Dirty Photography

jnanian said:

i am sure you could do that in the darkroom, most people can stick a slide in an enlarger and make a print from it,
even if it means making a paper internegative .. its basic stuff but the first line of the uploads page clearly states:

" Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally such as converting color images to black and white ... "
which means, even though it is a simple adjustment in PS or whatever it is you are using, it is not allowed in the gallery.
but posting your darkroom print is definitely allowed, as much as posting an inverted negative, or a slide.

its too bad whoever it was that PMed you or told you that film scans or alternative process photography filled your head with such nonsense.
maybe that person misunderstood what the difference between alt process photography was and hybrid photography, where
a digital internegative ( or whatever ) is used to make a traditional print ? whoknows, but what he or she told you was wrong ..

the only adgenda of this site is to be an analog website, no one's heads are in the sand and seeing in 11 years the site has grown to 60K + members
and subscribers that keep the site going, and sean to steer it with the membership and moderators, it seems to be doing quite well carving out a nice niche
where people can come here and learn about analog image making. it could have easily become another run of the mill photography website but .. its not ...

this post from sean is from 2011
but is as relevant today as it was then ...




====

have fun jay !
john

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

Click to expand...

Ok, however...

(I don't know how big the direct positive paper gets) but... In theory if I made a large print, from a transparency.... It was my masterpiece and I wanted to share it, but could not scan it because of it's size, and I wanted to show you guys, the only option would be to scan the negative and convert it to B&W to match the print...

And this is what I'm saying, you guys sometimes get caught up in the written rule for some things, when the intent of the rule is different or isn't inclusive of all situations, but then other times when it suits your needs you say "oh well this is the intent of the rule so you can bend it a little" but only SOMETIMES which is frustrating.

I also have a CHEMICAL print that was made from a scan and then printed with a light-jet on chemical photo paper... It's B&W but the transparency is color.... Can I scan that physical print?

StoneNYC said:

(I don't know how big the direct positive paper gets) but... In theory if I made a large print, from a transparency.... It was my masterpiece and I wanted to share it, but could not scan it because of it's size, and I wanted to show you guys, the only option would be to scan the negative and convert it to B&W to match the print...

Click to expand...

Just take a snap of it with your digital camera and post it. I do it all the time, no rules broken.

Stone, I am still waiting. Who told you that "alternative processes are against the rules "?

miha said:

Just tak a snap of it with your digital camera an post it. I do it all the time, no rules broken.

Click to expand...

But it's still been manipulated because the print doesn't match the slide... So why isn't that not allowed?

StoneNYC said:

But it's still been manipulated because the print doesn't match the slide... So why isn't that not allowed?

Click to expand...

Snap of your too big to be scanned print, not slide!

miha said:

Snap of your too big to be scanned print, not slide!

Click to expand...

Ok but the rules say you CAN scan as long as the image matches the print. That's all I mean, it's s "legal loophole" kind of deal.

Sure, but the rule also says you are not allowed to desaturate.

Stone:

If it is from a transparency, don't worry about their being a digital intermediate step, just try not to distort the reality of the image with the digital tools at hand.

If it is from a negative, go ahead and scan, just try not to distort the reality of the image with the digital tools at hand.

And once you are optically printing, either scan from the print and try to match it in the galleries OR scan from the negative and try to match it to the print you have done or will be likely to do.

Once you are printing optically, your posts will better approximate optical results.

That's it - the rules are flexible to match realities. Approach the issue with good, analogue intentions and no-one is going to mind.

The rules are stricter about posts in threads, because it is easier to avoid digital subjects there.

stone,

this is one of the threads you asked about desaturating images ..
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
as far as i know, the rules haven't changed since the site was formed ...
and are pretty explicit on the upload page.

seeing you were asking about monster prints you make in your darkroom that are too big to skann
there are a handful of people that know how to either multi skanstitch or photograph the print
and they might be able to help you ...

I understand all this, I guess I'm bringing up an issue that doesn't really need to be covered, but it was an example of what I personally believe is hypocritical thinking on the forum, but either way the OP isn't shooting transparency film so he doesn't have to worry about it, back to topics at hand, carry on!

Stone, it seems you've just reached the point where you are making up ridiculous possible examples just to keep arguing. When you got your hand slapped a couple years ago it was because you did things in PS that are explicitly mentioned in the rules, not for any of the weird scenarios you bring up now.

Ya this thread is getting a little out of hand and making a poor impression on a newcomer.

I don't mean to get righteous but is this all necessary? If you really think so, maybe you should start a new thread.

At this point, the OP's original questions have been answered and he is moving forward.

pbromaghin said:

Stone, it seems you've just reached the point where you are making up ridiculous possible examples just to keep arguing. When you got your hand slapped a couple years ago it was because you did things in PS that are explicitly mentioned in the rules, not for any of the weird scenarios you bring up now.

Click to expand...

Why does everyone say I do things in PS.... I don't ... EVER .... Gah!

Up until a year ago I didn't even own photoshop....

And it was bought for me as a gift to help me "progress" by my mother for Christmas last year, and I can't even operate the darn thing.

I don't use photoshop! Sheesh!

I think I have to agree with pstake, I think this discussion needs to end. Thanks to everyone who answered me and welcomed me into the community, I'm so glad I am a part of it

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

StoneNYC said:

Why does everyone say I do things in PS.... I don't ... EVER .... Gah!

Up until a year ago I didn't even own photoshop....

And it was bought for me as a gift to help me "progress" by my mother for Christmas last year, and I can't even operate the darn thing.

I don't use photoshop! Sheesh!

Click to expand...

Hmm. Then what the heck was it? I guess I'm having a bout of CRS.

Sorry.

Btw - call your mother.

Alt-process prints that follow an all-analogue process are totally within the rules on APUG and always have been, as are all kinds of analogue manipulations and forms of art that use photography without involving any kind of digital step.

Alt-process prints from digital originals or that use a digital interneg are more appropriate for DPUG.org, and are a lively topic of discussion on that forum.

jaydebruyne said:

So something is niggling me and I'd really like to get some opinions on it, especially for posting on this forum.

I have just started to shoot with film and once I've developed it, I scan in the negatives, edit in Photoshop and then upload to whatever streams I need to.

My question is this:

What is considered 'unethical digital post production' for film scans? (I've just read the guidelines on Portfolios and it got me worried.)

The scans from my first roll of film lacked so much contrast and generally looked awful, even though the negatives actually look quite well exposed/developed. I shot on Ilford FP4 125 using a Canon EOS 650 35mm camera. I developed using Ilford DD-x, Ilfostop, Rapid Fixer and Rinse.

In Photoshop I'm duplicating the original layer and setting the blend mode to Soft Light to give it a decent contrast fix. Then adding a little more contrast with a contrast layer, some light dodging & burning (not always), and sometimes a black solid layer with a Soft Light blend mode and adjusting its opacity level.

Am I completely overdoing it? And is this the sort of thing which will have me burned at the stake if I post the images on APUG? (slightly kidding but, not really).

Another question:

If I am overdoing the digital post processing, how do I get images with high contrast? Am I using the wrong film? Should I underexpose? I am a complete beginner with film and I have no plans to give up on it. There is too much I love about it. If anyone can recommend a good book I will gladly go away and read it.

I've attached an example scan and processed image to show you what I'm ranting on about.

Cheers
Jay

Click to expand...

My first thought is to "leave the print alone from Photoshop!". None of that is done for my own hybridised print work. It would appear your problem is not exposing the negative correctly in-camera, and relying too much (way too much in my opinion) in having the result propped up by artifice and floss in Photoshop. Another problem is thinking that a scanner will expose a negative or a transparency correctly. It will not. The use of a filter at exposure would no doubt have improved the end result.

Speaking in a broader, out-there context, not APUG, there is no benchmark "unethical digital post production" for film scans. It is entirely an individual thing among photographers who set their own limits however conservative or extravagant. Having said that I would ease off on reliance of Photoshop to correct or improve exposure errors and concentrate on nailing everything about the exposure in-camera. In a nutshell, I advocate that you build up your skill of in-camera exposure and the specific use of filters and their effect. The APUG community here is a wealth of information even if you are intent on finding a book for reference, there are people here collectively with hundreds of years experience in B&W. You might want to look at investing in a camera where you have control over metering rather than the onboard 6 zone evaluative of the EOS 650 which, common to all evaluative/matrix/multipattern meters, can often return a result oblique to expectations and thus give rise to concern that you may be doing something wrong, when it is the camera. It takes years of experience to judge what these cameras are reading.

Poisson Du Jour said:

It would appear your problem is not exposing the negative correctly in-camera, and relying too much (way too much in my opinion) in having the result propped up by artifice and floss in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Since the post, I have stripped my original process entirely. I now only apply a levels adjustment to the scanned negative.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Another problem is thinking that a scanner will expose a negative or a transparency correctly. It will not. The use of a filter at exposure would no doubt have improved the end result.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying I should expose to correct the failings of the scanner, which to me, wouldn't be the correct exposure at all?

Poisson Du Jour said:

Having said that I would ease off on reliance of Photoshop to correct or improve exposure errors and concentrate on nailing everything about the exposure in-camera.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, I always aim to get things right in camera, I learned that shooting with digital and as a filmmaker for the last 2 years. But I reiterate my previous point, even if I nail exposure, my scanner will not represent my exposure honestly so I will still need to make some slight adjustments.

Poisson Du Jour said:

In a nutshell, I advocate that you build up your skill of in-camera exposure and the specific use of filters and their effect. /QUOTE]

That's my plan I'm sure once I start wet printing I will learn more about exposure than I will through scanning negatives. But for now, this is what I have to do.

Poisson Du Jour said:

You might want to look at investing in a camera where you have control over metering rather than the onboard 6 zone evaluative of the EOS 650 which, common to all evaluative/matrix/multipattern meters, can often return a result oblique to expectations and thus give rise to concern that you may be doing something wrong, when it is the camera. It takes years of experience to judge what these cameras are reading.

Click to expand...

Can you suggest a cheap camera which takes inexpensive lenses which will allow me to do this?

In all honesty, I do not have the money to buy more equipment right now so I will just have to use what I have. Even with the evaluative and partial metering that the 650 has, I'm pretty sure it will be a good camera to learn the basics on.

A friend of mine has actually recommended I get a sekonic ls-308s light meter which will eradicate this very flaw, would it not?

Thanks so much for the detailed response, Poisson.

Regards
Jay
P.S please forgive any spelling mistakes, I sent this using my phone.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Since the post, I have stripped my original process entirely. I now only apply a levels adjustment to the scanned negative.

Click to expand...

That is about as much as I apply in my own workflow.

So, are you saying I should expose to correct the failings of the scanner, which to me, wouldn't be the correct exposure at all?

Click to expand...

I am saying you should take total control from the scanner and not rely on any automated process to make corrections for you. YOU be the judge, jury and executioner and tell the scanner what to is right by your judgemnet. Traditionally scanners give the most problems scanning negatives and sometimes transparencies; B&W is not so common a problem, but all scanning should be done with full manual control over what is happening and acknowledge that what you see on the screen may show no similarity to what you see on printed media!

Can you suggest a cheap camera which takes inexpensive lenses which will allow me to do this?

Click to expand...

Much of my early photography was done with a Canon T90 and the old Canon FD lens system — no fancy metering! I wouldn't say this is a cheap camera or an easy system to (now) get into with most bodies and lenses having seen quite a lot of use (but good specimens can be found!). There are Nikon bodies, Olympus bodies (e.g. OM1n OM2n), The OM4 (pricey but sporting an unrivalled spot metering system that can work you toward a good understanding of how selectively weighted spot/highlight and shadow bias works). I was a student in those days, so I know what it's like to exist on a boiled egg for two weeks and open a well-stocked pantry to show visitors boxes and boxes of Kodachrome 200 sitting beside Vegemite and Ryvita!!

A friend of mine has actually recommended I get a sekonic ls-308s light meter which will eradicate this very flaw, would it not?

Click to expand...

Well, no. A meter is undeniably useful indeed, but not tandem to a competent EOS body that makes its own decisions based on a programmed metering algorithm reading the scene over 6 segments. Even in manual, the 650 will still be metering the scene with its matrice. So you need a manual body where you have total control of the camera based on readings YOU make with the Sekonic. Trust me, this is the way forward (though you may stump your toe occasionally...). It is a bit harder to do in the smaller 35mm format, hence the recommendation you consider, at a later date, migrating to medium format. TLRs (twin-lens reflex) cameras are a great introduction to MF and you will be using roll film that is between 320 and 400% bigger than 35mm, thus contrast and tone is spread out over a wider area.

I have used a Canon EOS 1N for many years (since 1994 I think). The 16-zone evaluative metering is flawless in most situations but there are times when partial (for backlit subjects) or spot (for spectrals/shadows) is needed, thus taking away the camera's onboard automation and leaving judgement up to me. The exposure has always been close to perfect, but nowhere near as good as using MF and a spot meter and a swag of tricks and skills built up over the decades. I hope you follow this path and enjoy the long and winding road.

You will take more photos, start saving a bit and invest on good tools. I may recommend to go directly to 645...

I may recommend to go directly to 645...

Click to expand...

What does this mean?

Poisson Du Jour said:

That is about as much as I apply in my own workflow.

Click to expand...

That's actually extremely reassuring for a fledgling like myself

...but all scanning should be done with full manual control over what is happening and acknowledge that what you see on the screen may show no similarity to what you see on printed media!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Not that I know from experience (yet), but from reading posts on here and responses to my threads, I've picked up on this fact very quickly. So I fully intend to do some wet printing asap!

I was a student in those days, so I know what it's like to exist on a boiled egg for two weeks and open a well-stocked pantry to show visitors boxes and boxes of Kodachrome 200 sitting beside Vegemite and Ryvita!!

Click to expand...

Rock n' Roll eh! Let the games begin

Well, no. A meter is undeniably useful indeed, but not tandem to a competent EOS body that makes its own decisions based on a programmed metering algorithm reading the scene over 6 segments. Even in manual, the 650 will still be metering the scene with its matrice. So you need a manual body where you have total control of the camera based on readings YOU make with the Sekonic.

Click to expand...

I'm a little lost regarding my 650. I was under the impression I had full manual control? I haven't shot it yet without satisfying the meter that exposure is correct, but I'm assuming in manual mode it will allow me to shoot no matter what the meter says? I can control my aperture and shutter independently in manual mode. Am I missing something?

I hope you follow this path and enjoy the long and winding road.

Click to expand...

I certainly will. Cheers

jaydebruyne said:

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

I think he's recommending that you skip 35mm and go to 6x4.5 medium format.

I tend to think you should get the basic process down first, including making wet prints in the darkroom.

Going to MF would be an expensive proposition.

pstake said:

I think he's recommending that you skip 35mm and go to 6x4.5 medium format.

I tend to think you should get the basic process down first, including making wet prints in the darkroom.

Going to MF would be an expensive proposition.

Click to expand...

Ohhh right, ok. No, I have no plans on switching right now. I'll stick with my cheap little 650 and see what I can do with her
Thanks for explaining that to me...

It means he wants you to go up to medium format. Be careful, this would be the beginning of GAS, which has no end.