Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,524,036   Online: 891
      
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,554
    Stone - keep posting your scans. Everyone else does it. I wish people posted more print scans to the gallery instead of negative scans, but even people making darkroom prints sometimes seem to prefer posting scans of the negative to the gallery. Perhaps they find it easier to get a half decent quality representation from a negative scan than a print scan. Don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Ok ok, I won't convert it.

    I don't have access nor the knowledge to print optically.

    Also this is a chrome, so NO ONE can't print this optically...

    I also don't have the skills or knowledge to copy the image.

    The only thing I do is shoot and then develop in my sink. I don't have a darkroom nor anywhere I can make a dark room in my home (I'm not allowed as its not my home).



    If someone wants a print, I take the scanned file to a printer and they print it for me. I don't know anyone who owns an enlarger nor any photo labs that still print optically, I do my best to use labs that print with true print paper of course.

    This is disclosed ahead of purchase of course.

    I love APUG but if I only scanned prints that were made entirely traditional, I wouldn't have any prints to show.

    I respect the reason for the "traditional" idea, but I don't think it's fair to be excluded from a community just because I don't have access to something. I'm not harming anyone and I don't discuss non traditional stuff. I was told it was OK to upload scanned negatives so long as they weren't photoshopped. I may do some slight tone adjustment to match the negative when the scanners auto setting picks the wrong mid point, and sometimes i get rid of dust particles. but that's it.

    Am I wrong about this too?



    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #12
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Also this is a chrome, so NO ONE can't print this optically...

    ~Stone
    Horrendous grammar aside, that's not true at all. There may no longer be commercial labs in NYC that will print optically from slides, but the materials are out there to make direct prints from transparencies. It's called Ilfochrome, which can be processed in P3 chemistry.

  3. #13
    bvy
    bvy is online now

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    804
    Images
    33
    I must have missed the part where you were excluded. There's no shorage of negative scans in the galleries.

    If I see a black and white image at APUG, I take comfort in knowing that I'm looking at either a black and white print or black and white film. Anyone can flip a switch in Photoshop. That's not what this site is about. That's what makes it special.

    Anyway, don't take it personally. There's something for everyone here.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,917
    Stone,

    The rules were here before you joined APUG. It isn't put in place to neither exclude you or include you. Here's what it says:

    Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally such as converting color images to black and white...


    It specifically excludes what you are proposing to do. How about this? Put your slide on a light table. Shoot it with B&W using a macro lens. Then scan THAT. Since the "manipulation" is done in analog fashion, and film scan is allowed, you will be able to post your image.

    I have done this myself from B&W negative to B&W positive-negative. It is easy and works very well. I even have an image posted on gallery using this method.

    Try it.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  5. #15
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    As to what Michael was referring to: I also find it difficult to get proper reproduction of print quality in the gallery with a print scan, so I will sometimes scan the neg and manipulate it as close as possible to the print. I think that's fairly common and acceptable.
    K.S. Klain

  6. #16
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    241
    I agree with others: even though I think your black and white manipulation is nice, I think the blue print adds an interesting and distinctive element. Sometimes things happen. Sometimes they are bad and other times they are good. This is good. Embrace it.


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

  7. #17
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,572
    With an average of 9 posts per day, are you really being excluded?
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,175
    Images
    291
    If you wanted to print a slide optically, there are alternatives. Just thinking about some of the things that used to be done before digital became prominent.
    You could project your slide onto panchromatic sheet film, for example. Or use a slide duplicator and photograph the slide with b&w film. Or use a macro lens and photograph the slide when it's back-lit, using b&w film.

    I also agree with what Blansky said - chalk it up to learning experience.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    918
    Has more of a beguiling quality in blue. Pretty lifeless in black and white, to be brutally honest.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  10. #20
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    These kinds of discussions occur ever so often, below is what Sean said re a similar thread:



    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    It is simple really. There isn't a single thing I could do to please everyone when it comes to this issue. I could add some digital and there would be fallout, I could continue to adhere to the charter and there will be some fallout. I had a lot of concern over this in the past, sleepless nights trying to figure out how to please all parties involved in this debate and keep APUG to my vision, and it almost drove me mad. I made the decision years ago to adhere to APUG maintaining a narrow focused scope and drawing a specific line (see the charter on the home page). This did wonders for me and our moderator team as the 'gray area' evaporated so did a great deal of our stress in managing this busy forum. Having such a well defined direction was a good thing for the day to day running of APUG. These issues still pop up from time to time and we have to come in and essentially post the same statements. The narrow scope of APUG is praised by some and loathed by some, but at the end of the day there are 100,000's of places to discuss all things D, but not so with Traditional. Therefore, I feel it makes more sense to cater to that one little oasis which remains. Why deny such an entity the right to adhere to it's chosen path? Will this "kill" or "harm" traditional photography? I know we continue to register 20-30 new people a day which says to me we are doing something right. Our stats are always strong for such a niche site. We give traditional companies/mom & pop shops extremely cheap advertising here, many I do not even charge for ads because they are struggling in the current economy. We seem to be one of the few photo forums where members have direct lines of communication to traditional manufacturers. APUG is what it is and can't be all things to all people, nor can we be some kind of supreme savior to traditional photography, that is too much to pin on any single organization. Those who continue to wrestle with the scope of this site, might ultimately find this is not the venue for them. I know we might lose some members because of that or disappoint some people, it's nothing new when it comes to running such a venue. Taking it even further, if a mass exodus occurred over our scope, it might prove the venue itself is not viable but that has yet to be indicated in the slightest.
    OP, see this thread:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...t-scan-14.html
    Andy

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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