Juan Valdenebro
Member
I don't want to start any controversy, and I don't want to offend anyone at all...
I think, after using b&w film for 36 years, and after using internet and film scanners for two decades, scanning a b&w negative is not a true representation of films for those of us interested in wet printing...
In my opinion they are two different worlds... Not saying one is better than the other, but a negative scan is a digital photograph of a scene... A digital photograph is not part of what real, physical photography's been about since the 1820's...
Even if negative scans deserve their own place as digital photography, I think a negative scan, which creates new tonality that already departed from the tonality a negative design defined with a different type of tonal precision for wet printing, is far from representing a film clearly: a scan, a digital photograph of a piece of film, is not a precise tonal act: a scan is not a physical re-presentation of a negative as a positive... A scan is a new digital photograph that can be considered such, a scan, no matter if we talk about twenty different scans made of the same negative by different people, different procedures, different scanners (which are digital cameras) and different results...
What do you think?
I find it would be appropriate to have a place for wet printing exclusively... Scanning negatives is not a part of analog photography... If we photograph digitally a negative, we already went from photography to digital photography... Why post both types of work in the same place?
I think, after using b&w film for 36 years, and after using internet and film scanners for two decades, scanning a b&w negative is not a true representation of films for those of us interested in wet printing...
In my opinion they are two different worlds... Not saying one is better than the other, but a negative scan is a digital photograph of a scene... A digital photograph is not part of what real, physical photography's been about since the 1820's...
Even if negative scans deserve their own place as digital photography, I think a negative scan, which creates new tonality that already departed from the tonality a negative design defined with a different type of tonal precision for wet printing, is far from representing a film clearly: a scan, a digital photograph of a piece of film, is not a precise tonal act: a scan is not a physical re-presentation of a negative as a positive... A scan is a new digital photograph that can be considered such, a scan, no matter if we talk about twenty different scans made of the same negative by different people, different procedures, different scanners (which are digital cameras) and different results...
What do you think?
I find it would be appropriate to have a place for wet printing exclusively... Scanning negatives is not a part of analog photography... If we photograph digitally a negative, we already went from photography to digital photography... Why post both types of work in the same place?
Last edited: