Scanning ethics ????

[Ian David]

You can show us neg scans, Erik.

 

[Erik Petersson]

You can show us neg scans, Erik.

Some people here are put off by neg scans, and many seem to think that it should look lite the finished wet print. But I don't do wet prints (except for the rare cases when I ask a pro to do one for me). I just don't want to annoy you others, so I tend not to post.

 

[Ian David]

Some people here are put off by neg scans, and many seem to think that it should look lite the finished wet print. But I don't do wet prints (except for the rare cases when I ask a pro to do one for me). I just don't want to annoy you others, so I tend not to post.

I think the idea is that it should like look a wet print would look. If you want views on your composition, or on contrast choice, etc, or if you just want to show people what you get up to with your film camera, I reckon a neg scan is perfectly acceptable. I would rather see your neg scans than nothing.

Ian

 

[Erik Petersson]

I think the idea is that it should like look a wet print would look. If you want views on your composition, or on contrast choice, etc, or if you just want to show people what you get up to with your film camera, I reckon a neg scan is perfectly acceptable. I would rather see your neg scans than nothing.

Ian

I guess that I am not even sure what a wet print would look like as I only see them in exhibitions.

Based on my small experience in these matters, I believe that it is easier to keep both highlight and shadow detail in a negative scan than in a wet print. In this way my scans differ from what I would be able to do in a darkroom. Maybe I should just think of myself as doing hybrid process.

 

[anon12345]

I would much rather see a photographer's attempt at making the traditional print. It would be much simpler to make a wet print, bypassing all that BS trying to make a digital print that looks like a wet print. Just make a print and scan it.

 

[Ian David]

I guess that I am not even sure what a wet print would look like as I only see them in exhibitions.

Based on my small experience in these matters, I believe that it is easier to keep both highlight and shadow detail in a negative scan than in a wet print. In this way my scans differ from what I would be able to do in a darkroom. Maybe I should just think of myself as doing hybrid process.

Well, you are doing a hybrid process. But I think it is valid to show APUG your neg scans if you wish, provided you make it clear that they are neg scans and provided you don't go beyond the sort of basic interventions mentioned by others above. People viewing them can then take account of the fact that some basic things (that are perfectly possible in a darkroom) are easier with a computer. That's my view anyway, Erik.

Ian

 

[Erik Petersson]

Well, you are doing a hybrid process. But I think it is valid to show APUG your neg scans if you wish, provided you make it clear that they are neg scans and provided you don't go beyond the sort of basic interventions mentioned by others above. People viewing them can then take account of the fact that some basic things (that are perfectly possible in a darkroom) are easier with a computer. That's my view anyway, Erik.

Ian

Thanks for encouraging me to post, Ian. I will probably do that, as soon as I am done making a small exhibition here in Stockholm (my first by the way and I am very excited!)

 

[Erik Petersson]

I would much rather see a photographer's attempt at making the traditional print. It would be much simpler to make a wet print, bypassing all that BS trying to make a digital print that looks like a wet print. Just make a print and scan it.

I find it a little ironic that the cost of adding room enough for a dark room to an apartment in my part of the city roughly equals the cost of buying a high end professional scanner!

Cesaraugusta, I know that you and others are annoyed by scanned negatives on APUG. This is why I am reluctant to post. Still I would like to, as I really respect the knowlegde and taste of many of you. I would really like to discuss composition, choice of subject-matter and other such things, and hybridphoto is not as good a place for that. Well, maybe I should try to find photographer friends here in Stockholm instead...

 

[stradibarrius]

Reality is what it is! Everyone at this forum takes analogue photos. The cost and space required to process film is within the reach of all of us. I go into an upstairs bathroom and place a towel at the bottom of the the door to load my film into the tank. But a darkroom is something all together different. Some people only have one bathroom and it is in daily use, so trying to set up a make shift darkroom there is not practical. but it is possible for them to find enough space to place a printer and scanner. It is just the way things are today.
Does that mean if you don't have space/money to furnish and make a darkroom that you should not enjoy the world of analogue photography? NO!!! If your views are so pure then you, whoever that may be, should not really be here because the very way we are communicating is DIGITAL!!!
For people like Erik and many others here it is not possible to set up a darkroom.
When I asked the question originally I just wanted to know some basic guide lines. I think we all agree that the spirit of APUG is analogue and we should not do anything to a digital print that we could not do in a wet darkroom. Why can't it be that simple??? If you cheat and stack layers and do all types of digital "stuff" that can't be done in a darkroom you "may have fooled the rest of us. One of the things I love about thiss forum more than all the others is that the people who are regulars all seem to have the same basic approach. We love film and we want to take great photos and hopefully learn and improve our skill level. I haven't seen any real serious violations of the basic rules here on the forum.
I am surprised that this question has drawn so much attention and so many responses. Then again maybe it shows that this community is honest.

When I originally ask the question

 

[Erik Petersson]

I think this question has been up before, and I don't wish to violate what has been agreed. Anyway, thanks Stradibarrius for what you wrote.

 

[removed account4]

I find it a little ironic that the cost of adding room enough for a dark room to an apartment in my part of the city roughly equals the cost of buying a high end professional scanner!

Cesaraugusta, I know that you and others are annoyed by scanned negatives on APUG. This is why I am reluctant to post. Still I would like to, as I really respect the knowlegde and taste of many of you. I would really like to discuss composition, choice of subject-matter and other such things, and hybridphoto is not as good a place for that. Well, maybe I should try to find photographer friends here in Stockholm instead...

erik

you should not hesitate at all to post your work.
at least once a year people raise this issue, it is OLD NEWS.
for years people have tried ( unsuccessfully ) to
ban film scans from the gallery. as long as you do not go overboard
it is allowed ... the people who do not like "film scans" don't need to
look or comment on your work, if it matters that much to them
that your posts are not "pure" ..

i would not worry what a few people say / think ... just post your work.

 

[MaximusM3]

I find it a little ironic that the cost of adding room enough for a dark room to an apartment in my part of the city roughly equals the cost of buying a high end professional scanner!

Cesaraugusta, I know that you and others are annoyed by scanned negatives on APUG. This is why I am reluctant to post. Still I would like to, as I really respect the knowlegde and taste of many of you. I would really like to discuss composition, choice of subject-matter and other such things, and hybridphoto is not as good a place for that. Well, maybe I should try to find photographer friends here in Stockholm instead...

You see, that is wrong and you should not feel that way. This community exists because of digital advances and that it facilitates communication and sharing of our work. Like I've said before, scanning doesn't stop anyone from getting a crappy darkroom print, scan it, fix it in PS and share it. Let's get real.
If anyone was to abandon analog photography because one can't afford or don't have the time/space for darkroom printing, film would have been dead already and all the ultra-purists would have something else to complaint about.
You know what? I put my money where my mouth is...this year, so far, I have spent $3,000+++ on film and probably another $5-10K on cameras and lenses. I use it, I consume it, and I do not have a darkroom. I think film has a better chance at surviving by marrying with a little digital output than counting on a few hardcore supporters to get youngsters into a darkroom (which is not going to happen in any meaningful number).
Like John Nanian said, you should share your work and look for advice and, if someone isn't willing to give a look and comment on your images because they are from a scanned negative, well, that is sad.

 

[stradibarrius]

You see, that is wrong and you should not feel that way. This community exists because of digital advances and that it facilitates communication and sharing of our work. Like I've said before, scanning doesn't stop anyone from getting a crappy darkroom print, scan it, fix it in PS and share it. Let's get real.
If anyone was to abandon analog photography because one can't afford or don't have the time/space for darkroom printing, film would have been dead already and all the ultra-purists would have something else to complaint about.
You know what? I put my money where my mouth is...this year, so far, I have spent $3,000+++ on film and probably another $5-10K on cameras and lenses. I use it, I consume it, and I do not have a darkroom. I think film has a better chance at surviving by marrying with a little digital output than counting on a few hardcore supporters to get youngsters into a darkroom (which is not going to happen in any meaningful number).
Like John Nanian said, you should share your work and look for advice and, if someone isn't willing to give a look and comment on your images because they are from a scanned negative, well, that is sad.

Max you make an excellent point about the marriage of the technologies and it's positive effect on the life of film!

 

[MaximusM3]

Max you make an excellent point about the marriage of the technologies and it's positive effect on the life of film!

Thanks! I am being realistic and also know for a fact the positive effects of this marriage. I occasionally write film articles for another website and the feedback has been nothing but positive. Today I have received a wonderful compliment/comment from a reader who resides in the UK and he is 70 years old. My article spurred him to go back to film and buy a Leica M3, along with an M9 to enjoy a bit of the best of both worlds. It is doubtful that he will get back in the darkroom but he'll be out buying film and keeping the flame alive. I would like to quote his writing, word for word, and I can make many more examples such as this, over the last year.


"Dear Max: When I was an undergraduate at a Uni in the UK in the early 1960′s, I bought (on “Hire Purchase” of course) a brand-new Rolleiflex 2.8 F with a 80mm Zeiss Planar Lens for the then princely of 56 Pounds Sterling. It was a beaut!!! So very precisely made. A richly endowed English Uni-mate had an M3 with many lenses which his parents had given him as a Birthday present!!!. The M3 was so very nice as well and my friend let me use it, but I would never admit it was better than my Rollei. Now, almost 50 years on, with more money in my pocket I am going to buy both an M9 and the best M3 I can get hold of. Your wonderful article has inspired me to get the M3. (I was a Darkroom Freak from age 12 or 13). Now I am hitting 70. But still a lousy photographer, unlike you. Your pictures are as great as your article. Thanks alot Max for for this encouragement."

I frankly feel that film has a much better chance of survival if "little" people like me would spread the gospel instead of the few hardcore purists who spit on everything that didn't come, unadulterated, out of the darkroom.

 

[jeffreyg]

My original comments are on page six of this forum so I won't repeat. I haven't placed any images in the gallery but I do have an APUG portfolio. If I make photographs to be viewed on the web they are and would be from scanned negatives because I rarely print on paper smaller than 11x14 so they would not fit on my scanner and I find that the pt/pd prints don't scan accurately and most of those are also on 11x14 paper. I do use PS as I would print in the darkroom and see it as another medium and represent them as such. I see nothing wrong with presenting scanned negatives in APUG but it is appropriate to mention that is what was done.
To me film is the best of both worlds since it can be printed in a traditional darkroom or scanned for digital prints. Personally I use B&W medium and large format film, medium format color for personal family photos. My kids gave me a very nice DSLR for family photos so they wouldn't be bothered with having to take film in.
I expect film to be around for a long time there are still plenty of users but (just in case) I always keep an ample supply on hand as well as paper too.

http://jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[paulie]

Reality is what it is! Everyone at this forum takes analogue photos. The cost and space required to process film is within the reach of all of us. I go into an upstairs bathroom and place a towel at the bottom of the the door to load my film into the tank. But a darkroom is something all together different. Some people only have one bathroom and it is in daily use, so trying to set up a make shift darkroom there is not practical. but it is possible for them to find enough space to place a printer and scanner. It is just the way things are today.
Does that mean if you don't have space/money to furnish and make a darkroom that you should not enjoy the world of analogue photography? NO!!! If your views are so pure then you, whoever that may be, should not really be here because the very way we are communicating is DIGITAL!!!
For people like Erik and many others here it is not possible to set up a darkroom.
When I asked the question originally I just wanted to know some basic guide lines. I think we all agree that the spirit of APUG is analogue and we should not do anything to a digital print that we could not do in a wet darkroom. Why can't it be that simple??? If you cheat and stack layers and do all types of digital "stuff" that can't be done in a darkroom you "may have fooled the rest of us. One of the things I love about thiss forum more than all the others is that the people who are regulars all seem to have the same basic approach. We love film and we want to take great photos and hopefully learn and improve our skill level. I haven't seen any real serious violations of the basic rules here on the forum.
I am surprised that this question has drawn so much attention and so many responses. Then again maybe it shows that this community is honest.

When I originally ask the question

why is it that everyone picks on the bathroom for a darkroom, ive allways set mine up in bedrooms and kichens.

at present i do alt printing and contacting big negs in the corner of our bedroom

open your minds and there allways a better way

 

[Q.G.]

A bathroom is equiped with all the necessary fittings, including being spill-resistant and easily cleaned.

Many moons ago, i spilled some developer on a bedroom carpet. It had to be taken out and replaced.

 

[removed account4]

it doesn't really matter what room it is that one processes or prints
just don't castigate those who don't get a chance or can't print.
its all from the same frame of mind ...

 

[anon12345]

I guess I could be called a purist of sorts. I haven't stepped inside a dedicated darkroom since the fall of '82. My current area for the past 5 years has consisted of the floor and some table space. No sinks, no dedicated plumbing. A cloth covered window provides darkness during daylight hours, and a red plastic bucket and a gallon jug for water functions adequately. Developing prints in a plastic drum requires less space than trays. I could really do without the table space and work strictly from the floor, but my poor back prefers standing. Not having a dedicated darkroom (a real darkroom) has help me to learn to improvise. How being a purist and developing a print relates, that still eludes me. I suppose being a purist is a state of mind, and not much else. If developing prints in lieu of scanning negatives is looked down upon here, I can only say I wandered into the wrong section of the forum. If my opinions are rejected or considered too outrageous, that's cool.

. . . . When I post here I want to show my analogue skills and not my PhotoShop skills.

I really thought that was a valid question. Ooops, I now know that it wasn't.

 

[Ian David]

If developing prints in lieu of scanning negatives is looked down upon here, I can only say I wandered into the wrong section of the forum. If my opinions are rejected or considered too outrageous, that's cool.

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying anything to disparage the making of wet prints. Why would they? What has been said by many is that, if posting scans of wet prints is difficult for any reason, it is fine to post basic scans of negatives (with the understanding that nobody is going to be able to comment on your analog printing skills).

If looking at neg scans offends you, look away.

Ian

 

[anon12345]

. . . . If looking at neg scans offends you, look away.

Ian

I made that quite clear in my first post. :confused:

 

[Ian David]

I made that quite clear in my first post. :confused:

So why aren't you just looking away? Seems you are trying here to impose your problems on everyone else ...

 

[PVia]

Let's face it, not every negative is worth printing .

If it's not worth printing, it's not worth scanning and uploading to the gallery.

I say scan the print. Period.

 

[Q.G.]

If i had to scan prints, i would need PS skills to recreate the thing from the various smaller parts the scanner can handle, use PS skills to match the tone and contrast of those parts first, and use more PS skills to make the scan look like the print. Period.
I don't believe it to be much different for anyone else.

 

[anon12345]

So why aren't you just looking away? Seems you are trying here to impose your problems on everyone else ...

If I recall, there was once room for differing opinions on the forum. It would sadden me to learn that I am no longer allowed to post my own opinion, and that I must agree not to disagree to avoid being harassed.

I have no power here. I'm at the mercy of the moderators. If you tell them you won't tolerate dissenting opinions in this thread, I might be banished to a "dark room" . . . forever.