Isn't scanning a negative and posting it after using ''invert'' a hybrid process? Perhaps this topic has been discussed before, but I'm curious to hear what others think.
Scanning negatives, hybrid?
-
- Thread starter artonpaper
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Krauss Tessar Zeiss 150mm f/4.5 (France, c1919)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale For Sale: 35mm ƒ/2.8 Olympus OM Shift Lens - Clean, complete. $200
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 35mm x 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
Forum statistics
- Status
Yeah some years ago I posted an inverted paper neg and was spanked a bit
Just indicate if it's a neg scan and all is good. And show prints whenever possible! Some people don't have the ability to make or scan prints, so showing inverted neg scans is okay. Now... manipulation of negs e.g. In photoshop is definitely hybrid and not a welcome topic to most on apug.
Just indicate if it's a neg scan and all is good. And show prints whenever possible! Some people don't have the ability to make or scan prints, so showing inverted neg scans is okay. Now... manipulation of negs e.g. In photoshop is definitely hybrid and not a welcome topic to most on apug.
Don't ask.....don't tell....
Sean's gallery upload terms say neg scans are OK...
"Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally such as converting color images to black and white, photoshop filtering tricks, etc. Also no multi-media/mixed media hybrid images or hybrid images in general, 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.
The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more. We still accept neg scans in the galleries. We accept that some adjustment of contrast, brightness and sharpness may be needed to match the physical print and, for negative scans, to approximate a straight print.
Failure to follow the above rules will result in deletion of your image. Please respect the spirit of this community and our desire to share scans of 100% traditional based work in the galleries. If you understand the above rules then continue below. Thank You."
Does this help?
"Please refrain from posting any images that have been manipulated digitally such as converting color images to black and white, photoshop filtering tricks, etc. Also no multi-media/mixed media hybrid images or hybrid images in general, 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.
The uploaded image should be the best representation of the actual final print and nothing more. We still accept neg scans in the galleries. We accept that some adjustment of contrast, brightness and sharpness may be needed to match the physical print and, for negative scans, to approximate a straight print.
Failure to follow the above rules will result in deletion of your image. Please respect the spirit of this community and our desire to share scans of 100% traditional based work in the galleries. If you understand the above rules then continue below. Thank You."
Does this help?
I have posted negative scans where the scan was manipulated to match a print I made in the darkroom that was to large for my scanner. I imagine this is a gray area, but I imagine minor adjustments to the scan for contrast and simple dodge and burn operations are OK as well.
It's too bad that this forum/site has become Digital Photography User Groupd DPUG and really feels more like a digital budding group than an Hybrid group. There is also a scarcity of post and quite frankly there nowhere as much information on development than at APUG.
Cheers,
Luc
I am using lenses from the 1850s & 1860s, sometimes shot with a camera either from 1880s (Watson & Son half plate) or a 2010 Chamonix 45n, shooting sheets of Efke 25. I send the negs out to be processed. I then scan the negs with an Epson v700, clean them up in CS5, resize and post. This works very well for me. I'm using a spectrum of technology from photography's very earliest days to its very latest.
Kent in SD
Kent in SD
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
Those who would like to see more traffic on topics that interest them on DPUG.org should by all means go to DPUG.org and post.
DPUG is open for all kinds of discussion involving hybrid digital/analogue photography and digital photography for photographers with an APUG sensibility. While traffic is lower on DPUG, the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than on APUG, and it is a rich source of information on the topics that people have discussed there, and particularly for traditional printmaking with digital negatives.
As for the original question, it's a topic that comes up a couple of times a year, and I think the gallery upload terms that zsas reposted in post #4 above explain APUG's position on this adequately.
The APUG online galleries are a way of sharing work and technical information when seeing real prints isn't a possibility or isn't convenient. We all recognize that whatever appears in the gallery may bear no resemblance to the work itself, and the APUG print exchanges, postcard exchange, regional gatherings, group shows, and traveling portfolios should be regarded as the true APUG galleries.
DPUG is open for all kinds of discussion involving hybrid digital/analogue photography and digital photography for photographers with an APUG sensibility. While traffic is lower on DPUG, the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than on APUG, and it is a rich source of information on the topics that people have discussed there, and particularly for traditional printmaking with digital negatives.
As for the original question, it's a topic that comes up a couple of times a year, and I think the gallery upload terms that zsas reposted in post #4 above explain APUG's position on this adequately.
The APUG online galleries are a way of sharing work and technical information when seeing real prints isn't a possibility or isn't convenient. We all recognize that whatever appears in the gallery may bear no resemblance to the work itself, and the APUG print exchanges, postcard exchange, regional gatherings, group shows, and traveling portfolios should be regarded as the true APUG galleries.
scanning negatives is like masturbating...do it all you like. just don't talk about it here....if you wanna discuss that sort of stuff do it at DPUG.
NOT HERE, please.
NOT HERE, please.
IMHO, the print is the product; the negative alone is only part of the story.
Scanned negative = unfinished work. Make a print, then show it.
Scanned negative = unfinished work. Make a print, then show it.
Sure and if you shoot LF, the Large Format Forum is also a very nice, knowledgeable and friendly place to postI think you are being ridiculous. My main interest is historic lenses & cameras, not making prints. (My goal is to have three lenses from the 1840-1859 and a sliding box camera, eventually.) While I'd like to learn how to make wet plates, or at least dry plates, my intention is to scan those as well. I've done some traditional dark room work but just don't enjoy it all that much. It also takes from my family time, which is limited as it is. To me, the whole thing is previsualizing an image, using the Light to its best, and then selecting the camera gear that will come closest to making the image I had in my mind. For me, the truly important thing is using the Light well. Everything else is a side issue. Since the primary way I have of showing others my results is through the internet, it only makes sense for me to learn how to digitize the image. I've considered making contact prints, but those would be pretty small considering I shoot 4x5. Since I really have very little interest in developing & printing in a dark room, it's highly unlikely I'd be shooting any film at all if I had to go that route. That would be one less avid collector of historic lenses and vintage (1900-1945) cameras, one less guy buying 10 boxes of sheet film and ~30 rolls 120 every year, one less guy talking about film on the general photo forums. You may have your head in the sand with such a closed mind. Mostly I hang out on the Large Format forum which is a bit more eclectic.
Kent in SD
Kent, that's all great....nothing at all wrong with anything you're doing.
I still think the analogy is perfect. If you wanna scan negatives...hey, cool! Have at it. But, scanning is emphatically not what this place is about so, we do not discuss that activity here. OK?
I used to participate in an online community similar to this one but it was all about water cooled Volkwagen automobiles. Talking about scanning on APUG would be like talking about film photography on the volkswagen forum. some things just don't belong...get it?
I still think the analogy is perfect. If you wanna scan negatives...hey, cool! Have at it. But, scanning is emphatically not what this place is about so, we do not discuss that activity here. OK?
I used to participate in an online community similar to this one but it was all about water cooled Volkwagen automobiles. Talking about scanning on APUG would be like talking about film photography on the volkswagen forum. some things just don't belong...get it?
I'm not the one that brought it up. I responded to the OP's thread, and someone made some classless comments.
Kent in SD
Last edited by a moderator:
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
Let's try to keep the bodily functions and ad hominem arguments out of the thread.
The main issue is that scanning is generally off topic for APUG, except insofar as is necessary to explain how to post images on APUG for those who don't know how to do that. There is nothing wrong with scanning, digital or hybrid photography, but they are not the topic of this forum.
As far as the question of negative scans in the gallery goes, do a search, and there has been plenty of discussion of this topic over the years. Not everyone can scan prints, and sometimes it is easier to make a scan that looks like an actual print by scanning the neg and adjusting it with the print in hand than by scanning the print and trying to adjust that, not to mention the fact that some people don't print at a size they can easily scan on a flatbed scanner they could afford.
The main issue is that scanning is generally off topic for APUG, except insofar as is necessary to explain how to post images on APUG for those who don't know how to do that. There is nothing wrong with scanning, digital or hybrid photography, but they are not the topic of this forum.
As far as the question of negative scans in the gallery goes, do a search, and there has been plenty of discussion of this topic over the years. Not everyone can scan prints, and sometimes it is easier to make a scan that looks like an actual print by scanning the neg and adjusting it with the print in hand than by scanning the print and trying to adjust that, not to mention the fact that some people don't print at a size they can easily scan on a flatbed scanner they could afford.
I think it's time APUG allowed hybrid discussion, as a deliberate, fundamental change to its core rules. Digital is digital, and that's what DPUG is. Everyone who posts images on APUG uses a hybrid workflow. It's organic to and endemic to APUG. You want APUG to be all film and paper, then eliminate the images on site. They're digital. If HybridPhoto had traffic it would be ideal, but it never did.
I'd love to see a user poll - how many would leave APUG if it allowed hybrid discussions?
I'd love to see a user poll - how many would leave APUG if it allowed hybrid discussions?
I think a poll would be good, to get a sampling of what people are actually thinking and doing. Obviously all photos on this site are going to be a "hybrid." It ain't a magazine, after all. I regularly post photos for discussion on LF Forum, but don't think I've ever posted any here. There's just that much less traffic here as a result. I did go back and slightly edit my previous post, as I don't think the person I was responding to meant me any harm.
Kent in SD
^Have you read this thread ?
Please read Sean's recent affirmation of the scope of Apug (post 131)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Please read Sean's recent affirmation of the scope of Apug (post 131)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
I'm just saying, without film, this site becomes devoted to wet plates and emulsion making. I won't be doing that. People who want lively intelligent discussion of film and scanning BUY FILM. They probably develop it and if they can't, they can learn how, here.
You know what'll happen on a digital-focussed website? They'll be told it's easier cheaper better to buy a digicam, and a you're all done. It's absurd.
You know what'll happen on a digital-focussed website? They'll be told it's easier cheaper better to buy a digicam, and a you're all done. It's absurd.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 513
- Format
- 35mm
Obviously there is no consensus on that point otherwise it wouldn't be the source of most of the tension on this forum. It is also a closed gate and censorship attitude that as much contributes to the decline of film use as tries to segregate.
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.
The way I look at it, once we start scanning, converting, adjusting, everything for the screen, with different monitors, color calibrations, etc, becomes an approximation and a vague representation of what a print looks like in hand, properly mounted and lighted. With prints, especially toned ones, scans always end up with unwanted color casts and, with negs, it is quite hard to convey the look of a finished, toned print, especially when bleaches, and multiple toners have been used. Basically, it is all a compromise we have to accept if one wants to post on the web.
As far as scanned negatives, I've stopped posting them because for me it almost feels like cheating (please note that is MY feeling/opinion and it is absolutely not intended as passing judgement or looking down to anyone who does, by choice or necessity, posts negative scans). I feel that a finished print always looks more authentic and it is an accomplishment that I usually feel proud of. Presenting a negative that "may" look like a finished print, that I may never print or simply not be able to reproduce in the darkroom, doesn't feel right for what I believe in and my personality. Again, this is just me, and I'm not looking to offend anyone, nor would I not like a certain image just because it is presented as a negative scan. If the content is there, and there is potential for a great print, I would much rather see a finished print but I would still comment on the content in the neg.
As far as scanned negatives, I've stopped posting them because for me it almost feels like cheating (please note that is MY feeling/opinion and it is absolutely not intended as passing judgement or looking down to anyone who does, by choice or necessity, posts negative scans). I feel that a finished print always looks more authentic and it is an accomplishment that I usually feel proud of. Presenting a negative that "may" look like a finished print, that I may never print or simply not be able to reproduce in the darkroom, doesn't feel right for what I believe in and my personality. Again, this is just me, and I'm not looking to offend anyone, nor would I not like a certain image just because it is presented as a negative scan. If the content is there, and there is potential for a great print, I would much rather see a finished print but I would still comment on the content in the neg.
It seems to me that other than the galleries most who scan negatives for this site are doing it to illustrate and communicate an idea or problem associated with analog photographic pursuits and are seeking input from those who can help.
In regard to some of the comments: What is the difference in digitally enlarging a negative to make a hand-coated contact print from enlarging the same negative on to duplicating film for the same purpose? IMO digital capture, digital manipulation and digital printing discussions do belong on the DPUG site. Analog capture and forms of printing are for APUG.
Using the digital medium for the purpose of communicating analog issues is the only way to do such a thing on the internet. Let's not get too restrictive.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
In regard to some of the comments: What is the difference in digitally enlarging a negative to make a hand-coated contact print from enlarging the same negative on to duplicating film for the same purpose? IMO digital capture, digital manipulation and digital printing discussions do belong on the DPUG site. Analog capture and forms of printing are for APUG.
Using the digital medium for the purpose of communicating analog issues is the only way to do such a thing on the internet. Let's not get too restrictive.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
The comparison of scanning to self-pleasure is inappropriate and quite obviously an attempt to bait other responses. Childish.
~~~
Let's be clear: scanning negs is A-okay.
Some other points that come to mind:
(1) Some people make RC prints and can get decent photos or scans of those... good for them. But it's often difficult to get a decent scan of prints on textured papers and such; in that case, neg scans do a much better job of representing the image. I almost never print on RC. And I find digicam shots of FB prints to need more tone manipulation than neg scans to look like the original print.
(2) It's pretty rare that any of my prints can fit on my 4990 flatbed, so... print scanning is seldom an option. Most of my prints are at least 12" on the shortest side... and again, taking a shot with a digicam is no purer an act.
(3) Also, quite a few people are newcomers and may not have reached the print phase yet.... or may not want to print at all. For their sake, it's completely absurd to say that they cannot show us anything until they can make a print and scan that.
So, to newcomers I would say please feel free to scan your negs, trying to keep those scans as "straight" as possible. Most of us are reasonable and aim to offer helpful comments and critique when solicited.
~~~
Let's be clear: scanning negs is A-okay.
Some other points that come to mind:
(1) Some people make RC prints and can get decent photos or scans of those... good for them. But it's often difficult to get a decent scan of prints on textured papers and such; in that case, neg scans do a much better job of representing the image. I almost never print on RC. And I find digicam shots of FB prints to need more tone manipulation than neg scans to look like the original print.
(2) It's pretty rare that any of my prints can fit on my 4990 flatbed, so... print scanning is seldom an option. Most of my prints are at least 12" on the shortest side... and again, taking a shot with a digicam is no purer an act.
(3) Also, quite a few people are newcomers and may not have reached the print phase yet.... or may not want to print at all. For their sake, it's completely absurd to say that they cannot show us anything until they can make a print and scan that.
So, to newcomers I would say please feel free to scan your negs, trying to keep those scans as "straight" as possible. Most of us are reasonable and aim to offer helpful comments and critique when solicited.
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |