Is there reconciliation between digital and analog world in alternative processes

[markbarendt]

Moderators exist so that they can mark off-topic or delete remarks of the "it's easier in Photoshop" kind, whether in APUG or in APUG - Gray zone.

The problem with that logic is that almost all hybrid work uses digital methods to replace analog methods that can do the same thing.

For example it is easier to do alternative prints using 35mm film and hybrid/Photoshop methods than it is to carry a 16x20 camera to the field and deal with 16x20 film sheets. Hybrid/Photoshop methods are also easier than making internegs and and enlarging to 16x20 film sheets.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for film, using a 35mm camera and hybrid methods instead of a 16x20 camera means using 1.5 square inches of film instead of 320.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for big cameras, enlargers, dodge and burn wands, vignetters, chemicals, trays, darkrooms.....

Is it APUGs job to reduce film demand? Reduce the need for big cameras? Reduce the need for enlargers, chemicals, and darkrooms?

No.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Mark- to make my 30 x 40 contact negatives from digital files I use Rollie Ortho 25. 30 inch x 100 ft rolls. so that works out to be about 28 30 x40 film packs, each time I order a roll.

I think this helps the Vendors bottom line and they do know me from APUG.

The problem with that logic is that almost all hybrid work uses digital methods to replace analog methods that can do the same thing.

For example it is easier to do alternative prints using 35mm film and hybrid/Photoshop methods than it is to carry a 16x20 camera to the field and deal with 16x20 film sheets. Hybrid/Photoshop methods are also easier than making internegs and and enlarging to 16x20 film sheets.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for film, using a 35mm camera and hybrid methods instead of a 16x20 camera means using 1.5 square inches of film instead of 320.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for big cameras, enlargers, dodge and burn wands, vignetters, chemicals, trays, darkrooms.....

Is it APUGs job to reduce film demand? Reduce the need for big cameras? Reduce the need for enlargers, chemicals, and darkrooms?

No.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hybrid methods reduce the need for [...] dodge and burn wands

I've always made mine out of coat hanger wire and pieces of paper or cardboard. Does this mean I could make them for other people, and they would pay cash money for them? I'll be rich!

 

[MaximusM3]

The problem with that logic is that almost all hybrid work uses digital methods to replace analog methods that can do the same thing.

For example it is easier to do alternative prints using 35mm film and hybrid/Photoshop methods than it is to carry a 16x20 camera to the field and deal with 16x20 film sheets. Hybrid/Photoshop methods are also easier than making internegs and and enlarging to 16x20 film sheets.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for film, using a 35mm camera and hybrid methods instead of a 16x20 camera means using 1.5 square inches of film instead of 320.

Hybrid methods reduce the need for big cameras, enlargers, dodge and burn wands, vignetters, chemicals, trays, darkrooms.....

Is it APUGs job to reduce film demand? Reduce the need for big cameras? Reduce the need for enlargers, chemicals, and darkrooms?

No.

Well, I think I'd rather put my money on film's survival by selling more 35mm and MF format cameras and film than 16x20 view cameras. How big do you think that market is today, or was in its heyday? Hybrid methods do reduce the need for big cameras but I don't see how that is necessarily a negative (no pun intended). I would rather see 50 young and enthusiastic people shooting 35 and 120 and getting into the darkroom than chase the 1-2 individuals fighting to lug around a giant camera and losing interest a month later. Yes, it is easier to do alternative printing using smaller formats and hybrid methods, and for that reason, more people are willing to experience it. How can that be bad? I don't see how relegating such processes to the extremely few who shoot large format can really help the masses, film and the art in general.

 

[CGW]

I have to disagree

Name one Site that is more dedicated to printing than APUG and I will eat my hat.... I just want to discuss alt methods of making these prints, and unfortunately/ fortunately it means using some digital gear.
Dpug has not taken off and can be days or weeks before a decent response to a post, here its next minute conversation.

Seriously there are no other sites.. I keep hearing people say this here but to date no proof of this..

I'm with Bob. The pointless, fratricidal feud has to end. It's 2012 and the analog world isn't what it was a decade ago. All I hear at DPUG are crickets chirping.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Look at quality as well as quantity. Compare the signal-to-noise ratio in these two threads, for instance:

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

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/scanning-issues-kodak-ektar-100-a-2972/

If I were a DPUG-only member, I'm not sure I'd be so enthusiastic about integrating with APUG.

 

[removed account4]

that's great to hear sean !
a seamless doorway that people can switch on
and see + take part in the other side if they want to
and if they don't want to, they can just leave the doorway closed
and not even realize the other side is ther.

i think it will add oodles to both worlds, seeing we are nearly joined at the hip.
- john

ps, thanks mods, your work is endless and thankless, and it makes our life that much better ...

 

[markbarendt]

I've always made mine out of coat hanger wire and pieces of paper or cardboard. Does this mean I could make them for other people, and they would pay cash money for them? I'll be rich!

You may not get rich but yes, there are and have been many people who have made or supplemented their living making tools to support traditional methods. For example (there was a url link here which no longer exists) , I bought a set and use them regularly.

 

[zsas]

Folks, I think the best we can do today is give Sean a pat on the back for investigating linking APUG logins to DPUG and thus create a seamless flow of discussion between the sites; till then, why bother changing the charter of APUG just because some find it logical due to the times?

A vbulletin genius recently helped with our server migration and server optimizations to this new server. I've asked him for his thoughts on a viable way to interlink the two forums (APUG & DPUG). The ideal solution is that everyone has one user name, one profile, one "new posts", etc and can use both sites seamlessly. vBulletin 4.2 is out and may have better back end tools to accomplish this.

Posting the Terms of Service that we all agreed to when we created our APUG accounts:

-Questions regarding digital techniques or digital techniques connected with traditional processes should be posted at hybridphoto.com [aka dpug.org]

Side note, I had an issue re $canning and subsequently posted on DPUG and got GREAT advice. Now what is the issue? What is so hard about creating two logins? Really? I am sure your same login over at DPUG isn’t used yet, we are talking about 20 seconds of your life to open an account and having to keep two browser windows open....aghast…

Cant we just all go back to our corners and make imagery and post here and there should you need help re technique?

If you don’t agree, please join this site and tell them about Gap and other clothing companies while you are at it….
www.handmadeclothes.com/forum/index.html

Or join this and let them know about Canon’s new camera systems….
www.nikonians.org/

 

[Bob Carnie]

In two years I will have been on this Site for 10 years, over that time I have weened myself with the forum settings to only receive one or two forums.
Darkroom being one. I have not looked at the Soap Box or other threads for many years now and am happily oblivious to the 56000 others on this site if indeed they exist.
The same characters are always popping up on the threads that I participate in, and I am positive these printers can make beautiful prints as I have seen many of their work. I hope I can participate for another 10 years here, but seriously now, all my attentions are moving to alt mixed process prints and I do have to use modern technology to make these prints.
My hope is that somehow the powers that be , see that those of us promoting digital have only one purpose , and that is to make beautiful prints. I know many great workers who do not participate here because of this bickering and we are the losers with them not being here and helping with their photographic knowledge.
Now and in the past I have been willing to contribute a bit of Finances to this site, I am here daily and sad as that may be I am a darkroom worker and my interests in darkroom work bring me here each and every day.

How about a section that is subscription fee based , so that the moderators can get paid, also the fee will scare off the wankers that spend a lot of time talking but couldn't make a print if they tried. Newbies would benefit with a section of APUG totally dedicated to the fine print.

Before the internet I purchase every single Fred Picker newsletter when I was a newbie and fascinated with the process of printing.
Why not make this a fee based rite of passage . You cannot get on Kelby Training without paying $200 per year... think about it , Sean , John, David, Sussana and many other moderators are doing a great job and I for one have zero problem paying to be on a forum that is dedicated to the enhancement of photographic print processes by any means.
I know that I am self serving here in my wishes, but as I think this place could be fantastic.

 

[Bill Burk]

thanks Bill... for that nice compliment you can send me a file and I will make you a Silver Digital Print.

You're funny. I'll send you a box and you can send me a fresh sheet of Galerie 4...

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ok but no safelight with this paper.

You're funny. I'll send you a box and you can send me a fresh sheet of Galerie 4...

 

[Jerevan]

I have to disagree

Name one Site that is more dedicated to printing than APUG and I will eat my hat.... I just want to discuss alt methods of making these prints, and unfortunately/ fortunately it means using some digital gear.

I have no idea if there is any other site that is as dedicated to printing as APUG is - so I may be wrong in this respect. But still, what you're asking means something else than APUG. An APUG/DPUG interlinking can maybe solve the issue for some people.

I think that DPUG is going to reach a critical mass eventually. It's just a matter of time and contribution.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Judging by its activity I will be dead , so I hope something else will come about.

I have no idea if there is any other site that is as dedicated to printing as APUG is - so I may be wrong in this respect. But still, what you're asking means something else than APUG. An APUG/DPUG interlinking can maybe solve the issue for some people.

I think that DPUG is going to reach a critical mass eventually. It's just a matter of time and contribution.

 

[markbarendt]

I have no idea if there is any other site that is as dedicated to printing as APUG is - so I may be wrong in this respect. But still, what you're asking means something else than APUG. An APUG/DPUG interlinking can maybe solve the issue for some people.

I think that DPUG is going to reach a critical mass eventually. It's just a matter of time and contribution.

IMO DPUG's lack of critical mass is very "telling", if there was significant unmet demand for a Hybrid discussion it would be busy.

DPUG isn't the only player though. There are lots of choices and options on the digital side.

 

[coigach]

As for the hybrid world I am unsure about the future in hybrid. How much hybrid is out of necessity because some digital technology simply isn't there yet? 10%, 30%, 90%? What happens when digital capture and output can create a 100% perfect replica platinum or carbon print that is 100% indistinguishable even with a microscope? For example the carbon texture can be replicated with 3D printing technology providing the telltale raised textures. Is it wishful thinking to assume hybrid proponents will remain hybrid when those processes can be done 100% digitally with 100% no discernible differences to hybrid? I know it's not the best analogy but hybrid vehicles are popular right now, and what happens when the battery technology finally comes of age allowing for full electric vehicles? Will anyone buy a hybrid vehicle at that point? What I'm getting at is why is there a hybrid workflow? Is it a passion for the traditional printing methods, or is it waiting for the day digital can actually do it all?

Interesting point, food for thought.

Can only speak for me personally, but I take my originals on medium format reverse processed trannies, and never plan to change film for digital.

For my polymer photogravures, I use digitally enlarged +ves to make my plates, then it's old fashioned hands-on from then on with inking, pressing etc. No intention of ever going digital for my original photos as I love the look of film, and love having a physical object rather than just pixels. Am planning to get into pt/pd printing via the hybrid route too - but the starting image will always be analogue. Not sure ho typical this is, but for me, digital negs are just a way to expand my film photography.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

IMO DPUG's lack of critical mass is very "telling", if there was significant unmet demand for a Hybrid discussion it would be busy.

It isn't obvious to the casual browser that DPUG includes hybrid techniques.

Besides, there are probably digital shooters that have the same sort of rabid feeling against analog technology that some of the analog shooters here feel about digital.

The great thing about a hybrid approach is it can draw from the strengths of both technologies.

 

[MaximusM3]

It isn't obvious to the casual browser that DPUG includes hybrid techniques.

Besides, there are probably digital shooters that have the same sort of rabid feeling against analog technology that some of the analog shooters here feel about digital.

The great thing about a hybrid approach is it can draw from the strengths of both technologies.

Exactly!

 

[MattKing]

This has been a good thread.

It is amazing what including words like "reconciliation" and "alternative" in the title of a thread can do.

Especially when it is in the "Ethics and Philosophy" forum.

 

[Bill Burk]

Can only speak for me personally, but I take my originals on medium format reverse processed trannies, and never plan to change film for digital.

For my polymer photogravures, I use digitally enlarged +ves to make my plates, then it's old fashioned hands-on from then on.

coigach,

You could do this pure analog if you felt the need to. And APUG would be where you would find detailed steps to minimize image degradation due to the necessary generation or two of loss. I used to use a contact film designed for photopolymer which had texture to minimize newton rings that tended to form on the smooth surface of the polymer. Even then I had to endure some loss because I was making a sandwich involving base to emulsion.

There is a specific advantage of hybrid for you: The only generation loss comes from the initial scan. Then you can invert and flip digitally without intermediates. This alone I feel doesn't interfere with artistic intent.

I say more power to you.

But while the image is in the digital realm, there is intense pressure to use tools to modify the image (the dodge and burn wands issue). Here there is a risk you will make the final print "better" than a traditional alt process print would have been in the old days.

I would miss the charming dust, hairs and scratches if you removed them.

 

[Bob Carnie]

What I find incredible is the ability to do an exposure and contrast sweep, by ganging up multiple versions on one film and then contacting to see subtle changes of contrast and its effect on the final print. This would be incredibly difficult using traditional methods, we did film stripping in the day to get around this when testing work but it really was labour intensive.
I spent 5 years of my apprenticeship years doing photo comp which blended many images on single sheets of film.. With new technology we can do the same thing in fraction of the time. The most complicated was 56 different images composed onto one 16 x20 sheet of E6 for a Creative Source Book Cover.
There is not enough money in the world to convince me to make a traditional approach to montage a series of films or try what at the time was the only method, by using and exacto knife and rubylith and days of manipulation and colour balances to make it work.

There are many here still making contrast control negatives for various processes and I see nothing wrong with this, I am convinced though that I will continue
with the modern tech for these purposes... others will not.

I made enlarged negatives via contact dupe and enlarger negative for alt prints and I would not hesitate to encourage photographers to try this route. It is our history , and should continue keeping the tradition alive.

coigach,

You could do this pure analog if you felt the need to. And APUG would be where you would find detailed steps to minimize image degradation due to the necessary generation or two of loss. I used to use a contact film designed for photopolymer which had texture to minimize newton rings that tended to form on the smooth surface of the polymer. Even then I had to endure some loss because I was making a sandwich involving base to emulsion.

There is a specific advantage of hybrid for you: The only generation loss comes from the initial scan. Then you can invert and flip digitally without intermediates. This alone I feel doesn't interfere with artistic intent.

I say more power to you.

But while the image is in the digital realm, there is intense pressure to use tools to modify the image (the dodge and burn wands issue). Here there is a risk you will make the final print "better" than a traditional alt process print would have been in the old days.

I would miss the charming dust, hairs and scratches if you removed them.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I would miss the charming dust, hairs and scratches if you removed them.

I'm sure there are digital applications that will add them to a d-image if you really miss them.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I spent 5 years of my apprenticeship years doing photo comp which blended many images on single sheets of film.. With new technology we can do the same thing in fraction of the time. The most complicated was 56 different images composed onto one 16 x20 sheet of E6 for a Creative Source Book Cover.

When I was doing the initial development work at Kodak in the late '80s that led to the Premiere Image Enhancement System (film in -digital photo comp - film out), I visited many commercial labs around the US and was always amazed at the skill and time involved in making photo comps; I saw many examples of fantastic in-camera masking photo comp work.


Premiere still required an operator with artistic skills, but made them more productive.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Then you may find this interesting... The lab I worked at BGM Colour Lab was one of the first in Canada to get a Premier System, I left the company to start my own little BW shop before the Premier launched world wide, but I had lots of visits to my friends at BGM so I was well aware of its incredible design and application, which you should be very proud.

At BGM I worked on a Lisle Overhead Camera system that used Xy bubble memory system computers that drove an overhead copy camera that had front light and back light HK head to expose film of any type.
Using masks in the back of the camera that was pin registered and pin registered mylar which had stripped in trans , negs and positives we could manipulate the images into position.
The back end had the ability of rotating and moving masking blades .0001 inch at a movement.
This unit was in its day 500k to purchase and I remember meeting the young man who owned Durst Italy , he looked at this unit and a lot of Lambda design was figured out with this primitive device I used.
The Premier was exactly in between the Lisle and Lambda as you would make incredible film negatives with the Premiere and then enlarged that film.
I have always been dissapointed that I never worked with the Premier as I was one of about 10 techs worldwide to work on a Lisle Camera and now I own a Lambda for a lot of the alt negs I talk about here can be made with it and for sure the Premier system could do so as well.

One of my heros is Jerry Uelsmann who could make things float on film.. I am not sure how many here know how incredible his work is.. Bob Pace was another who worked on Photo Comp and IMO nowhere near
the skill level as Jerry.
At our lab we had the Lisle and I had two full time assistants at all times, but we also had five other Photo Comp specialists who needed to know how to handle a knife, Micro Modifer, line and lith film, with ruby masking and as well using an enlarger to blend it all together. This department was called the Repro department and all the techs were very strong in their ability's and complimented each other and helped each other on the more complicated projects.
One little know Canadian fact.. It was illegal to photograph a cigarette package for advertising packaging, so we had to start with a roll of white paper and with a knife start making the packaging to mimic what a real pack of cigarettes would look like, This was something I never did as one really needed to have a skill set that I did not have, or the patience as one cigarette ad would take a week for one of our techs and would cost the client thousands of dollars.
The Premier was the first wave of devices that made this labour intensive work more exacting.

When I was doing the initial development work at Kodak in the late '80s that led to the Premiere Image Enhancement System (film in -digital photo comp - film out), I visited many commercial labs around the US and was always amazed at the skill and time involved in making photo comps; I saw many examples of fantastic in-camera masking photo comp work.


Premiere still required an operator with artistic skills, but made them more productive.

 

[Bill Burk]

I like Jerry Uelsmann's work too.

Your story's better than mine Bob. So I'll give the short version:

About 25 years ago customer terminated their contract and they wanted their negs. Everything was on the Digi. Boss made me output separations onto film to simulate the intermediates that would have been required to make the composite film we had been running their jobs from.