APUG Ethics of B&W conversion of color image

[tkamiya]

Do we really need to wave at a police man and honk at him before going over a speed limit?

 

[StoneNYC]

Do we really need to wave at a police man and honk at him before going over a speed limit?

You mean I shouldn't have even asked and just done it? I feel like I'd rather try and stay within the lines or at least know the driving rules before I break them, but that's just me.

 

[batwister]

Is there a forum equivalent to cabin fever?

 

[NormanV]

I asked a similar question some time back when I first joined APUG and was directed to DPUG. I had a look there but found that it did not suit me at all. It is totally digital, I was using film and scanning the negs. The only work I do on the prints is to adjust density and contrast, exactly what I would do with wet prints.
I felt more comfortable here and I am sure that could apply to many people.
P.S. I do have a darkroom now, I am just waiting for the weather to warm up before I can use it.

 

[removed account4]

stone

you don't need a full darkroom set up to print, you don't need a darkroom at all, you just need a dark .. room.
if you have already gotten to the developed film stage, you just need a negative large enough
to contact print and all you need is a light bulb and 3 trays of fluid ... nothing fancy is needed.
sure there are people with $100K darkrooms, but most people have what they need to get by.

if you ever make it up north and want to make a print let me know ... its pretty easy
and you won't need to convert your slides.

 

[tkamiya]

You mean I shouldn't have even asked and just done it?

Of course not. But "can I convert" question is already covered in no uncertain terms in a statement that comes up when you try to upload an image. It really didn't need to be asked. You also asked how can it be done in more acceptable ways. A lot of people tried to help you but you turned them down - all of them.

In the end, all you accomplished was to call attention to yourself. Knowing how people around here feel about anything even slightly digital, I'm not sure if that's a desirable thing.

 

[Cold]

Ultimately, it is what it is. Some feel that such...adherence...is what preserves the intangible appeal of the site, others disagree, but the only part of that that matters is that the people making the rules have made it as such. Clearly, it's felt that these rules help take APUG from "the best option" to "a great option", regardless of what alternatives may be out there.

As far as alternative processes, it's important to keep in mind that there are two very different rationales at play here: that of a reasonable alternative in the real world that is on par (economically, conveniently, etc.) with digital conversion, and that of an approach that complies to an arbitrary guideline (please don't read a negative connotation into that). In this case, unfortunately, the two appear to be somewhat mutually exclusive.

Is the current situation perfect and without flaw? No, but all things considered, I think the staff does a great job handling the situation as it were. For me personally, I use APUG to post, communicate, and learn via text. It's a bit of an ironic condition, considering the subject matter, but when I signed up, I read the guidelines, and in checking the box, agreed to abide by them. For my own approach, the guidelines for posting images here conflict with what I feel is the best presentation for my photos, so I made the decision as I signed up that having a gallery here simply wasn't going to happen, and I've moved past that.

Would I absolutely love to have a gallery here? Sure. Would I become a subscriber to do it? Possibly...probably. Would I do all this just to show raw scans that have not gone through my own workflow, which I don't feel are representative of what I'm doing? Absolutely not. So in this case, I'm grateful for what I have in participating on the forum, and understand that that's the extent of my participation. If, in the future, APUG became a pay-to-post site, or a pay-to-view forum, I'd revisit the question...though with the same restrictions placed on galleries, I'd likely not pay.

I understand the rationale behind the rule, but it simply conflicts with my own philosophy on the subject. Luckily that's not a deal-breaker for this aspect of the site.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ultimately, it is what it is. Some feel that such...adherence...is what preserves the intangible appeal of the site, others disagree, but the only part of that that matters is that the people making the rules have made it as such. Clearly, it's felt that these rules help take APUG from "the best option" to "a great option", regardless of what alternatives may be out there.

As far as alternative processes, it's important to keep in mind that there are two very different rationales at play here: that of a reasonable alternative in the real world that is on par (economically, conveniently, etc.) with digital conversion, and that of an approach that complies to an arbitrary guideline (please don't read a negative connotation into that). In this case, unfortunately, the two appear to be somewhat mutually exclusive.

Is the current situation perfect and without flaw? No, but all things considered, I think the staff does a great job handling the situation as it were. For me personally, I use APUG to post, communicate, and learn via text. It's a bit of an ironic condition, considering the subject matter, but when I signed up, I read the guidelines, and in checking the box, agreed to abide by them. For my own approach, the guidelines for posting images here conflict with what I feel is the best presentation for my photos, so I made the decision as I signed up that having a gallery here simply wasn't going to happen, and I've moved past that.

Would I absolutely love to have a gallery here? Sure. Would I become a subscriber to do it? Possibly...probably. Would I do all this just to show raw scans that have not gone through my own workflow, which I don't feel are representative of what I'm doing? Absolutely not. So in this case, I'm grateful for what I have in participating on the forum, and understand that that's the extent of my participation. If, in the future, APUG became a pay-to-post site, or a pay-to-view forum, I'd revisit the question...though with the same restrictions placed on galleries, I'd likely not pay.

I understand the rationale behind the rule, but it simply conflicts with my own philosophy on the subject. Luckily that's not a deal-breaker for this aspect of the site.

I really like your last 3 paragraphs, very good.

I've accepted what it is now.

To the other poster who said I was calling attention to myself, well I was simply clarifying, I don't think it wrong to ask a question you are unsure of.

There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.

And John, (jnononon or whatever his name is haha) there's more to my home situation than I care to discuss on APUG but I have NOWHERE to set up even a temporary darkroom. I'm lucky if I'm allowed to use the sink to process half the time. I've even lost a roll because I was mid develop and was DEMANDED to move, it's not great here for film. I don't know where you live, PM me.


~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]

I really like your last 3 paragraphs, very good.

I've accepted what it is now.

To the other poster who said I was calling attention to myself, well I was simply clarifying, I don't think it wrong to ask a question you are unsure of.

There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.

And John, (jnononon or whatever his name is haha) there's more to my home situation than I care to discuss on APUG but I have NOWHERE to set up even a temporary darkroom. I'm lucky if I'm allowed to use the sink to process half the time. I've even lost a roll because I was mid develop and was DEMANDED to move, it's not great here for film. I don't know where you live, PM me.


~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

stone

sorry to hear about your processing dilemma ... no garage or basement ? processing sheet film
can be as easy as putting the film in a tupper ware tray and leaving it alone for 1/2 hour ( thats like what i do )
and fixing it in the same tray, and washing it in the same tray,
printing its just 3 trays and a light bulb .. heck, you can even do it in your car

oh, im "here" just north of you about an hour and a half ..

 

[Cold]

There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.

I think in this situation, you're seeing a bit of a selection bias at work.

When you post asking about the rules and their implications, by definition, you're going to get responses from people who are, to some degree, concerned with the rules and their implications. Similarly, people who are more concerned with viewing and talking about the photo, regardless of the rules, are, by definition, more likely to go view images and talk about them, rather than participate in a discussion about the rules.

 

[removed account4]

There's a photo right now in the image gallery's 1st page that clearly says by the poster that he dodged and burned digitally because he doesn't have a darkroom and everyone is praising his photo, so it's a bit confusing for me to understand what others "say" about the rules and who actually follows them.

stone i finally figured out what photograph you were talking about ...
i think the difference is that even though the poster was a bit heavy handed
in his "burning" in the sky, that can be done in about 2 seconds in a darkroom, and could
easily be replicated as a physical darkroom print. changing a color chrome to a black and white
image, converting a black and white image to a platinum color scale, or a van dyke or cyanotype
or hand coloring a black and white image to look like color, that is a bit different ...
i have some hand tinted b/w images in my blog, and over on dpug that i could have easily posted in the gallery
here, and said " black and white scans i added color to, so they look like post cards from 1900" but i didn't ...
in the end its just about respect for the site ... and for the guidelines sean has for them ...
there isn't really a police or task force out to get people, its kind of the honor system ...

 

[Vincent Brady]

I think the author of that print should be asked to remove his print. This is the thin edge of the wedge of digital photography forcing its way into the site.

 

[StoneNYC]

I think the author of that print should be asked to remove his print. This is the thin edge of the wedge of digital photography forcing its way into the site.

I was worried this would happen, the poor guy, I think in this instance it's best to give him a warning rather than have him take it down, especially because even though he blatantly said it in his description or response on the image, no one said anything about it, so I don't think it's fair to make him take it down considering no one would have probably said anything if I had not posted this thread and needed to use it as reference. There are PLENTY of images like his on this site that have been around for a while, in fact many of the ones people post on THE MOST are the ones that have been digitally altered.

To John's point, as it's been pointed out to me, just because it only takes 2 seconds in the dark room to burn in a sky, doesn't mean it's ok to do it digitally and post here...

Anyway, just leave him be, I'll not post that image in anything but the scan as it is... and we can all go back to happy APUGing

 

[pbromaghin]

I remember reading in the guidelines that dodging, burning, contrast and brightness were all right for neg scans because they were so easily and normally done in the darkroom. Conversion to B&W was specifically prohibited.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

OK then, just to muddy the waters a bit more...

What about (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in the APUG gallery? *

It's mine, and was posted just for fun. It was set up and composed by me, although the shutter was released by someone else. The posting is a direct scan from the original negative. However, an original vintage (mid-80s) print does exist. I just can't locate it at the moment. I took the liberty of burning in the scan digitally so as to exactly mimic the original print. I know it's exact because I made the print and remember it well.

If you think about it while looking at the photo, the mine tunnel walls were progressively overexposed as they approached the fixed camera/flash/tripod position. I anticipated this at the time, and knew also that they would need to be strongly burned in to tonally balance the image. I did that in the vintage print. That print looks exactly like what you see in the gallery posting.

So this was not a digital experiment to determine how to first-time print the negative via a traditional darkroom flow at some point in the future. This was a digital attempt to recreate the original vintage print prior to making another duplicate print to replace the lost one. Once this print is recreated, scanned, and reposted, you will not be able to tell the difference online.

Am I in violation?

Ken

* I need to stop linking to this guy. It's badly skewing the Views count...

 

[eddie]

Ken- To me, you're not in violation. It's obvious (based on your other image posts) that you CAN come up with the same results on paper. I consider that the important thing. If you can get the same results wet, it's OK.

 

[NedL]

I was worried this would happen, the poor guy....

Yikes. This reminds me of a time there was a discussion in the "minimal landscapes" group on flickr and I pointed out an example that did not fit the group: it had a cow in it, clearly as a subject. It was no worse than many other pictures and I meant it only to be an example, but they removed it from the group pool. I felt awful about that, and still do. I didn't mean to single out that particular photo, it was just an example of what was being discussed. To make it worse, it was a good picture and I liked it, just not "minimal".

I recently posted two paper negatives in the pinhole group here. They were not contact printed, like I sometimes do, but scanned and inverted. I figured that when people scan film negatives they are doing something similar to that, so it was okay. But I'll take them down if they are in violation of APUG spirit or rules.

 

[winger]

from the upload rules - 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.

In the past, that last sentence has been said to mean that you can scan a negative and make it look like the analog print you've already made and that's ok to upload. I do know that frequently it's easier to scan a neg and make it match the print than it is to scan a large or curled fiber print (which don't always scan accurately if toned or on warm paper). I honestly don't remember if I've uploaded any this way, but I know I have some that I've never printed smaller than 11x14 and it would be much easier to scan the neg than to stitch scans of the print.

 

[NedL]

OK now I think I'm really glad that Stone has started this thread because I may have misunderstood that last sentence and I'm definitely confused. I'm new here and a novice printer. I have not uploaded anything to the main gallery yet ( but I did upload the 2 pictures mentioned above to a group gallery.) I don't own a film scanner, so any print from film would be a scan of the actual final print. But I also like paper negatives very much, and sometimes I contact print them and sometimes I scan and invert them. It sounds to me like I shouldn't upload a scanned and inverted paper negative unless I've made the contact print. That makes a certain sense to me, trying to be a 'purist'.

Here's where things get hard to understand. In my limited experience, my scanned prints ( whether contact or enlarged ) lose a lot of their original character. Really a lot. The grain always seems bigger and "glopped together" and less smooth, and the tone changes ( usually colder ).

With paper negatives I've looked at this pretty carefully and I don't think my scans of contact prints OR my inverted scans of the paper negatives look like the true final contact prints. The inverted scans are closer in fineness and detail, but the scans of the contact print are closer in texture and the way the contrast varies. Both completely miss the paper texture and sheen, and it seems like a sense depth, especially in darker areas, just disappears entirely. Honestly neither is a good representation of the print in hand.

I think I'll go remove mine.

 

[tkamiya]

I think we kind of need to step back and realize we all do this for FUN.

There are some hard rules here as outlined in the rule but a lot of this is left for individual's interpretations and conscience. Conversion of color to B&W happens to be one of the hard rule and so much so that it is the first thing the screen says when you try to upload an image.

Besides, prints are reflective medium. Computer screens which scan will be "projected" is a back lit device. Images will never look exactly alike. On top of it, the latitude of film, print, and computer screens are ALL different. They can never ever be same either.

I really don't think we need to be SO critical and hard on ourselves??

 

[NedL]

I think we kind of need to step back and realize we all do this for FUN.
...
...
I really don't think we need to be SO critical and hard on ourselves??

If that was for me, thank you! I agree and when I re-read my post it sure does sound awfully serious. Especially that last blunt sentence "I'll go remove it now..." That seemed to convey a seriousness I don't feel at all. Believe me, I am having a blast with photography right now and it has never been more fun!

I'm also willing to be a "purist" when it comes to APUG. I did remove my two paper negative scans. I don't mind erring on the side of "being more pure analog"... that's perfectly fine and it fits with what I'm doing and where I'm going very well. My aim is the print itself and not the digital representation of it. No worries! I will be very happy to make contact prints and upload scans of them instead... that's great.

Cheers!

 

[Bill Burk]

Wow this thread moved fast...

Stone, your work is great, I've said it before and expect to repeat myself over the years.

I laugh at your comment that you had to evacuate, because that happens to me too. One Saturday morning, I was developing a neg by inspection that needed all the developing I could give it. We were late for something, I don't know what now, but my wife demanded I get out of the darkroom NOW. So I knew the neg needed more time but had to put it in the stop and fix it and get it in the water fast or else I'd be toast.

My regret with this shot is I only made one print, and I don't know if I can make another like it.

But suppose I made a negative scan and inverted it. That would certainly have a "different" look. And if I did that computer stuff before I made a real print, then that would become the mental master I would feel like I had to meet. It might be difficult to achieve that in the darkroom. But most of all, it might be a bad look and I might not have the vision to realize this is the right look.

I only mean to illustrate the discipline APUG encourages helps me maintain standards. Some people are photographers, others are printers. I consider myself a printer. So it's easy for me to print first. But even I stray occasionally when I am dying to share something specific. Your Sandy and Snowpocalypse shots needed to be seen.

 

[StoneNYC]

OK then, just to muddy the waters a bit more...

What about (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in the APUG gallery? *

It's mine, and was posted just for fun. It was set up and composed by me, although the shutter was released by someone else. The posting is a direct scan from the original negative. However, an original vintage (mid-80s) print does exist. I just can't locate it at the moment. I took the liberty of burning in the scan digitally so as to exactly mimic the original print. I know it's exact because I made the print and remember it well.

If you think about it while looking at the photo, the mine tunnel walls were progressively overexposed as they approached the fixed camera/flash/tripod position. I anticipated this at the time, and knew also that they would need to be strongly burned in to tonally balance the image. I did that in the vintage print. That print looks exactly like what you see in the gallery posting.

So this was not a digital experiment to determine how to first-time print the negative via a traditional darkroom flow at some point in the future. This was a digital attempt to recreate the original vintage print prior to making another duplicate print to replace the lost one. Once this print is recreated, scanned, and reposted, you will not be able to tell the difference online.

Am I in violation?

Ken

* I need to stop linking to this guy. It's badly skewing the Views count...

This example is great because that's like me saying "in the future I will make the print optically look just like this scan" so it must be ok to post... which really isn't true. And if you couldn't find the print, then the next step, according to the Orthodox APUGers would be to make a new optical print from the negative

Ken- To me, you're not in violation. It's obvious (based on your other image posts) that you CAN come up with the same results on paper. I consider that the important thing. If you can get the same results wet, it's OK.

See that's a good example of how this doesn't work, because what you're saying is, it's ok to post negative scans that were digitally altered if you have the capability to do it in the darkroom... which is totally wrong, just because Ken can print and dodge and burn and develop prints in the darkroom, doesn't give him permission to post negative scans and then alter them. At least not per the silly rules. It's not about the capability of the person, it's about keeping it "pure analog" through the whole process. At least that's how it's been explained over and over again to me.

 

[StoneNYC]

Wow this thread moved fast...

Stone, your work is great, I've said it before and expect to repeat myself over the years.

I laugh at your comment that you had to evacuate, because that happens to me too. One Saturday morning, I was developing a neg by inspection that needed all the developing I could give it. We were late for something, I don't know what now, but my wife demanded I get out of the darkroom NOW. So I knew the neg needed more time but had to put it in the stop and fix it and get it in the water fast or else I'd be toast.

My regret with this shot is I only made one print, and I don't know if I can make another like it.

But suppose I made a negative scan and inverted it. That would certainly have a "different" look. And if I did that computer stuff before I made a real print, then that would become the mental master I would feel like I had to meet. It might be difficult to achieve that in the darkroom. But most of all, it might be a bad look and I might not have the vision to realize this is the right look.

I only mean to illustrate the discipline APUG encourages helps me maintain standards. Some people are photographers, others are printers. I consider myself a printer. So it's easy for me to print first. But even I stray occasionally when I am dying to share something specific. Your Sandy and Snowpocalypse shots needed to be seen.

Wow Bill, that's a really huge compliment, thanks, I'm a little humbled

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

Basically, if you're really good with developer info, you can quickly consider how much time you have developed and how much time you have left, then cut (dump) a percentage of developer out that would equal the amount you want to develop to completion, then pour in water to make up the difference, then leave it to stand develop till you can return. It's not a perfect method, but I think it should work much better than stopping it early.

When you come back you can stop (though probably unnecessary at that point) and fix.

What do you think?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This example is great because that's like me saying "in the future I will make the print optically look just like this scan" so it must be ok to post... which really isn't true. And if you couldn't find the print, then the next step, according to the Orthodox APUGers would be to make a new optical print from the negative

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.