Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,783   Online: 914
      
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117
  1. #31
    dehk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    W Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    882
    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.
    - Derek
    [ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]

  2. #32
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    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.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    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?"

    Me

  4. #34
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    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.

  5. #35
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,862
    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.
    Do you feel the same way about painting? Why or why not?

    If not, why is photography different that painting? Why is digital art different than painting?
    f/22 and be there.

  6. #36
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    723
    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.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    820
    When scanning slides, you definitely have a reference point however negatives require a whole lot of interpretation and that includes the scanner, scanning software and settings itself.

    For instance below is a scan of the same frame of Portra 160VC film with the Coolscan 5000 using the various settings in Vuescan and the included Portra 160VC profile as opposed to a full "neutral" setting using Nikonscan.



    Here's Kodak Ektar between the Coolscan and V700.


    Fuji 100 between Coolscan and Noritsu minilab


    Kodak 160VC2 using Coolscan and Frontier minilab.



    Having owned and operated quite a few scanners using native or third party software, this starting point is subject to a lot of interpretation depending on hardware and software used.

    BTW, the scans from the Coolscan+Nikonscan are all neutral using only orientation, auto focus/expose and ICE (dust and scratch removal) with all color controls off or neutral.

  8. #38
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,056
    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.

    Steve
    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.

  9. #39
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,630
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Scanning a 20x24" print has its challenges too...

    The option of photographing the print with a digital camera remains, assuming one has a digital camera.

    Vaughn, have you tried photographing the print with a digital camera? If yes, does that help with the texture?

    - Thomas
    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.

    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.

  10. #40
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    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.

    Steve
    Steve,

    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.

    Max

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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