BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE ROUND 18 (BPX18) - STATUS AND UPDATES

[StoneNYC]

My apologies, I have not been too well for some time and I am currently recouperating after surgery and am unable to spend any time in the darkroom at the moment. I am hoping to be able to be fit enough to get in the darkroom in the next week or so and will get my print out then.

I also apologise if I have missed a print sent to me, I had a great wadge of prints from various forums when I got back from hospital and have not felt well enough since to be able to sort them out. Again, I hope to be in a position to do this very soon.

Feel better, take your time


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Thank you Bert for your update!



Actually, there is no requirement for all analogue: digital negatives are fine, as long as the original was taken with film. A note from the FAQ:
"Even contact prints made from the hybrid method (film-->PC-->acetate-->paper) is acceptable."

So, next time feel free to mail the Bromoil or Albumen. Actually, if you are going to an effort of making an alternative print, I would be willing to bend the rules and allow digital capture of the original. We'll just keep it secret amongst us, nobody else has to know. What do the other participants think?

Eugene.

Updated list:
SENT:
1 Katie (Katie)
2 Mark (Mark_S)
3 Marco (mesantacruz)
4 Mike (mjs)
5 Paul (paul_c5x4) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
6 Uwe (piu58)
7 Reed (semi-ambivalent)
8 Bert (TheToadMen)

RECEIVED:
1 Birger (BirgerA)
2 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
3 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Andrej (andreios)
3 Eugene (anikin)
4 Paul (ataim)
5 Nicolas (Dali)
6 Edward (Ed Bray)
7 John (JohnRichard)
8 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
9 Matt (MattKing)
10 Bob (megzdad81)
11 Greg (sage)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

My thoughts on that...

As much as I complain about stuff here being "strict" on film only and complaining about scanning, the capture and final product are both analog.

If you allow digital capture, I could simply take a snapshot with my cell phone, send it to Dwayne's photo as a JPEG file, they would print it on print paper with their light-jet chemical process and that would count as an acceptable print...

To me that doesn't exactly sound like something that should be acceptable

This was taken with my cell phone...



So was this...



You're opening the door to a workflow that is mostly digital.

I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...

Slippery slope...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You're opening the door to a workflow that is mostly digital.

I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...

Slippery slope...

You have redeemed yourself...

 

[StoneNYC]

You have redeemed yourself...

Haha!! And it took posting digital images to do so haha, ironic

It was honestly kind of fun, I never used the app to make that B&W "wet plate" image, but I was enjoying the garden when reading the forum and figured it was the perfect time to give it a try.

Not bad for a cell phone. But again I didn't control exposure or depth or anything but focus... It was "fun" to see it instantly, but not very satisfying as an artist...

On the flip side I took two 4x5 portraits of my cousin today while he visited from Seattle and that was very satisfying although I again forgot to adjust for the bellows extension, something that I still haven't seen to get used to, fortunately for me, I can still adjust and compensate slightly in the development process since I realized it after the fact

Film for the win!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheToadMen]

My thoughts on that...
As much as I complain about stuff here being "strict" on film only and complaining about scanning, the capture and final product are both analog.
If you allow digital capture, I could simply take a snapshot with my cell phone, send it to Dwayne's photo as a JPEG file, they would print it on print paper with their light-jet chemical process and that would count as an acceptable print...
To me that doesn't exactly sound like something that should be acceptable.
I could now email that image right from my phone to Dwayne's and have it printed and shipped and I would have had little actual contact with my work...
Slippery slope...

It was my dilemma too and I decided to play it safe. But then, it's getting harder to make analogue (larger) negatives for contact printing with alt-photo processes (from around 1900). So - if we are going to give some room for maneuvering - i would say that at least the original image must be analogue (negative or positive film) and the actual print must be analogue/chemical (not inkjet) made. If it is an alt-photo process with contact printing, it is allowed to make a scan of the film negative/positive and print a digital negative in the right size for contact printing. Doing this, the only digital manipulating is the applying of the special curve needed for this specific process - without further digital post processing the negative/positive itself. The inter-negative mat be printed with an inkjet printer.
If the original image was shot with any digital camera, it is not allowed.
How does this sounds?

 

[StoneNYC]

It was my dilemma too and I decided to play it safe. But then, it's getting harder to make analogue (larger) negatives for contact printing with alt-photo processes (from around 1900). So - if we are going to give some room for maneuvering - i would say that at least the original image must be analogue (negative or positive film) and the actual print must be analogue/chemical (not inkjet) made. If it is an alt-photo process with contact printing, it is allowed to make a scan of the film negative/positive and print a digital negative in the right size for contact printing. Doing this, the only digital manipulating is the applying of the special curve needed for this specific process - without further digital post processing the negative/positive itself. The inter-negative mat be printed with an inkjet printer.
If the original image was shot with any digital camera, it is not allowed.
How does this sounds?

Sounds good to me, can we add slight exposure compensation adjustments for something that you would do in the dark anyway like if the negative is underexposed but you would be able to bring it up in a print or is does that leave room for things like dodging and burning to usually which are not okay if done in Photoshop, also what about dust spotting?

Honestly I just think that you should use your best judgment and try to go along with what would be acceptable.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheToadMen]

Sounds good to me, can we add slight exposure compensation adjustments for something that you would do in the dark anyway like if the negative is underexposed but you would be able to bring it up in a print or is does that leave room for things like dodging and burning to usually which are not okay if done in Photoshop, also what about dust spotting?

Honestly I just think that you should use your best judgment and try to go along with what would be acceptable.

Well, how much soap do you want on that slippery slope you mentioned ??

I would rather say "no" to these things to avoid too much digital in the analogue process. One can always think of more small & harmless things to accept and in the end we'll get "I Robot" (the book, not the movie).
An old saying in The Netherlands goes: "Als er één schaap over de dam is, dan volgen er meer".

But seriously, I personally would like to us digital means only then when the analogue opponent isn't available anymore and it has no impact on the image itself. Any adjustments to/in the image itself should be done without digital aids. So no digital dust spotting, red eye reduction, colour adjustments, removing lamp posts, etc.
I don't want to be a hardliner, but would like keep the analogue photography as much analogue as possible - as my personal escape from the hectic digital world ... I live in the digital world, but I am not of the digital world.
And that's why I like APUG so much!!

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, how much soap do you want on that slippery slope you mentioned ??

I would rather say "no" to these things to avoid too much digital in the analogue process. One can always think of more small & harmless things to accept and in the end we'll get "I Robot" (the book, not the movie).
An old saying in The Netherlands goes: "Als er één schaap over de dam is, dan volgen er meer".

But seriously, I personally would like to us digital means only then when the analogue opponent isn't available anymore and it has no impact on the image itself. Any adjustments to/in the image itself should be done without digital aids. So no digital dust spotting, red eye reduction, colour adjustments, removing lamp posts, etc.
I don't want to be a hardliner, but would like keep the analogue photography as much analogue as possible - as my personal escape from the hectic digital world ... I live in the digital world, but I am not of the digital world.
And that's why I like APUG so much!!

So what about printing chromes? To match the chrome slide as much as possible, sometimes I have to make color adjustments because the scan I made's colors aren't correct, and I try and avoid dust but it happens in a scan, so I'm supposed to leave the dust there? As you said "when the chemical process isn't an option" so for me this is not an option as they don't make Cibichrome anymore and yes it "exists" but isn't financially an option for me (especially to give away).

So how do you feel about the image I scanned and sent to Dwayne's (after correcting the colors and dust spotting it in Adobe Ligjtroom (not exactly photoshop, it only let's you adjust darkroom type things).

Thoughts?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

I don't think Bert is saying that you shouldn't be able to adjust those things that are inadvertently added or changed by the scanning process (like dust from scanning or colour casts that weren't in the initial transparency).

And the brightness of the image on the screen needs to be set, just as screens and projectors need to be setup for projection.

What needs to be avoided is manipulation or enhancement that effectively changes the original.

 

[TheToadMen]

I don't think Bert is saying that you shouldn't be able to adjust those things that are inadvertently added or changed by the scanning process (like dust from scanning or colour casts that weren't in the initial transparency).
And the brightness of the image on the screen needs to be set, just as screens and projectors need to be setup for projection.
What needs to be avoided is manipulation or enhancement that effectively changes the original.

+1

 

[StoneNYC]

+1

Then agreed


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

My print is on its way.

And it has arrived in excellent shape!

A wonderfully eclectic mix of dominant forms, dominant lighting, and small vignettes. Lots of subtle things going on inside this orchestrated frame. Indoors and outdoors. In light and in darkness. Standing. Sitting. Climbing. Reading. All in the same instant. Yet all isolated and seemingly unaware of each other. And the glow is very effective.

This one is destined for my wall. I like it a lot!



Thanks Reed!

Ken

(I can now be marked as RECEIVED, but not yet sent. I'm getting quite the collection of wonderful prints...)

 

[andreios]

I posted the envelope today!! It's on its way from Holland to ........
I added a letter explaining about the image, the camera, exposure, etc.
I hope that the recipient likes it. All comments & feedback are welcome.
Shipping might take one or two weeks, I guess.

Now off to sleeping in my mailbox, waiting for my image from ???????

Bert from Holland

View attachment 75671

BTW: I didn't send a Bromoil, Albumen or Salt print as I first intended since these were made with digital negatives. It had to be all analogue (film-develop-print).

And the envelope with a treasure of TWO lovely c-prints from pinhole negatives has arrived yesterday! Thank you very much, Bert!

My offering should be dry by now and I hope to send it away before the end of the week.

 

[StoneNYC]

I have to admit I'm very very anxious to find out what the person who I sent my print to thinks about it, but I'm also very very guilty of not letting the person who sent me a print know what I think...

Karma is served... Hah!

I swear I'll give a good review soon!!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Katie]

Wondering if mine arrived as well...

Sent from my RM-877_nam_att_205 using Tapatalk

 

[TheToadMen]

And the envelope with a treasure of TWO lovely c-prints from pinhole negatives has arrived yesterday! Thank you very much, Bert!

My offering should be dry by now and I hope to send it away before the end of the week.

Hello Andrej,
I'm glad it arrived safely and this fast. I hope you like the images. Feel free to give any comments and feedback on how to improve my photography.

BTW: now that they have arrived, I have posted the two images in the (there was a url link here which no longer exists):
See:
1) Pinhole Landscape: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
and
2) Pinhole Cat: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Could everyone do the same AFTER the images have arrived? It would be nice to see what others did sent as well.

 

[anikin]

Thank you Ken and Andrej for your updates. We are getting a really nice progress! By the way, I too mailed my print a few minutes ago. Our "Neither send nor received" list is getting very small indeed.

Stone and Katie, don't worry. In the last couple of years the USPS got rather sluggish, especially if you send basic rate. But the prints will arrive, I'm sure.

Ed, please take care of your health. That's the most important part. When you get better, you can do that print. If you feel like you may not be able to do it in time, not a problem - just let me know, I'll ask someone else to send a print in your place. I'm sure we can find someone who will be happy to help out.

SENT:
1 Eugene (anikin)
2 Katie (Katie)
3 Mark (Mark_S)
4 Marco (mesantacruz)
5 Mike (mjs)
6 Paul (paul_c5x4) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
7 Uwe (piu58)
8 Reed (semi-ambivalent)
9 Bert (TheToadMen) (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

RECEIVED:
1 Andrej (andreios)
2 Birger (BirgerA)
3 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
4 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
5 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Paul (ataim)
3 Nicolas (Dali)
4 Edward (Ed Bray)
5 John (JohnRichard)
6 Matt (MattKing)
7 Bob (megzdad81)
8 Greg (sage)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[StoneNYC]

Thank you Ken and Andrej for your updates. We are getting a really nice progress! By the way, I too mailed my print a few minutes ago. Our "Neither send nor received" list is getting very small indeed.

Stone and Katie, don't worry. In the last couple of years the USPS got rather sluggish, especially if you send basic rate. But the prints will arrive, I'm sure.

Ed, please take care of your health. That's the most important part. When you get better, you can do that print. If you feel like you may not be able to do it in time, not a problem - just let me know, I'll ask someone else to send a print in your place. I'm sure we can find someone who will be happy to help out.

SENT:
1 Eugene (anikin)
2 Katie (Katie)
3 Mark (Mark_S)
4 Marco (mesantacruz)
5 Mike (mjs)
6 Paul (paul_c5x4) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
7 Uwe (piu58)
8 Reed (semi-ambivalent)
9 Bert (TheToadMen) (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

RECEIVED:
1 Andrej (andreios)
2 Birger (BirgerA)
3 Ken (Ken Nadvornick)
4 Kevin (Kevin Kehler)
5 Menno (spijker)

NEITHER SENT NOR RECEIVED:
1 Prasanna (analoguey)
2 Paul (ataim)
3 Nicolas (Dali)
4 Edward (Ed Bray)
5 John (JohnRichard)
6 Matt (MattKing)
7 Bob (megzdad81)
8 Greg (sage)

SENT AND RECEIVED (DONE!!!!!):
1 Stone (StoneNYC) (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I sent priority 2 day shipping lol.

I'm sure it's there (and if I could find the receipt I would know when it arrived from the tracking) lol

I think I'll have time tonight to critique the one I received.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anikin]

In that case, I'll PM the recipient

I sent priority 2 day shipping lol.

I'm sure it's there (and if I could find the receipt I would know when it arrived from the tracking) lol

I think I'll have time tonight to critique the one I received.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

In that case, I'll PM the recipient

Oh leave then be, I'm sure they are just busy like me

Writing my critique now in a PM for my sender.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

4 hours later... Critique done! Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

4 hours? Sure your last name isn't Melville?



Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

4 hours? Sure your last name isn't Melville?



Ken

Haha, well I did pass out on my bed while writing it... Total time on was probably 45 minutes analyzing and typing/dictating.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sage]

Hi! I have received a great color printed landscape! It arrived a bit ago, I've just been so busy and had so many problems to deal with. There was no apug info, just the name and address its from, and dont want to just post that here. Thanks for the print though, its already hanging up on my magnetic hanger wall. Hope too get mine printed and out as soon as I can.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi! I have received a great color printed landscape! It arrived a bit ago, I've just been so busy and had so many problems to deal with. There was no apug info, just the name and address its from, and dont want to just post that here. Thanks for the print though, its already hanging up on my magnetic hanger wall. Hope too get mine printed and out as soon as I can.

Greg,

If you can't read the entire thread, see post #24 (or around there, sometimes the numbers are off with the phone app vs the website). This is my print and I forgot to leave my descriptive info...

Look forward to your comments and suggestions/critique when you have time of course. (Public critique is fine, even if you hate it haha).

Thanks!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk