As many people said before, your scan should look like what you'd print out in a darkroom. What if someone wants to buy a print, i am not gonna show them something that can't be done, thats shooting myself in the foot.
[ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]
My question and the use of the word "ethics" only applies for this forum and making an effort to participate with in the guidelines of the froum. If I want to shoot digital and really work it hard in PhotoShop or scan my film and do the same it is my choice and my decision as the photographer. My question only applies to this forum.
When I scan a negative I "over-scan" so that I am scanning the image plus some extra then I crop the ragged edges off of the positive at the correct camera ratio later to get a clean image. I will also freely admit that I will crop to paper size when I print, but I select the crop area. I straighten prints as well some times.
Yup, there all tricks, but there all tricks that can be done in the darkroom as well so I don't feel that guilty.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
Well, looking at this from Rolfe Horn, for example, how would one handle it in a perfect world? http://www.f45.com/html/comm/comindex.html - under the "technique" tab, second picture from the left/top.
Hard to tell from these small jpgs but the original negative looks like is totally blown out in the highlights, and I find it hard to tell that there is any information there and certainly not enough (again, that I can discern from here and I could certainly be 100% wrong) to get such a dramatic print. So, if one was to simply scan that negative, it would be utter crap because there is no way (unless with extensive Photoshop use and some creative cloning), one could get a print like the end result to the right. But, in this case, because it is done in analogue-world, it would be ethically correct to scan that print and say that it faithfully represents the negative? Just food for thought and nothing else.
Do you feel the same way about painting? Why or why not?
Where I do have a problem is where technology (whether it is digital or analog matters not) is used to create an image of something that actually didn't happen. Some of the more offensive images include a mountain landscape with a steam locomotive coming around a corner - supposedly from a place where there actually was no railroad. Yes, the image was pictorially nice - but it was a fabrication of something that was not real.
If not, why is photography different that painting? Why is digital art different than painting?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Oh, how I wish that people who scan negatives would show me what they scanned: a picture of the negative itself! After a few decades of darkroom work and maybe 30,000 negatives I reckon I can visualise all the possible positives any negative could yield. Plus I bet the membership of APUG includes several thousand people with similar or greater experience.
Remember, when Ansel Adams when to Paul Strand to look at photographs Strand had only negatives on hand. It was looking at those grand and perfect negatives that swerved Adams from the concert piano to his wonderful success in photography.
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.
So far when I post a negative scan, if it is related to a technical question, I only turn it into a positive and rarely if ever lighten or darken. If I do more than change it to a positive I so state. If the photograph is posted to discuss something other than the technical processing, I may do slightly more than turn it into a positive. General photo postings are not works of art [reduced size and resolution] and are there to make a point.
I have not posted anything in the Gallery. When I do, it will be from a wet processed print.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Yes, but I have access to a rather low-end digital cameras -- nothing fancy. A relatively old Panasonic 8 MP camera. A little heavy in the noise area. I have photographed a friend's watercolors and bash my head against the wall trying to match the monitor with the original. She uses the files to make cards to sell. I play with the lights a bit to avoid over-stating the texture of the paper. Not any different from what I did using 64T.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I can scan (flatbed) an 8x10 platinum/palladium print, but if has large areas of even tonality, it seems like the paper texture creates its own "noise". But the quality to post here is more than sufficient. But it only works because I have such a small camera!
I suppose the cool way to do it would be to rephotograph the bigger pieces with 120 film -- then scan the 120 film for use for any web stuff, small prints, record-keeping, etc.. B&W negative film for the B&W work, and transparencies for the color, I suppose. An analog back-up library, so to speak, for those with larger film/print sizes.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
That is a perfectly acceptable decision/choice but, from an ethic standpoint, as outlined in my previous post about Rolfe Horn's print, I would love someone's take on: why would it be more acceptable to present a scan of a wet print that does not remotely look like the original negative instead of a negative scan that has been very minimally processed and shows its flaws, limitations, and the fact that one totally botched exposure/development?
It sounds to me that a crappy negative that has been turned into gold (or fool's gold) by a fully analogue process is totally acceptable, whereas a perfect negative that has been scanned and minimally adjusted to represent a final print with some dodging, burning, contrast, brightness represents an ethic dilemma. I can sense a double standard that raises valid questions, in my opinion.