Digital images on a film site??

[Terry Christian]

Heck, Stone, send me a neg and I'll make a print for you. Ain't nothin' else like holding a print in your hand and realizing there's no ink involved.

 

[StoneNYC]

Heck, Stone, send me a neg and I'll make a print for you. Ain't nothin' else like holding a print in your hand and realizing there's no ink involved.

So you'll make me a Cibichrome/ilfochrome print??? Gee thanks!!!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If the posting rules are clearly described and people are still sneaking digital images it, the pics should be removed. Once the group starts to dilute analog images with digital shots, it becomes a free for all. Like that one couch that someone dumps on the street, the next thing you see is a garbage pile. Allow exceptions dilutes the credibility of the group also. That my 2¢ worth.

 

[removed account4]

stone

as someone who usually uploads scans of slides, film and paper negatives and lumenized prints
i pay close attention to threads where this rule is discussed ..

from what i can tell ...
it means being true to your medium,
so without excessive PS acrobatics
you can upload whatever it is you need to upload.
it means without turning your film origin ( or paper origin )
image into a photoshop illustration you can upload film scans.

the problem is that on "other sites" the sky is the limit,
and the computer program takes precedence ..
i am sure you know what i mean .. elaborate steps to do whatever it is someone may want to do
like turn a slide scan of a cute and cuddly koala into a folded origami cute and cuddly koala bear in its own little
imagined universe ...

in other words ... the sky isn't the limit, the limit is well, to mimic what you might be able to do in the dark ..

john

 

[Regular Rod]

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?

Rather than put the images on the group pool why not simply put them on a thread in the comments?

RR

 

[removed account4]

hey RR

i think the problem is the people who "own / run" the group won't let non-analog origin
materials in the discussions as illustrations either ..

 

[Terry Christian]

So you'll make me a Cibichrome/ilfochrome print??? Gee thanks!!!

No, I meant B&W silver gelatin. I haven't gotten into RA-4 quite yet and I have no idea about getting into Ilfo/Ciba!

 

[StoneNYC]

No, I meant B&W silver gelatin. I haven't gotten into RA-4 quite yet and I have no idea about getting into Ilfo/Ciba!

Haha it was a joke, you'll never get into Cibichrome

Thanks for the offer, I'll get my own eventually but it's greatly appreciated.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Regular Rod]

hey RR

i think the problem is the people who "own / run" the group won't let non-analog origin
materials in the discussions as illustrations either ..

Oh dear

Very well, will it be okay to make a set and simply post the hyperlink to the set in the comments?

RR

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

A scanned image is factually a digital representation of the original. Anything scanned is.
In essence, the group has strayed a little too far from reality to be credible with its dictum.

 

[StoneNYC]

I have to admit I've been very tempted to post a digital image and call it film just to see if everyone believes it's film. I won't, but I've been tempted


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRHazelton]

I have to admit I've been very tempted to post a digital image and call it film just to see if everyone believes it's film. I won't, but I've been tempted


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

You could probably scan a print of a digital image and no one could tell the difference ....BWAHAHAHAHAHA Or if you could strip all the EXIF data - I think that's the term - you might get away with it.

 

[StoneNYC]

You could probably scan a print of a digital image and no one could tell the difference ....BWAHAHAHAHAHA Or if you could strip all the EXIF data - I think that's the term - you might get away with it.

I've been tempted to do that, but it's even more tempting to GRAIN a digital image in Photoshop and see if anyone can tell it's fake

Oh I found this roll of kodak 3200 film and stand developed it in RODINAL 1:200 look at the beautiful grain! So beautiful!! Haha


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

it is pretty much impossible to tell images from the two different media apart.
i have shown side by side images to die-hard film people .. you know " death to the sensor" types
they had no idea which was which, and eventually realized it didn't matter so much and now are totally digitized ..
like the filmies .. a lot of people ( on this site? and probably in the flirkr group ) think they can tell the difference hands down ..
whatever ... by the time you see it on a screen it IS a digital image

not sure what the point of bull$hitting everyone is ..
someone doesn't want film uploaded somewhere, upload something else
someone doesn't want pixies uploaded somewhere upload something else

seems to be a trust thing more than anything else ..
and on media specific sites, once you break that trust bond ... you're pretty much skrewwed.

 

[StoneNYC]

it is pretty much impossible to tell images from the two different media apart.
i have shown side by side images to die-hard film people .. you know " death to the sensor" types
they had no idea which was which, and eventually realized it didn't matter so much and now are totally digitized ..
like the filmies .. a lot of people ( on this site? and probably in the flirkr group ) think they can tell the difference hands down ..
whatever ... by the time you see it on a screen it IS a digital image

not sure what the point of bull$hitting everyone is ..
someone doesn't want film uploaded somewhere, upload something else
someone doesn't want pixies uploaded somewhere upload something else

seems to be a trust thing more than anything else ..
and on media specific sites, once you break that trust bond ... you're pretty much skrewwed.

I said I was tempted, not that I would do it... Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

You just cannot fight the digitalmafia.I too gave up eventually and went all digital. resistance is futile.

 

[jstraw]

Add EXIF data to a scan of a silver-gelatin print...just to screw with them.

 

[jp498]

I've done copy-photos of some of my cyanotypes; it looks like from the exif data, a manipulated Nikon D600 image.

 

[StoneNYC]

You just cannot fight the digitalmafia.I too gave up eventually and went all digital. resistance is futile.

I thought you only went digital for PRINTING but were still shooting film?

Do you EVER shoot film?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Racer X 69]

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

This was my first thought. If the group insists on analog only, then there won't be much to view unless they can figure out a way to hold the prints or slides up to their web cam and then get others in the group to view them before their arms get tired.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If the group insists on analog only, then there won't be much to view unless they can figure out a way to hold the prints or slides up to their...

...eyes.

That's precisely what the various APUG group print exchange activities are all about. You make a real print using your own real hands using real light, real negatives, and real photographic paper. No fooling around with simulated computerized virtual abstractions of any of these ingredients.

Then you send it through the real postal mail to another real member who holds it up to the real light for the real experience of viewing it in person. Digitized images of these real prints are not real prints. Nor are transmitted webcam images of real prints. You have to be able to hold it in your hands.

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

Why not pick one out and give it a try?

Ken

 

[NedL]

You just cannot fight the digitalmafia.I too gave up eventually and went all digital. resistance is futile.

Hi Ralph, I know you did, when you moved. One of the first things that occurred to me was that it will be very interesting to hear your opinions in a few years. I'm still in the camp that thinks there's nothing quite like holding that silver print in your hand, but I suspect you'll take the other ways of printing as far as they can go, and then your opinions and experience will be fascinating to hear.

 

[Dali]

Hi Ralph, I know you did, when you moved. One of the first things that occurred to me was that it will be very interesting to hear your opinions in a few years. I'm still in the camp that thinks there's nothing quite like holding that silver print in your hand, but I suspect you'll take the other ways of printing as far as they can go, and then your opinions and experience will be fascinating to hear.

Holding a silver print or a digital print does not make a difference to me; only the result (i.e. the print) matters.

For the Flikr group, if they can't perceive the irony of situation, I would run away, life is too short to mess with analog ayatollahs.

 

[NedL]

Holding a silver print or a digital print does not make a difference to me; only the result (i.e. the print) matters.

Yes fair enough. I meant what it looks like in person, as opposed to a scan.

 

[removed account4]

hi nedL
i agree with you and i disagree with you at the same time.
i think at a certain point 2 images made with different methods
and printed the same way tend to look the same ..
i have told the story before about giving 2 prints to a hardcore analog luddite
and he wasn't able to tell them apart ...
i think people see and believe what they want ...
and if someone wants to see the difference between things, they will always
insist on seeing things that others might not notice, and even after pointing out
the differences the other party still can't see them and they just agree / shrug their shoulders ...

i know people who love automat-expresso machines. i'm not a fan but i never turn down free coffee
i can tell the difference, they can't i just don't bother suggesting there is a difference anymore
because i have come to the conclusion that maybe i am imagining the difference in texture taste and nuance,
because, well, i like hand pulled shots ... and there probably isn't any difference in the end except they
don't have to clean up the mess but once in a blue moon, and i have to clean up the mess every time i pull a shot

to each their own ..

speaking of which, i think ill have some expresso after i post this
cheers
john