Proposed APUG Definitions
In response to a recognized need for establishing standard definitions for the initial purposes of communication here in APUG, I'll start by establishing a field for discussion. As those who work directly with various processes, it is in our interest to describe our product succinctly, so that there may be little confusion of the actual character of our finished product. either deliberately or inadvertantly.
These standard definitions are VOLUNTARY, and I suggest that we each consider that their use will be applied under the control of our own honor and we will never lose sight of the negative effect their misuse would have on something I assume we all hold dear - our reputations.
First, let us categorize the initial capture:
1. FILM. A work from a straight negative, exposed in a conventional camera, with primarily mechanical attributes. The image has been exposed to a light-sensitive chemical emulsion, en bloc one or more times, and will be completed by chemical action, and none other.
2. HYBRID. An image captured on film, and further modified by computer processing. A film negative scanned and modified by any computer aided methods, for contrast, or spotting or in any other way for enhancement will be considered Hybrid.
3. DIGITAL. An image captured on a light-sensitive electronic array will be described as a "Digital" image - even though a transparent negative may be produced and printed by conventional methods and processed chemically.
After the Initial method of capture, there are various traditional printing methods. Here is where those with hands-on experience can add a significant amount of input.
1. "Silver Gelatin Print". A print composed of light-sensitive silver carried in a flexible emulsion, usually gelatin. The print is exposed to a light source with or without optical control, en bloc (that is to say at one time, with NO sequential scanning), and processed chemically to produce the final print.
2 "Traditional Color Print" (Anyone with a better category name?) A print composed of several light sensitive layers, each dedicated to light of a particular wavelength, exposed en bloc and processed chemically to yield a visible image.
That's it for now. We need more, many more, for everthing from Carbon to Salt, Platinum, Ambro .. and lots more up and down the scale.
Suggest modifications anywhere. We will discuss everything on TECHNICAL grounds.
I would suggest we all refrain from NEGATIVE comments, in true brainstorming style and that the Moderators take particular note of the process here and try to maintain a productive structure.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
OK, here's a sticky point about wet-process color prints...
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Many labs (mini and otherwise) that produce "wet process" color prints are actually printing digitally. The negative (or transparency) is scanned and adjusted, then printed using a digital optical printer. These same labs can produce "wet process" prints from digital camera originals.
Many, if not most, commercial labs are now using printing systems such as these because they CAN handle digital as well as film. Does the intermediate digital step make this a hybrid? I like to differentiate between "Machine Prints" and "Custom Hand Printing", but most of the labs in my area now are doing everything with machines such as the D-lab2.
I'm probably just pissing up a rope...
Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Not an argument in any way but an honest question for my own understanding:
"2. HYBRID. An image captured on film, and further modified by computer processing. A film negative scanned and modified by any computer aided methods, for contrast, or spotting or in any other way for enhancement will be considered Hybrid. "
How does the image captured by camera and film, processed in wet chemistry and printed via enlarger on Silver Gelatin paper AND THEN scanned and tweaked for internet gallery showing fit in. Does this meet the standards of Hybrid or is something yet to be decided.
I'm only asking, not challenging.
If you can't find the answer in APUG then it probably is a really dumb question.
seems to me that somewhere along the lines we may benefit from denominating the work as a series of "generations" . .
i.e. a shot made on film, then printed in the dark room, then scanned, and printed again on an inkjet (laser, bubble, whatever) would have three generations, with the first two being film, silver gelatin, and the last being hybrid....
here's another twist.. let's say you start out from a printed work... just as an example, a film shot of a portion of an image from a book (which includes a whole different printing process).... the film is then developed, and scanned, and printed on a clear base (acetate) and printed in the dark room... Sounds far out? Its something Ive been working with...
It may be simpler to call the processes "wet" or "hybrid", or "digital", that keeps things very very simple, and makes it clear what general techniques were used.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
let's not forget lithography, intaglio, and relief processes.. which while also "traditional" are far far from the "standard" historic photographic processes, although photographers have transfered their images into these various other media since the very begining of the trade...
oh gosh. . then there are Fresson prints, offset prints... gum prints.. um.. . this really does go on and on...
why not construct a "definitions" page here on site for refference, and whenever applicable, the OP can refer to what pertains... if they wish to give out details... or is that were we are going with this?
this discussion in my opinion is best left in the hands of curators and not photographers with an agenda. It was not too long ago that a lot of the people here thought calling a gelatin silver print too howty towty (sp?) and stuck up. Now alot of people want to call the shots and define what each process is. I am of the opinion that has been done. Call a museum that has a photographic curator.
Last edited by lee; 08-16-2005 at 09:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: add info
hmm .. that's certainly a valid point. there are people who make a living at this kind of thing, and surely, they will have spent more time getting educated and thinking about this matter than we, who concern themselves with making.
AND, I can see where it would benefit this community of creators to be familiar with the definitions and standards for concise discussion used by the "authorities"...
I guess that leaves us in search of a curator to speak to... I happen to be by the Center for Creative Photography, which if any institution would, they should have such definitions and conventions for their own use... Next time I drop by there I will ask for some info... dont hold your breath, but it will come...
No thanks Ed. Let's please no go there. Creativity cannot be codified. Codes and standards are fine for building things to ensure they are safe, or manufacturing products to ensure uniformity. But I don't believe they will serve any useful purpose here.
By your own definition, your proposed standards are voluntary. OK, right from the getgo, what use are they? Do you want to split the membership between those who follow the standards and those who don't? Bickering over interpretations of the standards will inevitably erupt if human nature holds to itself. Then, who resolves the conflict? THe site moderators or some one who is self-appointed? What do you do with the rants from people claiming to be screwed by the interpretation?
This delving into the world of legalistic trivia. In my opinion, it will serve no constructive purpose, only serving to fuel endless bickering over the fine points of definition.
Im not for segregation- that is not the aim.. I believe. Then again, I havent been here long, and am not familiar with the individual character of the users.
In effect, I think that it would be useful to heave a glossary of terms, but not necessarily ones which we define, but rather, as Lee proposed, that we search out the conventions of bodies which are have "great range"... I would propose institutions like the Library of Congress here in the US, or The Smithsonian, The Louvre, et. al.
NO reason for us to rack our heads when someone else already has these things figured out.. PLUS, if we were to "define" something contrary to the "institutional" definitions, it would only set APUG back, and not forward.
Along those lines of thought, I DO think it would be useful to those who wish to speak lucidly about their work, to be conversant with the terminology pertinent to their work. Every trade and craft, as well as area of Art, has it's lingo, and it's serious practitioners use those terms to convey very precisely what they are getting at succinctly.. why shouldn't photographers? (In a large way, we all already do... f/stop, mydol, dektol, fix... all those are technical terms... why not use the same as applicable to prints and process? ) . . .
BTW- how the heck do I insert paragraph or line breaks????!!!! my texts all come out in "block"