Well, you are doing a hybrid process. But I think it is valid to show APUG your neg scans if you wish, provided you make it clear that they are neg scans and provided you don't go beyond the sort of basic interventions mentioned by others above. People viewing them can then take account of the fact that some basic things (that are perfectly possible in a darkroom) are easier with a computer. That's my view anyway, Erik.
Originally Posted by Erik Petersson
Thanks for encouraging me to post, Ian. I will probably do that, as soon as I am done making a small exhibition here in Stockholm (my first by the way and I am very excited!)
Originally Posted by iandavid
Last edited by Erik Petersson; 09-07-2010 at 03:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I find it a little ironic that the cost of adding room enough for a dark room to an apartment in my part of the city roughly equals the cost of buying a high end professional scanner!
Originally Posted by Cesaraugusta
Cesaraugusta, I know that you and others are annoyed by scanned negatives on APUG. This is why I am reluctant to post. Still I would like to, as I really respect the knowlegde and taste of many of you. I would really like to discuss composition, choice of subject-matter and other such things, and hybridphoto is not as good a place for that. Well, maybe I should try to find photographer friends here in Stockholm instead...
Reality is what it is! Everyone at this forum takes analogue photos. The cost and space required to process film is within the reach of all of us. I go into an upstairs bathroom and place a towel at the bottom of the the door to load my film into the tank. But a darkroom is something all together different. Some people only have one bathroom and it is in daily use, so trying to set up a make shift darkroom there is not practical. but it is possible for them to find enough space to place a printer and scanner. It is just the way things are today.
Does that mean if you don't have space/money to furnish and make a darkroom that you should not enjoy the world of analogue photography? NO!!! If your views are so pure then you, whoever that may be, should not really be here because the very way we are communicating is DIGITAL!!!
For people like Erik and many others here it is not possible to set up a darkroom.
When I asked the question originally I just wanted to know some basic guide lines. I think we all agree that the spirit of APUG is analogue and we should not do anything to a digital print that we could not do in a wet darkroom. Why can't it be that simple??? If you cheat and stack layers and do all types of digital "stuff" that can't be done in a darkroom you "may have fooled the rest of us. One of the things I love about thiss forum more than all the others is that the people who are regulars all seem to have the same basic approach. We love film and we want to take great photos and hopefully learn and improve our skill level. I haven't seen any real serious violations of the basic rules here on the forum.
I am surprised that this question has drawn so much attention and so many responses. Then again maybe it shows that this community is honest.
When I originally ask the question
I think this question has been up before, and I don't wish to violate what has been agreed. Anyway, thanks Stradibarrius for what you wrote.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Erik Petersson
you should not hesitate at all to post your work.
at least once a year people raise this issue, it is OLD NEWS.
for years people have tried ( unsuccessfully ) to
ban film scans from the gallery. as long as you do not go overboard
it is allowed ... the people who do not like "film scans" don't need to
look or comment on your work, if it matters that much to them
that your posts are not "pure" ..
i would not worry what a few people say / think ... just post your work.
You see, that is wrong and you should not feel that way. This community exists because of digital advances and that it facilitates communication and sharing of our work. Like I've said before, scanning doesn't stop anyone from getting a crappy darkroom print, scan it, fix it in PS and share it. Let's get real.
Originally Posted by Erik Petersson
If anyone was to abandon analog photography because one can't afford or don't have the time/space for darkroom printing, film would have been dead already and all the ultra-purists would have something else to complaint about.
You know what? I put my money where my mouth is...this year, so far, I have spent $3,000+++ on film and probably another $5-10K on cameras and lenses. I use it, I consume it, and I do not have a darkroom. I think film has a better chance at surviving by marrying with a little digital output than counting on a few hardcore supporters to get youngsters into a darkroom (which is not going to happen in any meaningful number).
Like John Nanian said, you should share your work and look for advice and, if someone isn't willing to give a look and comment on your images because they are from a scanned negative, well, that is sad.
Max you make an excellent point about the marriage of the technologies and it's positive effect on the life of film!
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
Thanks! I am being realistic and also know for a fact the positive effects of this marriage. I occasionally write film articles for another website and the feedback has been nothing but positive. Today I have received a wonderful compliment/comment from a reader who resides in the UK and he is 70 years old. My article spurred him to go back to film and buy a Leica M3, along with an M9 to enjoy a bit of the best of both worlds. It is doubtful that he will get back in the darkroom but he'll be out buying film and keeping the flame alive. I would like to quote his writing, word for word, and I can make many more examples such as this, over the last year.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
"Dear Max: When I was an undergraduate at a Uni in the UK in the early 1960′s, I bought (on “Hire Purchase” of course) a brand-new Rolleiflex 2.8 F with a 80mm Zeiss Planar Lens for the then princely of 56 Pounds Sterling. It was a beaut!!! So very precisely made. A richly endowed English Uni-mate had an M3 with many lenses which his parents had given him as a Birthday present!!!. The M3 was so very nice as well and my friend let me use it, but I would never admit it was better than my Rollei. Now, almost 50 years on, with more money in my pocket I am going to buy both an M9 and the best M3 I can get hold of. Your wonderful article has inspired me to get the M3. (I was a Darkroom Freak from age 12 or 13). Now I am hitting 70. But still a lousy photographer, unlike you. Your pictures are as great as your article. Thanks alot Max for for this encouragement."
I frankly feel that film has a much better chance of survival if "little" people like me would spread the gospel instead of the few hardcore purists who spit on everything that didn't come, unadulterated, out of the darkroom.
My original comments are on page six of this forum so I won't repeat. I haven't placed any images in the gallery but I do have an APUG portfolio. If I make photographs to be viewed on the web they are and would be from scanned negatives because I rarely print on paper smaller than 11x14 so they would not fit on my scanner and I find that the pt/pd prints don't scan accurately and most of those are also on 11x14 paper. I do use PS as I would print in the darkroom and see it as another medium and represent them as such. I see nothing wrong with presenting scanned negatives in APUG but it is appropriate to mention that is what was done.
To me film is the best of both worlds since it can be printed in a traditional darkroom or scanned for digital prints. Personally I use B&W medium and large format film, medium format color for personal family photos. My kids gave me a very nice DSLR for family photos so they wouldn't be bothered with having to take film in.
I expect film to be around for a long time there are still plenty of users but (just in case) I always keep an ample supply on hand as well as paper too.