy and straightforward.

[WetMogwai]

Whatever it takes to make the image come out the way you want it. Why limit yourself? I do as little digital manipulation as possible because I don't like to work on my computer, but if I need to do something, I will. I don't see it as an ethical question unless you are somehow required to do no digital manipulation. Then none is acceptable. If it is your project, do what you need to do.

[JBrunner]

The "rule" for APUG is to match the physical print or transparency as closely as possible with the display. Negative scans should be mostly un-manipulated except for some sharpening/contrast/brightness/CC adjustments. "Finishing" a neg scan in PS for display in the APUG gallery goes a bit against the spirit of things. For a non-APUG application, whatever floats your boat.

This kind of discussion is allowed on APUG, as it relates directly to scanning for the APUG portfolios and galleries, and as long as it doesn't grow to exceed the scope of the OP.

[MaximusM3]

I don't think you should scan the negative, digitally manipulate it, and then say that it represents the print. I think that you should scan the print, or even rephotograph it with a digital camera. Unless the negative is your actual art object, but I always thought they looked weird, what with the sun all black and everyone with white pupils.

I would say that if one were to do that exclusively, the gallery would be a pretty empty place. Let's face it, not every negative is worth printing and I'm sure darkroom time, for the few professionals aside, is at a major premium for most of us mere mortals.

[MaximusM3]

The "rule" for APUG is to match the physical print or transparency as closely as possible with the display. Negative scans should be mostly un-manipulated except for some sharpening/contrast/brightness/CC adjustments. "Finishing" a neg scan in PS for display in the APUG gallery goes a bit against the spirit of things. For a non-APUG application, whatever floats your boat.

This kind of discussion is allowed on APUG, as it relates directly to scanning for the APUG portfolios and galleries, and as long as it doesn't grow to exceed the scope of the OP.

Thanks, Jason! Sounds very clear and straightforward.