BW Develop/Print/Scan

[Aristophanes]

Saying that half a discussion about a lab belongs at APUG and another half belongs at DPUG is not doing the advertising lab any favors. That hurts the labs because it does come across as analog snobbery and loses customers.

The majority of film shooters never went near a darkroom ever. The Kodak Brownie was designed with that in mind. Is APUG a lab friendly site or is it a darkroom hobby site exclusively? If labs scan because they have to to be economically viable, do discussions of their services have a place on APUG? There is a survey question.

 

[markbarendt]

I would like to know of a lab on what machines they scan, at what resolutions, what delivery methods, and prices. From the ads some do this at a single price which is really cool.

Part of the problem is that the only people that can answer technical and business questions about their current products with any real authority are the labs themselves.

Beyond saying I like/get good results from one lab or another my input borders on irrelevant.

This would be true regardless of what site the question was asked on.

 

[Tim Gray]

I can do without scantalk in order to get all the wonderful analog info.

And I'd rather put up with some 'scantalk' if it meant better encouraging film use amongst new users.

 

[removed account4]

what i think would be great would be a glass link, between apug and dpug.
the way the soapbox isn't out in the open, even for subscribers, but you have to look to find it ...

a direct link to dpug would allow apug users to use the knowledge from
the folks there and visa versa, it would allow people with questions to get answers,
it would boost traffic to dpug and give an infusion of life to what sometimes seems a quiet place.

the posts do not appear here in the main forms like the soapbox posts don't appear in the main forums
unless you look for it, you wouldn't know it was there

people wouldn't have to shun users who asked questions that bordered the numeric side of things
they would find dpug's portal ... and get their answers

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't see why a hybrid section couldn't be like the foreign language sections. I don't speak Dutch and never see the new posts in that forum when I check for new posts. Yet if I wanted to, I could go right into those forums without having another login, or paying another subscription fee, etc.

 

[Klainmeister]

I think both of the aforementioned ideas are great and would be valuable for APUG. Maybe we can test something like that soon?

 

[Monito]

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f2/welco...orts-feedback-here-2247/index3.html#post17080

"Scanning is still off topic at APUG."

 

[Monito]

Why is DPUG called Digital if it is Hybrid? Calling it "Digital" just gets it lost in all the other digital forums. Perhaps that is the reason it is a desert there. If what makes DPUG distinctive is the Hybrid aspect, why would it not be called Hybrid? Are there more Hybrid competitors than Digital? Surely not.

I looked over there to see if there was a thread explaining the name change and could find none. I googled (on Google) for a page explaining this and couldn't find one.

 

[Tim Gray]

Monito - It used to be called Hybrid Photo. It got renamed because, as I understand, it was part of the revamping to make it a more lively site.

 

[Monito]

Monito - It used to be called Hybrid Photo. It got renamed because, as I understand, it was part of the revamping to make it a more lively site.

Thanks. I can understand revamping: both APUG and DPUG have gorgeous interfaces that beat almost all forums. I can't call to mind one that has a better interface.

However, the name change still makes no sense. Giving it a misleading name that gets lost in an extremely competitive field doesn't make it more lively.

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't call the shots. Clearly

 

[removed account4]

monito

this thread explains the name change &c
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Monito]

Thanks, jnanian. The only thing I can extract from that is that the name change seeks to "expand the scope" beyond a tiny niche. Good luck. I think the niche is far less tiny than thought, far larger, when you consider scanning.

 

[Aristophanes]

Monito - It used to be called Hybrid Photo. It got renamed because, as I understand, it was part of the revamping to make it a more lively site.

I don't think anyone but APUG users refer to it as hybrid. It's a term I've never heard a pro lab use and not even lomo types use it.

The reason it becomes contentious is because APUG tries to put a Berlin Wall around such discussions instead of owning outright the scanning issue as a sub-forum as has been suggested already.

 

[Tim Gray]

I mean DPUG used to be called Hybrid Photo or something. It was hybridphoto.com.

 

[Toffle]

The reason it becomes contentious is because APUG tries to put a Berlin Wall around such discussions instead of owning outright the scanning issue as a sub-forum as has been suggested already.

And discussed... ad nauseum. Give it a rest, or start a forum where you can make your own rules.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't think anyone but APUG users refer to it as hybrid. It's a term I've never heard a pro lab use and not even lomo types use it.

Actually Dr Edwin Land coined the phrase hybrid in photographic terms way bay in the 1980's, and the term has been in use ever since.

He foresaw the Ditital/Analogue interface, images being shot either way and being output by another A/D or D/A, or even shot one way and part of the process the other, A/D/A. A/A/D. D/A/D.

Perhaps in some ways because Digital minilabs became the norm by the aerly 2000's some customers don't realise they are hybrid. So in selling minilabs machines the terminology is important but to a labs customers all that matters is the actual prints/scans etc.

The term Hybrid is now more likely to be used when someone has to make a conscious decision whether to use a fully analog or hybrid route for alternative processing. Or perhaps decide whether to optically print colour negative or use a Lambada machine (or minilab) which is essentially the A/D/A route.

The real issue here on APUG is when photographers themselves use a digital stage to re-interpret images, that tips the balance from Analog to Digital. That's quite different to using a commecial lab to process and scan negatives and make normal commercial prints.

We all need to provide scans of our images either for Internet use on sites like this, publication etc and a FAQ section on how best to go about this would be ideal. and as Tim says with links to more resurces online.

 

[CGW]

Actually Dr Edwin Land coined the phrase hybrid in photographic terms way bay in the 1980's, and the term has been in use ever since.

He foresaw the Ditital/Analogue interface, images being shot either way and being output by another A/D or D/A, or even shot one way and part of the process the other, A/D/A. A/A/D. D/A/D.

Perhaps in some ways because Digital minilabs became the norm by the aerly 2000's some customers don't realise they are hybrid. So in selling minilabs machines the terminology is important but to a labs customers all that matters is the actual prints/scans etc.

The term Hybrid is now more likely to be used when someone has to make a conscious decision whether to use a fully analog or hybrid route for alternative processing. Or perhaps decide whether to optically print colour negative or use a Lambada machine (or minilab) which is essentially the A/D/A route.

The real issue here on APUG is when photographers themselves use a digital stage to re-interpret images, that tips the balance from Analog to Digital. That's quite different to using a commecial lab to process and scan negatives and make normal commercial prints.

We all need to provide scans of our images either for Internet use on sites like this, publication etc and a FAQ section on how best to go about this would be ideal. and as Tim says with links to more resurces online.

It's the rigidity and orthodoxy that does APUG no favors, along with the continuous and comprehensive anti-digital fatwas. What's next, sworn statements that we don't own or use digital equipment as a condition of participation?

Looks to me that the genie is finally free of the bottle. I think it's time for a reconsideration. Hopefully, a reassessment will lead to a separate forum on scanning issues integral with the APUG site. It's the process and practice of analog capture that makes this site unique--always will so long as film and chemistry are available.

 

[Aristophanes]

To all the below, fair enough. But in reality no one uses the vernacular of hybrid save darkroom adherents. To the OP and others it's just a part of normal lab delivery that starts with an analog input. For every 50,000 film shooters there may have been 1 who knew their way around a darkroom. So APUG needs to decide if it wants a piece of that 50,000 or a diminishing number of the latter. Which advances analog film use the most?

Even the emulsions are being designed more for scans than optical prints. So the analog choice is impacted regardless. If a lab user has no choice but go the A/D/A route, it makes no sense to have the middle part of that discussion shunted to the DPUG wasteland (less than 10 posts/day). It's neither friendly to users without a darkroom nor does it help keep film viable. Or is it APUG's mission to be only a hobbyist darkroom site?

P.S. I made the 50,000:1 ratio up as a nominal example.

Actually Dr Edwin Land coined the phrase hybrid in photographic terms way bay in the 1980's, and the term has been in use ever since.

He foresaw the Ditital/Analogue interface, images being shot either way and being output by another A/D or D/A, or even shot one way and part of the process the other, A/D/A. A/A/D. D/A/D.

Perhaps in some ways because Digital minilabs became the norm by the aerly 2000's some customers don't realise they are hybrid. So in selling minilabs machines the terminology is important but to a labs customers all that matters is the actual prints/scans etc.

The term Hybrid is now more likely to be used when someone has to make a conscious decision whether to use a fully analog or hybrid route for alternative processing. Or perhaps decide whether to optically print colour negative or use a Lambada machine (or minilab) which is essentially the A/D/A route.

The real issue here on APUG is when photographers themselves use a digital stage to re-interpret images, that tips the balance from Analog to Digital. That's quite different to using a commecial lab to process and scan negatives and make normal commercial prints.

We all need to provide scans of our images either for Internet use on sites like this, publication etc and a FAQ section on how best to go about this would be ideal. and as Tim says with links to more resurces online.

 

[markbarendt]

It's the process and practice of analog capture that makes this site unique--always will so long as film and chemistry are available.

For many people I'm sure that's what matters, that's your thought obviously, but narrowing the view to film capture is creating a rigidity and orthodoxy all it's own.

Sean's (the site owner's) definition is:

APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes.

To me that includes much more than capture via film. It includes things like doing bed-sheet size cyanotypes, making wet plates, using camera movements & enlarger movements to change the shape of the subject in the print, using liquid light, the interaction between film/glass plate and paper.

It is not a concession to the modern mainstream.

I also think the expectation of a single source for all info photographic is an overreach. No where in my life do I have a single source for everything I need to know within any single genre.

Having used sites like lynda.com and photoshopuser.com I find it silly to think that people would choose APUG or DPUG to learn how to scan film or manipulate the result.

 

[Erik Petersson]

I detect a great demand for a forum about discussion about APUG's mission. The need for this seems to be bigger than for scanning, DPUG etc, threads are taken over all the time. May I propose DAPUG (Discussion about APUG)? (Subscribing members only, financed by advertisement from APUG.)

 

[markbarendt]

If a lab user has no choice but go the A/D/A route, it makes no sense to have the middle part of that discussion shunted to the DPUG wasteland (less than 10 posts/day).

With regard to lab work there is little if any reason for discussion of the internal details. It has no more value than gossip, may be fun to hear but it has no bearing on what gets done.

To be blunt when you or I are paying the lab to develop, print, and scan, we have made a choice not to need to know the details and not to spend the time doing the work ourselves.

IMO what is important when using a lab is if they will listen to you, if they are affordable, and if they do good work.

The only good reason I can see for knowing the internal details is if you want to manipulate those details.

Given that every lab is different, only the labs can answer those questions.

If you want to set up scanning at the house well we're back to lynda.com and photoshopuser.com as better sources for getting the info.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's the rigidity and orthodoxy that does APUG no favors, along with the continuous and comprehensive anti-digital fatwas. What's next, sworn statements that we don't own or use digital equipment as a condition of participation?

Looks to me that the genie is finally free of the bottle. I think it's time for a reconsideration. Hopefully, a reassessment will lead to a separate forum on scanning issues integral with the APUG site. It's the process and practice of analog capture that makes this site unique--always will so long as film and chemistry are available.

People have been making comments like yours all the time I've been a member here, there's nothing new all of a sudden. No Genie been let out of a bottle.

There's two halves to Analog, the capture and the final output. This forum caters for both and most of us realise not all can use a darkroom to make prints. That's never been questioned, after all slide workers have a final image once the film's processed as do Instant film users.

What some want to have changed is that the forum discusses digital output, that goes against the stated aims of the Forum.

That does not make us rigid or anti-digital (although the odd handfull might be), a great many of us use digital imaging as well as analog for a variety of reasons, that's not an issue.

The vast majority of active APUG members are darkroom users, a smaller number shoot film then just scan, and a smaller number use a hybrid film/dital neg/alt process.

Ian

 

[Henry Halifax]

With regard to lab work there is little if any reason for discussion of the internal details. It has no more value than gossip, may be fun to hear but it has no bearing on what gets done.

This thread among dozens, contradicts you:

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

To be blunt when you or I are paying the lab to develop, print, and scan, we have made a choice not to need to know the details and not to spend the time doing the work ourselves.

Actually, you have it inverted. Lab processing is what put cameras into the average person's hands. It was never the norm to do the work individually outside of profession or privilege.

That does not mean we want to be ignorant of the details. I know a lot about how my work data gets processed at a binary level, even though I do not need to.

IMO what is important when using a lab is if they will listen to you, if they are affordable, and if they do good work.

The only good reason I can see for knowing the internal details is if you want to manipulate those details.

Which is why they have detailed lists of their services.

Given that every lab is different, only the labs can answer those questions.

So a Leica user can only ever ask Leica directly about how their camera performs? There is no third party forum that could ever discuss the lab's output from a market and consumer perspective?

That is what I was after with my original posts. I wanted to double-check before I sent in my rolls through mail order. The whole mini-lab implosion severed my relationship with local sources so came here for other film user perspectives.

I will bet my entire camera kit that the majority of subscribers here have used labs.

If you want to set up scanning at the house well we're back to lynda.com and photoshopuser.com as better sources for getting the info.

Which goes the issue as to whether labs that predominantly use A/D/A (thanks for that term) and their scanning are on-topic for APUG, or should bring the threat of a thread clampdown for lack of analog purity.

That is why the orthodoxy comes across as anti-lab. Keep in mind that if we use a lab a large part of what we desire is something as close to an optical print as possible within affordable means. That is the benchmark. My old lab did just that and it was wonderful and I miss it very much.

APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes.

Technically auto exposure and autofocus are digital, so that statement becomes problematic. Scanning lab output has been around long enough that they could be, especially to younger people, considered traditional as well. If you push the concept to its logical conclusion you wind up with only BW film developed and printed in hobbyist home darkrooms to the exclusion of a commercial industry processing and printing for a larger market. You cannot discuss the latter without getting into scanning discussions, often in some detail. If that facilitates film use, then what is the problem?

What I hear is a number of people are not like-minded but close minded because they want a sanctuary closed to certain types of film users who are not orthodox enough to own a darkroom.

All that is really needed from my perspective is a separate sub-forum to discuss the entirety of lab services for analog photography.

 

[jeffreyg]

As I recall the original post was asking about experience and services members may have had with a particular lab. After reading many of the posts I went back and read the "welcome message" on this site. Perhaps it could be expanded to direct (especially newcomers) to the DPUG site for digital discussions and information (with a link there) since an initial visitor might not know what the letters on the very top of the APUG home page mean or are for. A brief statement and link that is more prominent would be helpful and would avoid a "scolding" for someone innocently seeking digital photography information.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/