the re-appearance of an old chestnut
forgive me for starting yet another "damn the digi" thread but I felt I needed to get this in the open for discussion again with new members joining & posting everyday.
There has been a rash of posting in the galleries from colour film shots scanned and desaturated/ converted into mono pictures. I thought that in previous threads it was generally felt that this was against the accepted purpose of APUG?
I am not adversed to the use of some digi techniques as part of a hybrid process, but I never discuss the technical details of this on APUG as it is not the place to do so. I am not adversed to a neg scan submitted for critcism as part of the process when working towards a final print, or a transparency scan as a "postable" version of the photographic image ... but i do find a posting described as being a "scan of a colour transparency then converted to mono in photoshop" as being irrelevant here within my understanding of APUG.
Am I just Mr V. Irritible-and-Picky this morning, or do others agree with me?
Yes and yes!
Originally Posted by Leon
If I remember the previous posts correctly (and me old grey cells are getting greyer), I think the general concensus was that as long as the original picture was analogue then it was acceptable. The proviso was that it wasn't altered other than saturation, levels and sharpening (the last two due to scanners).
As for my own opinion if I see it's a colour convertion then I either pass by or leave a comment saying how easy it is to process film at the kitchen sink.
Your being "Mr V. Irritible-and-Picky this morning" as if LOL - just jesting
Desaturation is definatley straying into "manipulation" territory.
The only point in posting images here is to show a representation of a real artifact. I'm fine with neg scans provided they're intended to show the negative. Roughly setting brightness and contrast is only reasonable - though I don't see any point in getting hung up on it. Digitaly dodging and burning a scanned neg to make it look like a theoretical print, is missleading, and far more constructivly done in a darkroom.
Desaturating isn't showing anything analouge - they're not showing the negative, but a digital image derived from it. I'm not going to get too upset about it, but it's a slippery slope.
And to head of any escalation: I'm not putting this forward as a moral or ethical consideration - this is not digital intollerance. I'm quite happy for anyone to manipulate images digitally, or traditionally to represent anything their artistic vision requires. I'm just sugguesting that this isn't the place for it.
Perhaps a gallery of images from film, which have undergone a digital manipulation in some manner other than scanning and sharpening, would be in order? But again, it is a slippery slope, isn't it? It does seem to be heading in the direction of digital at that point, so why bother in the first place? I just don't know.
Scanning is a digital process, but it is necessary for a post to the galleries. A scan of a negative, which is then flipped seems ok, but it seems to me there should be a disclaimer involved in every case so there is no misunderstanding. I will continue to post scans of prints, with only enough enhancement to render a proper image, which are true to the print. This seems only correct for an analog format rendered in digital form.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think that brightness and contrast settings are ok to adjust a scan to look like the print that is scanned. If it is a neg scan, then I think it is ok to adjust the same parameters to make the scan look like the potential print.
Conversion from colour to B&W is over the line, as the digital work is a too large part of the work.
Cropping is ALWAYS OK.
I'm inclined to draw a line at desaturation of color images, even if they are shot on film. While I don't object to neg scans where the goal is to try to match the print as best one can on a computer screen, desaturation is by comparison quite a ways away from printing a color neg on Panalure or shooting a B&W dupe of a color transparency, and somehow, I suspect that those who are posting desaturated color images don't have a traditional print as the final goal.
Of course one could start from a color transparency or even a digital image and produce a digital neg for alt process printing, but I suspect that the alt process folks will want to use a print scan and not the intermediate neg scan, because the focus in alt processing is really on the look and texture of the print.
Hate to say it (and we might already have one that I missed) but do we need a set of guidelines showing what is and what isn't allowed? With the increasing number of new members there can only be more physical (even with the same percentage) postings that do not comply with the spirit of analog.
Grumpy or not Leon (I mean, hey it's the beginning of a work week- enough to be grumpy about), I agree 100%. In fact, have noticed the same thing and it is my PERSONAL opinion that unless we continue to make note of these -via comments or threads, they will become considered the norm - NOT A GOOD Thing in my mind.
This is not to start the same old debate over, it is just we should either post an image that is as close to the original without using all of the digi-tools. There are way too many excellent prints that show up here THAT WERE NOT manipulated.
Rant over, cup of coffee #2 almost finished, at work