Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,078   Online: 911
      
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,790
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I really like your last 3 paragraphs, very good.

    I've accepted what it is now.

    To the other poster who said I was calling attention to myself, well I was simply clarifying, I don't think it wrong to ask a question you are unsure of.

    There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.

    And John, (jnononon or whatever his name is haha) there's more to my home situation than I care to discuss on APUG but I have NOWHERE to set up even a temporary darkroom. I'm lucky if I'm allowed to use the sink to process half the time. I've even lost a roll because I was mid develop and was DEMANDED to move, it's not great here for film. I don't know where you live, PM me.


    ~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

    stone

    sorry to hear about your processing dilemma ... no garage or basement ? processing sheet film
    can be as easy as putting the film in a tupper ware tray and leaving it alone for 1/2 hour ( thats like what i do )
    and fixing it in the same tray, and washing it in the same tray,
    printing its just 3 trays and a light bulb .. heck, you can even do it in your car

    oh, im "here" just north of you about an hour and a half ..

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    51
    There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.
    I think in this situation, you're seeing a bit of a selection bias at work.

    When you post asking about the rules and their implications, by definition, you're going to get responses from people who are, to some degree, concerned with the rules and their implications. Similarly, people who are more concerned with viewing and talking about the photo, regardless of the rules, are, by definition, more likely to go view images and talk about them, rather than participate in a discussion about the rules.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,790
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.
    stone i finally figured out what photograph you were talking about ...
    i think the difference is that even though the poster was a bit heavy handed
    in his "burning" in the sky, that can be done in about 2 seconds in a darkroom, and could
    easily be replicated as a physical darkroom print. changing a color chrome to a black and white
    image, converting a black and white image to a platinum color scale, or a van dyke or cyanotype
    or hand coloring a black and white image to look like color, that is a bit different ...
    i have some hand tinted b/w images in my blog, and over on dpug that i could have easily posted in the gallery
    here, and said " black and white scans i added color to, so they look like post cards from 1900" but i didn't ...
    in the end its just about respect for the site ... and for the guidelines sean has for them ...
    there isn't really a police or task force out to get people, its kind of the honor system ...
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  4. #64
    Vincent Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Co. Kildare - Ireland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,994
    Images
    167
    I think the author of that print should be asked to remove his print. This is the thin edge of the wedge of digital photography forcing its way into the site.

  5. #65
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,926
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent Brady (TEX) View Post
    I think the author of that print should be asked to remove his print. This is the thin edge of the wedge of digital photography forcing its way into the site.
    I was worried this would happen, the poor guy, I think in this instance it's best to give him a warning rather than have him take it down, especially because even though he blatantly said it in his description or response on the image, no one said anything about it, so I don't think it's fair to make him take it down considering no one would have probably said anything if I had not posted this thread and needed to use it as reference. There are PLENTY of images like his on this site that have been around for a while, in fact many of the ones people post on THE MOST are the ones that have been digitally altered.

    To John's point, as it's been pointed out to me, just because it only takes 2 seconds in the dark room to burn in a sky, doesn't mean it's ok to do it digitally and post here...

    Anyway, just leave him be, I'll not post that image in anything but the scan as it is... and we can all go back to happy APUGing

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,282
    Images
    58
    I remember reading in the guidelines that dodging, burning, contrast and brightness were all right for neg scans because they were so easily and normally done in the darkroom. Conversion to B&W was specifically prohibited.
    A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it.

    Oscar Levant

  7. #67
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Images
    48
    OK then, just to muddy the waters a bit more...

    What about this photograph in the APUG gallery? *

    It's mine, and was posted just for fun. It was set up and composed by me, although the shutter was released by someone else. The posting is a direct scan from the original negative. However, an original vintage (mid-80s) print does exist. I just can't locate it at the moment. I took the liberty of burning in the scan digitally so as to exactly mimic the original print. I know it's exact because I made the print and remember it well.

    If you think about it while looking at the photo, the mine tunnel walls were progressively overexposed as they approached the fixed camera/flash/tripod position. I anticipated this at the time, and knew also that they would need to be strongly burned in to tonally balance the image. I did that in the vintage print. That print looks exactly like what you see in the gallery posting.

    So this was not a digital experiment to determine how to first-time print the negative via a traditional darkroom flow at some point in the future. This was a digital attempt to recreate the original vintage print prior to making another duplicate print to replace the lost one. Once this print is recreated, scanned, and reposted, you will not be able to tell the difference online.

    Am I in violation?

    Ken

    * I need to stop linking to this guy. It's badly skewing the Views count...
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  8. #68
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,390
    Images
    196
    Ken- To me, you're not in violation. It's obvious (based on your other image posts) that you CAN come up with the same results on paper. I consider that the important thing. If you can get the same results wet, it's OK.

  9. #69
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    748
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I was worried this would happen, the poor guy....
    Yikes. This reminds me of a time there was a discussion in the "minimal landscapes" group on flickr and I pointed out an example that did not fit the group: it had a cow in it, clearly as a subject. It was no worse than many other pictures and I meant it only to be an example, but they removed it from the group pool. I felt awful about that, and still do. I didn't mean to single out that particular photo, it was just an example of what was being discussed. To make it worse, it was a good picture and I liked it, just not "minimal".

    I recently posted two paper negatives in the pinhole group here. They were not contact printed, like I sometimes do, but scanned and inverted. I figured that when people scan film negatives they are doing something similar to that, so it was okay. But I'll take them down if they are in violation of APUG spirit or rules.

  10. #70
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,375
    Images
    47
    from the upload rules - The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more. We still accept neg scans in the galleries. We accept that some adjustment of contrast, brightness and sharpness may be needed to match the physical print and, for negative scans, to approximate a straight print.
    In the past, that last sentence has been said to mean that you can scan a negative and make it look like the analog print you've already made and that's ok to upload. I do know that frequently it's easier to scan a neg and make it match the print than it is to scan a large or curled fiber print (which don't always scan accurately if toned or on warm paper). I honestly don't remember if I've uploaded any this way, but I know I have some that I've never printed smaller than 11x14 and it would be much easier to scan the neg than to stitch scans of the print.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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