pet peeve - photoshop being recommended

Art Vandalay · Oct 17, 2004

mark said:
If you have not figured it out yet, the fine control you are talking about is in the digital environment not the analogue environment. If you wish to discuss the fine control afforded you by PS or other digital manner it can be discussed on other forums. By definition APUG is not the place. I personally do not care and many others do not care what the latest and best digital printers can and cannot do. That is why we are here so we do not have to listen to claims of "just as good". Spout your digital wonders elsewhere.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Poor baby. I'm not going to stop posting here because some pompous twit can't handle it.

Art Vandalay · Oct 17, 2004

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Hmmm. Well, I would argue that we have no assurance whatsoever that people aren't PS'ing their scanned prints.

If someone posts an image scanned from a neg and states there have been no adjustments, is that OK? After all, it's equally easy to PS a print scan as a neg scan.

Exactly my point on a different thread.

John McCallum · Oct 17, 2004

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Hmmm. Well, I would argue that we have no assurance whatsoever that people aren't PS'ing their scanned prints.

If someone posts an image scanned from a neg and states there have been no adjustments, is that OK? After all, it's equally easy to PS a print scan as a neg scan.

You are quite right Cheryl, point well taken. Of course the same holds true for print scans re the use of PS.
However, personally I don't pass any judgement on a person who decides to post negs scans. Merely, I honestly say that I view print scans with an appreciation of the darkroom work that went into it (which I don't appreciate the same for computer manipulated images in this forum). And I'll often give feedback accordingly, with the assumption that the print is actually as it has been presented.
If the author has made extensive improvements to their print in an attempt to address shortfalls in the darkroom talents, well ...... hopefully they are getting what they wish from the Apug Galleries.
But it wouldn't bother me .

ian_greant · Oct 18, 2004

I started a monster...

hmmm it's always interesting to see topic drift. I wonder how many pages pass by before the core subject is politics

Andy K said:
If you are going to disallow images from scanned negatives then you have to disallow images from scanned prints. A scan is a scan. A scanned print can be just as manipulated as a scanned negative. To blithely dismiss one or the other makes no sense.

I don't believe the point is manipulation. A scan of a print is a scan of a final product. A negative is not a final product.

I generally trust that most established photographers aren't going to further digitally enhance a print that they have scanned. There just isn't much point.

However, a scanned neg is always suspect. All changes to it, all dodges, burns, etc are done digitally and one has to question if the same work can be done under an enlarger or not.

While I don't think anyone is considering or suggesting that scans from negs be disallowed (least of all me) I hope I've described at least why I prefer to scan prints and why I tend to look at print scans a little bit differently than neg scans.

Don't be embarrassed if you don't have a darkroom, don't be afraid to post your photos.. just don't expect any nice comments on your printing skills.

Graeme Hird · Oct 18, 2004

ian_greant said:
.... A negative is not a final product. .....

Is a tranny a final product? A well crafted transparency is difficult to achieve. If I share one digitally, will I be crucified?

(Only playing the devil's advocate here - I like crucifiction ... )

Leon · Oct 18, 2004

John McCallum said:
So I think that what bothers Jorge (if I can put words where they weren't asked for), is that the act of posting a neg scan dismisses a whole side of the craft of traditional photography that many value quite highly.

but if this is used as a way of informing the final analogue process (as John Voss and I have already said has become integral in our printing), surely this does nothing but support the core values of the APUG ethos?

ian_greant said:
A scan of a print is a scan of a final product. A negative is not a final product.

not if it's used as above.

sparx · Oct 18, 2004

This whole discussion has bought to light some issues for me that i was going to raise in a new thread. Namely, why are we here, on APUG and what do we want from the site.
At the moment i'm getting very little out of this site, a few months ago i was getting a lot. The focus currently seems to be on the chemistry, paper and technique of the final print. Discussion on film choice, equipment choice (unless LF is the subject) and, most importantly to me, composition seems to be largely ignored. Someone asking for feedback on composition doesn't neccessarily want to spend the time printing a picture to scan in, so why not scan the neg? I have no problem with that at all.
At the end of the day, for me, this site was a place where people with a lot of experience were on hand 24/7 to offer help and advice to someone who is interested in film and chemical based photography. I don't really get that now, perhaps i'm just missing something.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 18, 2004

I think we can do without extensive discussion of digital techniques, but the issue of the neg scan vs. print scans is different.

What if the neg scan is more faithful to the print than the print scan?

I've never seen an image on the web that looks remotely like a print. A screen that emits light is just different from a print that reflects light. Every monitor renders tonality differently. Any image that is scanned is manipulated, whether you do it in Photoshop or an image editing program, in the scanner interface, or whether you just select the scanner defaults and let the program do the manipulation for you, often involving adjustments in tonality, white balance, and sharpening.

My own procedure is usually to scan the neg with print in hand and to try to make the closest approximation I can in Photoshop. If I can, then I'll compare the print on two or three different monitors and make sure it holds up, and might make small adjustments again. As I see it, this is analogous to printing for reproduction, as opposed to printing for exhibition, acknowledging that the process of reproduction is distortive.

The real response to this conundrum is to use the web images only for reference, and remember that these are only tokens of the real work. Participate in the print exchanges, the postcard exchange, and the traveling portfolio, and if you want image critiques, post in the gallery, and ask people who have seen the real prints to comment. This works fairly well in the Travelling Exhibition gallery over on the f32.net discussion board.

Lee Shively · Oct 18, 2004

This is a strange thread. I'm sitting here with my third cup of coffee this morning reading a discussion of digital processes on an analog site (?). The original semi-rant concerned posted images being critiqued and advise offered for digital manipulation to improve the image. In my opinion, once you go to a digital process, you may as well use the tools available. That includes any manipulation necessary to improve the image.

Before I am stoned as a heretic, let me quickly make clear that I am not a fan at all of any of the digital processes. I have a few boxes of inkjets I've done from color slides but the old HP film scanner sitting to my right has about two years of dust accumlated. When I was scanning film, virtually every print I made was manipulated in some way. It was easy to correct colors, change contrast and add or subtract details. I had no qualms about doing it and still don't see a problem with digitally manipulating a digital image. But, ultimately, the whole digital process became a royal PITA so I pretty much abandoned scanning and returned to a chemical darkroom and basic black and white photography.

In my opinionated opinion, once you cross into digital territory--no matter how peripherally--you are involved in a different ballgame with different rules and different tools. In reference to the original post about critiques advising using Photoshop, I just avoid the whole issue by not posting photos or offering any critiques.

mark · Oct 18, 2004

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Man. That's some hostility there.

I don't understand the harm in talking about the differences in the two technologies. It's not as if we're discussing digital techniques and "how-to's" here. We don't live, work, and photograph in a vacuum, and it's a little naive to expect that the only posts with the word "digital" in them will be for the purpose of ranting about it.

Why be afraid to acknowledge that it's out there? What's the point in that? Personally, I dislike the digital realm, and I far prefer the look and the process of analogue. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and we've had quite enough "digital sucks" rants to more than balance a few posts pointing out that there are some things more readily* done on a computer than in a darkroom.

(*Note that I said "more readily" and not "better". Just trying to prevent a barrage of angry posts coming at me from all sides.)

Of course digital is out there. If I was a pro I would shoot nothing but. The quality is good enough for 99% of the pro work out there. There is nothing wrong with discussing it as long as it is done elsewhere. I and many others come here so they do not have to hear about digital techniques or see digitally manipulated material, or hear about things being easier or supposedly better in PS. We come here for what the name implies ANALOGUE discussions.

Nothing Naive about that.

As to the whole neg scan business I believe, Sean, the owner of this site, has said it was alright as long as the scans were not manipulated. It is a non-issue.

mark · Oct 18, 2004

Art Vandalay said:
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Poor baby. I'm not going to stop posting here because some pompous twit can't handle it.

OOOH, Your rapier wit hath pierced my wittle heart.

If it is pompous of me to want to keep digital discussion out of this forum then I guess I am pompous, I would say I am in some great company.

Fintan · Oct 18, 2004

Art Vandalay said:
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Poor baby. I'm not going to stop posting here because some pompous twit can't handle it.

Can you please remove these remarks, whatever we agree or diasgree on there is no need to post like this here.

Magic Rat · Oct 18, 2004

I haven't read anything by Mark that would warrant that comment. I enjoy reading these threads. Helps me to remain open minded to alternative viewpoints. I don't see how name calling adds anything to the discussion.
The Rat

Gentlemen, there's no fighting in here! This is the War Room!

Ed Sukach · Oct 18, 2004

Like it or not, when we post here we are forced into the digital realm.

A "surface" advice - "scan at 72 dpi" is not that far out of our area of interest. When we start into the "deep" procedures of Photoshop, I would suggest it is off-topic. I don't CARE what the F2 key does in Photoshop ... I don't even HAVE Photoshop.

I'm not going to get too exited about "digital" messages - the "delete" key is nearby, and I know how to use it ... but, at the same time I do NOT want to be forced to use that key constantly. I certainly would NOT like to see APUG become overwhelmed by "Interesting Tricks to Finally Get Photoshop to Get You Digital Images to be the Equivalent of Film." There are PLENTY of other sites dedicated to that ... and I'm sure that the participants there would be more than wiling to censure messages dealing with Rodinal - or other topics that we find here.

One comment ... I am not going to bust my buns wrestling with a scanned digital image to satisfy the critique of anyone. Suffice it to say that ALL the images here are probably "cheap" imitations of the "Real" thing ... the reason for the Travelling Portfolio. Because of this "You should really go out and spend $$$ to get a Screen Calibrator .. and everyone else should, too, so we can evaluate your color", I am very tempted NOT to submit additional color images.

Now ... let's hold back on "demanding" at any level that someone else should not post what or the way they do. Damn it, these are only words and ideas ... and we should have more tolerance toward our "differences".

Let's try stay "on topic" and cut each other more - quite a bit more - SLACK.

blansky · Oct 18, 2004

Sparx wrote:

This whole discussion has bought to light some issues for me that i was going to raise in a new thread. Namely, why are we here, on APUG and what do we want from the site.
At the moment i'm getting very little out of this site, a few months ago i was getting a lot. The focus currently seems to be on the chemistry, paper and technique of the final print. Discussion on film choice, equipment choice (unless LF is the subject) and, most importantly to me, composition seems to be largely ignored. Someone asking for feedback on composition doesn't neccessarily want to spend the time printing a picture to scan in, so why not scan the neg? I have no problem with that at all.
At the end of the day, for me, this site was a place where people with a lot of experience were on hand 24/7 to offer help and advice to someone who is interested in film and chemical based photography. I don't really get that now, perhaps i'm just missing something

I agree to a certain extent. I learned the most when I first joined photonet a few years ago. It was my first forage into the wonderful world of black and white after years of color. I learned an incredible amount and when I joined APUG is was a fun environment to discuss technique.

In the last year or so we have been inundated with digital stuff and discussions about the emerging technology. I think that when you reach a certain level of expertise there is a lot less to learn and a lot less reason to hang around. I get a lot of personal emails about technique and I answer them and help whomever asks, but APUG seems for me, to be waning.

Perhaps it is also that we have had a huge number of new members in the last year and the intimacy has been eroded. Also for good or bad we have members here that joined in the last three months that have had over 700 posts which makes it more of a chat room than a site for sharing knowledge.

Just my opinion,

Michael McBlane

Dave Miller · Oct 18, 2004

blansky said:
Sparx wrote:

This whole discussion has bought to light some issues for me that i was going to raise in a new thread. Namely, why are we here, on APUG and what do we want from the site.
At the moment i'm getting very little out of this site, a few months ago i was getting a lot. The focus currently seems to be on the chemistry, paper and technique of the final print. Discussion on film choice, equipment choice (unless LF is the subject) and, most importantly to me, composition seems to be largely ignored. Someone asking for feedback on composition doesn't neccessarily want to spend the time printing a picture to scan in, so why not scan the neg? I have no problem with that at all.
At the end of the day, for me, this site was a place where people with a lot of experience were on hand 24/7 to offer help and advice to someone who is interested in film and chemical based photography. I don't really get that now, perhaps i'm just missing something

I agree to a certain extent. I learned the most when I first joined photonet a few years ago. It was my first forage into the wonderful world of black and white after years of color. I learned an incredible amount and when I joined APUG is was a fun environment to discuss technique.

In the last year or so we have been inundated with digital stuff and discussions about the emerging technology. I think that when you reach a certain level of expertise there is a lot less to learn and a lot less reason to hang around. I get a lot of personal emails about technique and I answer them and help whomever asks, but APUG seems for me, to be waning.

Perhaps it is also that we have had a huge number of new members in the last year and the intimacy has been eroded. Also for good or bad we have members here that joined in the last three months that have had over 700 posts which makes it more of a chat room than a site for sharing knowledge.

You're not wrong!

John McCallum · Oct 18, 2004

blansky said:
.... but APUG seems for me, to be waning.

Perhaps it is also that we have had a huge number of new members in the last year and the intimacy has been eroded. Also for good or bad we have members here that joined in the last three months that have had over 700 posts which makes it more of a chat room than a site for sharing knowledge.

Just my opinion,

Michael McBlane

Hmmmm. As you are no doubt aware, 'just your opinion' counts for quite a lot at APUG.
Certainly the membership has been growing and changing significantly over the last few months. Even I have noticed that, and I would be one of the newbie, chat instigator/participants that you refer to (if not, the one). Guilty as charged.
There are a range of experiences and interests that APUG is now hospitable to. It is a shame that the growing diversity of these change the feeling of intimacy of the site and enjoyment by yourself Michael and others I'm sure, who have been around since the earlier days. However personally, I would not like to be seen to be contributing to that growing discontent.
Being merely an opinionated, landscape snapper with relatively little tech or commercial knowledge (in photography that is), I can quite understand why one such as yourself would not go out of their way to make someone fitting that description feel welcome.
Nevertheless, I hold the view that most here do wish to contribute in some way. This has helped my enjoyment of apug up until now.

Best wishes. John McC.

JD Morgan · Oct 18, 2004

Methinks disco missionaries in disguise have ventured deep into the analog interior to show us the way to Utopia proselytizing for the one true photo god - ADOBE.

Anyone know how to do a web based disco exorcism?

clogz · Oct 18, 2004

Does Apug have that many members? So...we're not elitist anymore?!! Aaaaaaarrrrhhh

Aggie · Oct 18, 2004

This comes up periodically. We go the rounds with differeing view points. If all refer back to the home page and read what this web site is about you will know for sure exactly what this place was made for. NO DIGITAL. You can use modern tech for various reasons. What is not needed is full blown discussions about them here. You can find that on a digital site.

I also do not find a growing community is made worse by newbies posting a lot. What I do find disconcerting is the same topics brought up again and again, withing a few months and in some cases weeks of each other. Why not have a Newbie topic list with links to the various threads dealing with general questions? That way hopefully it would cut down on the redundent threads.

As to subjects discussed again this is a community as as such will be made up of different people. Each will have their preferred types of photography. for one person to put donw all photography that is not like theirs is silly. people photographers are not the end all and be all. Neither are landscape photographers. You have a wide extreme in between.

I personally would love to learn how to use the adam's retouching machine that blansky uses. I would love to learn about New Zealand from John. Hell I would love to learn platinum from Jorge. Clay could teach me how not to kill myself with wet plate photography. There are so many areas to explore. getting bogged down with a dead horse discussion that makes us resentful when it is not needed helps no one.

The fat lady just sang, now go forth and take pictures on film!

blansky · Oct 18, 2004

John McCallum wrote:

Being merely an opinionated, landscape snapper with relatively little tech or commercial knowledge (in photography that is), I can quite understand why one such as yourself would not go out of their way to make someone fitting that description feel welcome.
Nevertheless, I hold the view that most here do wish to contribute in some way. This has helped my enjoyment of apug up until now.

Actually John, I wasn't really talking about you and I welcome you here to this site as well as anyone else here. I would also welcome anbody into my home/studio to teach them anything that they thought they could learn from me, for as long as they thought they were learning.

My comments were just that things change and as they change and membership and active memberships has has quantum leaps, I find that I have less desire to visit here.

Not your fault, not mine, just a fact of life. It's still a great site and enjoy the hell out of it. It's just that times change, people change and priorities change.

Michael McBlane

clogz · Oct 18, 2004

Reminds me of the Pinacolada Song.

John McCallum · Oct 18, 2004

blansky said:
John McCallum wrote:

Being merely an opinionated, landscape snapper with relatively little tech or commercial knowledge (in photography that is), I can quite understand why one such as yourself would not go out of their way to make someone fitting that description feel welcome.
Nevertheless, I hold the view that most here do wish to contribute in some way. This has helped my enjoyment of apug up until now.

Actually John, I wasn't really talking about you and I welcome you here to this site as well as anyone else here. I would also welcome anbody into my home/studio to teach them anything that they thought they could learn from me, for as long as they thought they were learning.

My comments were just that things change and as they change and membership and active memberships has has quantum leaps, I find that I have less desire to visit here.

Not your fault, not mine, just a fact of life. It's still a great site and enjoy the hell out of it. It's just that times change, people change and priorities change.

Michael McBlane

Michael I apologize if I thought I was under the snoot - and wasn't. As I see it, apug has grown and been formed in a great way, thanks to the efforts of those who have contributed so much, such as yourself. You might take comfort in the fact that the things that bother you, probably bother a large number of others also. So .... perhaps..... adverse changes (and growth pains) will not be permanent. Personally I have always enjoyed your witty repartee and contributions a great deal, for whatever that is worth.

clogz ... "not much into health food ... I am into champagne"

clogz · Oct 18, 2004

Right let's crack a bottle and drink to Apug and all the members.

Art Vandalay · Oct 18, 2004

If everyone is only interested in talking about analog why is there thread after thread revolving around digital? Even though it's mainly slagging digital why is it brought up all of the time? In fact these threads are the most popular on the site, as far as I can see, in my short time on here? They seem more popular than most threads about purely analog subjects.

Fortunately, I am realizing that there are many progressive and open-minded photographers on this site who really love analog photography but can still recognize that some aspects of digital technology might have some good points to it and do not feel threatened by it's existence.

Perhaps the owner of this site needs to ban all discussion of digital matters absolutely, but somehow I think the site would become a ghost town.

pet peeve - photoshop being recommended

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency