Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,211   Online: 922
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I think our suggestion should be: buy an 8x10!
    K.S. Klain

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11
    Wow, this is an active place! Very cool.

    I should say that I went through the whole 'medium format' 'view camera' stage when I had a tradtional portrait studio, but these days I am working with 'girl next door models' and I like the ease of the 35mm format. And honestly, I am perfectly happy with the quality of tonal range in an 8x10 print (my work has a 60s retro feel to it).

    But I applaud those who still work in 4x5 or 8x10...

  3. #13
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,127
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsphotoart View Post
    Wow, this is an active place! Very cool.
    At least you are getting you money's worth!
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    I think there needs to be a new descriptive term for those of us that are photographically ambidextrous - should it be "transpro's" (as in transprocess)? The term "hybrid" seems a bit too close to some of those sci-fi creations for my liking.
    Anyway, I walk on both sides of the street. I have a digital camera, which I don't like using, for those times when an instant result or something to email is needed. It does a good job but feels "soul-less" to me. The cameras sitting on my desk, loaded with film as I write are a Leica M6 and two Rolleiflex - an E2 and a WA. I also have a small darkroom I can set up but it involves fighting my wife to take possession of the (also small) laundry so I don't get to use it as much as I would like. She's away at the moment so I've had a couple of weeks to play. The problem is that I don't get that opportunity often enough and my technique and experience result in prints which are not quite as good as I can produce in my "lightroom" setup. I have a very good scanner and printer in my study that don't require setup or teardown time, which my darkroom equipment does. And the output is now good enough that a non-enthusiast recipient of my prints wouldn't know the difference. I don't post to on-line galleries, sell prints or enter competitions. The prints are for my own pleasure or as gifts to friends.
    So I'll continue to use both methods, trying to improve my wet process output, but circumstances dictate that the final images are more likely to be off the Epson.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11

    Right on...

    I agree that the term 'hybrid' sounds a bit too sci-fi and I agree with Leigh's term of digital shooting feeling 'soul-less'

    I have always shot 95% b/w and digital is a VERY difficult sell to me for monochrome imagery.

    I have had people tell me that a good digital print is more archival than a silver print - I just can't buy that. The technology of putting ink 'on' a piece of paper just can't last as long as something put 'in' the paper. Or am I letting common sense get in the way?

    Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions for me to achieve what I am after, I am more than happy to hear them. For example, should I make a digital print and then photograph the print on a copy stand so I have a film neg?

  6. #16
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsphotoart View Post
    Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions for me to achieve what I am after, I am more than happy to hear them. For example, should I make a digital print and then photograph the print on a copy stand so I have a film neg?
    For me, anything goes. As you will see on DPUG, I have done nutty things like use an inkjet to apply a negative image directly to photopaper and then cleared the ink for a final image, or I have done stuff with LVT negs, or I have gone digital to film, or film to digital, or film to digital to film to paper, or... really, you name it. I just don't think you can cast aside any tool at all, when you've got a creative idea that motivates you. I would never tell a student not to explore a particular idea because of somebody else's standard.

    That said, APUG really emphasizes all the analogue parts of the workflow, and I for one value that exclusivity. It's not always comfortable having to leave out parts of the workflow in our discussions here, but consider the alternative: people speaking in terms of megapixels and inksets and scanner models. It's just not pretty. So, as open as I am to hybrid/trans/multi/omni process whatever, I do sincerely value the analogueness of APUG, our very own little corner of the internet


    Quote Originally Posted by bblhed View Post
    As others have said, this is the place to get the information about turning photons into images, DPUG is the place for turning electrons into images.
    Well, actually, film photography is all about electrons and holes moving in response to photons, and ... ah never mind


    Anyway, again, APUG is analogue, that's why most of us love it. And many of us participate elsewhere too.
    Last edited by keithwms; 04-10-2011 at 06:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #17
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    I suspect the manufacture of films and papers is now quite the digital process in itself. It can get frustrating having to jump amongst different forums when what is desired is a continuity of advice. A lot of this is a ring-fence around the darkroom and not the exposure. That alone keeps a large number of people away from film diminishing the appeal. Film is analog, accessible, available, and portable. Darkrooms are not, and the lab a disappearing entity.

    My 2 cents, non-refundable.

  8. #18
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,127
    Darkrooms are expensive because of the room it takes up and not the equipment. I started planning to develop black & white film, scanning, ink jet printing. I did not like the ink jet prints and the cost of the ink. With the encouragement here I set up a darkroom and expanded from 35mm to 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" black & white and color.

    That is my story and I am sticking to it!

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  9. #19
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Welcome to APUG. And, in all likelihood, a little welcome to DPUG as well.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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