'A Medium Format Shooters Photographic Process'

pschwart · May 14, 2015

We all understand the irony -- in order to post FILM images, one HAS to scan them. Scanning is like the crazy uncle that no one will talk about. Going through a lot of contortions to avoid even some mention of scanning is sort of silly. I frequent both apug and dpug, but I would welcome a bit more tolerance and a bit less attitude (not accusing anyone in particular).

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2015

pschwart said:
I frequent both apug and dpug, but I would welcome a bit more tolerance and a bit less attitude (not accusing anyone in particular).

Then please feel free to petition the site management for a permanent change in the APUG charter and site focus. I'm sure such a petition would be given fair consideration. It may not get far, given the huge success levels of the current model. But one never knows until one tries.

But simply saying that you would like everyone else here to conform to your definition of what this site should focus on seems to be a bit presumptuous.

And there is no irony. Or contortions. As I said, the "well-understood and acknowledged exception for scanning" is just that. Everybody here gets it. And is able to mentally compensate for it when viewing photographs in the galleries. For the vast majority, it's not an issue.

Ken

pschwart · May 14, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Then please feel free to petition the site management for a permanent change in the APUG charter and site focus. I'm sure such a petition would be given fair consideration. It may not get far, given the huge success levels of the current model. But one never knows until one tries.

But simply saying that you would like everyone else here to conform to your definition of what this site should focus on seems to be a bit presumptuous.

And there is no irony. Or contortions. As I said, the "well-understood and acknowledged exception for scanning" is just that. Everybody here gets it. And is able to mentally compensate for it when viewing photographs in the galleries. For the vast majority, it's not an issue.

Ken

But simply saying that you would like everyone else here to conform to your definition of what this site should focus on seems to be a bit presumptuous.

Thanks for the validation Like I said, a bit more tolerance and bit less attitude would be good.

480sparky · May 14, 2015

I guess I won't be scanning any of my images so I can post them on some internet forum.

If you want to see them, you'll have to either drive to my house or pay me to send you a print.

shutterlight · May 14, 2015

I have no desire to participate in absurd contortions that are apparently encouraged here. Much luck to you all .

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2015

pschwart said:
Thanks for the validation Like I said, a bit more tolerance and bit less attitude would be good.

Then you've missed the more fundamental point regarding the highly successful focus of this site and the need to respect that success, which is almost universally the problem underlying all of the "Why won't you let us inject digital and hybrid into your discussions? WE like it. And therefore you should too..." posts.

And missing that key point does not in any way constitute a validation of anything.

If there is any irony to be had, it's the irony that the site owner worked his butt off to provided the digital/hybrid users a place that could easily have been the equal of APUG. But hardly any digital/hybrid practitioners use it. They simply refuse, preferring to come here instead and suggest we all need to change. And DPUG languishes.

As I said, strike up a petition to change APUG and respectfully submit it to the management. You'll never know what lies beneath that particular stone until you reach down and turn it over.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2015

480sparky said:
I guess I won't be scanning any of my images so I can post them on some internet forum.

If you want to see them, you'll have to either drive to my house or pay me to send you a print.

Actually, you've hit upon the precisely correct answer. From the beginning, that's what APUG has encouraged. Have you ever participated in any of the many current member-organized print sharing exchanges?

I've been part of a large number of the Blind Print Exchange (BPE) cycles. Trust me, receiving a real hand-made print is FAR superior to looking at an online scan reproduction of a print. Even if most of us are pretty good at doing the mental viewing compensations required when perusing the galleries.

The BPE and all of the other member exercises are a vastly more rewarding way to participate on this site. I would strongly encourage you to give them a try, if you haven't already. They were part of the original primary focus of this site.

The upload galleries were never intended to be anything other than a place to show transitory work. To see what people were up to with their photography. They were never intended to be the final museum display space. You were supposed to send prints. At one point there was even a transparency exchange. I sent Kodachromes.

Ken

film_man · May 14, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Then you've missed the more fundamental point regarding the highly successful focus of this site and the need to respect that success, which is almost universally the problem underlying all of the "Why won't you let us inject digital and hybrid into your discussions? WE like it. And therefore you should too..." posts.

And missing that key point does not in any way constitute a validation of anything.

If there is any irony to be had, it's the irony that the site owner worked his butt off to provided the digital/hybrid users a place that could easily have been the equal of APUG. But hardly any digital/hybrid practitioners use it. They simply refuse, preferring to come here instead and suggest we all need to change. And DPUG languishes.

As I said, strike up a petition to change APUG and respectfully submit it to the management. You'll never know what lies beneath that particular stone until you reach down and turn it over.

Ken

This is ridiculous. Talking about a charter and whatever. You know what the issue is? This: Someone posted a video about film which happens to have a scanner in the last 20% of it. Queue the smart arse comments about that. The funny thing is that the only ones who mentioned a scanner initially are the ones hating them. They didn't even comment on the analog parts of the video, come on.

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2015

Nobody hates scanners. I'm on my third generation of scanners and love the current one. The issue has nothing directly to do with scanners. It has to do with appropriateness and respect for the site and its membership. It's an etiquette issue.

Ken

480sparky · May 14, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Please read the APUG charter. It's located in the upper left-hand corner of the home page..............

However, I cannot locate it.

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2015

480sparky said:
However, I cannot locate it.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

"Welcome to the Analog Photography Users Group..."

Nobody's trying to be a butt here. But for those of us who treasure, and help pay for, this island of analog sanity, it's a tough situation to endure year after year after year.

The posted video is a standard hybrid photographic workflow. Nothing wrong with that. But given the above charter that defines the primary focus of this site, and by extension the primary focus of its membership, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the video got mixed reviews. Truthfully, the video would have been more properly posted into, and received a better reception from, the DPUG side.

Except that none of the digital practitioners, full or hybrid, will go there. It's one of the world's great mysteries.

It's also worth noting that I would never even think of jumping over to DPUG and start telling everyone there that they needed to begin discussing only analog topics and processes and procedures, just because I thought those were superior. That would be just rude of me. But it seems to be an eternally open season in the opposite direction. I can't make sense of that.

APUG has 74,258 register members. The size of a major outdoor sports venue. Not all still here, of course. But still an impressive number of photographers and the curious who saw enough of interest to motivate them to formally sign up at least once. It's one of only a tiny handful of its kind on the web, and yet so very successful.

Please tell me again why APUG needs to change its focus...

:confused:

Ken

MattKing · May 14, 2015

film_man said:
This is ridiculous. Talking about a charter and whatever. You know what the issue is? This: Someone posted a video about film which happens to have a scanner in the last 20% of it. Queue the smart arse comments about that. The funny thing is that the only ones who mentioned a scanner initially are the ones hating them. They didn't even comment on the analog parts of the video, come on.

I think that my comment may have been first.

That comment said nothing about how good, bad or indifferent scanners are.

It simply said that the video was well suited to DPUG - which it is.

It is true that the video doesn't fit well into what APUG is focused on, so the video isn't particularly well suited for here.

There is nothing wrong with either a hybrid workflow or an all digital workflow. With the exception of a tiny minority, no one on APUG is going to tell anyone they are wrong for choosing those forms of workflow. What many will question though is whether a discussion of those forms of workflow belong on APUG - most will vote no.

APUG is not about film. It is about analogue photography.

pschwart · May 14, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

"Welcome to the Analog Photography Users Group..."

Nobody's trying to be a butt here. But for those of us who treasure, and help pay for, this island of analog sanity, it's a tough situation to endure year after year after year.

The posted video is a standard hybrid photographic workflow. Nothing wrong with that. But given the above charter that defines the primary focus of this site, and by extension the primary focus of its membership, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the video got mixed reviews. Truthfully, the video would have been more properly posted into, and received a better reception from, the DPUG side.

Except that none of the digital practitioners, full or hybrid, will go there. It's one of the world's great mysteries.

It's also worth noting that I would never even think of jumping over to DPUG and start telling everyone there that they needed to begin discussing only analog topics and processes and procedures, just because I thought those were superior. That would be just rude of me. But it seems to be an eternally open season in the opposite direction. I can't make sense of that.

APUG has 74,258 register members. The size of a major outdoor sports venue. Not all still here, of course. But still an impressive number of photographers and the curious who saw enough of interest to motivate them to formally sign up at least once. It's one of only a tiny handful of its kind on the web, and yet so very successful.

Please tell me again why APUG needs to change its focus...

:confused:

Ken

I have absolutely no interest in a flame war about digital vs analogue. I have been a member here since 2005 and I make sure to appropriately filter my posts so they conform to the apug mission. This will be my last comment in this thread: I don't see anyone asking to change the site focus. You are absolutely correct, this is about etiquette and respect. My plea is for less self-righteous and snarky comments every time something digital is even mentioned. A gentle reminder is sufficient, or just ignore it. It will make this a more pleasant place to visit.

rbultman · May 14, 2015

Aren't scanners one of the tools used to detect replicants?

Arklatexian · May 14, 2015

Regarding the last paragraph, there are still some good used slide projectors out there. If you want color prints, why not use digital all the way through? My D prints are mostly superior to the color prints that I used to get from film from processing labs. Scanned transpariences are great also. And yes, I guess I do believe B&W is the only "real" film and have for the last 60 years and for me, darkroom prints are only way to go. Color, however, is a different creature....Regards! This is for #22.

film_man · May 15, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Nobody hates scanners. I'm on my third generation of scanners and love the current one. The issue has nothing directly to do with scanners. It has to do with appropriateness and respect for the site and its membership. It's an etiquette issue.

Ken

There were two things. One that someone started talking about scanners. Fine, that shouldn't be here. Yes then it is an etiquette issues because all that should be done is tell people to stop it and get the mods to delete the posts (which is what happened). No need for being "clever" though when talking to others (either side of the argument).

The main one though was dismissing the film as irrelevant because it is 80% film and 20% scanner. Is it really so inappropriate to even mention to s and d word in context? If I come here and discuss how to choose a film camera and then how to shoot film and how to develop and do all that stuff will you help me figure it out or will you tell me to go to DPUG because at some point I mentioned I want to scan the negatives in the end?

So yes it is an etiquette issue. The first two pages of this thread prove it.

Aaaaaaanyway...let's all go shoot a bit. Or make some prints. Or scan.

Ken Nadvornick · May 15, 2015

shutterlight said:
The answer is obvious-- scanning and inkjet prints. Don't be ignorant, particularly in a proud way. It doesn't serve anyone's interests.

No, this was the real problem.

Calling the membership ignorant simply because they respond negatively to the presentation of a topic that is expressly off limits on this site. Again, it has nothing to do with scanning and inkjet prints themselves. That just happened to be the offending part of the off-topic presentation. It could just as easily have been the use of Photoshop.

More fundamentally, it's the act of showing up at a venue where you know in advance that a topic is not welcome, then against common sense presenting that topic anyway, then calling everyone ignorant who predictably responds negatively to that off-topic presentation.

Just what kind of response does someone who insults others like that expect they are going to receive? If I go to DPUG and call everyone ignorant for using scanning and inkjets and Photohop instead of using all analog, I know what kind of negative response I would receive. And that response would be justified in that venue.

Why in the world would someone choose to do such a thing in the first place? All it did was to cause anger on both sides, which indicates it wasn't trolling because no one ended up laughing when it was over.

Ken

'A Medium Format Shooters Photographic Process'

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

'A Medium Format Shooters Photographic Process'