Digital images on a film site??

[GRHazelton]

I subscribe to several Flickr groups, some of which are strictly devoted to film. Fine, I shoot film and digital, and develop my own BW. Two of the sites have just announced that NO DIGITAL IMAGES of any sort will be permitted, on pain being banned from the group. This implies that, for example, if I wish to explain and demonstrate how to convert a Pentax 645 film insert from 220 to 120, or vice versa, I have to shoot on increasingly expensive film, process it, and then scan the negative in order to do what could be done digitally in moments.

Yes, I could describe the process in words, but the addition of pictures makes the process much clearer and less likely to be misunderstood.

Does anyone else feel that this position by the Administrator is a little extreme?

 

[ROL]

This is something you need group think on?!? Logic dictates you remove yourself. Start your own damn group.

 

[Terry Christian]

Maybe the administrators haven't thought about images used to illustrate a process. Otherwise I'd agree with their stance. You might want to ask before jumping to conclusions.

 

[onepuff]

It does seem extreme. I think that on a site dedicated to film there should be a distinction between images pertaining to artistic merit (or indeed photographic process) and those which are merely quick snapshots to illustrate some technical point or piece of equipment as you have described. I can understand that pictures on a film-only site which are of an artistic or demonstrative nature should be shot on film and anyone visiting the site would expect this to be so. Pictures which are there to quickly illustrate a technical discussion are best shot on digital (or a Polaroid) for immediacy and this is one thing that digital is very good for. It seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Fixcinater]

I don't feel it is extreme, I am a member of a Pentax 6x7 group there that is specifically for non-cropped images. I find that valuable to be able to see what the lens actually does in terms of DOF and FOV. Cropping alters that assessment capability.

One possibility for beating the rules, as it were, would be to start a discussion thread inside the group and post your digital images/walk-through on the Pentax film back conversion inside the thread, rather than submitting it to the pool of images in the group. Quite like you wouldn't submit a digital-captured image to the galleries here at APUG, but you could start a thread and submit digital-captured images describing the film back conversion therein.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I subscribe to several Flickr groups, some of which are strictly devoted to film. Fine, I shoot film and digital, and develop my own BW. Two of the sites have just announced that NO DIGITAL IMAGES of any sort will be permitted, on pain being banned from the group. This implies that, for example, if I wish to explain and demonstrate how to convert a Pentax 645 film insert from 220 to 120, or vice versa, I have to shoot on increasingly expensive film, process it, and then scan the negative in order to do what could be done digitally in moments.

Yes, I could describe the process in words, but the addition of pictures makes the process much clearer and less likely to be misunderstood.

Does anyone else feel that this position by the Administrator is a little extreme?

Point out to them that no one will ever be able to post an image, since pictures on the internet are by definition digital...

 

[ME Super]

+1. That was my first thought!!

 

[wildbill]

Wow.
The rules are there to keep assholes from dumping their memory cards from their D whatever to the wrong group as was being done quite often. Get over it.

 

[jp498]

Flickr groups are for sharing images meeting the qualifications of that group. If you want to do something other than share qualifying images, take the discussion here or another forum. I like Flickr's groups and photo sharing, but don't think much of it as a discussion place.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think the OP makes an excellent point about using digital images for instruction purposes, assuming of course that the groups in question actually mean that he'd have to do what he assumes he'd have to, in order to post instructions with pictures

If I need knowledge to further my use and enjoyment of analogue cameras, processing etc which is the example he gave then why have rules that frustrates this?

The OP might not then bother to do what he thinks he is forced to and the only sufferers are those of us who need that knowledge that the OP possesses.

I was a recipient of the very instruction he mentions, namely the conversion of a 220 P645N insert to a 120 insert.

Thanks for that GRHazelton.

What might make sense is a rule that says that in the galleries all scans should be from prints and not from neg scans which like the instruction example the OP gives, should be confined to issues about neg problems such those of the "what went wrong here?" type

pentaxuser

 

[GRHazelton]

This is something you need group think on?!? Logic dictates you remove yourself. Start your own damn group.

Calm down. Reread the post. I'm referring to digital images illustrating a process, not "artistic" images.

 

[GRHazelton]

Maybe the administrators haven't thought about images used to illustrate a process. Otherwise I'd agree with their stance. You might want to ask before jumping to conclusions.

The statement on the group says that even just pictures of cameras are forbidden, if they are digital. And do note that much of the discussion refers to processing questions/problems.

 

[GRHazelton]

I think the OP makes an excellent point about using digital images for instruction purposes, assuming of course that the groups in question actually mean that he'd have to do what he assumes he'd have to, in order to post instructions with pictures

If I need knowledge to further my use and enjoyment of analogue cameras, processing etc which is the example he gave then why have rules that frustrates this?

The OP might not then bother to do what he thinks he is forced to and the only sufferers are those of us who need that knowledge that the OP possesses.

I was a recipient of the very instruction he mentions, namely the conversion of a 220 P645N insert to a 120 insert.

Thanks for that GRHazelton.

What might make sense is a rule that says that in the galleries all scans should be from prints and not from neg scans which like the instruction example the OP gives, should be confined to issues about neg problems such those of the "what went wrong here?" type

pentaxuser

Thanks for the response, Pentaxuser. I was somewhat dismayed at the apparent anger my innocent post aroused. Unless I'm mistaken digital images are used on this forum for the very sort of purposes I was discussing. I'd wager that a lot of the illustrations in the APUG's Classified section are digital, and so what? No one is judging them on their artistic merit. In like fashion, describing a contact printer box would best be done with a picture! And the same applies to countless other aspect of photography, both digital and analog.

It too often seems that we film users are becoming too insular. We should try to be more inclusive, perhaps.

BTW, glad the 645 insert conversion process was useful. I wish I could claim credit for it, but I happened across it on Pentaxforums.com, one of the finest fora on the web.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Two of the sites have just announced that NO DIGITAL IMAGES of any sort will be permitted, on pain being banned from the group. This implies that, for example, if I wish to explain and demonstrate how to convert a Pentax 645 film insert from 220 to 120, or vice versa, I have to shoot on increasingly expensive film, process it, and then scan the negative in order to do what could be done digitally in moments.

Since all images on the web are in digital form, how would anyone know your instructional images were shot on film and scanned or digital camera (unless you told them)? In this sort of application, the d camera can be said to be scanning the scene - or you could use a d camera to scan film images.

It all sounds very petty.

 

[Peter de Groot]

So what if the owner of the groups to go as pure as you can on the net? Not ten years ago that was the only way to do it. Except it or go alsewhere. I don't know if 35 mm film is allowed but you can use that to shoot. Buy some cheap shanghai film to shoot that kind of stuff. But again if that is to much of a hassle or to expensive for you (i wouldn't bother to be honest) then there are plenty groups that are not so strickt

 

[StoneNYC]

I find this thread comical on this site considering how strict they are HERE that even scanning a negative for posting is considered not ok... And you must make a print and then scan the print...

I've even had someone yell at me telling me that I should send my chrome images to Australia to have them printed on paper by someone with ilfochrome / Cibichrome paper rather than scan the slide...

This is why it's pretty ironic of a thread... It had to be said... There are ridiculous forum rules everywhere, just do your best and if they bitch to hard, leave or ignore them, that's what I've learned to do...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's pretty simple, really. Just demonstrate good-faith and abide by the charter of whatever group(s) you choose to participate in. Online or in person. And if the charter becomes modified in a way that rules out your participation, then move to another group with a charter that more closely aligns with your needs, or start your own group and set the charter yourself.

It's the price one pays to participate in groups. Any groups. From three people on a street corner to membership in world-wide organizations. Group membership always imposes trade-offs and constraints. But group membership is also never required.

Plus, it's not petty. Not even close. It's just the polite thing to do. Socially correct behavior. One wouldn't show up at a meeting of wine connoisseurs only to demand that they all include in their discussions the beer you like to drink, right? Nor would one try to "beat the rules" by pouring one's beer into a wine bottle. At least I hope not.

Ken

 

[pdeeh]

Wow.
The rules are there to keep assholes from dumping their memory cards from their D whatever to the wrong group as was being done quite often. Get over it.

What he said ^

 

[mr rusty]

strict they are HERE that even scanning a negative for posting is considered not ok

actually neg scans are fine here and always have been, at least since I've been here. Check the upload guidance.

All images posted should be a representation of 100% traditional work, typically negative scans or print scans produced from a 100% traditional workflow.

 

[StoneNYC]

actually neg scans are fine here and always have been, at least since I've been here. Check the upload guidance.

I've been told only if it matches the actual print, but since I don't print optically, NOTHING matches heh


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

I've been told only if it matches the actual print, but since I don't print optically, NOTHING matches heh


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Those aren't the rules Stone.

If you are scanning from a print, you need to try to approximate it.

If you are scanning from a negative, you need to try for a result similar to what you might get in a print.

And if you are scanning from a slide, you need to try to make the result look like the slide.

The emphasis is on fidelity to the film based source. You need to avoid digital enhancements and digital manipulations - the results reasonably achievable in a darkroom should be your target.

And it is always okay to take steps to minimize the additions and distortions that a digital approach can add.

 

[removed account4]

hard to believe this thread is even here ...

if you dont 'like flickr's rules don't post there?

 

[jstraw]

Yeah, don't post there. A group that would welcome images illustrating "how to convert a Pentax 645 film insert from 220 to 120" (to use your example). yet would insist that those illustrations be scans of analog prints, is being administered too foolishly to waste time on. That's absurd.

 

[ME Super]

Yeah, don't post there. A group that would welcome images illustrating "how to convert a Pentax 645 film insert from 220 to 120" (to use your example). yet would insist that those illustrations be scans of analog prints, is being administered too foolishly to waste time on. That's absurd.

There are ways around this - it is a discussion group after all. Follow their rules insofar as they say don't post the digital images to their pool. Instead post to one of your own sets, then post a link to it to the flickr group. You didn't violate the rules by posting a digitally acquired image to their pool, you only posted a link to the images. Better yet, set up a blog (wordpress or blogger come to mind), write an article, and post images with it. Then post a link here so those of us who are interested can find the info.

 

[StoneNYC]

Those aren't the rules Stone.

If you are scanning from a print, you need to try to approximate it.

If you are scanning from a negative, you need to try for a result similar to what you might get in a print.

And if you are scanning from a slide, you need to try to make the result look like the slide.

The emphasis is on fidelity to the film based source. You need to avoid digital enhancements and digital manipulations - the results reasonably achievable in a darkroom should be your target.

And it is always okay to take steps to minimize the additions and distortions that a digital approach can add.

But I have no clue what would approximate a print since I've never made one from and of my films... Ever...

So I'm not even sure how well exposed anything is, or even if it's printable (except my chromes which are mostly perfect as far as I can tell).

Anyway I'm just poking the bear at this point so I'll stop.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk