APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

StoneNYC said:

Also, I figured something out with the evacuation procedures that might help you in the future...

Click to expand...

This just cracked me up. EVACUATION PROCEDURE!

Ken Nadvornick said:

Well, I'm an Orthodox APUGer who does believe that everything digital should be kept at arm's length here.* Yet in this case scanning the original negative and manipulating that scan using the contrast, brightness, sharpening, and burning-in digital equivalents was the best way to comply with the upload rule "The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more." The reason being that the scan step came after the actual final printing step. I just didn't have that original print in front of me at that moment. And I've never scanned and posted from a negative where I have not first made an original real print to guide me.**

Ahh, but you say only an actual scan of an actual print counts. Well, before I found my current cheap less-crappy scanner I had a different cheaper more-crappy scanner. And the CCD elements on the more-crappy scanner appeared to be arranged on the scan bar at just the right angle to consistently pick up the tooth of the paper surface. The end result was always a scan that looked like golf ball sized grain. So I was forced to scan the original negatives, then alter those scans to match the real prints in order to meet both the letter and the intent of the upload rule.

Was I in violation?

Ken

* If one were to begin today to look at a different digital/hybrid photography website every day for the rest of one's life, that individual could do so until they died of old age and STILL miss seeing all of them by three orders of magnitude. All I'm asking for is just this one analog site. Only one. No more. And I promise I'll never go visit a single digital/hybrid website and tell them they're all stupid for not changing their focus to film because that happens to be what I like. I don't think that's an unreasonable request...

** But I have posted direct scans from color transparencies, as the transparencies are themselves the final analog image output medium.

Click to expand...

Hmm not a bad way to put it... Ok the first part is fair I guess, I'll keep in mind the legal wording of the statement about best representation, allows for many things

Also, LOVE the chromes comment, it's actually very true, in which case ilfochrome PRINTS should actually not be allowed hehe


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if anyone is curious...

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


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Additional thought, this is an ALL ANALOG right? So all of you using electronic processors like JOBO systems and rotating drums etc, none of those images are allowed here, you can only post hand processed imagery :munch:


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more. We still accept neg scans in the galleries. We accept that some adjustment of contrast, brightness and sharpness may be needed to match the physical print and, for negative scans, to approximate a straight print.

This seems fairly straightforward. I don't see the confusion.

PS, Stone- I like the blue one much better, too.

This is my darkroom water faucet. Do I need to leave APUG?

:eek:



Ken

StoneNYC said:

Additional thought, this is an ALL ANALOG right? So all of you using electronic processors like JOBO systems and rotating drums etc, none of those images are allowed here, you can only post hand processed imagery :munch:


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Stone:

With the greatest respect, this post, if made seriously, would reveal a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

APUG is s strong as it is because it has chosen a narrow focus. It has chosen to exclude discussion of certain recent prevalent tools used by many in the photography world, in order to emphasize, celebrate and promote certain others that have a great history and tremendous qualities.

Nothing in the analogue photographic world discounts advanced technology - the modern films and papers and cameras we enjoy when we use film could only exist and be available to us because of advanced technology.

Older technology is also (more) appreciated here, but it too is often very advanced, and very dependent on electronic and/or mathematical advances.

You have indicated that you involved yourself in the final days of Kodachrome. I don't know whether you were able to glean how much technology was involved in the K14 process, but I can assure you that even when it was first created, it was very advanced.

And modern film emulsions, like Portra for instance, are marvels of technology, involving advanced computer controls of process and manufacture.

If I understand it correctly, much of Photo Engineer's work was involved with computer control of the manufacturing systems involved in making film.

None of the above are in any way inconsistent with APUG's focus. If someone here used a supercomputer to automate a C41 processing line, and posted about it, it would fit exactly within APUG's focus.

The gallery fits slightly awkwardly within APUG's focus, because it necessitates some sort of scanning. It doesn't matter though, because it is relatively unimportant to APUG's existence.

I suggest that you participate in the APUG postcard exchange. It would be best if you found a darkroom course to try for it, but the rules of that exchange do permit you to send cards that have been lab printed, even if there is a scanner somewhere in the workflow (the image must originate on film).

Participating in an exchange will give you a much better feel about what APUG and its rules are all about.

Ken Nadvornick said:

This is my darkroom water faucet. Do I need to leave APUG?

:eek:

Ken

Click to expand...

I probably need to leave APUG too because my filter is a DIGITAL filter!

Ken Nadvornick said:

This is my darkroom water faucet. Do I need to leave APUG?

:eek:



Ken

Click to expand...

Yup sorry...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

My enlarger timer is a digital one. Though it has dials. :confused:

Well said, Matt.

Especially the part about participating in an exchange. The Blind Print Exchange is the highlight of my own APUG participation. As anyone who has received something from me can attest, I throw myself into that activity at a level wildly out of proportion to any inherent value in my rather pedestrian photos. But there's no better way, I think, to get a sense of what this community is all about than to send and receive real photographs that you've made yourself, or that have been made for you by someone else.

Ken

I'm not going to read the entire thread because i don't have time and you don't read/like the rules. Maybe someone mentioned this or maybe they didn't: slides can be printed optically without internegs or special equipment by using Ilford's direct positive paper. I'm not sure why this is always overlooked.
And there are plenty of labs which print traditionally, even in nyc.

winger said:

My enlarger timer is a digital one. Though it has dials. :confused:

Click to expand...

Nope, not ok, in fact if we really want to be picky, JOBO and Paterson hand tanks and plastic spools aren't ok, only metal spools, and you can't use plastic backing paper either... Heck throw out T-grain film, that's not traditional either...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

wildbill said:

I'm not going to read the entire thread because i don't have time and you don't read/like the rules. Maybe someone mentioned this or maybe they didn't: slides can be printed optically without internegs or special equipment by using Ilford's direct positive paper. I'm not sure why this is always overlooked.
And there are plenty of labs which print traditionally, even in nyc.

Click to expand...

I think all that stuff is discontinued ...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

wildbill said:

I'm not going to read the entire thread because i don't have time and you don't read/like the rules. Maybe someone mentioned this or maybe they didn't: slides can be printed optically without internegs or special equipment by using Ilford's direct positive paper. I'm not sure why this is always overlooked.
And there are plenty of labs which print traditionally, even in nyc.

Click to expand...

Oh and we're over this now, it's all fun chatter now


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

winger said:

My enlarger timer is a digital one. Though it has dials. :confused:

Click to expand...

You can stay, Bethe. But only if you certify that you only twist the dials without ever pushing a button...

Ken

StoneNYC said:

I think all that stuff is discontinued ...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sorry Stone - that is one of their recent additions to the Harmann Ilford line.

It is black and white of course.

MattKing said:

Sorry Stone - that is one of their recent additions to the Harmann Ilford line.

It is black and white of course.

Click to expand...

So I could actually really print optically a B&W image from my chrome cave image? Hmmm...

Haha


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

First rule of Analog Club, you don't talk electronically about analog club...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC said:

So I could actually really print optically a B&W image from my chrome cave image? Hmmm...

Haha


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

For your consideration: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65&t=Photographic+Papers

StoneNYC said:

I think all that stuff is discontinued ...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What percentage of what you say is based on facts?

wildbill said:

What percentage of what you say is based on facts?

Click to expand...

I said THINK...

I thought you were referring to Ilfochrome...

I've said many times that I don't know anything about printing... if you had bothered to read the thread you would have also realized this issue was resolved

wildbill said:

I'm not going to read the entire thread because i don't have time and you don't read/like the rules. Maybe someone mentioned this or maybe they didn't: slides can be printed optically without internegs or special equipment by using Ilford's direct positive paper. I'm not sure why this is always overlooked.
And there are plenty of labs which print traditionally, even in nyc.

Click to expand...

hi wildbill,

great minds think alike !

i suggest stone make a print of his chrome, right onto ilford direct positive paper back on page 3

i also suggested he make a paper transparency and a contact print using the sun cyanotype ( sun print paper from the hobby shop )
which will retain its BLUE tone
a paper transparency can be made the old fashioned way with photo paper,
or a new fangled way using one of those weird machines that makes xeroxigraphical images
either way the paper is WAXED ... if stone is lucky he may find a run down copy shop that has
an old fashioned analog slide projector for the copy machine, one that projects the image onto
a reflector and down onto the glass, so much more fun than a jpg or pdf file yuck !

jnanian said:

hi wildbill,

great minds think alike !

i suggest stone make a print of his chrome, right onto ilford direct positive paper back on page 3

i also suggested he make a paper transparency and a contact print using the sun cyanotype ( sun print paper from the hobby shop )
which will retain its BLUE tone
a paper transparency can be made the old fashioned way with photo paper,
or a new fangled way using one of those weird machines that makes xeroxigraphical images
either way the paper is WAXED ... if stone is lucky he may find a run down copy shop that has
an old fashioned analog slide projector for the copy machine, one that projects the image onto
a reflector and down onto the glass, so much more fun than a jpg or pdf file yuck !

Click to expand...

HAHA apparently I don't read my own threads

Either way it's all too much silly work for nothing. I posted my scan as is... which according to Ken is actually the purest version anyway

winger said:

My enlarger timer is a digital one. Though it has dials. :confused:

Click to expand...

My metronome is digital. Does not function without a battery or a microprocessor clock.