Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,918   Posts: 1,584,744   Online: 875
      
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 103
  1. #21
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    as someone who habitually posts negative scans made into acceptable images in photoshop, I think I should chip in.

    I have sort of found a middle way which has greatly improved my final prints ... I dont make contact/ index sheets then struggle to see the potenital in the 6x6cm square anymore, I scan each negative, look at it very closely and see what can be done with it using only those tools/ actions in p'shop that truly emulate darkroom technique (ie exploire tonal/ contrast relationships,cropping, toning etc) - no cloning , blurring, smearing, adding, fabricating or any other ...ing. If I feel it is acceptable, I then take the neg into the darkroom and realise the potential through traditional methods.

    So far, I have only posted about 2 final print scans here - I am a bit concerned about placing them face down on glass then placing the heavy scanner lid ontop, and I can get a better representation of the print from a neg scan anyway. Are these neg scans unnacceptable here? I hope not as the comments I've had regarding my posts have always been really helpful for me making my prints, so I am sort of using the scans to test the water.

    So I guess that I dont mind the odd "p'shop" comment cropping up, as long as it's in a context leading towards improving an analogue technique/ method - or in getting a scan right for web showing. But yes, a colour de-sat is not welcome here ... nor would other digital specific queries be either.

    *hearing cries of "Burn him - he's a witch, he's a witch"!!!*

  2. #22
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,054
    Flotsam wrote:

    It could be argued that I manipulated the image physically before exposure rather than digitally after the picture was taken and scanned.

    Flotsam, I see nothing wrong with this. How often have we heard stories of famous unnamed combat photographers who, unable to find any bodies or carnage actually shot a few people themselves to get the shot they desired.

    Seems perfectly acceptable to me. However I would have a problem if you took a scene and then photoshopped a couple of bodies from another shot and made a composite. Obviously that would be wrong.

    Keep up the good work.

    Michael McBlane
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    I agree that this is not the place to discus PS or other digital related manipulation, however the comment Dave made and my reply were jesting and not a discussion.

    I also agree that the lines between analog and digital can and have become blurred when using the internet. I for one hate to see images here that have been shot in colour and then converted to B&W in PS. On the other hand am I a hypocrite as we can shoot colour negatives and then but them through our enlargers to produce B&W prints.

    The technical; experimental and critiques galleries imho should only be of scanned final prints otherwise there is no point in them being there.

    If the Sean and the membership would prefer that we only post flatbed scans of wet prints then I would have not onjection in the least and would be happy to vote for it myself if anyone decides we need a poll.

    My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone here on APUG.

    Tony

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    I dont know that you offended anybody, you certainly did not offend me! I was just voicing an opinion but really the time to make a desicion was back when Sean made a poll about digital in APUG, most of the membership was indiferent or did not vote, so why resurrect this horse just so that we can beat it to death again?

    IMO it should be left to the individual contribuitors and hope they have the courtesy to realize this is an analog site dedicated to analog topics and presentations. If there is room for disco negatives here, surely there is room for those few who have no darkroom and want to show us what they are doing.

    I wish it was not like this and we all presented scans from finished prints, but the desicion was taken to allow digital, so now we have to live with that desicion, which in great part IMO is not a big deal. Personally, as soon as I realize it is a negative scan, I move on.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Jorge your points are very valid though and I do agree with you. Happily I have already sold my negative scanner to be able to afford some RC and FB so no more neg scans from me

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Jorge your points are very valid though and I do agree with you. Happily I have already sold my negative scanner to be able to afford some RC and FB so no more neg scans from me
    Atta boy..... you get a gold star.. If you are really, really good and get rid of the digital camera, I will send a jug of Rodinal your way..

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Atta boy..... you get a gold star.. If you are really, really good and get rid of the digital camera, I will send a jug of Rodinal your way..
    Jorge you know how to tempt a guy, we will have to keep Mortens Gothic models away from you LOL

  8. #28
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Personally, as soon as I realize it is a negative scan, I move on.
    Jorge, by that criterion you should not be looking at anything posted on this site. Every photo shown is the result of being digitally scanned into a computer, converted into bits and bytes and then uploaded to APUG. If you are going to be that fussy then whats the difference between a scanned print and a scanned negative? What next, scanned lab prints not good enough?
    The simple fact is every member of APUG is dedicated to analogue photography. To then discriminate against those less fortunate and unable to produce their own prints is, in my opinion, a slap in the face of the whole APUG ethos.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K
    Jorge, by that criterion you should not be looking at anything posted on this site. Every photo shown is the result of being digitally scanned into a computer, converted into bits and bytes and then uploaded to APUG. If you are going to be that fussy then whats the difference between a scanned print and a scanned negative? What next, scanned lab prints not good enough?
    The simple fact is every member of APUG is dedicated to analogue photography. To then discriminate against those less fortunate and unable to produce their own prints is, in my opinion, a slap in the face of the whole APUG ethos.
    Well if we use your criteria then not even APUG should exists. This is an old argument that people threw at Sean and I am not even going to go there.

    OTOH, if people have a scanner then they can afford a beseler printmaker 35 and a few trays. I started photography like this by printing at night blocking out the windows in my efficiency room with a blanket. I am not saying everbody should do like I did, but certainly where there is a will there is a way.

    I said it before and will repeat it to you, if we are going to allow images from scanned negatives, why not images from digital cameras? Certainly having the benefit of seeing Les MaClean's digital images would be a treat.

    In the end it is one of the criteria I use to decide if I want to critique an image. It is not meant as an insult or discrimination. Sorry you dont like my criteria, but I am not about to change it.

  10. #30
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    If you are going to disallow images from scanned negatives then you have to disallow images from scanned prints. A scan is a scan. A scanned print can be just as manipulated as a scanned negative. To blithely dismiss one or the other makes no sense.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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