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.