View Poll Results: PLAYAHZ AND HAYTAHZ
- 133. You may not vote on this poll
Scanned prints only, no digtial manipulation other than sizing
Scanned prints only, potentially with some GLOBAL adjustments to contrast and levels
Scanned prints or negatives, no digital manipulation like spotting or local tweaking
Scanned prints or negatives, electronic tweaks okay but only if they'd be easy to duplicate in the wet darkroom
Scanned prints or negatives,, electronic tweaks okay but only if they could be duplicated by a skilled darkroom artist, e.g. Jerry Uelsmann
No big deal, images are images, but since it's APUG I expect that there must be SOME analog componenet to a pic, or I'm likely to put the poster on my ignore list
I like pitchurs and don't care how you got em
You pulled a fast one here Kevin...
Originally Posted by bjorke
Switch the argument from one that you can't win, to something which SOUNDS the same, but actually no one could fairly disagree with...
"Proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures" would be draconian, and totally unreasonable.
On the other hand defining the scope of the site, IS something that we can reasonably do. The site is run as a benevolent dictatorship, where Sean consults the community and then decides what is or isn't appropriate. If Sean decides that he doesn't want certain kinds of images on HIS (or our) site, then that's his (and our) fair choice.
We define the scope of the site as analouge photography. Rejecting digital posts is no more "Proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures" than a competition for oil paintings rejecting digital photographs.
I voted "Scanned prints or negatives,, electronic tweaks okay but only if they could be duplicated by a skilled darkroom artist, e.g. Jerry Uelsmann".
Not really my preference, but it's the closest one. I'd like to see all posts reflect a real-world analog print or transparency. If someone scans a neg to get the image online, then does 150 PS actions to it, I've got no problem as long as those actions are an effort to get the image to look like an existing print.
Now, of course, I regard this all completely separate from digital capture images that are posted where the subject not the image is the point of discussion, like pictures of a piece of equipment, a darkroom, or of two prints or negs side-by-side to show them in comparison.
"Scanned prints or negatives, electronic tweaks okay but only if they'd be easy to duplicate in the wet darkroom."
I just dislike that pink!
I scan from prints and negs for the purpose of showing on the internet; I don't ever print from files. Scanning always reduces sharpness and contrast, so I adjust those to match the print. If I scan negs I adjust those files in a similar manner, and burn, dodge, spot for dust like I would expect a finished print to look. I would much rather share prints in person only, but that seems geographically difficult.
I guess I'm a diagonal person.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In my case, I scan my negs and transparencies. The only adjustments I'll make is spotting dust and scratches and a slight global adjustment (levels or curves) in Photoslop... NOTHING ELSE! I don't even crop most of the time and I barely sharpen. When I shoot I try to make sure that there will be no adjustments made in the 'darkroom' whatsoever. I respect people who can work their magic in the darkroom, but for my own work I believe I should accomplish everything in the camera, not the print. Lately, due to the influence of APUG, I've been experimenting with film/developer combinations to achieve the look I want. I could quite easily adjust contrast in Photoslop but I feel that that goes against my philosophy and I'd rather accomplish that look prior to scanning. Because of my philosophy I feel scanning is not blasphemy to the Film Overlord. Also, I don't plan on my work being hung in a gallery, etc. The proper medium for me is the printed page, so scanning doesn't harm the integrity of my work.
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
I've been down this road and concluded that scanned prints are what I want to see, and with no manipulation except the least amount of unsharp mask that is possbile - just to clean up the scanner artifacts, and rendered in RGB (to include the cold/warm or toned quality).
B&W prints have a short tonal range so that they scan easily. The print is finished. It shows the photographer's intent.
I do not accept the rationalization that "everbody is going digital" because I don't care about everybody's work.
With respect, I suspect there is a subtext here that should be expolored. Mr. Bjorke, when you say "...making value judgements on peripheral issues like the name brands of materials", what _other_ peripheral issues are you considering? Choosing name brands as an argument is extremest. Posit a more likely specific, lest the argument become a Strawman.
Further, by placing pure joy on the left and persuasive machinations on the right, you have posited a "horizontal" argument; that's quite conflicting.
You also write, "At some point, a picture must be digital to appear on the site." which is true, but an irrationalization if one beieves that justifies all things digital.
Finally, "inquisitions on just whose and which pictures are "analog enough"" is an inquisition.
Enjoy or don't. If you want an All Things Go place, then you might try one of those Philosopohy of Photography forums (not APUG) which are so carefully correct that all they do is promote mediocrity.
I didn't vote in the poll.
I prefer prints from a wet darkroom, but I don't have space for one anymore.
For simplicity, these comments are oriented to Black & White, but with some work I could extend them to Colour too.
I look at scanning film, and using something like Photoshop and an inkjet or a web image, as being similar to darkroom printing. It involves taking an analogue image, and presenting it in as best a form as possible.
If you dodge or burn a print in a wet darkroom, you are manipulating it. If you darken or lighten parts of a digital image using software, you are also manipulating it. In each case, you are however maintaining the nature of the source - an analogue representation of various textures and levels of light.
The purely analogue techniques for creating final images - printing contact prints or enlarged images on light sensitive paper - are wonderful, and every effort should be made to support and foster them on this site. It seems to me, however, that if an image is first recorded on photographic film, then it is fundamentally an analogue process. If that image is eventually made available for public viewing through processes that involve some digital tools, then the image is not necessarily turned into something that is purely artificial ("un-analogue"?). It depends on the nature and extent of the digital manipulations used.
As I read through threads in forums on this site that concentrate on processes and paper choices and techniques, it strikes me how similar in spirit they are to some of the posts I read on other sites that deal with ink choices and paper choices and RIP's (??? - much of which I barely understand). In each case, they are focussed on the quality of the images, as seen in the prints.
I just browsed through a thread here that was focussed on photogravure. Although that process is clearly not digital, it also is very different from the more typical silver based analogue.
All of the above is a round-about way of saying that, in my mind, as long as photographic film is used to record the original image, and that "recording" is not later so distorted by digital manipulation as to render it unrecognizable, then it should not be considered totally unacceptable here that the final version of the image was brought either to the web or to paper (or I guess Duratrans) using digital tools as well.
I'm here to share the art and craft of "traditional" photography with others of like mind -- as far as is possible in this digital medium. To me, that means sharing scans of prints, allowing for adjustment of brightness and contrast to best simulate the range of the print (and spotting dust from scanning).
I don't think there is a whole lot of skill involved in developing film, so I don't think computer manipulated scans of negatives are "the same" as scans of prints.