APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

[StoneNYC]

So I was scanning the last of the film I shot at the Grand Canyon in january to post a few. There's one image in particular I was proud of, it was an image I had shot 2 years prior on Kodachrome and hadn't quite done a good job because I didn't understand or even know about reciprocity failure at the time.

Really complicated story simplified, the Velvia I planned to have didn't make it to the post office, and one of the only chromes I had when I got to this image was highly expired Ektachrome EPT (yes the blue stuff).

So the image is blue, and it does have a certain appeal as is, however I feel it would look much better as a B&W converted image. Now, I would assume there is a process, whereby you can print chrome's onto B&W paper, yes I realize it's a positive image, but I'm sure it could be done by reversing the paper or some such thing. So, since I don't have a dark room, develop in my sink in daylight tanks, and don't own an enlarger, I can't print optically, but I want to show the image in my gallery. Am I allowed to convert it to B&W and post it as long as I label it as such? or is that forbidden here?

This is the image...



EDIT: FYI the walls are of some kind of RED stone, the color cast is because it's EPT.

 

[removed account4]

Am I allowed to convert it to B&W and post it as long as I label it as such? or is that forbidden here?

nope ...
you can post it on DPUG, or in your apug-blog or maybe ( not sure ) in a photo folder on your profile page but not in the gallery ..
the blue looks nice, kind of like an in camera cyanotype chrome.

 

[viridari]

Throw it on an enlarger, follow a standard B&W print process, and then scan the print. Now we're talking.

 

[cliveh]

Why not use a slide copier, but copy onto black & white negative film, then print it?

 

[zsas]

Our community has specific rules for a reason. What Sean has created is unique and special and it is our responsibility to uphold its virtues. Obviously we all understand your situation but if X is allowed then next week someone wants Y allowed then after a while APUG becomes ZPUG

 

[Vincent Brady]

Why not copy it on B&W film and have it developed and printed commercially. But no digital work please.

PS I've just noticed that you have you have your prints for sale. With no enlarger how can you print your own work for this purpose?

 

[Klainmeister]

Funny, I like the blue a lot more.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok ok, I won't convert it.

I don't have access nor the knowledge to print optically.

Also this is a chrome, so NO ONE can't print this optically...

I also don't have the skills or knowledge to copy the image.

The only thing I do is shoot and then develop in my sink. I don't have a darkroom nor anywhere I can make a dark room in my home (I'm not allowed as its not my home).

Why not copy it on B&W film and have it developed and printed commercially. But no digital work please.

PS I've just noticed that you have you have your prints for sale. With no enlarger how can you print your own work for this purpose?

If someone wants a print, I take the scanned file to a printer and they print it for me. I don't know anyone who owns an enlarger nor any photo labs that still print optically, I do my best to use labs that print with true print paper of course.

This is disclosed ahead of purchase of course.

I love APUG but if I only scanned prints that were made entirely traditional, I wouldn't have any prints to show.

I respect the reason for the "traditional" idea, but I don't think it's fair to be excluded from a community just because I don't have access to something. I'm not harming anyone and I don't discuss non traditional stuff. I was told it was OK to upload scanned negatives so long as they weren't photoshopped. I may do some slight tone adjustment to match the negative when the scanners auto setting picks the wrong mid point, and sometimes i get rid of dust particles. but that's it.

Am I wrong about this too?



~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

 

[blansky]

Keep the blue. It has more mystery.

Chalk it up as happy mistakes.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also this is a chrome, so NO ONE can't print this optically...

~Stone

Horrendous grammar aside, that's not true at all. There may no longer be commercial labs in NYC that will print optically from slides, but the materials are out there to make direct prints from transparencies. It's called Ilfochrome, which can be processed in P3 chemistry.

 

[bvy]

I must have missed the part where you were excluded. There's no shorage of negative scans in the galleries.

If I see a black and white image at APUG, I take comfort in knowing that I'm looking at either a black and white print or black and white film. Anyone can flip a switch in Photoshop. That's not what this site is about. That's what makes it special.

Anyway, don't take it personally. There's something for everyone here.

 

[tkamiya]

Stone,

The rules were here before you joined APUG. It isn't put in place to neither exclude you or include you. Here's what it says:

Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally such as converting color images to black and white...


It specifically excludes what you are proposing to do. How about this? Put your slide on a light table. Shoot it with B&W using a macro lens. Then scan THAT. Since the "manipulation" is done in analog fashion, and film scan is allowed, you will be able to post your image.

I have done this myself from B&W negative to B&W positive-negative. It is easy and works very well. I even have an image posted on gallery using this method.

Try it.

 

[Klainmeister]

As to what Michael was referring to: I also find it difficult to get proper reproduction of print quality in the gallery with a print scan, so I will sometimes scan the neg and manipulate it as close as possible to the print. I think that's fairly common and acceptable.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I agree with others: even though I think your black and white manipulation is nice, I think the blue print adds an interesting and distinctive element. Sometimes things happen. Sometimes they are bad and other times they are good. This is good. Embrace it.

 

[Dinesh]

With an average of 9 posts per day, are you really being excluded?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you wanted to print a slide optically, there are alternatives. Just thinking about some of the things that used to be done before digital became prominent.
You could project your slide onto panchromatic sheet film, for example. Or use a slide duplicator and photograph the slide with b&w film. Or use a macro lens and photograph the slide when it's back-lit, using b&w film.

I also agree with what Blansky said - chalk it up to learning experience.

 

[batwister]

Has more of a beguiling quality in blue. Pretty lifeless in black and white, to be brutally honest.

 

[zsas]

These kinds of discussions occur ever so often, below is what Sean said re a similar thread:

It is simple really. There isn't a single thing I could do to please everyone when it comes to this issue. I could add some digital and there would be fallout, I could continue to adhere to the charter and there will be some fallout. I had a lot of concern over this in the past, sleepless nights trying to figure out how to please all parties involved in this debate and keep APUG to my vision, and it almost drove me mad. I made the decision years ago to adhere to APUG maintaining a narrow focused scope and drawing a specific line (see the charter on the home page). This did wonders for me and our moderator team as the 'gray area' evaporated so did a great deal of our stress in managing this busy forum. Having such a well defined direction was a good thing for the day to day running of APUG. These issues still pop up from time to time and we have to come in and essentially post the same statements. The narrow scope of APUG is praised by some and loathed by some, but at the end of the day there are 100,000's of places to discuss all things D, but not so with Traditional. Therefore, I feel it makes more sense to cater to that one little oasis which remains. Why deny such an entity the right to adhere to it's chosen path? Will this "kill" or "harm" traditional photography? I know we continue to register 20-30 new people a day which says to me we are doing something right. Our stats are always strong for such a niche site. We give traditional companies/mom & pop shops extremely cheap advertising here, many I do not even charge for ads because they are struggling in the current economy. We seem to be one of the few photo forums where members have direct lines of communication to traditional manufacturers. APUG is what it is and can't be all things to all people, nor can we be some kind of supreme savior to traditional photography, that is too much to pin on any single organization. Those who continue to wrestle with the scope of this site, might ultimately find this is not the venue for them. I know we might lose some members because of that or disappoint some people, it's nothing new when it comes to running such a venue. Taking it even further, if a mass exodus occurred over our scope, it might prove the venue itself is not viable but that has yet to be indicated in the slightest.

OP, see this thread:

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

 

[removed account4]

hi stone

you can probably print it optically as a black and white image
in a single step using ilford direct positive paper.
i haven't used it yet, a lot of people make in camera prints with ...
and i am guessing it can be enlarged on.

otherwise you can ask a lab to make a black and white print ( as a negative )
and you can go to the hobby store and get sun print paper, and a sheet of glass, and some wax
you heat up the print on the stove, rub wax on it, wipe up the excess
then put it on the sun paper, and in the sun for a long while ...
it will be blue, just like the original image ( sun prints are blue )
if you want to get rid of the blue .. get some super washing soda at the grocery store
and put some in a pan big enough to fit the negative ...
then soak the print
get some fresh water to rinse it ..

its pretty easy, and almost effortless and you don't need a darkroom or fancy chemicals..

have fun !
john

 

[pbromaghin]

Has more of a beguiling quality in blue. Pretty lifeless in black and white, to be brutally honest.

+1

I really do like the blue.

 

[winger]

Has more of a beguiling quality in blue. Pretty lifeless in black and white, to be brutally honest.

I'm going to +1 on this, too.

And, yes, converting to B&W using digital means is specifically a no-no in the gallery rule book. I have a few I love, but have just posted elsewhere.

 

[StoneNYC]

There's a lot to reply to...

For those that think its easy to find ilfochrome paper and chemistry, tell me where, I've been trying to print a Kodachrome slide I have since last year and have only found one person who has the paper but no chemistry. So I call BS on that.

I also want to reiterate that I still don't know where I can even get an optical print from a lab, I know there are probably a few places in NY but I don't sell a lot of prints and its never mattered to anyone except you guys, and since no one has asked to buy a print from me, I've not looked. There's only one photo lab around here (I actually live in CT) and they don't print optically.

All the stuff you guys suggest costs a lot of money, it's truly a stupid thing to go and make a print and waste more film to make a copy by photographing the print with B&W film (on 35mm when the image is 120 so you're also losing tons of detail) and then process and scan that all just to post it in my gallery, that's really quite a waste if time and money and frankly I can't see why anyone would bother doing that just for an APUG gallery. I'm already scanning it, so I've introduced non-traditional process in the mix, what the hell's the difference after that.

I'm not saying I'm mad about the policies, I got over that a while ago, I'm saying that the suggestions for "traditional work around" a are honestly kind of dumb, and the suggestion that its EASY to traditionally print slides is a joke. If its do easy why don't I send you my slides and you can make lots of prints for me

I like you all, and thanks for the thorough amount of response, but you're all nuts

For those that simply answered my initial question, I thank you. And those that complimented my photo as it stands with no conversion, I thank you, and I agree I like the color, it's just so far from the original tone, that's why I felt B&W might be better.

For those that suggested wild ideas, I just ask you to realize its not not fair to me because I have no access, I guess that's why I get set off buy these suggestions, because I have no one who I can even approach to do this for me and certainly no way to do it myself. Yes I post A LOT because I don't have a single film person in my life, NO ONE shoots film that I know, even the pro's I know don't shoot any film and don't have a clue, and it makes me feel lonely, so I come here to talk about it. I would certainly post less if there were real film interactions in my daily life.

I just woke up mind you so I'm a little grumpy, I haven't had coffee and my car broke last night, have to work on that and I have $60 in my bank account right now... Not in a great mood so sorry if I sound like a jerk, I'm not I swear.


~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

 

[removed account4]

stone

call blue moon, they can probably make a print for you, and they are an apug sponsor.

 

[tkamiya]

Stone,

I'm not sure what to think anymore about your problems. You joined a group with certain rules that was established long before you joined. Including myself, some of us suggested how you can possibly meet the rule and still post your image. I'm sorry it's costly for you and not convenient for you. What I suggested (light table and take a macro shot) really works, and I know, because I've done it. If that's too much work for just an APUG gallery, then please don't do it. Maybe these limitations are not fair to you and your current situations but this site isn't about you... it's about using analog methods - and what you suggest fall right outside of that.

There are plenty of places that will welcome you and your type of images. Maybe you want to take that route rather than trying to change a long established (and by the site owner) rule.

Have some coffee, maybe?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

I'm not sure what to think anymore about your problems. You joined a group with certain rules that was established long before you joined. Including myself, some of us suggested how you can possibly meet the rule and still post your image. I'm sorry it's costly for you and not convenient for you. What I suggested (light table and take a macro shot) really works, and I know, because I've done it. If that's too much work for just an APUG gallery, then please don't do it. Maybe these limitations are not fair to you and your current situations but this site isn't about you... it's about using analog methods - and what you suggest fall right outside of that.

There are plenty of places that will welcome you and your type of images. Maybe you want to take that route rather than trying to change a long established (and by the site owner) rule.

Have some coffee, maybe?

water is boiling now.

I accept the rule, I guess all the other suggestions seemed somehow to irritate me, in particular the idea that ilfochrome paper and chems are easily gotten.

I have a guy in Canada who will print for me if I can find chems, but no luck so far...


~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