Scanning negatives, hybrid?

CGW · Jan 7, 2012

Why is dissent always construed as disloyalty? My belated New Year's resolution is to get to know my local APUG crew better and play in my own yard.

removed account4 · Jan 7, 2012

hi mdarnton

mdarnton said:
I agree completely with Wolfeye, and have been thinking that for a couple of weeks: the gallery simply has to go. It's a complete violation of the principles of this site, in the most blatant and hypocritical way. Either that, or some people need to loosen up and stop being so religious about what's essentially a silly issue. I vote for the second, but since the zealots are so vocal, I vote for dumping the gallery. That should make everyone happy.

if you don't like the images in the gallery, there is an easy way to remove it from your view by going to
your settings, and changing the content of your sidebar. you could probably go to the ignore content area
and have the gallery on ignore too ...

mdarnton said:
I SO agree. I just ponied up $$ for membership a while ago, when I didn't realize there were so many silly, intolerant people here. Now I'm wondering if I made the right choice.

When someone posts one of those "my way or the highway" posts, I go look at their work. Guys, you're not so talented that you can afford to be so snotty. Really.

i am not sure what the my way or the highway posts you are talking about ...
as david g and (papa)gene posted there has been a long history of digital bleed
and it wasn't good for the apug community as a whole.
some of the people who posted what they did, have been here
for 4, 5, or even 8 years and have knowledge of the history behind the reasons
why apug is the way it is. i was here when the grey area was active,
and there wasn't an easy solution for the hybrid - stuff, to exist, and apug to be free
of digital banter and endless long contentious and nasty threads, digital bashing
analog purist luddite snob hating &c.

rather than lashing out and telling people who may have a different point of view than your that they
are silly and intolerant, or have no talent and and are snotty ...
if you have a problem with the gallery or apug, why not contact sean and give him some feedback
on how to make the site better, or become more active on dpug, if that is the kind of workflow you like.

john

eddie · Jan 7, 2012

The calls for the elimination of the gallery are absurd. The sharing of images is an appreciated aspect of APUG. The images are approximate representations of what a print looks like (whether scanned from a print or negative). Everyone, here, should be able to "translate" what they see on a monitor into what they'd expect a print to look like.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 7, 2012

That said, if you haven't taken part in a print exchange, I highly recommend it. There are some very impressive printers on APUG, some of whom don't post in the galleries at all, and there are some who aren't very skilled at scanning their work or haven't invested in the equipment to make good digital images of their work, but make outstanding analogue prints.

Two23 · Jan 7, 2012

Ken N said:
My beef has always been that a forum is a community. Splitting up into two different forums means participating in two different communities that seem to have slightly different cultures. Many are part of both, but then you have to constantly keep your communities straight and heaven forbid that you mistakenly reference the wrong thing in the wrong forum.

The result for some of us has been to just minimize our involvement here and start hanging out in other on-line forums, groups or circles which have a friendlier community. Being "exclusive" tends to make for unfriendly communities.

Exactly. A divided house can't stand. (Somebody famous once said that. Was it Ansel Adams? ) Despite hanging around for over a year now, I wasn't even aware there was a DPUG. Had no idea. Also wasn't aware there were even galleries. So, what attracted me to APUG? At the time I was using a 1959 Kodak Brownie Flash & a 1952 DuaFlex and wanted some info. I quickly bought a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa, then had a 1914 Kodak No. 1 Special restored by Ken Ruth. I love those last two cameras! That in turn inspired me to pull out my Shen Hao 4x5 and start shooting it again after lying dormant for nearly 8 years. For the past year I've been buying historical lenses (concentrating on 1840-1859, but also have a few from 1890--1932.) I have no interest in 35mm and no longer own one. I really don't have much interest in film gear made after WW2, although I did buy a Chamonix 45n-1 last summer. (Love it!) And yes, I'll probably buy a Nikon D400 when it eventually comes out. My true interest is photography, not just collecting & using historic gear. What I like about my 1865 7 in. Voigtlander Petzval is it's handcrafted construction and elegant lines. Perched on my ultra modern Chamonix it instantly demands attention! I like the look the classic lens gives my images. More than that, I love the feeling of connection I get when I use it (and my others) to the photographers down through time. Who bought the lens originally? What did he photo with it? Did Fox Talbot himself ever pick up and fondle my 1855 E.G. Wood pillbox lens when he visited the shop? This is the sort of thing that attracted me back to film in a pretty big way. I have no interest in processing film, setting up a darkroom, and making my own analog prints. None: I'm an outdoor guy. Exception is I am interested in learning how to make either wet or dry plates to use in my Watson & Son tailboard camera. If I do get into wet plate I still won't have a darkroom. I'll be using a tent of some kind outdoors in the field like Andrew J. Sullivan.

So that's where I'm coming from. I have never posted photos here, but regularly post them on the LFF. This helps to build traffic on their site, and attract more people. LF shooters seem to be a more eclectic bunch, and I'm a good fit for that. I probably post four times there for every one I do here. Some people here might keep in mind that there seems to be many people like me who have returned to film after an absence, and that wouldn't happen if we had to do the dark room thing. I do understand the attraction of making your own dark room prints. It's just that I would rather spend that time out taking more photos. (I photo at night a lot.)

Kent in SD

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 7, 2012

We're not in competition with the LF Forum. Many of us belong to both, and the LFF moderators collaborate with the APUG moderators when we have a problem that affects both forums. I haven't been participating there so much recently, because of work obligations, but I still pop in occasionally. I don't post anything about DSLR, 35mm, or medium format photography (except in the gray area of my 2x3" Linhof) on the LF Forum, even though I do those things, just as I don't post about digital photography on APUG, even though that's something else that I do.

eddie · Jan 7, 2012

I don't understand the desire, for some, to incorporate hybrid discussion into APUG, when DPUG is just a click away.

Two23 · Jan 7, 2012

Being curious, I took a peek. My posts here have totaled 76 (OK, now 77) since July 2010. My posts on LFF are 397 since October 2010. That despite their not having a forum for MF, which I also shoot. I post a fair number of photos there, but mostly I post photos on the general photo forum FredMiranda.com. I'm one of the very few that posts any film shots on that one. I have 2,172 posts on FM since Oct. 2009, but that's not really a fair comparision as I use that forum for different reasons.

Eddie--
I didn't even remember DPUG existed. I took a quick look at it just now, and it's not my thing either. I scan my negs out of convenience because I have to do it to show people my shots. I'm not really "into it." I'm not a darkroom guy, I'm not a digital guy. I'm an outdoor guy.

Kent in SD

papagene · Jan 7, 2012

I am having a real hard time trying to figure out how David's or my post can be construed as intolerant or snotty. Both of us have been here on APUG for quite awhile and have witnessed this issue and its ramifications.

The dialog in this thread is so very tame compared to back when this issue erupted in REAL flame wars, with guilty parties on both sides. I am talking vicious reactions from participants. Luckily those offenders are no longer part of APUG, some by their own choice, others booted out for their incessant bad behavior. And I repeat, it came from both sides of the argument.

I will reiterate... there was once a hybrid forum within APUG. It was taken out because it was destructive to the site. Bad behavior (again, on both sides) necessitated its removal. It's Sean's site and he makes the rules. There has been little evidence since those flame wars that history won't repeat itself. So why should Sean reinstate something that will make his and the moderators work more difficult.

If you really want to see change on APUG, prove to Sean and the moderators that the change you desire is worth their effort. Name calling and sexual references (examples from both sides) are not going to do it. Good behavior, intelligent and thoughtful discussions and mutual respect will go a long way to proving change's worth. The dialog in this thread, even as tame as it is (historically) is not proving that change is worthy.

Sorry, but that is my opinion.

Hexavalent · Jan 7, 2012

The OP asked "Isn't scanning a negative and posting it after using ''invert'' a hybrid process?"

Somehow this has turned into a discussion about "discussing digital" on APUG, which doesn't really address the original question.

eddie · Jan 7, 2012

Ian- any image that ends up posted is, by definition, hybrid. Being realistic, APUG allows image posting, and it seems to be working just fine, if you ask me.

eddie · Jan 7, 2012

Two23 said:
Eddie--
I didn't even remember DPUG existed. I took a quick look at it just now, and it's not my thing either. I scan my negs out of convenience because I have to do it to show people my shots. I'm not really "into it." I'm not a darkroom guy, I'm not a digital guy. I'm an outdoor guy.

Kent in SD

Kent- I understand. I hope you can find a forum which fits you perfectly.
I work in an entirely analogue manner. The only scans I do are of prints (or Chromes). I have been thinking about hybrid negatives, for alt purposes, though. If I do try it, I'll go to DPUG for any info I need.

Vaughn · Jan 7, 2012

Hexavalent said:
The OP asked "Isn't scanning a negative and posting it after using ''invert'' a hybrid process?"

Somehow this has turned into a discussion about "discussing digital" on APUG, which doesn't really address the original question.

And the original question was fully answered within the first few posts. Now we are simply discussing related issues. Typical occurance on most forums

Aristophanes · Jan 7, 2012

Hexavalent said:
The OP asked "Isn't scanning a negative and posting it after using ''invert'' a hybrid process?"

Somehow this has turned into a discussion about "discussing digital" on APUG, which doesn't really address the original question.

All Fuji mini-lab scans invert. So by definition all mini-lab product posted here violates the terms. The so-called "gray area" is huge. Is this a darkroom-only site? That is the purist agenda pushed to its logical conclusion to the point of alienating all those who share common lab results.

Vaughn · Jan 7, 2012

Ah, but we all must remember that when we point a finger at others, there are three other fingers on the same hand pointing back at us.

Two23 · Jan 7, 2012

That's more what I was responding to. I don't care if the galleries allow scanned photos or if you have to continue mailing a print to Sean so he can fix that to a webcam so we can see the photos in a "pure" way. Or something. I've never posted a photo here and didn't even know you could, so I don't "miss" that. I was more troubled by the hint of the attitude, "I'm more into film because I don't use digital at all." I'm just a photographer, not some kind of "heretic." I love being outdoors, creating images out of the chaos in the field, selecting gear to make the image best match what I saw in my mind, and then capturing it. Sometimes I use a vintage 2009 DSLR because that will give me the image I want; sometimes I'll use a vintage 1880s camera & lens because that will give me the image I want. (And, I love the history!) Once I've captured the image I'm then pretty limited in how I can show it to online friends around the world and distant family members. Being out there in the cold and dark of a Dakota winter night, then planning and executing the shot is 90% of it for me. What I don't want to hear is that I was out there "masturbating," or something. Crying out loud.

Kent in SD

Maris · Jan 7, 2012

I want to see negative scans as negatives. Negatives are nice to look at, have intriguing possibilities, and are full of information about exposure and development. I imagine to most APUGers the act of looking at negatives is as familiar as breathing.

Remember, the moment that swerved Ansel Adams to a definite career in photography was the sight of Paul Strand's negatives. Strand did not have any positives to show when Ansel dropped in but it did not matter.

Early Riser · Jan 7, 2012

If you capture the image on film, and it's final output is a silver or alt process print, isn't that analog? If the only other choice is a forum in which you can use digital to capture and inkjet as the output, isn't that a digital workflow? What is actually a more appropriate forum for someone using film and silver gelatin printing even if they have a digital step in the middle such as an LVT film neg or an enlarged neg for platinum printing?

The hybrid forum is gone. I would think that people who use film and sensitized photo paper are far more analog than digital. If the general and unanimous interest of all of those on APUG is the perpetuation of film and photo paper, then why ostracize those with who use a hybrid step to the digital forum, where people have no interest in film and photo paper? For those hardline analog users, do they really want to shove other people who are just as dedicated to the merits and continued availability of film into the camp of those who would readily see the availability of film come to an end? We need MORE people using film. Even if there's a hybrid step the more people that use film and photo paper the better. Why make those people feel unwelcome? All of those who use film should be welcome here.

removed account4 · Jan 7, 2012

hi aristophanes

people are passionate about different things, some people have more patience than others
it is unfortunate that some people act like that, but that's life.
you can put whoever you want on "ignore" and you won't have to read their comments ...

Aristophanes said:
All Fuji mini-lab scans invert. So by definition all mini-lab product posted here violates the terms. The so-called "gray area" is huge. Is this a darkroom-only site? That is the purist agenda pushed to its logical conclusion to the point of alienating all those who share common lab results.

you were told by someone on the membership council that your images are fine to post
i don't really understand what the problem is ... this isn't a darkroom only site, although
i am sure there is a group of subscribers or would be subscribers who may wish this ...

- john

keithwms · Jan 7, 2012

Aristophanes said:
There are some people here whose extreme bitterness about film's decline in the face of digital make it very hard to try and promote and encourage the remnants of analog whatever way possible.

Please don't turn this thread into that one.

The subject is scanning and whether the negative flip is permitted, and the answer is yes.

papagene · Jan 7, 2012

Aristophanes... I don't know where you are coming from, but the example of your prints fits well within the guidelines of posting in the APUG Gallery. There is no problem as far as your work is concerned. Post away to your hearts content.

The terms to posting in the gallery are by no means "loaded into small type..." They are posted in BOLD type right at the top of the upload page. It was put there in bold type to make it very obvious what the terms are. One can only not see them by totally ignoring them.

John and I both tried to reach out to you to let you know that your images are within the guidelines, but you are the one who is pushing back. [deleted] Thus reinforcing the resolve of the forum owner (remember him... Sean, who owns the site) to keep things the way they are. I said in an earlier post that thoughtful, intelligent debate will promote your cause, using the above code words will not.

removed account4 · Jan 7, 2012

hi aristophane

there are a lot of people who are upset about film's decline. but it has nothing to do with gallery uploads.
skannors are cheep these days, and processing film is ez, making contact prints is ezier even.
if you feel as though YOU don't want to upload your work because YOU feel it is "too digital" you could
always process your film, make contact prints and skann them. if you have small negatives and need larger ones
to make contact prints ( you can contact print a paper negative with a light bulb ) i would be happy to make an enlargement
and paper negative so you can make contact prints ... you could also make a pinhole camera and contact print the negatives from that ..

no one is "forcing you" to be all-darkroom, but if you want to, you certainly can ...

good luck
john

tkamiya · Jan 7, 2012

I don't have an answer to the question, is forum gallery posting a hybrid process. Obviously, the opinion varies. The way I see it:

1) Sean makes the rules and his rules are clear
2) If someone thinks his/her works are best represented by scanning film, do so
3) If someone thinks his/her works are best represented by scanning prints, do so
4) If someone thinks his/her works are best represented by printing and mailing it out, do so
5) If someone thinks displaying his/her works online violates the analog nature of their work, by all means don't post

Personally, I've done 2, 3, and 4 depending on the works themselves and occasionally by request.

Within the framework of what Sean says this site allows, this site belongs to everyone who participates and he/she can participate and enjoy anyway he/she sees fit. I really don't see a need for hard defined consensus or rule making. Asking tough question is often a good thing. This case; however (and all the past similar ones), this same question caused nothing but discontent in all concerned.

Can we stop this?

artonpaper · Jan 7, 2012

I just want to make it clear, I have no problem with people posting negative scans. I do consider it hybrid, though - because the digital step is the step used to translate the image to a positive in a non analogue fashion. The resulting image in no way resembles the original film. To me this isn't the same as scanning an print or a chrome and trying to make the resulting file resemble that print or chrome so it can be posted. Judging by the the spectrum of reactions here I can see why hybrid was shuttled off to a separate site. For the best I suppose.

Aristophanes · Jan 7, 2012

tkamiya said:
I don't have an answer to the question, is forum gallery posting a hybrid process. Obviously, the opinion varies. The way I see it:

1) Sean makes the rules and his rules are clear
Can we stop this?

Actually, you can stop right there. The problem exists because the rules are not clear. The FAQ on the Gallery says, in BOLD:

Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally

Other than OP's example and a couple of others that were offered in support, and the deliberate use of the word hybrid, I will offer up the mere fact that every mini-lab output these days will be a digitally manipulated image.

That's about 99% of the film processing market still.

Also no multi-media/mixed media hybrid images or hybrid images in general

,

The Fuji Frontier scans before dry printing. The scan then is processed through in-house algorithm to "flip" the negative. This is not done by an optical mask. It's 100% digital.

this includes digitally enlarged negatives which are then contact printed (see our sister site hybridphoto.com if you are interested in sharing such work). All images posted should be a representation of 100% traditional work, typically negative scans or print scans produced from a 100% traditional workflow

It's impossible to be 100% traditional workflow under such a scenario, or the OP's. Instead of a general "let's keep as much analog in the shots as we can" we have a rule that doesn't work in a great many situations. This sparks use of the term hybrid, and off we go. The hairsplitting is caused by the disassociation between the reality of what people use versus a purely darkroom "100% traditional" starting point.

I am proud user of a good local lab (the last one) and a good mail-order lab (thank God they are still around) but no one for a second believes that any of this is 100% traditional.

Now, there is the qualifier about "Please refrain..., implying a voluntary code. But let's be quite clear that some here take the refrain part to be an absolute black and white distinction, literally.

I think we all get that anything posted here is scanned and is a representation. Arguing that the Gallery itself is a violation of the terms is a straw man argument and does not inform the discussion.

Scanning negatives, hybrid?

CGW

removed account4

eddie

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Two23

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

eddie

Two23

papagene

Membership Council

Hexavalent

eddie

eddie

Vaughn

Aristophanes

Vaughn

Two23

Maris

Early Riser

removed account4

keithwms

papagene

Membership Council

removed account4

tkamiya

artonpaper

Aristophanes

Scanning negatives, hybrid?

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency