michaelbsc
Member
I see photography as having two parts. The capture side and the presentation side.
The vast majority of us are engaged in the capture side. To use all our wonderful traditional cameras and lenses, we use and embrace film.
But most film camera users never had a darkroom for printing and developing.
Here we are allowed to talk never ending about the joys of using our 'analog' cameras and organic film but we are forbidden from talking about alternative presentation of those images except for traditional methods which most of us never knew. Slide projection is as close as most of us will ever get.
So we pretend to not talk about the scanning side for fear of chastisement.
The 'sister' site for hybrid activities is, unfortunately, not as well visited or updated as APUG.
Isn't this all rather silly?
Amen. It's the survivalist tone that occasionally gets over-amped here that's indeed silly. I love film for capture but downstream? It's whatever works to fulfill your vision for the image. Looking forward to Portra 400.
I concur that there is an occasional "Woe is me" feeling when talking about film's impending doom, but I think that's as wrong headed as it sounds like you think it is.
Assuming that film will find its niche in what it does best, and that silver-paper/ink-jet will find their niches at what they do best, there's room for everyone.
I believe your dichotomy of capture vs. presentation is valid. After all, for both B&W and color negative film no one except us toads in the darkroom looks at it. The presentation is everything. Transparencies are somewhat different, but as you mentioned, how many people give real slide shows these days?
Like most, I have a small flatbed scanner. Some others have more sophisticated ones. And I'll scan things as I fancy. After all, it's pretty hard to email the family silver prints of the last gathering. But in the main, I print in a darkroom and give the prints to family and friends at birthdays and holidays. Why? For the same reason some folks like ham sandwiches and others prefer bean soup: because there's no accounting for tastes, and I like the darkroom. I guess it's more like why does your mother knit you a sweater when you can buy one at Walmart cheaper tonight and have it in 30 minutes rather than weeks or months.
In defense of the decision to split the Hybrid Photo site apart, a decision in which I have no stake nor did I have/want input in the decision (it happened right after I showed up here, and I'm just another bloke who posts stuff), it makes sense to me that the chemically oriented process are so fundamentally different from the digital processes that the two are separate beasts.
Is there a lot of overlap between them that perhaps should be considered mutual territory, like color theory, composition skill, suggestions for contrast modifications or local lightening (dodging) or darkening (burning) that could be fair game for both camps? You bet there are. But that would take a mature audience who can stay above the fray of mine vs. yours. Just look at some of the flame wars on other sites.
Can we at APUG be counted on to act like adults instead of children? Man, I sure would like to think so. After all, the idea is what works best for the image, not what process is used to produce it.
Too many paragraphs. Maybe this is $0.04 instead of only two.
Michael