Playahz and Haytahz

[TPPhotog]

No mystics? How remarkable.

Well those crystal balls reflect the light too much and they are soooo cliché

 

[roteague]

As I find this site to be an oasis for traditional photographers that celebrates the analog processes they use to translate their personal vision, attempts to keep it focused on relevant discussion are justified....

Or, those who just feel that there is nothing wrong or second-rate about using traditional processes. On some websites, there are people that are so pro-digital, comparing those who use film to cavemen. Here you don't get that attitude and that is what makes this site so refreshing.

Just for laughs... Today, I was doing a web search searching for articles, etc., comparing Velvia 50 versus Velvia F100 (which I have used for awhile, but lately I have become dissatisfied with the results it produces) and found an article that someone wrote trying to compare the results from a D100 with a 4x5" Velvia; they found the D100 produced better results - when you read the article, the writer sharpened the D100 image in PS, and did nothing to the Velvia. Just goes to show how biased some people are in trying to make their point.

 

[djklmnop]

Wheres the option for, "draw it in MS PAINT and call it a photograph"

 

[Adrian Twiss]

I've gone for the option of scanning and tweaking the brightness/contrast. I only scan prints for posting on the web or creating little thumbnails for the database I am building which will be used to store records of how the picture was taken and printed. I can the print directly rather than the negative.

 

[rbarker]

RESULTS

As of noon PST, Friday 19 November:

• Total Votes: 64
• Playahz: 13
• Haytahz: 51

Just curious - how do these results treat those of who didn't vote because none of the options fit our preference? And, what's the correlation between the pie-chart titles and the question sequence? The titles seem, well, digitally manipulated.

 

[jim kirk jr.]

After seeing the pie chart I'm changing my vote to mystic.
I think all images on APUG should be done by thought processes alone.Like the evil girl
on the movie "the Ring" who never made a video-she just imprinted it on the analog tape with her mind.

 

[TPPhotog]

I'm still confused as to which categories are Playahz and which are Haytahz? Maybe I need more time meditating in the darkroom :confused:

 

[anyte]

I'm still confused as to which categories are Playahz and which are Haytahz? Maybe I need more time meditating in the darkroom :confused:

Don't feel bad. I never even voted because I don't understand the options.

 

[bjorke]

I'm still confused as to which categories are Playahz and which are Haytahz? Maybe I need more time meditating in the darkroom :confused:

check the INITIAL POSTING:

The point of this poll: not what do YOU do, but WHAT SHOULD OTHERS BE ALLOWED TO DO.

Playahz categories are about love of pictures and promotion of interests without making value judgements on peripheral issues like the name brands of materials. Haytahz categories are all about those exact issues and about control of others — some might say they were about fear.

It's like the division of "vertical" and "horizontal" religion: "vertical" religion deals with the self's relationship to creation, but "horizontal" is all about preventing other people from sinning. Compare, say, the Dalai Lama with Jerry Falwell.

Sad to say, the poll shows strongly horizontal results.

 

[jd callow]

check the INITIAL POSTINGlayahz categories are about love of pictures and promotion of interests without making value judgements on peripheral issues like the name brands of materials. Haytahz categories are all about those exact issues and about control of others — some might say they were about fear.

It's like the division of "vertical" and "horizontal" religion: "vertical" religion deals with the self's relationship to creation, but "horizontal" is all about preventing other people from sinning. Compare, say, the Dalai Lama with Jerry Falwell.

Sad to say, the poll shows strongly horizontal results.

That is a false comparison.

The site is not about pictures, but analog photography.

If the poll asked what developers/film/paper/enlarger/analog process is allowed/not allowed the comparison might ring true.

 

[bjorke]

If the poll asked what developers/film/paper/enlarger/analog process is allowed/not allowed the comparison might ring true.

Ah, but that's exactly what it asks. At some point, a picture must be digital to appear on the site. But what combinations of wet and dry processes are to be ALLOWED, or (crucially) is it even the business of the APUG membership to be proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures?

Given the nature of people who are interested in analog use, of course one would expect there to be analog used in an image. But it's the height of self-ghettoizing foolishness to start having ongoing inquisitions on just whose and which pictures are "analog enough."

 

[TPPhotog]

I think at least one of the things it doesn't take into account is the finished picture.

If shot on negative then at least the good ones will move onto being wet prints, therefore it's logical that the wet print be flatbed scanned in order to be posted.

However if the picture is shot on positive (slide) film then unless it's been shot by a pro the finished picture is usually a slide. So film scanning a positive is no different from flatbed scanning a wet print.

As already pointed out there is a vast difference in the quality of scanners. Some are good enough to produce a reasonable facsimile of the finished picture, whilst others need the levels adjusted to even be seen for posting.

 

[jd callow]

I see your original question for this poll as being:
What level of digital manipulation should be acceptable for posted images? Is this incorrect?

The filter by which the polled decision is made is that this is a site dedicated to analog photography.

Would any level of digital manipulation pass that filter? Is it "self-ghettoizing" to desire that an image be true to analog photography?

I do not think that it is wrong that the expectation of the user's is that the images posted have a relationship with the sites intent.

 

[John McCallum]

But what combinations of wet and dry processes are to be ALLOWED, or (crucially) is it even the business of the APUG membership to be proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures?

Eh ...? Bit of a stretch isn't it?

APUG doesn't proscribe the method by which someone makes their pictures.


There is a strong interest in maintaining (without diluting) the intent of APUG. That is the intent to foster discussion of analogue methods and analogue pictures. What is your objective here? Have you really thought about it?

Playahz categories are about love of pictures and promotion of interests without making value judgements on peripheral issues like the name brands of materials. Haytahz categories are all about those exact issues and about control of others — some might say they were about fear.

Kevin it would be easy to label those that don't agree with the stated philosophy and generally accepted practices of APUG (sufficiently to wish to change them) - "Haters".

And it would be just as valid to label those that wish to maintain the spirit of intent of APUG as "Players".

No?

 

[TPPhotog]

... Kevin it would be easy to label those that don't agree with the stated philosophy and generally accepted practices of APUG (sufficiently to wish to change them) - "Haters".

And it would be just as valid to label those that wish to maintain the spirit of intent of APUG as "Players"...No?

With John on this one, as always it depends on which side of the fence you sit as to which tribe are "haters" and which are "players".

 

[127]

... is it even the business of the APUG membership to be proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures?

You pulled a fast one here Kevin...

Switch the argument from one that you can't win, to something which SOUNDS the same, but actually no one could fairly disagree with...

"Proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures" would be draconian, and totally unreasonable.

On the other hand defining the scope of the site, IS something that we can reasonably do. The site is run as a benevolent dictatorship, where Sean consults the community and then decides what is or isn't appropriate. If Sean decides that he doesn't want certain kinds of images on HIS (or our) site, then that's his (and our) fair choice.

We define the scope of the site as analouge photography. Rejecting digital posts is no more "Proscribing the method by which someone makes their pictures" than a competition for oil paintings rejecting digital photographs.

Ian

 

[kwmullet]

I voted "Scanned prints or negatives,, electronic tweaks okay but only if they could be duplicated by a skilled darkroom artist, e.g. Jerry Uelsmann".

Not really my preference, but it's the closest one. I'd like to see all posts reflect a real-world analog print or transparency. If someone scans a neg to get the image online, then does 150 PS actions to it, I've got no problem as long as those actions are an effort to get the image to look like an existing print.

Now, of course, I regard this all completely separate from digital capture images that are posted where the subject not the image is the point of discussion, like pictures of a piece of equipment, a darkroom, or of two prints or negs side-by-side to show them in comparison.

-KwM-

 

[André E.C.]

"Scanned prints or negatives, electronic tweaks okay but only if they'd be easy to duplicate in the wet darkroom."

I just dislike that pink!

Cheers

André

 

[ksmattfish]

I scan from prints and negs for the purpose of showing on the internet; I don't ever print from files. Scanning always reduces sharpness and contrast, so I adjust those to match the print. If I scan negs I adjust those files in a similar manner, and burn, dodge, spot for dust like I would expect a finished print to look. I would much rather share prints in person only, but that seems geographically difficult.

 

[Eric Rose]

I guess I'm a diagonal person.

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I confess...

In my case, I scan my negs and transparencies. The only adjustments I'll make is spotting dust and scratches and a slight global adjustment (levels or curves) in Photoslop... NOTHING ELSE! I don't even crop most of the time and I barely sharpen. When I shoot I try to make sure that there will be no adjustments made in the 'darkroom' whatsoever. I respect people who can work their magic in the darkroom, but for my own work I believe I should accomplish everything in the camera, not the print. Lately, due to the influence of APUG, I've been experimenting with film/developer combinations to achieve the look I want. I could quite easily adjust contrast in Photoslop but I feel that that goes against my philosophy and I'd rather accomplish that look prior to scanning. Because of my philosophy I feel scanning is not blasphemy to the Film Overlord. Also, I don't plan on my work being hung in a gallery, etc. The proper medium for me is the printed page, so scanning doesn't harm the integrity of my work.
Ara

 

[jjstafford]

I've been down this road and concluded that scanned prints are what I want to see, and with no manipulation except the least amount of unsharp mask that is possbile - just to clean up the scanner artifacts, and rendered in RGB (to include the cold/warm or toned quality).

B&W prints have a short tonal range so that they scan easily. The print is finished. It shows the photographer's intent.

I do not accept the rationalization that "everbody is going digital" because I don't care about everybody's work.

 

[jjstafford]

With respect, I suspect there is a subtext here that should be expolored. Mr. Bjorke, when you say "...making value judgements on peripheral issues like the name brands of materials", what _other_ peripheral issues are you considering? Choosing name brands as an argument is extremest. Posit a more likely specific, lest the argument become a Strawman.

Further, by placing pure joy on the left and persuasive machinations on the right, you have posited a "horizontal" argument; that's quite conflicting.

You also write, "At some point, a picture must be digital to appear on the site." which is true, but an irrationalization if one beieves that justifies all things digital.

Finally, "inquisitions on just whose and which pictures are "analog enough"" is an inquisition.

Enjoy or don't. If you want an All Things Go place, then you might try one of those Philosopohy of Photography forums (not APUG) which are so carefully correct that all they do is promote mediocrity.

 

[MattKing]

I didn't vote in the poll.

I prefer prints from a wet darkroom, but I don't have space for one anymore.

For simplicity, these comments are oriented to Black & White, but with some work I could extend them to Colour too.

I look at scanning film, and using something like Photoshop and an inkjet or a web image, as being similar to darkroom printing. It involves taking an analogue image, and presenting it in as best a form as possible.

If you dodge or burn a print in a wet darkroom, you are manipulating it. If you darken or lighten parts of a digital image using software, you are also manipulating it. In each case, you are however maintaining the nature of the source - an analogue representation of various textures and levels of light.

The purely analogue techniques for creating final images - printing contact prints or enlarged images on light sensitive paper - are wonderful, and every effort should be made to support and foster them on this site. It seems to me, however, that if an image is first recorded on photographic film, then it is fundamentally an analogue process. If that image is eventually made available for public viewing through processes that involve some digital tools, then the image is not necessarily turned into something that is purely artificial ("un-analogue"?). It depends on the nature and extent of the digital manipulations used.

As I read through threads in forums on this site that concentrate on processes and paper choices and techniques, it strikes me how similar in spirit they are to some of the posts I read on other sites that deal with ink choices and paper choices and RIP's (??? - much of which I barely understand). In each case, they are focussed on the quality of the images, as seen in the prints.

I just browsed through a thread here that was focussed on photogravure. Although that process is clearly not digital, it also is very different from the more typical silver based analogue.

All of the above is a round-about way of saying that, in my mind, as long as photographic film is used to record the original image, and that "recording" is not later so distorted by digital manipulation as to render it unrecognizable, then it should not be considered totally unacceptable here that the final version of the image was brought either to the web or to paper (or I guess Duratrans) using digital tools as well.

 

[cnmne]

I'm here to share the art and craft of "traditional" photography with others of like mind -- as far as is possible in this digital medium. To me, that means sharing scans of prints, allowing for adjustment of brightness and contrast to best simulate the range of the print (and spotting dust from scanning).

I don't think there is a whole lot of skill involved in developing film, so I don't think computer manipulated scans of negatives are "the same" as scans of prints.

YMMV.