Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,530   Posts: 1,598,657   Online: 708
      
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 117
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,000
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    i usually PS the film to look like
    what i can do in the dark.
    invert and barely adjust levels + dust + crop
    i don't think i have ever sharpened anything but a pencil,
    certainly not anything that is posted here ...

  2. #42
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,307
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    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
    My point is that with the photograph post what was done with the scan, examples:
    negative scan that has been very minimally processed and shows its flaws, limitations, and the fact that one totally botched exposure/development

    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
    That way there are no mysteries.

    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.

  3. #43
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    My point is that with the photograph post what was done with the scan, examples:
    negative scan that has been very minimally processed and shows its flaws, limitations, and the fact that one totally botched exposure/development

    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
    That way there are no mysteries.

    Steve
    And that is fair enough Mr. Glass. Thank you!!
    Last edited by MaximusM3; 09-02-2010 at 09:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #44
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,479
    When you scan a negative to post, it, of course, will be a negative image. Any manipulation to emphasize the point in question is warranted.
    If you are pretending to make it into a print by inverting it then that is not any different than pretending to make wet plate or platinum prints with photoshop.
    If the digital scan is your finished product, then that isn't analog photography.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,007
    Images
    4
    If I wanted to scan a neg to make a print, I would scan a neg and do whatever I want with it (though "what I want" would be in line with what I could print in a darkroom for 90% of my applications; it is just my personal aesthetic preference). If I wanted to represent a print, I'd scan the print.

    I think "ethics" only come into play when you are telling people that the photo presented was exposed as seen by something that actually existed in front of your camera, but it is not. If you say that it is, then adding or removing elements from part of the final cropping of the image is unethical, IMHO.

    In other words, if I did any of that sort of manipulation, I'd not claim that this was what was in front of my camera lens, and I personally would call it an illustration made using a blend of photographic and drawing/painting techniques, not just a plain-ol' "photograph," which to me implies - if it does not plainly state - "straightness." I'd do the same if the manipulations were done using analog methods. I am not sure if I would differentiate between analog and digital manipulation. Probably not.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-03-2010 at 12:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #46
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    When you scan a negative to post, it, of course, will be a negative image. Any manipulation to emphasize the point in question is warranted.
    If you are pretending to make it into a print by inverting it then that is not any different than pretending to make wet plate or platinum prints with photoshop.
    If the digital scan is your finished product, then that isn't analog photography.
    I guess you have a valid point and one which brings me to again re-evaluate the notion that anyone who does not have the resources, time, space, to establish a traditional darkroom workflow, should just stop shooting film, hang it up and call it a day...or go digital. Am I correct?
    Maybe that's the problem and that's why film is a fringe. Can't have our cake and eat it too. I hear people complaining about dwindling sales of film and products being discontinued but then the purists keep on pooping on those who have a perfectly viable and honest hybrid workflow and who greatly contribute to film's staying power. There has to be some sort of compromise because I want to keep shooting film and I am not counting on us darkroom enthusiasts to keep the boat floating for ever.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,007
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    I guess you have a valid point and one which brings me to again re-evaluate the notion that anyone who does not have the resources, time, space, to establish a traditional darkroom workflow, should just stop shooting film, hang it up and call it a day...or go digital. Am I correct?
    Maybe that's the problem and that's why film is a fringe. Can't have our cake and eat it too. I hear people complaining about dwindling sales of film and products being discontinued but then the purists keep on pooping on those who have a perfectly viable and honest hybrid workflow and who greatly contribute to film's staying power. There has to be some sort of compromise because I want to keep shooting film and I am not counting on us darkroom enthusiasts to keep the boat floating for ever.
    Why would you have to stop using film? Just call it what it is: a hybrid analog/digital method of imaging. There is no shame in it except in misrepresenting it.

    Also, you must, in fact, have your cake in order to eat it...unless you're one-a them commies or sumthin'.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #48
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Why would you have to stop using film? Just call it what it is: a hybrid analog/digital method of imaging. There is no shame in it except in misrepresenting it.

    Also, you must, in fact, have your cake in order to eat it...unless you're one-a them commies or sumthin'.
    Oh, absolutely! I call it as it is..no shame in that and nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I just think it is counterproductive to consider "100% analog or nothing" the only way to go and then expect film to survive.
    As far as the cake, well, I guess it should be..keep the cake and eat it too?
    Damn, I'm tired..got to hit the sack!

  9. #49
    FiatluX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Scandinavia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    214
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Exactly my method and mottot too. I scan all my negatives as an untouched negative using Silverfast software and HDRi.
    Then I convert the file into 8-bit grayscale positive.
    I rotate and crop as necessary.
    I adjust tonality to make it look like a print would, to the best of my ability.
    I dust spot.
    I re-size.
    I sharpen.
    Thats more or less the same procedure that I use:
    HDRi greyscale
    Invert to positive
    Rotation
    Levels
    Dust spotting
    Smart sharpen with the "lens blur" setting
    Dodge and burn.

  10. #50
    yeknom02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    State College, PA, United States
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    5
    My process:
    - Scan the negative
    - Invert to positive
    - Remove dust (maybe)

    I imagine that I may be in the minority on APUG in that I'm young and therefore started with digital photography. Now that I do negative scans, I still have to keep my goal in mind of having my images seen by as many people as are willing to view them - best done over the internet. Therefore, the negative is 99% of my art, because I only scan and post it for everyone to see.

    I think any darkroom processes other than a straight print - for example, dodging and burning - are still "cheating" in a sense. Just more accepted because it's the way professionals like Ansel Adams (who I am beginning to admire more and more) did it, before computers and Photoshop. Photographers in the analogue age had opportunities to be artists both behind the camera and in the darkroom, whereas I only get to work with my camera.

    Now, to clarify, I don't think my method is any more "pure" than printing; instead, I'm just at more of a disadvantage because I can't tweak different parts of the negative other than Photoshop manipulation. This is because I'd risk getting labeled as a hack because I can't do anything further without a computer.

    All that being said, I'm now struggling to put together a darkroom to make silver prints, and I want to thank all the APUG-ers who have given me advice (or sold me stuff).
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST
    My Flickr Gallery

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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