Juliet & Brothie

Do you print in a darkroom? To me this is a digital image and should not be here.

I have to agree with David, I think too much was done digitally on this to be at APUG. I don't even know what IJC/OPM is...?

I will third the emotion... the stated purpose of this gallery is for traditional photography... there are plenty of other outlets for digital imaging!

Getting back to a critique of the Film/ Chemical image, I think this shows a unique style, wth a lot of room left for questions and answers. An *intersting* image - somehow reminding of Sally Mann - and I don't know why. Could easily fit into a Photo Essay about growing children.. or?

So would it make you guys happier if I had just submitted the scan of the negative instead of the print? The image would have been the same short of showing the toning I was after in the final print. Well that and I could have left in all the scratches and dust marks that the lab added for me.

No... It is not about making us happy. It's about staying with the purpose of this group... traditional photography. No one is questioning the artistic nature of your image. We are questioning the medium. You've placed your image on a website dedicated to analog photography which begins with film and ends with a wet print from the darkroom. In this endeavor, you have only completed a part of the process (i.e. photographed the picture and chemically developed the negative). The scanning, "photoshopping" and Epson Printing is all digital imaging and therefore ineligible for this group. This is not a knock on digital imaging. The point is that there are far more opportunities to exhibit your digital image and receive critique. This is probably the last outlet where traditional analog photographers have an opportunity to discuss this "form of photography". We all know that traditional photography will soon "go away". We few are just trying to preserve a last vestige of it for the present. Now, you might say that scanning a photographic print is also another form of digital imaging. However, the difference is that the photographer has at least gone into the darkroom and utilized his or her skills to create a silver, platinum, bromoil or palladium image. Scanning enables it to be shared with photographers with a similar interest worldwide. Negative scanning, in my opinion, is still insufficient. I am on record all over this site as critical of this practice. I feel that way because too many photographers just don't want to take the time to print. When I have commented on negative scanning, many of my colleagues complain that they don't have the time or the money for darkroom work. Well, those excuses don't hold water because if you are committed to the medium you will find a way. The great photographer, Edward Weston had a single light bulb and 3 trays for much of his career. Making a negative alone doesn't make you a complete photographer. Also, handling a negative in a manner that preserves it from scratches is also part of that skill (scanning is a good way to scratch a precious negative). So, our comments are not given to disdain your chosen form of photography. We are just calling a "point of order" to say that this venue is not the place for it.

A great photograph nevertheless that did not need any added effects or tricks to the original capture.

I like the image!

A charming photograph. Worthy of a wet print!

Not the place for a discussion of what flies and what doesn't. At some point, the image must be digitalized... it matters little to me when that is. If nothing is to be allowed here except the "completed process" which must include a "wet print" - we would necessarily bar all transparencies. Scanning a transparency or a negative ... not enough of a difference to get excited about.