Generally, the idea here is that if you aren't able to post a print scan or a digital photograph of a print, then neg scans are acceptable if they resemble an actual darkroom print that you have made or are working on (scans of positive transparencies are another story). For instance some people only print large (in the darkroom) and don't have any way of digitizing their prints, but might be able to scan a negative and adjust the scan to look like the print, or they may be able to make a digital image that looks more like the wet print from a neg scan than they can by digitizing the print. But if you're printing digitally, then there is no wet print to work from, and this is really more appropriate for our sister site, hybridphoto.com.
Of course everything posted in the online gallery has to be digitized in some way, but generally we acknowledge that the online galleries can only show a mere representation of a real print at best, and the best way to show and appreciate each other's work is through participation in the print exchanges, traveling portfolio, postcard exchange, and regional APUG gatherings.
I disagree with you about that, David. The rules for gallery uploads clearly state that "....for negative scans, to approximate a straight print.".
They don't say sharpen, tone, dodge, burn, colour, etc. They don't say PS the heck out of your neg scan if that's what it takes to approximate the big print you're looking at on your desk. Is it OK to max-PS the neg scan and say, "Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to achieve in the darkroom"?
And it is falling victim to the never ending discussion of how pictures should be represented in the gallery.
I ask that the site owner and the moderators get their brains in sync and come up with more clear instructions of what is and what isn't allowed in the galleries. Please.
I too have been under the impression that I was given the bandwidth to alter my neg scans to look like the real darkroom print. To me that seems perfectly logical. A straight scan of my negatives will not even begin to resemble what my darkroom prints look like. But yet that's how Mike understands the rules, and who am I to say he's wrong?! There is too much room for interpretation.
I ask that the site owner and the moderators get their brains in sync and come up with more clear instructions of what is and what isn't allowed in the galleries. Please.
I too have been under the impression that I was given the bandwidth to alter my neg scans to look like the real darkroom print. To me that seems perfectly logical. A straight scan of my negatives will not even begin to resemble what my darkroom prints look like. But yet that's how Mike understands the rules, and who am I to say he's wrong?! There is too much room for interpretation.
There would be no way to enforce such a set of rules, and the technology is a moving target, so I think it's better to have a general sense of the spirit of the site, and we ask everyone to try to do their best. There is room for interpretation, because we think that the members of APUG are intelligent folks who can interpret and discuss these issues intelligently and come to some general consensus about how images posted in the gallery can best serve the core mission of APUG.
I think we all should have the leeway to adjust neg scans to look like a print in hand. I've done that myself, because the result of the adjusted neg scan looks more like the actual print than a scan or digital photograph (which would also require some adjustment) of the print looks like the print. For some things like alternative process prints, there is just no substitute for a print scan or photograph of a print.
As I see it, there is no such thing as an unmanipulated or "straight" scan of the negative or the print. Even if one is using the default settings on the scanner, that is an aesthetic choice, and one scanner with one set of settings may render a negative differently than another scanner with its native settings. The default is arbitrary.
So I think that if we want to post work in the APUG online galleries, we should use whatever means we have to make the online image look like the analogue print. Better than that, just participate in the print exchanges, and there can be no doubt, and having participated in many print exchanges, I can assure you that the results are much more impressive than what you'll see on your computer screen.
And it is falling victim to the never ending discussion of how pictures should be represented in the gallery.
I ask that the site owner and the moderators get their brains in sync and come up with more clear instructions of what is and what isn't allowed in the galleries. Please.
I too have been under the impression that I was given the bandwidth to alter my neg scans to look like the real darkroom print. To me that seems perfectly logical. A straight scan of my negatives will not even begin to resemble what my darkroom prints look like. But yet that's how Mike understands the rules, and who am I to say he's wrong?! There is too much room for interpretation.
Yes, this is a nice image; I think it's superb, shelldawg. Sorry that we've hi-jacked this for our discussion....
Thanks for your reply, Thomas. I appreciate your input b/c I have a lot of respect for your vision and your contributions to this forum.
I do understand David's points here. Many contributors, however, upload negative scans that are photoshopped, yet they have no analog print anywhere, nowhere. I'm not talking about an unconvenient print size or format, rather no print at all. This phenomenon has snow-balled over the past year or so.
To make a negative scan look like a final print in the complete absence (or inability to produce) a final print is not the same as adjusting a digital representation of a final print so that it best represents what you have in front of you in analog. Neg scans should be presented as representing a straight print (proof print) and no more.