Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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 ..
I think in this situation, you're seeing a bit of a selection bias at work.
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.
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.
stone i finally figured out what photograph you were talking about ...
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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 ...
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.
Originally Posted by Vincent Brady (TEX)
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
“You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt
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?
* I need to stop linking to this guy. It's badly skewing the Views count...
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."
— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
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.
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".
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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.
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.
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.