Scanning ethics ????
When I scan a negative to post on the web, how much manipulation do you feel is ethical? When I shoot digital it is a different situation but when I shoot film I want the process to be analogue. But as we all know to share our film photography on line we have to scan a negative or a print.
Some "sharpening" seems to be necessary maybe some contrast???
What are your thoughts. Please accept this question in the spirit it is being asked.
When I post here I want to show my analogue skills and not my PhotoShop skills.
My personal standard is, if I cannot do the same manipulation in darkroom, I won't do it in computer based editing.
Exactly my method and mottot too. I scan all my negatives as an untouched negative using Silverfast software and HDRi.
Then I convert the file into 8-bit grayscale positive.
I rotate and crop as necessary.
I adjust tonality to make it look like a print would, to the best of my ability.
I dust spot.
I sometimes add a bit of warmtone, which would look much like a vaguely selenium toned warmtone paper print.
It's basically all in the spirit of what a finished silver gelatin print would look like. The trouble is, my darkroom prints almost always look better, so there is a bit of a moral dilemma involved.
Originally Posted by tkamiya
Your scan should simulate the print.
Would you dodge, burn, crop, alter contrast/exposure or tone a traditional photo print? Unless you are some kind of photography analog to the The Dogme 95 Bretheren there's no reason why you shouldn't.
I see no reason why you shouldn't use digital techniques that mimic techniques you would use in making a traditional print.
Go ahead and use exposure/contrast settings. Color, Levels and Curves adjustment layers are all right by me. Using layer masks and smart layers to burn/dodge or highlight a feature of the photo like you would in a real photo are all right. If it is your artistic intent, I don't have any problem with somebody using false color to create something like a "faux cyanotype" effect or similar.
I would not use the Vibrance/Saturation controls to create false color. I would not use very many filters to alter the image at all, except for some minor sharpening, if it is necessary.
However, I LOVE digital spotting! I can spot an image using Photoshop in about 90 seconds where I sometimes feel like it would take me hours to do the same thing by hand. Using Photoshop to spot an image is probably the most aggressive thing I would do.
Whatever it takes to make it look like a print, yes.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811
If you scan to show what the print would look like, i'd do whatever makes it look like the print of the negative.
If you scan to have a half-product, destined to become something in its own right (i.e. not an illustration of what the print of the negative would be like), i'd do whatever is needed to get the final result the way i want it to be.
Sometimes, though, it's easier to make the scanned image look like the way you want than it is to get a print look that way. And then what?
Why is this discussion taking place on APUG??
Personally, I think it's valid. Because neg scans are allowed in the gallery here, and the framework of scanning negs and to gain an understanding of what might be considered ethical and allowed could be downright important.
Last I checked, the rules for uploading pictures to the gallery are not even defined.
Originally Posted by richard ide
Minimal intervention for me if possible but I absolutely treat as I would a darkroom print. Cropping if necessary, a little dodging/burning, contrast, brightness and that's about it. Printing with Piezography, I am stuck to whatever inks I am using so no adjustments there. It's either K7 special edition or selenium gloss and I change papers as I would in a darkroom to achieve slightly different looks.