Don't shoot the Rookie :D

[srobb_photo]

Having read some of the threads here, I have a few questions. Is someone that shoots on film then has the negs/slides scanned and prints from that digital image not a film photographer?? I have trouble understanding this concept simply because I don't see it as the same thing as doing everything from taking the image digitally to printing it.

I would like to know as it is my hope to one day be able to sell at art fairs. Right now I shoot 35mm, but hope to move up to either mf/lf. One of the modern day landscape photographers I admire a lot is Jack Dykinga. He shoots mf, but scans his negs/slides and prints from the digital image. He is very adamant that he is a film photographer and will remain that way.

I just want to understand where each one of you all are coming from. Just from my lurking and viewing of profiles/reading posts, I know that there are some very knowledgeable and professional photogs here.

 

[david b]

If you shoot film, you're a film photographer.

This site is for people who shoot film and print traditionally although quite a few folks here do some sort of combination, but the digital side is not discussed here.

As for me, I shoot film, both 35mm and medium format, and I print traditionally. As a matter of fact, I have just built my own darkroom.

 

[colrehogan]

I think that if you shoot with film, you are a film photographer. Somewhere on this site, there is a thread about art fairs and within that thread people are discussing how the people are selling prints made via a printer (Chromira, LightJet, etc.).

 

[reellis67]

Here is the link to the thread

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

I too think that you are a film photographer, since you are using film, but some people will not be able to embrace the digital part of the process and may have problems with prints that you create with a digital printing device. Personally, I don't buy digital prints regardless of how they were created - I just don't like the idea that a machine made the print and not a person, but that is just my opinion. I don't hold anything against those who use a digital device to print with, and I still admire their work, but I want something that was made by hand and not mass produced by a machine.

For many people using chrome films, a scan is just about required if you don't have the gear (or time) to do Ilfochrome prints. If that is your process, then that is your process. I wouldn't let people get you upset since you are still using film to capture the image, but be aware that the gallery on this site has strict rules about images posted there, as do many art shows, which are apparently getting touchy about digitally generated prints.

In the end, you are the artist and it is your choice how to generate your work, and your opinion is the only one that should matter to you, unless of course you are targeting a specific market, in which case your desires may need to be set aside in order to sell your work. Just be aware that not everyone in every venue will be understanding of a film/digital hybrid and while many people seem to not care either way ('wet' or 'dry' process), some do. Keep an open mind, be honest about your methods if asked, work to your potential customer base if your intent is to sell, otherwise do things the way you want to do them.

- Randy

 

[roteague]

Jack Dkyinga is a LF photographer, not MF.

As one who shoots film, and prints via a digital negative, I consider myself a film photographer. I realize that some are put off by the digital step, but for the many color landscape workers that is our only choice. I can't get the chemicals to do Ilfochrome, there is no one here printing Ilfochrome, and I'm not going to use a lab on the mainland and have to worry about my transparencies in the mail everytime I need a print.

Unfortunately, many B&W photographers don't understand this - they don't understand the same choices don't exist for color photographers. In my mind it is the primary reason why most color photographers are not welcome to participate in the APUG Sales Gallery.

 

[david b]

I understand Robert and you are welcome to sell your prints here. If someone gives you a hard time about it, let me know and I will beat them up.

 

[roteague]

I understand Robert and you are welcome to sell your prints here. If someone gives you a hard time about it, let me know and I will beat them up.

Thanks David, but I'm referring to Dead Link Removed

 

[david b]

oh.

 

[AeisLugh]

Jack Dkyinga is a LF photographer, not MF.

Unfortunately, many B&W photographers don't understand this - they don't understand the same choices don't exist for color photographers. In my mind it is the primary reason why most color photographers are not welcome to participate in the APUG Sales Gallery.

And the fact with many labs is, they use the digital conversion too. I had problems with this for the last round of the blind print exchange, i discovered AFTER I spent the 7 bucks for an 8x10 print that they did their prints via a negative scanner. Most of the labs in my area are that way, at least for colour. I managed to find a hole in the wall lab that still does traditional prints via a darkroom for B&W (so I was able to get a print to send off for the exchange ) the rental darkrooms I've found only have the set up for B&W as well.

While I hope to have a darkroom set up of my own eventually, I understand that theres a great deal more complexity in acheiving a good print in colour, so I'm not sure how long it'll be before I manage to get to doing my own colour prints. It kind of makes it difficult.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . . . . . .
Unfortunately, many B&W photographers don't understand this - they don't understand the same choices don't exist for color photographers. In my mind it is the primary reason why most color photographers are not welcome to participate in the APUG Sales Gallery.

Good afternoon Robert,

A quick glance through the colour images in the APUG Gallery shows some C-Prints. Seriously, how would someone tell if that was from an enlarger or a LightJet, Chromira, or Durst Lambda?

As an example, I had an image I shot on Kodak E200 using my 1937 AGFA Jsolette. I decided to try out an R-Print, a Chromira, a machine C-Print, and a LightJet print. I asked several other photographers and friends of mine to pick out which image came from which method. None got the images matched to the methods, and in fact several people thought the R-Print was off a machine since it looked slightly softer.

A similar example is an Edward Burtynsky exhibit I saw last year at MOPA. He had a mix of enlarger prints from colour negative, and LightJet prints. It was impossible to see any difference in the prints. LightJet is definitely not inkjet, nor even remotely similar in appearance.

I am of the opinion that most inkjet prints should only be for proofing or commercial portfolios, though I have seen people display and sell them. Obviously, any inkjet print only emulates continuous tone, and should be easy to spot from any chemical print.

Seems that in order to eliminate machine prints, only true chemical B/W prints, alternative processes, and Cibachromes (Ilfochromes) should be allowed, since those involve few questions of process. Actually, now that I think of it, I took a Dan Burkholder seminar several years ago about making platinum and palladium prints from negatives generated off an image setter; in this situation, a computer was involved, so I would guess someone like Dan Burkholder should not be allowed in the APUG Gallery with his platinum prints.

Perhaps there should be a certification process to ensure people selling prints actual have their own darkroom? Then perhaps an actual verification of the negative or positive film frame for the same image? Seems that short of doing that verification, only a Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) could really be without question done from an enlarger.

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[naturephoto1]

Jack Dkyinga is a LF photographer, not MF.

As one who shoots film, and prints via a digital negative, I consider myself a film photographer. I realize that some are put off by the digital step, but for the many color landscape workers that is our only choice. I can't get the chemicals to do Ilfochrome, there is no one here printing Ilfochrome, and I'm not going to use a lab on the mainland and have to worry about my transparencies in the mail everytime I need a print.

Unfortunately, many B&W photographers don't understand this - they don't understand the same choices don't exist for color photographers. In my mind it is the primary reason why most color photographers are not welcome to participate in the APUG Sales Gallery.

Robert and I are of much the same feeling on this and we both have most of our transparencies printed from a Chromira machine. If I need to print larger than the Chromira machine is able we revert back to printing on a LightJet 5000.

Rich

 

[frugal]

Personally, I think it's all about what process, techniques and media work for you. If you've found a combination that works for you and reflects your vision then I'd say don't get so caught up with labels.

But since we're talking about labels, I'd say that the only thing "film photographer" implies is that you're shooting with film. We're dealing with 2 words here and I think we're all pretty clear about what a photographer means in this context. So that just leaves us with "film" well that's clearly only talking about the media used for capturing the image. Did you shoot the image on film? Then you're a film photographer.

Now if we want to throw a wrench into all this, the stickier one is "analog photographer". That's where things can get much more open-ended in terms of image capture and print production. Someone already mentioned Dan Burkholder, I'm not sure how he does the initial capture but I think he uses film for that, then scans it. He then makes some adjustments in photoshop to create a useable negative (or set of negatives in some cases) which are output on an imagesetter or an inkjet printing on transparency material. He then uses that negative to create a platinum print. Clearly, he has a mix of both analog and digital processes here. If his original image was produced on film and the final print was made using an analog process is he an analog photographer or does that digital step in the middle "taint" everything?

I completely agree with Robert's comments about getting slides printed. Locally, my options are to either have a C-print made using an interneg or have a C-print made from a digital exposure (either Lightjet or Frontier). The digitally exposed C-print is much cheaper and matches the original slide much better than if I were to use an interneg and unless you recognise the look of slide film and recognise that it's not an Ilfochrome you're not going to notice that it's a digital print. Even then, it's those factors that give it away not the look or tone in the image.

That said, personally I much prefer working in the darkroom. I spend most of my day in front of the computer so I love going into the darkroom and producing prints with analog methods. I don't currently have my own darkroom but the local art college has excellent facilities so I take continuing education courses and use those. Right now I'd much rather spend a few hours in the darkroom making a really good C-print vs. sitting in front of the computer correcting it all in Photoshop.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . . Someone already mentioned Dan Burkholder, I'm not sure how he does the initial capture but I think he uses film for that, then scans it. He then makes some adjustments in photoshop to create a useable negative (or set of negatives in some cases) which are output on an imagesetter or an inkjet printing on transparency material. He then uses that negative to create a platinum print. Clearly, he has a mix of both analog and digital processes here. If his original image was produced on film and the final print was made using an analog process is he an analog photographer or does that digital step in the middle "taint" everything?

. . . . . . . . .

Good morning frugal,

I mentioned Dan Burkholder, mostly because it seemed like a grey area. However, I don't see some the results of his prints much differently than a Jerry Ulsman (spelling?) image. The big difference is that Jerry Ulsman uses a series of enlargers and custom hand cut masks. I also find it somewhat amusing that a few images that Jerry did in the 1960s got Honorable Mentions in a digital imaging contest a few years ago.


I took the Dan Burkholder workshop in 1997. At that time, he was using B/W film for the original captures, sometimes even 35mm. Of course, trying to tell which format ended up in which final prints would be tough. In 1997, the best option was having a service bureau output the negative for the contact print. I still have one of the negatives from that workshop (the other got damaged and destroyed). Apart from a long discussion about motorcycles, Dan mentioned to me that he was then working on outputting his negatives using an Epson printer; which I think is the method of his newer images. I would guess he might still be starting with film, but since he is very into technology it would be hard to tell how he is now doing things; of course someone could just pop him an e-mail and ask.

Also on Dan's images, it would be tough to get a turtle floating in a church as a captured image, short of doing some Hollywood style huge production. The galleries that sell his works called them platinum or palladium prints, and don't mention the work behind them. Someone buying one of Dan's images might care more about the image, then about the printing method, and perhaps not much about the steps to get to the print. The images speak louder than the steps to create them.

While it is rare for me to do alternative processes, or use the Burkholder methods, I still very clearly remember how to do the steps. However, I have a need to do composite images for work, and I have little desire to do such steps for fine art. In my opinion, composite images are photo-illustration and not really photography.

I also see a very grey area with Polaroid works. These have been one of my chosen fine art techniques, yet the processes seem to be completely out of the realm of photography in the minds of some people. These are entirely hand done, and each is a one of a kind. I find it interesting that they are excluded (or not mentioned) in the APUG Gallery. I know from a few of my postings that some people here do Polaroid manipulations, but perhaps we are a very small minority?

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[ann]

i have a few polariod manipulation in my personnal gallery, never crossed my mind to post them in the main gallery.

 

[roteague]

But since we're talking about labels, I'd say that the only thing "film photographer" implies is that you're shooting with film. We're dealing with 2 words here and I think we're all pretty clear about what a photographer means in this context. So that just leaves us with "film" well that's clearly only talking about the media used for capturing the image. Did you shoot the image on film? Then you're a film photographer.

Now if we want to throw a wrench into all this, the stickier one is "analog photographer".

One of the frustrations is that many associate digital capture with digital printing, when in fact, they are two different technologies. Whereas, digital capture is still not as good as film capture, IMO digital printing (at least for color) equals or exceeds what can be done optically - unless you are Christopher Burkett and want to spend 10 months a year printing.

I agree that Photoshop is no fun, in fact, I pay someone else to do it for me. There is a tremendous amount of satisfaction that comes from working in a B&W darkroom, although I won't say the same thing for color (I first learned to print Cibachrome in 1980 - so, I've done it for a few years). There is a magic that happens when you first see an image appear on a print in the tray in B&W. In color you just watch the drum rotate and pour chemicals in and out, then wait for the print to dry, before deciding if you need to do another print or not - nothing magic about that.

 

[Bob F.]

There have been several Polaroid manipulation and emulsion transfers in the Gallery - do a search on "Polaroid" in the Gallery.

Can we please not go off on another pointless digital Vs traditional tangent yet again? For my money, David B said it all in the very first reply:

This site is for people who shoot film and print traditionally although quite a few folks here do some sort of combination, but the digital side is not discussed here.

100% says it all. The point is that APUG is NOT a "film" site: it is a non-digital/traditional methods site.

Hi srob_photo - welcome to the site!

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Amund]

The magic of color photograpy is viewing the transparencies on the light table IMO.
Amazing each and every time.

 

[naturephoto1]

The magic of color photograpy is viewing the transparencies on the light table IMO.
Amazing each and every time.

Armund,

Very true. But, Robert and I will also attest to a similar reaction for our large prints coming off of a Chromira or like machine. As the images get large, you can really experience the emotion at the time that the image was taken.

Rich

 

[roteague]

For my money, David B said it all in the very first reply:
100% says it all. The point is that APUG is NOT a "film" site: it is a non-digital/traditional methods site.

Done any color work lately, Bob?

 

[Amund]

Armund,

Very true. But, Robert and I will also attest to a similar reaction for our large prints coming off of a Chromira or like machine. As the images get large, you can really experience the emotion at the time that the image was taken.

Rich

I hope to see the same soon.
I just noticed Oslo`s larges lab has a Lightjet, so I`ll get a couple of large color prints from them. Not too bad prices and scanning included.

 

[Bob F.]

Done any color work lately, Bob?

Nope: colourblind!

IIRC Sean is working on another site where the hybrid approach will be welcome - sounds like an ideal site for colour workers who use a hybrid approach. I for one do understand why colour workers (and especially professionals) almost inevitably move to digital output on to photopaper. If I sold colour prints for a living, I've little doubt I would too.

All that aside, the fact remains: for APUG, discussing that side of things ist verboten...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[roteague]

All that aside, the fact remains: for APUG, discussing that side of things ist verboten...

Cheers, Bob.

So, should APUG be renamed "Analog B&W Photography Users Group" and us color workers go away?

A couple of other facts for you, while you are quoting facts. Fact: there is only one color process left for those who shoot transparencies. Fact: there are only a handful of labs that still use this process for printing. Fact: in some places you can't even get the chemicals to use this process, because they are considered hazardous materials.

You should be thankful that people like Rich and I, and others are standing up and for the use of traditional photographic paper and not going the ink jet route.

I have very little interest in B&W, and I have faced the reality that in order to continue doing what I love - color landscapes - I have to use the materials that are available.

 

[Bob F.]

You should be thankful that people like Rich and I, and others are standing up and for the use of traditional photographic paper and not going the ink jet route.

I have very little interest in B&W, and I have faced the reality that in order to continue doing what I love - color landscapes - I have to use the materials that are available.

I think that was the point I was making re' colour work and the use of output to photopaper - perhaps I should have spelt it out.

I'm not sure why you are getting annoyed with me. As I said, I have sympathy for the situation colour workers are in and understand the constraints you now have. Clearly you agree with me that APUG does not discuss digital steps, you do not do so here, so you must. If you want to change that situation then talk to Sean: it is not my site.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[copake_ham]

I consider myself a "hybrid" photographer. I prefer to use film for image capture but now scan it for processing it in PS. While I admire those who prefer traditional wet darkroom, time is too short and space to limited for me to do it. And besides, I just don't want to bother with the chemicals and paraphenalia etc.!

Because of the route I have chose I am presently taking a PS workshop. I wholeheartedly agree that too many folks confuse digital image capture with digital processing - some of them are my fellow classmates! They're mainly retirees (or pre-retirees) and have now dashed out to by digital P&S's - all but abandoning their 35mm SLR film gear.

Part of the problem is the instructor (who is otherwise a nice person) who 'dissed the idea of film scanning (even thought the lab has both a Nikon 5000D 35mm film/slide AND a drum scanner).

But me, I'm happy. I've convinced myself at least, that scanned film images (RAW mode) remain superior to RAW digitally captured images and so feel I have the best of both worlds by shooting film and processing via PS.

 

[naturephoto1]

I think that was the point I was making re' colour work and the use of output to photopaper - perhaps I should have spelt it out.

I'm not sure why you are getting annoyed with me. As I said, I have sympathy for the situation colour workers are in and understand the constraints you now have. Clearly you agree with me that APUG does not discuss digital steps, you do not do so here, so you must. If you want to change that situation then talk to Sean: it is not my site.

Cheers, Bob.

Bob,

I do not think that Robert is specifically annoyed with you. Rather, I think that he is a bit frustrated with the treatment and feelings shown by some other members of the APUG community.

Rich