Digital Images and Film Simulation

[Marco B]

Or maybe we could describe a "hybrid workflow" as:

A hybrid workflow is a workflow that makes use of a light sensitive substance - other than the silicium of a digital sensor - at least at one point in the workflow process.

Marco

 

[donbga]

Can anyone tell me whether digital images that have been manipulated to simulate film are allowed on this site, or point to the rule where they are disallowed, please?

Paul anything goes, this isn't APUG. I don't think anyone cares about the details.

Don Bryant

 

[R Shaffer]

Ray (+ anyone else who's interested) please have a look at my Silver Efex Pro set on Flickr:

Dead Link Removed

As I said previously, I don't believe SEP will ever replace or compare with film - but it's great fun to use and the effects are interesting, at least to me.

Best to one and all. Paul.

Gorgeous images Paul. Well done indeed!!!

 

[pschwart]

Paul, I don't think it is explicitly stated here on Hybridphoto, but the general consensus of what a hybrid workflow is, is that it MUST incorporate some aspect of the analog workflow, and "simulating film characteristics" digitally isn't that...

So, scanning original analog film to allow it to be digitally manipulated IS good. And making digital negatives from a digital capture to be used in an analog alternative process like a true (again not simulated) cyanotype or Pt/Pd print also.

But your suggested workflow doesn't have any analog part, all is done on a computer, it is like a applying a simple digital filter on a digital image... that is not a "hybrid" workflow.

Marco

If the resulting image was printed using an alt process it would qualify as hybrid.
This is not really enforced -- I see images in the gallery that appear to be strictly digital with no analog components to the workflow. I don't really mind even though it's not what I am looking for when I visit the hybrid forum. A lot of images in the gallery don't even describe how they were made.
My vote is generally for tolerance -- if something doesn't interest me it's easy enough to click on through.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Thanks for the interesting variety of responses. However, please let me make one thing absolutely clear;

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether digital images made to "look" like film are allowed on this site. I just want to know what the rules are so that I don't break them or risk offending anyone.

What seems clear is that there isn't anything laid down in the laws of the site against posting such images. That said, as the majority seem to prefer that there is some analogue element used to achieve the end result, I will refrain from posting anything that doesn't originate from a scanned negative.

Aside from the shots taken at Chartwell, I think all of the images in the Flickr SEP gallery were taken on digital cameras. I never delete EXIF data, so anything that has a digital signature will show up as such. The shots scanned from negs will show that they were scanned on a Noritsu scanner (belongs to the pro at the shop who processes my film).

For anyone sufficiently interested, SEP can be used as a layer (by using opacity slider) to give a grain texture or add some black and/or a vignette into the mix on a colour shot. All I'll say is don't knock it or dismiss it until you've tried it. It can't and won't replace film but it is a lot of fun to use, in my opinion.

I am very, very familiar with how easy it is to process negs via a cupboard and changing bag as I have done it hundreds, if not thousands of times since 1974. However, I have neither the time nor inclination to do so at the moment. The few quid it costs me to have film processed for me is worth the time saved doing it - and I doubt I could do a better job. I have bought a scanner, though as I needed one for other jobs and the Epson V750 is supposed to be pretty good with film as well.

Thanks again for your responses. Paul.

 

[pschwart]

Thanks for the interesting variety of responses. However, please let me make one thing absolutely clear;

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether digital images made to "look" like film are allowed on this site. I just want to know what the rules are so that I don't break them or risk offending anyone.

What seems clear is that there isn't anything laid down in the laws of the site against posting such images. That said, as the majority seem to prefer that there is some analogue element used to achieve the end result, I will refrain from posting anything that doesn't originate from a scanned negative.

Aside from the shots taken at Chartwell, I think all of the images in the Flickr SEP gallery were taken on digital cameras. I never delete EXIF data, so anything that has a digital signature will show up as such. The shots scanned from negs will show that they were scanned on a Noritsu scanner (belongs to the pro at the shop who processes my film).

For anyone sufficiently interested, SEP can be used as a layer (by using opacity slider) to give a grain texture or add some black and/or a vignette into the mix on a colour shot. All I'll say is don't knock it or dismiss it until you've tried it. It can't and won't replace film but it is a lot of fun to use, in my opinion.

I am very, very familiar with how easy it is to process negs via a cupboard and changing bag as I have done it hundreds, if not thousands of times since 1974. However, I have neither the time nor inclination to do so at the moment. The few quid it costs me to have film processed for me is worth the time saved doing it - and I doubt I could do a better job. I have bought a scanner, though as I needed one for other jobs and the Epson V750 is supposed to be pretty good with film as well.

Thanks again for your responses. Paul.

I will refrain from posting anything that doesn't originate from a scanned negative.
I think this is an unnecessary restriction. My images are mostly printed using carbon transfer or palladium. Some are from scanned film, and some are digital originals, but I consider this a hybrid workflow. In other words, not all hybrid workflows include film.

 

[Ray Heath]

G'day all,

Seems to me we need a definition as to what constitutes "hybrid" photography.

Such a definition could be displayed as a manifesto on the "home" page, if we had a home page.

 

[pschwart]

G'day all,

Seems to me we need a definition as to what constitutes "hybrid" photography.

Such a definition could be displayed as a manifesto on the "home" page, if we had a home page.

Guidelines would be helpful, but we may not reach a consensus on what constitutes "hybrid." For example, do we accept film images as hybrid just because they had to be scanned to be uploaded?

 

[Ray Heath]

G'day,

Paul, sorry to hyjack your thread, but these issues are becoming unclear to many on this site.

Philip, I had a similar thought re: film only images i.e. are they actually hybrid just because they must be digitised to post on the site?

My initial understanding was/is that hybrid is a mix of traditional and digital techniques, methods and practices that lead ultimately to a physical print, and that scans of that physical print are allowed to be posted on this site.

p.s. Paul, I checked out your images on Flickr, beautiful work, thoughtful compositions, excellent presentation. To me they do not so much simulate particular films as much as they draw from the traditional aesthetic to acknowledge why and visually display that monochrome prints are "special".

 

[Marco B]

What seems clear is that there isn't anything laid down in the laws of the site against posting such images.

Well, there IS one little statement, it is the main Welcome message you see when you click on the Home link of the HybridPhoto site:

Welcome to Hybridphoto.com, Founded Oct. 2006

HybridPhoto.com is an international community of photographers that combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes; our forums will grow to contain a highly detailed archive of these processes. This site was born out of the APUG.ORG alt. process subforum where it became evident it needed it's own space.

Guidelines would be helpful, but we may not reach a consensus on what constitutes "hybrid." For example, do we accept film images as hybrid just because they had to be scanned to be uploaded?

This was my attempt to describe it, leaving ample of space for different forms of hybrid, including a simple scan:

A hybrid photographic workflow is a workflow that makes use of a light sensitive substance - other than the silicium of a digital sensor - at least at one point in the workflow process.

Marco

 

[donbga]

Well, there IS one little statement, it is the main Welcome message you see when you click on the Home link of the HybridPhoto site:

Welcome to Hybridphoto.com, Founded Oct. 2006

HybridPhoto.com is an international community of photographers that combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes; our forums will grow to contain a highly detailed archive of these processes. This site was born out of the APUG.ORG alt. process subforum where it became evident it needed it's own space.



This was my attempt to describe it, leaving ample of space for different forms of hybrid, including a simple scan:

A hybrid photographic workflow is a workflow that makes use of a light sensitive substance - other than the silicium of a digital sensor - at least at one point in the workflow process.

Marco

Screw the guidelines!

Don

 

[ctscanner]

Screw the guidelines!

Don

There it is, we have our answer, and one that I that I endorse and think is appropriate for the circumstances. Uh, I assume the other Mod's are on board with this. They are, aren't they?

George

 

[Marco B]

Screw the guidelines!

Don

Well, considering the number of active people on this forum, it is more or less a theoretical question or topic

But hey, your remark does raise another question: why do we have a hybrid photo forum at all, if everyone feels it is not necessary to stick with a "hybrid workflow" (however that is defined :rolleyes?

Just like there isn't much point in having an APUG with digitally captured images on it, there is not much sense in maintaining the HybridPhoto site if everyone can post anything...

Because in that case people may be far better of posting on Flickr or PhotoNet or one of the other gazzilion unrestricted websites that are out there... and get far more exposure in a second than they will ever get here on HybridPhoto in a week

Marco

 

[donbga]

There it is, we have our answer, and one that I that I endorse and think is appropriate for the circumstances. Uh, I assume the other Mod's are on board with this. They are, aren't they?

George

I have no idea what the other Mods think.

Don

 

[Paul Jenkin]

@ Philip;

I was only saying that I'd refrain from posting anything other than processed scanned negatives as I don't envisage using any other analogue medium to make photographs.

@ Ray;

No worries about hijacking the thread as this debate seems to be providing some clarity about what constitutes a "hybrid".

For me, Marco seems to have hit the nail on the head in pointing out the vision statement from the initial page - that the images posted should "combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes".

Therefore, speaking only for myself, I'm going to stick with my original intentions of posting images created from scanned film negatives / transparencies that have had additional post-processing work done via the likes of Photoshop, Lightroom, Silver Efex Pro and the like.

 

[pschwart]

@ Philip;

I was only saying that I'd refrain from posting anything other than processed scanned negatives as I don't envisage using any other analogue medium to make photographs.

@ Ray;

No worries about hijacking the thread as this debate seems to be providing some clarity about what constitutes a "hybrid".

For me, Marco seems to have hit the nail on the head in pointing out the vision statement from the initial page - that the images posted should "combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes".

Therefore, speaking only for myself, I'm going to stick with my original intentions of posting images created from scanned film negatives / transparencies that have had additional post-processing work done via the likes of Photoshop, Lightroom, Silver Efex Pro and the like.

I'm OK with this -- I also enjoyed the images on Flickr. I felt like a voyeur viewing all the EXIF properties -- nothing hidden there I do think that
"combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes".
is overly broad -- it means that *every* posted image that originated on film qualifies since it had to be scanned to get uploaded. But I also agree with Don -- rules are oppressive. I think that if everyone is up front about what processes they use, this will be self-correcting -- participants will view and comment on the stuff that interests them.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Speaking as a user of this forum--I'm a moderator on APUG but not here--I think the spirit of the enterprise has always been that the users should define the hybrid forum as it develops with its own categories that reflect the work that people are doing, and there's no point in making rigid rules to discuss an evolving cluster of media.

As on APUG, I think the observation that "well we have to digitize images to post anything" is a red herring. That's hybrid in the trivial sense. Obviously, things have to be digitized to be posted on an internet forum, but it doesn't address the essential idea of combining old and new processes to produce hybrid work.

Should simulation of traditional processes with 100% digital techniques be fair game? I don't know. I can't say it's something I really find appealing, but maybe there should be a place to discuss the way that the aesthetics of traditional photography inform our digital work and possibly vice versa (for instance, I usually find myself explaining the Zone System lately by using the histogram as an analogy). I don't think you'll find that on dpreview or photo.net, so maybe it belongs here.

I've been experimenting lately with classic soft focus lenses on a view camera with a digital camera mounted on a sliding back. Is that appropriate for hybridphoto.com? It seems like the kind of thing that might interest people here, and I'm not really interested in discussing that on photo.net, but it doesn't involve a light sensitive emulsion, so it's really digital photography with classic equipment. Here's an example--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/4537823087/

 

[TSSPro]

Well put, David A.