I promise I'm not here to offend...

jimsphotoart · Apr 10, 2011

I have come across this site so many times when searching for info on papers, film, etc. I thought it was time I joined.

I understand that this is an 'analog site'. That being said, I will very briefly explain my process and let y'all tell me if I should proceed with questions about specifics.

I will say at the outset that I have tremendous respect for all that are shooting traditional processes...

I shoot 35mm b/w film, process the negs myself. I am no longer able to use a traditional enlarger setup, due to my living conditions, space, etc. However, I am not satisfied with any type of digital output, so this is what I have been doing...

I have been scanning my negs and doing VERY MINIMAL adjustments in the computer - I have a strict rule for never doing anything other than cropping, contrast adjustments and exposure - things I normally did under the enlarger.

I have been printing the files onto 8x10 transparency material with the hopes of doing some contact printing, as I appreciate the archival qualities of this process.

If i am being heretical or out of line let me know, and I will go away quietly... However, if this much 'modern' influence is allowed, I look forward to hearing about proper papers and procedures for this whole process.

THanks so much!

Rick A · Apr 10, 2011

Welcome to Apug. Shooting film is shooting film. I understand you cannot print traditional methof, thats forgivable.

pbromaghin · Apr 10, 2011

Not to worry. The owners of this site have something made just for you - DPUG.ORG. It's a mirror of this site, but for discussing hyprid workflow such as yours. Just click the button at the very top of this web page.

keithwms · Apr 10, 2011

Welcome! I agree with Rick; stay here on APUG. To the extent that you shoot and discuss film, you'll certainly find camaraderie here, and it's good to have you. Yes you can go to DPUG and talk about the very last part of your workflow, if you feel so inclined, but frankly... DPUG is 99% what scanner should I buy. Sorry to say that but it's true.

To show your work here in the galleries, it'd be best to use straight scans.

Welcome!

Jeff Kubach · Apr 10, 2011

Welcome to APUG! Like the post before check out DPUG.

Jeff

Sim2 · Apr 10, 2011

FWIW I think that you should be very welcome here to discuss the use and development of film and as others seem to have missed, the contact printing of the transparency material onto traditional papers. I think an interesting workflow. Just keep questions on photoshop or scanning to other well established sites. Moderators will tell me if I am wrong with this!

Welcome to APUG and where are you from etc.

Sim2.

jimsphotoart · Apr 10, 2011

Thanks for the welcoming...

Actually have very little in the way of questions concerning the digital side of things. Not that I'm an expert, but as I stated earlier, I do very, very little in that arena other than the basics.

My interests is in learning the best papers to use for contact printing, best ways to expose the papers, etc. (my experience with contact printing was always just making contact prints for my negs).

When I can, I will put up a couple of images so at least you can see where I'm at with my work...

Thanks again!

ntenny · Apr 10, 2011

I think a lot of us here have hybrid workflows at least some of the time. The digital stages are off-topic, of course, but clearly there's no problem with people talking about film development when their target is a scanner rather than an optical print, and I don't see any problem with talking about contact printing even if the negative had a digital source at some stage. (After all, photograms are on-topic, right?---and a contact print is arguably just a photogram of an unusually complex object.)

That said...contact printing in medium format is perfectly feasible. 6x6 and 6x9 were normal output formats not that long ago. Get yourself a TLR or a folder and give it a try---but it's addictive and can lead straight into large format, so don't say nobody warned you.

-NT

Whiteymorange · Apr 10, 2011

Hey, lots of us also shoot the big "D", or work with mixed processing, or make dig. negs, or whatever. It's not that we think it's evil, it's that we have this space to discuss the film side of it all, without a lot of discussion of the overwhelming (at times) technical side of computers and printers. We simply go to other sites to discuss that stuff. Here we glory in the analogue side of life - whatever we are doing on the side to make the art we make.

Welcome aboard, jimsphotoart. No need to go away.

bblhed · Apr 10, 2011

Welcome!

As others have said, this is the place to get the information about turning photons into images, DPUG is the place for turning electrons into images. Honestly unless your question is about how to get a photo into or out of a computer this is where you should ask.

As for printing, I am in the same boat as you in that I can not have an enlarger to make prints so I have to contact print. If you want to go straight film then Medium or large format is the way to go. I have tried the DIY negative on transparency paper, and it just does not cut it for me.

Klainmeister · Apr 10, 2011

I think our suggestion should be: buy an 8x10!

jimsphotoart · Apr 10, 2011

Wow, this is an active place! Very cool.

I should say that I went through the whole 'medium format' 'view camera' stage when I had a tradtional portrait studio, but these days I am working with 'girl next door models' and I like the ease of the 35mm format. And honestly, I am perfectly happy with the quality of tonal range in an 8x10 print (my work has a 60s retro feel to it).

But I applaud those who still work in 4x5 or 8x10...

Sirius Glass · Apr 10, 2011

jimsphotoart said:
Wow, this is an active place! Very cool.

At least you are getting you money's worth!

Leigh Youdale · Apr 10, 2011

I think there needs to be a new descriptive term for those of us that are photographically ambidextrous - should it be "transpro's" (as in transprocess)? The term "hybrid" seems a bit too close to some of those sci-fi creations for my liking.
Anyway, I walk on both sides of the street. I have a digital camera, which I don't like using, for those times when an instant result or something to email is needed. It does a good job but feels "soul-less" to me. The cameras sitting on my desk, loaded with film as I write are a Leica M6 and two Rolleiflex - an E2 and a WA. I also have a small darkroom I can set up but it involves fighting my wife to take possession of the (also small) laundry so I don't get to use it as much as I would like. She's away at the moment so I've had a couple of weeks to play. The problem is that I don't get that opportunity often enough and my technique and experience result in prints which are not quite as good as I can produce in my "lightroom" setup. I have a very good scanner and printer in my study that don't require setup or teardown time, which my darkroom equipment does. And the output is now good enough that a non-enthusiast recipient of my prints wouldn't know the difference. I don't post to on-line galleries, sell prints or enter competitions. The prints are for my own pleasure or as gifts to friends.
So I'll continue to use both methods, trying to improve my wet process output, but circumstances dictate that the final images are more likely to be off the Epson.

jimsphotoart · Apr 10, 2011

Right on...

I agree that the term 'hybrid' sounds a bit too sci-fi and I agree with Leigh's term of digital shooting feeling 'soul-less'

I have always shot 95% b/w and digital is a VERY difficult sell to me for monochrome imagery.

I have had people tell me that a good digital print is more archival than a silver print - I just can't buy that. The technology of putting ink 'on' a piece of paper just can't last as long as something put 'in' the paper. Or am I letting common sense get in the way?

Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions for me to achieve what I am after, I am more than happy to hear them. For example, should I make a digital print and then photograph the print on a copy stand so I have a film neg?

keithwms · Apr 10, 2011

jimsphotoart said:
Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions for me to achieve what I am after, I am more than happy to hear them. For example, should I make a digital print and then photograph the print on a copy stand so I have a film neg?

For me, anything goes. As you will see on DPUG, I have done nutty things like use an inkjet to apply a negative image directly to photopaper and then cleared the ink for a final image, or I have done stuff with LVT negs, or I have gone digital to film, or film to digital, or film to digital to film to paper, or... really, you name it. I just don't think you can cast aside any tool at all, when you've got a creative idea that motivates you. I would never tell a student not to explore a particular idea because of somebody else's standard.

That said, APUG really emphasizes all the analogue parts of the workflow, and I for one value that exclusivity. It's not always comfortable having to leave out parts of the workflow in our discussions here, but consider the alternative: people speaking in terms of megapixels and inksets and scanner models. It's just not pretty. So, as open as I am to hybrid/trans/multi/omni process whatever, I do sincerely value the analogueness of APUG, our very own little corner of the internet

bblhed said:
As others have said, this is the place to get the information about turning photons into images, DPUG is the place for turning electrons into images.

Well, actually, film photography is all about electrons and holes moving in response to photons, and ... ah never mind

Anyway, again, APUG is analogue, that's why most of us love it. And many of us participate elsewhere too.

Aristophanes · Apr 10, 2011

I suspect the manufacture of films and papers is now quite the digital process in itself. It can get frustrating having to jump amongst different forums when what is desired is a continuity of advice. A lot of this is a ring-fence around the darkroom and not the exposure. That alone keeps a large number of people away from film diminishing the appeal. Film is analog, accessible, available, and portable. Darkrooms are not, and the lab a disappearing entity.

My 2 cents, non-refundable.

Sirius Glass · Apr 10, 2011

Darkrooms are expensive because of the room it takes up and not the equipment. I started planning to develop black & white film, scanning, ink jet printing. I did not like the ink jet prints and the cost of the ink. With the encouragement here I set up a darkroom and expanded from 35mm to 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" black & white and color.

That is my story and I am sticking to it!

Steve

Christopher Walrath · Apr 10, 2011

Welcome to APUG. And, in all likelihood, a little welcome to DPUG as well.

I promise I'm not here to offend...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency