Just adding my thoughts on the general topic:
Aren't we really image makers using the medium of photography? The true original is the negative or transparency. We make a print to share our vision with others and the the method which can vary should not be misrepresented. Ansel Adams used the technology that was available at the time and manipulated as he saw fit to produce a print of the highest quality. He also had assistants who printed for him under his supervision and to his standards as did other iconic photographers who perhaps never really printed their own negatives. I suspect that if he was alive today, he would dabble with digital. Both Adams and E. Weston even used color film and Adams didn't only use large format.
So it's fine to discuss "purity" but I feel it is the end product that counts.
The ethics questions only arise:
1) if one employs the digital manipulation techniques available and then misrepresent the result; or
2) only in the context of uploads to APUG, one employs digital manipulation techniques that are outside of the more restrictive requirements of APUG.
The phrase I like to use is that one is only permitted to use those digital tools that emulate the tools that one is required to use when one prints in the darkroom (e.g. crop, adjust density, adjust contrast and, for colour materials, adjust colour balance).
I'll forgive a little bit of dodging and burning.
And as for dust removal - I'm a an analogue heretic - the clone tool is wonderful!
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
last i heard and read ( even in this thread )
is does not go against " code " to scan or post
negative scans in color or b/w for inversion
minimal PS and display in the gallery ..
I really don't mind that photographers scan their "finished works" (prints or chromes, etc) and present them as digital images for viewing and comments. But, I do take issue with the scanning of negatives and the digital manipulation that goes into creating an image that supposedly represents a photograph that doesn't exist. This is actually the only reason I don't look in the gallery here, because at one point I counted over 50% of the images that I was viewing were digital manipulations created from negative scans. And of course, I too have participated in the "negative scan trap". It's just too easy not to do it. I think that it would be in the best interest of any traditional photography online gallery to only allow digital images of "finished works". Especially a gallery that prides itself in being "mostly traditional".
Imagine an online gallery for oil paintings. Half the images in the gallery are of "completed" oil paintings. The other half were made from taking digital photographs of the preliminary drawings on canvas, followed by filling in the drawings with color using a computer graphics program. That might sound a bit silly, but that's generally how I view the gallery here.
Last edited by anon12345; 09-03-2010 at 03:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Removed offending langauge.
Yeah, that does sound a bit silly. Whatever people upload to the gallery, you have to take their word for it being an essentially analog product. There is no way around that, because the APUG Police don't have the resources to visit members' homes and make sure that nobody is using Unauthorised Technology.
Originally Posted by Cesaraugusta
The APUG gallery is a forum for people to display what they are doing with analog photography. What they upload might be for the purpose of showing compositional ideas, process experimentation, finished products, or anything in between. Sometimes what they post is purely to show where they went on the weekend, which they captured on film.
Clearly, not everyone treats the APUG gallery as some kind of showroom for finished fine art products, so why insist on viewing it that way?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I thought this would be a simple question with only a few responses!!!
So I shoot a negative, process it and end up with a perfect silver print just as I´ve envisioned it.. Then I want to show it in here and I scan it..
It then comes out of the scanner a bit well dullish crap scannerish like so I correct it to represent the original positive print as close as possible using levels, sharpening, dodge/burn and what not..
Does that make this particular image and process unethically digital?
I think the answer is no. This is acceptable. The general consensus seems to be as long as you do not "create" in the computer what is not in the negative or the print.
No, it does not.
Originally Posted by FiatluX
If so, i'd say showing anything at all on a computer screen is.
It doesn't become unethical either when you don't scan the print (flatbeds can only scan up to a limited, small size). but the negative itself.
I would do as much as is required to produce a pleasing picture with the effect that it would have had I done it on paper. Sharpening is a feature that is often required in some measure as a result of the scanning process. It is not un-natural in the context, and is in any case the digital implementation of the well established unsharp mask process that has been employed in silver printing at the enlarger for three quarters of a century. Whilst understanding the rationale of the original question, one should be cautious of being a tad too moralistic here in how it's addressed.