Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,840   Posts: 1,582,492   Online: 921
      
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 103
  1. #71
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    993
    Images
    16
    OK now I think I'm really glad that Stone has started this thread because I may have misunderstood that last sentence and I'm definitely confused. I'm new here and a novice printer. I have not uploaded anything to the main gallery yet ( but I did upload the 2 pictures mentioned above to a group gallery.) I don't own a film scanner, so any print from film would be a scan of the actual final print. But I also like paper negatives very much, and sometimes I contact print them and sometimes I scan and invert them. It sounds to me like I shouldn't upload a scanned and inverted paper negative unless I've made the contact print. That makes a certain sense to me, trying to be a 'purist'.

    Here's where things get hard to understand. In my limited experience, my scanned prints ( whether contact or enlarged ) lose a lot of their original character. Really a lot. The grain always seems bigger and "glopped together" and less smooth, and the tone changes ( usually colder ).

    With paper negatives I've looked at this pretty carefully and I don't think my scans of contact prints OR my inverted scans of the paper negatives look like the true final contact prints. The inverted scans are closer in fineness and detail, but the scans of the contact print are closer in texture and the way the contrast varies. Both completely miss the paper texture and sheen, and it seems like a sense depth, especially in darker areas, just disappears entirely. Honestly neither is a good representation of the print in hand.

    I think I'll go remove mine.
    Last edited by NedL; 03-01-2013 at 08:09 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: clarity

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,071
    I think we kind of need to step back and realize we all do this for FUN.

    There are some hard rules here as outlined in the rule but a lot of this is left for individual's interpretations and conscience. Conversion of color to B&W happens to be one of the hard rule and so much so that it is the first thing the screen says when you try to upload an image.

    Besides, prints are reflective medium. Computer screens which scan will be "projected" is a back lit device. Images will never look exactly alike. On top of it, the latitude of film, print, and computer screens are ALL different. They can never ever be same either.

    I really don't think we need to be SO critical and hard on ourselves??
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  3. #73
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    993
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    I think we kind of need to step back and realize we all do this for FUN.
    ...
    ...
    I really don't think we need to be SO critical and hard on ourselves??
    If that was for me, thank you! I agree and when I re-read my post it sure does sound awfully serious. Especially that last blunt sentence "I'll go remove it now..." That seemed to convey a seriousness I don't feel at all. Believe me, I am having a blast with photography right now and it has never been more fun!

    I'm also willing to be a "purist" when it comes to APUG. I did remove my two paper negative scans. I don't mind erring on the side of "being more pure analog"... that's perfectly fine and it fits with what I'm doing and where I'm going very well. My aim is the print itself and not the digital representation of it. No worries! I will be very happy to make contact prints and upload scans of them instead... that's great.

    Cheers!

  4. #74
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,565
    Images
    46
    Wow this thread moved fast...

    Stone, your work is great, I've said it before and expect to repeat myself over the years.

    I laugh at your comment that you had to evacuate, because that happens to me too. One Saturday morning, I was developing a neg by inspection that needed all the developing I could give it. We were late for something, I don't know what now, but my wife demanded I get out of the darkroom NOW. So I knew the neg needed more time but had to put it in the stop and fix it and get it in the water fast or else I'd be toast.



    My regret with this shot is I only made one print, and I don't know if I can make another like it.

    But suppose I made a negative scan and inverted it. That would certainly have a "different" look. And if I did that computer stuff before I made a real print, then that would become the mental master I would feel like I had to meet. It might be difficult to achieve that in the darkroom. But most of all, it might be a bad look and I might not have the vision to realize this is the right look.

    I only mean to illustrate the discipline APUG encourages helps me maintain standards. Some people are photographers, others are printers. I consider myself a printer. So it's easy for me to print first. But even I stray occasionally when I am dying to share something specific. Your Sandy and Snowpocalypse shots needed to be seen.

  5. #75
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,966
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    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...
    This example is great because that's like me saying "in the future I will make the print optically look just like this scan" so it must be ok to post... which really isn't true. And if you couldn't find the print, then the next step, according to the Orthodox APUGers would be to make a new optical print from the negative


    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    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.
    See that's a good example of how this doesn't work, because what you're saying is, it's ok to post negative scans that were digitally altered if you have the capability to do it in the darkroom... which is totally wrong, just because Ken can print and dodge and burn and develop prints in the darkroom, doesn't give him permission to post negative scans and then alter them. At least not per the silly rules. It's not about the capability of the person, it's about keeping it "pure analog" through the whole process. At least that's how it's been explained over and over again to me.

  6. #76
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,966
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Wow this thread moved fast...

    Stone, your work is great, I've said it before and expect to repeat myself over the years.

    I laugh at your comment that you had to evacuate, because that happens to me too. One Saturday morning, I was developing a neg by inspection that needed all the developing I could give it. We were late for something, I don't know what now, but my wife demanded I get out of the darkroom NOW. So I knew the neg needed more time but had to put it in the stop and fix it and get it in the water fast or else I'd be toast.



    My regret with this shot is I only made one print, and I don't know if I can make another like it.

    But suppose I made a negative scan and inverted it. That would certainly have a "different" look. And if I did that computer stuff before I made a real print, then that would become the mental master I would feel like I had to meet. It might be difficult to achieve that in the darkroom. But most of all, it might be a bad look and I might not have the vision to realize this is the right look.

    I only mean to illustrate the discipline APUG encourages helps me maintain standards. Some people are photographers, others are printers. I consider myself a printer. So it's easy for me to print first. But even I stray occasionally when I am dying to share something specific. Your Sandy and Snowpocalypse shots needed to be seen.

    Wow Bill, that's a really huge compliment, thanks, I'm a little humbled

    Also, I figured something out with the evacuation procedures that might help you in the future...

    Basically, if you're really good with developer info, you can quickly consider how much time you have developed and how much time you have left, then cut (dump) a percentage of developer out that would equal the amount you want to develop to completion, then pour in water to make up the difference, then leave it to stand develop till you can return. It's not a perfect method, but I think it should work much better than stopping it early.

    When you come back you can stop (though probably unnecessary at that point) and fix.

    What do you think?

  7. #77
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,632
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    This example is great because that's like me saying "in the future I will make the print optically look just like this scan" so it must be ok to post... which really isn't true. And if you couldn't find the print, then the next step, according to the Orthodox APUGers would be to make a new optical print from the negative
    Well, I'm an Orthodox APUGer who does believe that everything digital should be kept at arm's length here.* Yet in this case scanning the original negative and manipulating that scan using the contrast, brightness, sharpening, and burning-in digital equivalents was the best way to comply with the upload rule "The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more." The reason being that the scan step came after the actual final printing step. I just didn't have that original print in front of me at that moment. And I've never scanned and posted from a negative where I have not first made an original real print to guide me.**

    Ahh, but you say only an actual scan of an actual print counts. Well, before I found my current cheap less-crappy scanner I had a different cheaper more-crappy scanner. And the CCD elements on the more-crappy scanner appeared to be arranged on the scan bar at just the right angle to consistently pick up the tooth of the paper surface. The end result was always a scan that looked like golf ball sized grain. So I was forced to scan the original negatives, then alter those scans to match the real prints in order to meet both the letter and the intent of the upload rule.

    Was I in violation?

    Ken

    * If one were to begin today to look at a different digital/hybrid photography website every day for the rest of one's life, that individual could do so until they died of old age and STILL miss seeing all of them by three orders of magnitude. All I'm asking for is just this one analog site. Only one. No more. And I promise I'll never go visit a single digital/hybrid website and tell them they're all stupid for not changing their focus to film because that happens to be what I like. I don't think that's an unreasonable request...

    ** But I have posted direct scans from color transparencies, as the transparencies are themselves the final analog image output medium.
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 03-02-2013 at 04:28 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Spelling, it never ends...
    "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

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Also, I figured something out with the evacuation procedures that might help you in the future...

    This just cracked me up. EVACUATION PROCEDURE!
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  9. #79
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,966
    Images
    226

    APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Well, I'm an Orthodox APUGer who does believe that everything digital should be kept at arm's length here.* Yet in this case scanning the original negative and manipulating that scan using the contrast, brightness, sharpening, and burning-in digital equivalents was the best way to comply with the upload rule "The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more." The reason being that the scan step came after the actual final printing step. I just didn't have that original print in front of me at that moment. And I've never scanned and posted from a negative where I have not first made an original real print to guide me.**

    Ahh, but you say only an actual scan of an actual print counts. Well, before I found my current cheap less-crappy scanner I had a different cheaper more-crappy scanner. And the CCD elements on the more-crappy scanner appeared to be arranged on the scan bar at just the right angle to consistently pick up the tooth of the paper surface. The end result was always a scan that looked like golf ball sized grain. So I was forced to scan the original negatives, then alter those scans to match the real prints in order to meet both the letter and the intent of the upload rule.

    Was I in violation?

    Ken

    * If one were to begin today to look at a different digital/hybrid photography website every day for the rest of one's life, that individual could do so until they died of old age and STILL miss seeing all of them by three orders of magnitude. All I'm asking for is just this one analog site. Only one. No more. And I promise I'll never go visit a single digital/hybrid website and tell them they're all stupid for not changing their focus to film because that happens to be what I like. I don't think that's an unreasonable request...

    ** But I have posted direct scans from color transparencies, as the transparencies are themselves the final analog image output medium.
    Hmm not a bad way to put it... Ok the first part is fair I guess, I'll keep in mind the legal wording of the statement about best representation, allows for many things

    Also, LOVE the chromes comment, it's actually very true, in which case ilfochrome PRINTS should actually not be allowed hehe


    ~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 | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #80
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,966
    Images
    226

    APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

    Also, if anyone is curious...

    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...mageuser=59230


    ~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 | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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