APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

[StoneNYC]

And I do appreciate the suggestions I guess, some were more reasonable than others, I'll just leave it as it is. Blue isn't so bad


~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

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

You should get a NAACP lawyer and fight "da man" who is opressing you!

 

[removed account4]

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

you've already posted it in this thread do you really need it to be in the gallery too ? :munch:
enjoy your coffee !

 

[batwister]

I'm saying that the suggestions for "traditional work around" are honestly kind of dumb

I thought that was your idea...? :confused:

But anyway, I don't think there should be a gallery. I'd prefer it if people just sent me their prints. Particularly, Daniel Lin, coigach and Thomas Bertilsson. Thanks!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

I didn't say it was EASY, just possible. B&H sells the chemistry. And I didn't say it was cheap either. Just calling BS on the "impossible"/"NOBODY does it". If you REALLY want to print from transparencies, contact Stephen Frizza (he's a member here on APUG and owns a photo lab in Australia. IIRC he bought a huge stock of Ilfochrome paper and chemistry so he could continue to support the process).

Making internegs has been around since forever, and it used to be a very popular way to make prints from slides. So if you don't want to make direct prints from your transparencies, and you don't want to make inkjet prints, then it's not a big deal to fire up your preferred camera that can handle close-focusing, pop the tranny on a light box, and copy away using a nice copy film, (ideally a duplicating film, worst case scenario, Portra 160).

 

[Prof_Pixel]

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've got to admit that I, too, find the idea that copying the slide to B&W film just to scan it is OK, but scanning the slide directly isn't, strange. To be consistent, I would think all scans would be banned.

 

[StoneNYC]

I didn't say it was EASY, just possible. B&H sells the chemistry. And I didn't say it was cheap either. Just calling BS on the "impossible"/"NOBODY does it". If you REALLY want to print from transparencies, contact Stephen Frizza (he's a member here on APUG and owns a photo lab in Australia. IIRC he bought a huge stock of Ilfochrome paper and chemistry so he could continue to support the process).

Thanks, now I've had my coffee...

You're right it is possible I guess, I didn't know he had the paper/chems, I'm aware of him from one of the Kodachrome threads. That's actually really helpful. Obviously I don't have the money now but I will certainly contact him (though shipping from Australia is kind of harsh...).

I didn't know about B&H having the chems.

I know they can't ship to Canada though which is where my paper guy is... I may end up "Smuggling" them up to him haha, I'll make a big trip of it, visit GEH and Ron and Fred and then head further north . What an adventure!

Sorry I was kind of harsh with you. I literally didn't know anyone who had both paper and chemistry. Thanks for the info, truly.

And sorry for being a jerk, I feel bad now that I've had my coffee, now it's time to work on the car...




~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

 

[MattKing]

You won't have to smuggle the chemicals to get them to Canada.

Canada isn't the problem - it is the shipping restrictions on the bleach.

The carriers won't handle them at an economic cost.

 

[NedL]

I've got to admit that I, too, find the idea that copying the slide to B&W film just to scan it is OK, but scanning the slide directly isn't, strange. To be consistent, I would think all scans would be banned.

I guess we have to put up with one step of scanning or else it's not possible to share here. This thread is a little hot and maybe I should keep my toes out of it, but I think there's one more thing. Desaturated and B/W "converted" images have a different look to them, even when the original photograph is on film. I'm not saying they can't be nice, but they aren't the same.

I suppose a b/w internegative or making a copy on b/w film might not be the same either...and in some important way maybe that is actually the point: the original light landed on color slide film. And that, surely, is what APUG is about.

 

[Klainmeister]

Thanks, now I've had my coffee...

And sorry for being a jerk, I feel bad now that I've had my coffee, now it's time to work on the car...

It's an analog only car, right? Otherwise it can't be discussed here.

 

[Maris]

I am reassured by the APUG policy to scans of photographs. If it were not for scanners connected to display monitors via the internet sharing pictures would involve mailing work across the world by international post. Some people may remember a time when that was exactly what happened. And it was a cumbersome and expensive process.

The concept that is really important to me personally is that the picture on my monitor looks like the thing that was scanned. What I hate is to be deceived into looking at an electronic file that is a computer re-calculation of a direct scan. Spare me the negatives flipped electronically into positives. Show me the negatives. Negatives are familiar friends. I've met thousands of them. Spare me colour flipped electronically into black and white. Spare me black and white photographs "toned" in Photoshop.

If I really REALLY want to see negatives as positives, colour as black and white, or fake sepia tone I already know how to Photoshop the picture files that come to me from APUG via the internet. I can cook them into anything I like...however ghastly.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

That's an idea, but it isn't panchromatic. You will have color/tonal distortions and possibly a rather grainy look where the red areas just don't print (I've seen this using conventional black and white paper to print color negs.)

If you can get hold of some Panalure paper (I have some in my freezer, and no it's not for sale) you could probably make a negative image print of it, then contact print that paper negative onto any black and white paper you chose. I may have to try that with some of my slides - the thought hadn't occcurred to me before!

I wish SOMEONE would come out with a good panchromatic black and white paper for printing color negs in black and white again, now that Panalure is gone. Hey, Simon of Ilford, you listening?

 

[Klainmeister]

I wish SOMEONE would come out with a good panchromatic black and white paper for printing color negs in black and white again, now that Panalure is gone. Hey, Simon of Ilford, you listening?

I agree. Especially now that color chemistry/paper is quickly disappearing on us. I have boxes of slides that I would absolutely love to print BW.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm not sure how well it would work for printing slides, using something like the process I just mentioned, but it would be worth a try. Please, PLEASE, no back printing on such a paper for this reason. Come to think of it, I don't remember if what I have is back printed or not - I have some old prints from color negs and can check.

Panalure got a bad rep because the early versions were rather flat and didn't look that great. The final version was actually quite good, if you didn't mind RC glossy.

 

[Klainmeister]

Right, and I realised I could just get some Ilford Direct Positive and print. Doh! I've even tried that with decent results. Dumb-A me.

Wasn't around when Panalure was here. Not even a thought, really.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If it were not for scanners connected to display monitors via the internet sharing pictures would involve mailing work across the world by international post. Some people may remember a time when that was exactly what happened.

Yes, as recently as a few weeks ago I received a beautiful print from Norway in the APUG Blind Print Exchange. I have also sent a few of my own mounted and matted BPE prints across the world as well.

So much nicer to hold the real deal in your hands. No mental gymnastics required in trying to imagine missing clipped highlight detail. Or staring at shadows that are only as deep as my LCD monitor allows me to see. And the surface texture of a monitor also leaves a lot to be desired.

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

Right, and I realised I could just get some Ilford Direct Positive and print. Doh! I've even tried that with decent results. Dumb-A me.

Wasn't around when Panalure was here. Not even a thought, really.

The direct positive is orthochromatic. It isn't sensitive to red. It will probably produce more normal looking results than regular photo paper going through two steps, but will still distort tones. It also is only available in one, rather high, contrast though something like Selecltol Soft and split development might tame that.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What happened to enlarging to b&w sheet film (panchromatic), and/or Interneg if you have color negative material?
Seems that would still be a better choice since you'll have all tones readily available, rather than ortho material.

 

[MattKing]

There really is nothing wrong with using digital methods to do anything that is proposed. One just needs to exclude the results from APUG galleries.

There are lots of other things that Stone can post in the galleries. And Stone certainly doesn't seem to lack opportunities for participation here , so I'm not too worried.

The APUG galleries are interesting, informative and valuable, but APUG isn't really set up primarily as a gallery resource. Flickr and the like are better for that.

 

[ntenny]

It seems like the blue shift might actually help in printing directly to paper in this case---in general it has the color-response problems mentioned, but I don't think "red areas will print black" is a problem with this particular slide!

-NT

 

[Roger Cole]

It seems like the blue shift might actually help in printing directly to paper in this case---in general it has the color-response problems mentioned, but I don't think "red areas will print black" is a problem with this particular slide!

-NT

Good point I hadn't thought of!

Nothing wrong with printing to sheet film either, except that exposures will be very short and require handling in darkness. Theoretically so did Panalure but I found my Duka 50 to be safe for it I'd care is exercised.

 

[removed account4]

That's an idea, but it isn't panchromatic. You will have color/tonal distortions and possibly a rather grainy look where the red areas just don't print (I've seen this using conventional black and white paper to print color negs.)

If you can get hold of some Panalure paper (I have some in my freezer, and no it's not for sale) you could probably make a negative image print of it, then contact print that paper negative onto any black and white paper you chose. I may have to try that with some of my slides - the thought hadn't occcurred to me before!

I wish SOMEONE would come out with a good panchromatic black and white paper for printing color negs in black and white again, now that Panalure is gone. Hey, Simon of Ilford, you listening?

ortho .. pan, i can't tell the difference
its blue, i am sure it would look fine

 

[ic-racer]

however I feel it would look much better as a B&W converted image.

There is no ethical issue if you indicate to the viewer what you are doing. For example "Digitally Altered Scan of Kodachrome 35mm Slide." APUG is not the site for presentation of "Digitally Altered" images.

However, If you want to contact print the slides onto Wet Plate and scan those B&W images to post here, that is great.

 

[StoneNYC]

There really is nothing wrong with using digital methods to do anything that is proposed. One just needs to exclude the results from APUG galleries.

There are lots of other things that Stone can post in the galleries. And Stone certainly doesn't seem to lack opportunities for participation here , so I'm not too worried.

The APUG galleries are interesting, informative and valuable, but APUG isn't really set up primarily as a gallery resource. Flickr and the like are better for that.

haha yes I certainly post enough.

Honestly I'm still at the"people will copy my images" stage, and APUG feels much safer than Flickr, the fact that only members can see my galley images makes me feel really good.

DPUG Seems to have an open gallery, so I've only posted maybe 5 images there.

I like it here. It's just hard because I don't have a full setup like many of you successful guys, I've never taken a film class, the only "darkroom" I've ever even been in was the Dwayne's photo Kodachrome machine room.

I've been shooting for 18 years but always used a lab, after getting back from my Kodachrome Project trip, I decided to learn the developing side, I've only been developing for a year. I've learned a tremendous amount and have shot more film this year than the rest of my life prior. Most of that was because of APUG. That said the "next step" of printing is many YEARS away as I won't have a home to practice and learn in a darkroom setup for a few years at least. In the mean time I would like to perfect my understanding of the film side, developing, shooting better images, but I can't do that if I can't post them and understand what others like vs what I like.

I'm babbling again...

Thanks, this case is closed as I'll be posting the blue version. However I think it needs to be re-scanned, someone pointed out that there's a line across it which doesn't seem to be in the negative, so something with the scan was off, but we can't talk about that here *facepalm*

Thanks guys, I'm shooting less color anyway as I've basically given up on tracking down the full list of E6 chemistry to make it from scratch, so this shouldn't be an issue much longer, I'm sticking to Polaroids for that, and very little Velvia and NO C-41 (so trade me!! I have a bunch to trade). It's just too expensive and frustrating to figure out the entire formula and obviously can't print anything "traditionally" without great cost.

I digress... I'll do my best to follow the rules I am able to.


~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]

There is no ethical issue if you indicate to the viewer what you are doing. For example "Digitally Altered Scan of Kodachrome 35mm Slide." APUG is not the site for presentation of "Digitally Altered" images.

However, If you want to contact print the slides onto Wet Plate and scan those B&W images to post here, that is great.

That's a lost argument, as soon as you scan something it is digitally altered, either by the automated exposure of the scanner or the manual adjustments made before the scan to get it to look "right" even from a print the colors and tones won't match perfectly, just scanning causes them to be digitally altered. So to me it's a silly argument, but as I said I'll do my best to follow the rules as closely as I'm able, that's why I asked this one.

Honestly I've already seen images on APUG where the poster said "color image converted to B&W in photoshop "hanging" in their gallery, so others are already doing it

But I didn't want to do that if it wasn't ok.

And now I won't


~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