One doesn't know.
That is the fundamental problem I have with everyone who posts an image from a scanned negative or plate, then checks "Yes" down in the "Is this print for sale?" box. They might be pretty certain they could match it, but pretty certain and certain could end up being miles apart when it comes time to turn out the lights.
And I wouldn't know that until after the check cleared.
Another one of my personal extensions to the policy guidelines here is that if I post a negative scan, I never check yes in that box. (Not that anyone would ever be interested in my stuff in the first place.)
Ken
Actually I agree with him, many of your images aren't allowed here and should be on DPUGsince alternative processes are against the rules here from what I've been told.
Then again, if we are following those rules very strictly, I believe that Kodachrome wouldn't be allowed since it's silver film, BUT then dye's are added to it to make it color.... Which isn't allowed heretechnically.....
eddie,
Here's one way: "Send me one of your negatives and I'll print it for you."
I forgot to mention that a negative that prints EASILY in the darkroom is DIFFERENT than established standards of quality. The easy-to-print negative sacrifices a small amount of these important traits: SPEED, RESOLUTION, GRAIN.
The corollary is, from an optimal quality standpoint, the very best negative for darkroom printing is likely to be difficult to print.
So, if you don't print in the darkroom, but intend to... Be careful who's standards of quality you choose to make your negatives meet, because you might end up with some excellent but difficult to print negatives.
For instance, I uploaded a negative scan to the galleries...
The bad thing that happened? I didn't print it until three years later...
The only "rules" are, if you exhibit a print in a gallery (vs posting an online image), it should be a "photograph". Meaning, if you've done anything non photographic to it, such as painting or marking an area w/ a brush or ink, or gluing something to the surface, then it's a mixed media piece, not a photograph, and should be clearly described as such.
It's reasonably common for scanned film to look a bit flat and need PS adjustment. It can be complicated depending if you are doing the scanning or some facility is doing it for you. If you do it yourself you can usually change some settings to get a pretty good result right out of the scanner. For the flat contrast I generally just add a bit of levels adjustment in PS, neutralise the B&W (having scanned in colour) and that's about it. I do think your after scan looks a bit overdone, too high in contrast, and perhaps you've given yourself too much work to get there. Perhaps try a simple levels or curves adjustment instead.
OP
make your scans, post them, learn how to make wet prints and if you want, post them,
then do whatever you want and don't let people with extreme views of what photography is or isn't sway your decision on what you do.
have fun!
john
Funnily enough, I prefer the one done my way.Hey Michael,
So I tried it your way. And loved your way. I added just a simple levels adjustment and I prefer it over my first attempt.
What do you think? (I've attached both for ease of comparing. 1st one is levels only adjustment, 2nd one is 1st attempt with way too much processing).
Jay
Actually I agree with him, many of your images aren't allowed here and should be on DPUGsince alternative processes are against the rules here from what I've been told.
Then again, if we are following those rules very strictly, I believe that Kodachrome wouldn't be allowed since it's silver film, BUT then dye's are added to it to make it color.... Which isn't allowed heretechnically.....
Actually I agree with him, many of your images aren't allowed here and should be on DPUGsince alternative processes are against the rules here from what I've been told.
HUH?
what isn't allowed is hectic digital manipulation
and using digital negatives to make analog prints ..
max's etchings for example are made using
a digital negative but then a copper plate gravure
very different than a silver print, hand painted emulsion print
that is then hand colored ..
Once again, please stop posting misinformation.
I said "that's what I've been told" which I WAS told before, over a year ago... Things are changing...
Yea digital anything isn't allowed even if the end is a physical chemical print, any hybrid workflow is TECHNICALLY not allowed... And I got a lot of flack in the beginning just for scanning my negs... I've since since a change in the strictness, I think it's just the old strict guys gave up... Lol
Can you please point out to me where you were told that "alternative processes are against the rules ".
.. Sheesh why don't you jump on his back since he said it...
stone
you stated a few weeks ago you don't bother reading threads you start because you are too busy ( or something like that).
this must be all that far off since you claim negative scans are not allowed every chance you get, ignoring the posts that state the opposite.
for every thread you ask + say " i have been told " negative scans are not allowed
10-15 posts follow and say that is total BS
you were never in trouble for posting negative scans, unless you DESATURATED color images to CONVERT them to b/w.
THAT is the kind of manipulation, and digital trickery that the guidelines talk about, not negative scans.
it has been like that since the beginning,
nothing has changed in 11 years.
maybe you should actually read threads you start and you post to ?
and as dinesh, and others have stated, stop posting misinformation.
btw.
if alternative process images are "against the rules"
why is there an alternative process sub forum?
OP ignore the infighting we are all good folks, just like any family, sometimes we bicker but please don't be put off by this stuff.
However John, this means I SHOULD be able to take a Kodachrome image and convert it to B&W because I COULD print it on Harmon direct positive B&W paper as a print (since Cibichrome is no longer available) and that would be acceptable, so why can't I post a transparency image converted to digital? Because you guys have your heads in the sand and make one rule one day and another the next and all to fit whatever agenda you have at that moment... So get off my rear about this stuff ok?
It is simple really. There isn't a single thing I could do to please everyone when it comes to this issue. I could add some digital and there would be fallout, I could continue to adhere to the charter and there will be some fallout. I had a lot of concern over this in the past, sleepless nights trying to figure out how to please all parties involved in this debate and keep APUG to my vision, and it almost drove me mad. I made the decision years ago to adhere to APUG maintaining a narrow focused scope and drawing a specific line (see the charter on the home page). This did wonders for me and our moderator team as the 'gray area' evaporated so did a great deal of our stress in managing this busy forum. Having such a well defined direction was a good thing for the day to day running of APUG. These issues still pop up from time to time and we have to come in and essentially post the same statements. The narrow scope of APUG is praised by some and loathed by some, but at the end of the day there are 100,000's of places to discuss all things D, but not so with Traditional. Therefore, I feel it makes more sense to cater to that one little oasis which remains. Why deny such an entity the right to adhere to it's chosen path? Will this "kill" or "harm" traditional photography? I know we continue to register 20-30 new people a day which says to me we are doing something right. Our stats are always strong for such a niche site. We give traditional companies/mom & pop shops extremely cheap advertising here, many I do not even charge for ads because they are struggling in the current economy. We seem to be one of the few photo forums where members have direct lines of communication to traditional manufacturers. APUG is what it is and can't be all things to all people, nor can we be some kind of supreme savior to traditional photography, that is too much to pin on any single organization. Those who continue to wrestle with the scope of this site, might ultimately find this is not the venue for them. I know we might lose some members because of that or disappoint some people, it's nothing new when it comes to running such a venue. Taking it even further, if a mass exodus occurred over our scope, it might prove the venue itself is not viable but that has yet to be indicated in the slightest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?