Scanning negatives, hybrid?

[nsurit]

I'd love to see a user poll - how many would leave APUG if it allowed hybrid discussions?

OK folks, let's not get this confused with anything that resembles a democracy. It isn't. This is Sean's sandbox and if you want to play here, you need to play "nice", which means play by his rules.

Much of my work involves the use of a digital negative, as is the case with many alt process photographers/artists. Because I respect, although I don't agree with, Sean's rules, much of what I produce will not be seen here. IMHO, not allowing the work of people using digital technology in their mostly analog work flow does not enhance the value of this site to people interested in analog technology. Full disclosure is important in a venue such as this were people come to learn and grow.

The image is for me the all important bottom line and I would enjoy having the opportunity to see the broader spectrum of work being created by photographers/artists who not only maintain a strong connection to analog processes, but also who use some modern technology in their work flow.

This could be done by having a hybrid forum on APUG. Like television, each viewer could make their own decision about what they wanted to watch.

The system currently in place with the seperate hybrid site is a little like the "Seperate but equal school systems in the segregated South."

Bill "Mostly Analog" Barber

 

[Vincent Brady]

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.

I find myself very much in agreement with Max's point of view. When I first joined APUG I was quite content to scan my negs and post them, but slowly I began to see than my neg scan was not a true representation of the the print that I usually produced in my darkroom. I now print 8 x 10 size photos which I use for print exchange and scanning purposes. I may not always print a larger size print except for a club exhibition. I have also scanned some of my larger size prints in 2 halves and joined them in PSP to show in the gallery section.

 

[coigach]

It's like the seasons - this subject always comes up on APUG given a bit of time...

I shoot dr5 reverse processed b+w transparencies - the positive transparency' really is my 'finished' photograph, not prints. So a scan of the tranny is a good representation of what I do (although a scan is always poorer than a tranny on the lightbox!). A compromse, but hey...

Getting rid f the gallery as per a few suggestions is a bit short-sighted in my opinion, and likely to b counterproductive in the long run. Over the years, I've discovered and admired many great photographers from al over the world through APUG's gallery. Lovely brain food and a great inspiration for my own work. Sure, the gallery is compromise as photos are all digitised, but as we're an online forum, not sure I see a way around that. The positives of the APUG gallery for me definitely outweigh the negatives (no pun intended).

It's all about respecting the rules and spirit of APUG, even if there are a few grey areas. For example, I'm about to start a polymer photogravure class and would love to post results in the APUG gallery, but even though it's a mostly analogue process, Photoshop is used as an intermediate stage to provide an image to transfer onto the polymer plate before ink and printing. So this means no APUG gallery posts. But, as I said earlier, I love the APUG gallery and just accept the rules rather than trying to change or complain about them.

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[JohnMeadows]

The image is for me the all important bottom line and I would enjoy having the opportunity to see the broader spectrum of work being created by photographers/artists who not only maintain a strong connection to analog processes, but also who use some modern technology in their work flow.

Bill "Mostly Analog" Barber

Well put!

I am in the same boat for my alternate work (cyanotype and Van Dyke Brown) in using a digital negative most of the time, even though every other part of the workflow (from film camera to hand coated paper) is film/analog based.

 

[Vonder]

OK folks, let's not get this confused with anything that resembles a democracy. It isn't. This is Sean's sandbox and if you want to play here, you need to play "nice", which means play by his rules.

Bill "Mostly Analog" Barber

I agree completely, it's his sandbox. For the record, a poll is just a poll. I wasn't implying that Sean would use it or care what the results were. Merely curious.

I just don't see how any image posted here isn't digital. So Sean makes that one exception, fine, you have to digitize any image you want to share. So then Joe Blow joins up, and asks about how he can scan his negatives b/c he doesn't have a darkroom. He's either told that sort of discussion isn't allowed here, or to go ask it on hybridphoto (dpug) or some other digital site where he'll find mainly digital users who advise him to drop film and go digital (or he gets no answer at all). Either way, a film user, who might have lots of legitimate film questions - what developer to use, what filter, how exposure compensation works, etc, is told to go elsewhere, and I think that hurts film. APUG isn't just film, it's more correctly silver-halide photography, right? And a scanned negative is still a silver-halide image.

I know APUG isn't going to change, and that's fine, but I do think that an active promotion of film use via scanning is harmonious with the core of what APUG supports, film.

 

[Aristophanes]

I find myself very much in agreement with Max's point of view. When I first joined APUG I was quite content to scan my negs and post them, but slowly I began to see than my neg scan was not a true representation of the the print that I usually produced in my darkroom. I now print 8 x 10 size photos which I use for print exchange and scanning purposes. I may not always print a larger size print except for a club exhibition. I have also scanned some of my larger size prints in 2 halves and joined them in PSP to show in the gallery section.

That leaves out the vast majority of analog photographers who never print. They may get RC stuff done at the local photo lab, but today the vast majority is scanned, even just to print. That's just the market and dominant reality.

Is this now just a site open only to optical prints?

There really are no tray areas. There's only show me what you shot and describe the analog portion of it.

Anything else is only unenforceable, quasi-religious orthodoxy the has no bearing to what is the reality for most analog users. Let's not make sure a minority of darkroom buffs make the sight less appealing or useable for the rest of us.

 

[BradS]

this same topic comes up over and over and over.
seems like every six months or so somebody has to drop the bomb again.
what's worse is that it seems completely needless...
the guidelines are very clearly spelled out
Somebody even posted them verbatim at the beginning of this thread...(Thank you!)
do people not read? do they have trouble comprehending?

and even more baffling to me...
why, if there are so many with such strong
desire to talk about hybrid process, why is it that those same people
cannot find DPUG and talk about that stuff there?
really, seriously....WHY? (this is not a rhetorical question)

Sean has gone to effort and expense to provide a place for it.
that place is called DPUG. Why can't you use it?

Yeah, I made an analogy...to my mind it was nearly perfect...
talking about scanning negatives on APUG is about as
appropriate as talking about the other activity mentioned.

I used extreme verbal imagery to make a strong point...
If you were offended, or thought my remark "classless",
you now know how many of us feel every time somebody starts a
discussion of scanning here on APUG.

 

[artonpaper]

Just to clarify, I understand that not everyone has the time or the facility to make prints from their negatives, and I don't think they should be blocked from putting their work in the galleries. But I do think it's a hybrid work flow. That little invert click is an enormous adjustment, IMHO. And I'm sure that most negative scans include a quick pull at the levels sliders. How can you resist if it needs it. Scanning prints is also a digital process I suppose, but it's the only way to engage the internet, and the gallery is for me my favorite part of APUG. In Brooklyn College where I teach, we emphasize analogue photography, and we have been wondering where we'd go if film and film cameras were to disappear or become impractical due to expense and availability. Hybrid would be it. Just for the record, I think a hybrid gallery and forum would be OK, but I'm content to visit DPUG. perhaps it will eventually catch on.

 

[removed account4]

i post negative scans often ... it is a guilty pleasure.
but if i had to, i could make a print that looked like the
pneumeralized representation of its twin.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For those who don't know the history, we had a hybrid forum here before DPUG, thinking that those who were interested could participate, and those who were not interested could just turn it off, but unfortunately it didn't really work that way. Some people are here, precisely because they like the analogue focus of APUG, and they would rather get their digital info elsewhere. When the hybrid forum was part of APUG, participants weren't good at keeping the digital discussion inside the forum, and some just wanted to test the limits all the time, bringing more and more digital discussion to APUG.

DPUG isn't a perfect solution, but it's more open to a wider range of digital topics than the old Hybrid forum was, and it keeps the boundaries clearer on APUG.

If people want more activity on DPUG, then the solution is to participate on DPUG, not to complain about it on APUG. We certainly don't want parallel hybrid threads on APUG and DPUG, or that will weaken both forums.

Sean has made the point many times that you can't try to please everyone, and APUG's strength is its focus on analogue photography. Maybe that means that APUG will shrink and DPUG will grow, and I think Sean is fine with that. Some participants who have wished that APUG were slightly different from what it is have gone off and started their own forums, and we encourage that. It's better for analogue photography if there are many options for different approaches, and APUG is better off without a small group of perpetually disgruntled members who wish they could change one aspect of the site. We know of other forums that just purge the perpetually disgruntled members from time to time, but that's not our ethos. If APUG isn't what you want, and DPUG isn't quite it either, then please, start your perfect hybrid forum, and if it's good, people will come. There's room on the internet for everyone.

 

[BradS]

Very well said David.
Thank you...again, for all of your contributions here.

 

[Hexavalent]

David said it well.

There was a bit of kerfuffle when hybridphoto became DPUG; some of the "hybrid purists" got upset

I make emulsions 'from scratch', coat glass and paper (sometimes hand-made paper) - all very 'analog'.

Currently, I do not have the facility ($ and patience to be precise) to make optically enlarged negatives for contact printing. I scan my analog negatives to create an enlarged neg via inkjet (calibrated to provide an accurate density reproduction). That is the only 'digital' portion of my workflow. The 'terms' define my final product as being unacceptable for inclusion in the APUG galleries. So be it - I don't post my results here.

I do have the satisfaction of knowing that I produce prints that I can hold in my hands that are not the product of pixel-juggling.
My prints are REAL, not a inverted scan 'representing' what might, potentially, be a print.

Not acceptable for posting in the galleries, oh well, my prints get posted elsewhere - end of story.

 

[artonpaper]

I just read Sean's response from that older thread, and I can see this whole topic is contentious. What's that line from that old Leonard Cohen song, ''A bunch of lonesome and very quarrelsome heroes . . .''

Suffice it to say, carry on.

 

[Aristophanes]

this same topic comes up over and over and over.
seems like every six months or so somebody has to drop the bomb again.
what's worse is that it seems completely needless...
the guidelines are very clearly spelled out
Somebody even posted them verbatim at the beginning of this thread...(Thank you!)
do people not read? do they have trouble comprehending?

and even more baffling to me...
why, if there are so many with such strong
desire to talk about hybrid process, why is it that those same people
cannot find DPUG and talk about that stuff there?
really, seriously....WHY? (this is not a rhetorical question)

Sean has gone to effort and expense to provide a place for it.
that place is called DPUG. Why can't you use it?

Yeah, I made an analogy...to my mind it was nearly perfect...
talking about scanning negatives on APUG is about as
appropriate as talking about the other activity mentioned.

I used extreme verbal imagery to make a strong point...
If you were offended, or thought my remark "classless",
you now know how many of us feel every time somebody starts a
discussion of scanning here on APUG.

The lab where I get my photos done scans to print. That's the only system in my (quite large) geographical area. I have no scanner (I did, but a misplaced cup of juice and a toddler did that in). If I shoot analog and process at the lab the scans I get back are scans of negatives. This is all I can ever upload to the Gallery.

The entire analog process in my area now from any service supplier is "tainted" by "hybrid" systems.

This comes up because it is the norm. That's what Fuji lab machines do. It's how the bulk of film photography still in existence is dealt with for consumers. It is hardly "needless". It is unavoidable.

I am sorry you see that as a "bomb" that people should "masturbate" to. Your emotions could obvious facts and come out as derogatory rudeness when it is completely unnecessary.

 

[BradS]

The lab where I get my photos done scans to print. That's the only system in my (quite large) geographical area. I have no scanner (I did, but a misplaced cup of juice and a toddler did that in). If I shoot analog and process at the lab the scans I get back are scans of negatives. This is all I can ever upload to the Gallery.

The entire analog process in my area now from any service supplier is "tainted" by "hybrid" systems.

This comes up because it is the norm. That's what Fuji lab machines do. It's how the bulk of film photography still in existence is dealt with for consumers. It is hardly "needless". It is unavoidable.

I am sorry you see that as a "bomb" that people should "masturbate" to. Your emotions could obvious facts and come out as derogatory rudeness when it is completely unnecessary.

It appears that you have completely misunderstood what I wrote and you have not understood the guidelines. Please try to read more carefully.

 

[lbenac]

For those who don't know the history, we had a hybrid forum here before DPUG, thinking that those who were interested could participate, and those who were not interested could just turn it off, but unfortunately it didn't really work that way. When the hybrid forum was part of APUG, participants weren't good at keeping the digital discussion inside the forum, and some just wanted to test the limits all the time, bringing more and more digital discussion to APUG.
DPUG isn't a perfect solution, but it's more open to a wider range of digital topics than the old Hybrid forum was, and it keeps the boundaries clearer on APUG.
If people want more activity on DPUG, then the solution is to participate on DPUG, not to complain about it on APUG. We certainly don't want parallel hybrid threads on APUG and DPUG, or that will weaken both forums.

This shed some light. I registered for the Hybrid forum close to its inception but when it closed temporarily I thought it was because of server/virus issues. When it came back as DPUG, I was very surprised to see that the content did not really pick-up. I would have expected that there would be a lot more people that cannot afford a darkroom and develop/scan/inkjet print to participate. I for one did not really take to it (so I am shooting myself in the foot and I am part of the problem ) for several reasons:
1) most of the info on development I found at APUG not at DPUG. With some variation to allow for darkroom printing instead of scanning granted.
2) I had found a new home at LFF once I started LF with topics that run the entire steps of my workflow
3) I found too much "digital" content in DPUG - like people at APUG can make an a@$# of themselves on the subject of scanning, I can make an a@$# of myself when it comes to the latest Canon versus the latest Nikon i.e. zero interest

In my mind the analog and hybrid process had a lot more in common if you exclude heavy Photoshop manipulation - both starting with film and both ending with a print (would you guys consider that an inkjet print is still a print?). From that point of view, it would have made sense to me to have the same forum with a common wealth of knowledge on development and two branches leading to the different type of print. From your post I understand that this cannot be satisfactory and that the same issue that plagues DPUG was hurting APUG hence the exclusion of the hybrid branch to another forum.

Thank you for the clarification.

Luc

 

[keithwms]

I am sorry you see that as a "bomb" that people should "masturbate" to. Your emotions could obvious facts and come out as derogatory rudeness when it is completely unnecessary.

I agree.

And those of you who so proudly extol your analogue purity shouldn't even be on this site. Think about it. If you truly strive for purity, then set up a group by snail mail, pass your prints around a table, smoke your pipes, and keep a taser ready in case some unsuspecting youth walks up and says "wow that's a beautiful print, how many megapixels does your camera have?"

This is sharing community; that's what a web-based forum is. How about a bit more sharing of images and ideas, and a little less urinary demarcation of your own little domain. (See, I can do crass analogies too)

My sole criticism of the hybrid site is that, because we don't talk scanners here, that other site became a place to talk about that and pretty much only that. Too bad. Many people who visited that site simply wanted to ask what kind of scanner to get and then be gone. So, obviously there was little incentive to contribute there.

 

[eddie]

APUG's mission is clear. Those that wish to engage in hybrid discussions have other options. Let's keep it pure, as it is the last bastion for those working with an entirely analogue work flow.

 

[mr rusty]

Since I returned to film, I send out to a lab and get neg scans back. From time to time I post in the gallery. I am also a subscriber to this site. As far as I am concerned I am analogue at the moment as much as I can be. When I post to the gallery I post exactly as I get the neg scans back from the lab. I don't manipulate at all. I think this is well within the spirit of APUG. If I ever got banned from posting my lab produced neg scans I would leave here. I like this place. I enjoy the Gallery, and it is my impression that the upload rate is increasing which is great.

As it happens, since returning to film and getting involved here, I have read so many threads about darkrooms and doing your own processing that I am now building my own little dark room, and will shortly, for the first time ever, (hopefully) develop and print my own stuff. I suspect its going to be some fun and an interesting learning curve! Without APUG I don't think I would have done this.

So, anybody who gets too precious about neg scans in the gallery is doing everybody a disservice. If it gets shot on film its analogue and is keeping file alive. If people get interested, subscribe to the site and post some neg scans it keeps this place alive. Nobody, ever, is going to come to film and instantly be 100% wet process from a standing start. Its a journey that different people will travel and get to different places. I now 100% respect that we don't discuss the scanning process here, at all, ever. But we cannot ignore that it is part of the process, even if you just use a lab to get your D&P.

 

[Vaughn]

(would you guys consider that an inkjet print is still a print?).

Definitely still a print -- but not a photograph (a light drawing). An inkjet print could even be called a photographic print (a print derived from photographic sources), but again not a photograph. JMO, of course, not law.

Despite John Wayne's desire for everything to be black and white, rarely is that the case. Lines must usually be drawn somewhere and where those lines are drawn will always be subject to critizism. As in the case of inkjet prints, you also have bromoils and photograveurs -- both made from inks, but from photographic sources. They are photographic printing methods, but perhaps not photographs.

A well known forum dedicated to large format cameras (cameras with movements and use sheet film) runs into the same problem. Press cameras are grandfathered in, as are point-and-shoot large format sheet film-using cameras...and even large format cameras using roll film. But 6x17 negatives from dedicated roll film cameras (can not use sheet film) are not -- despite the protests of those who felt that the size of their negatives should make their cameras equal to large format view cameras. But a line was drawn by the owner of the site, and that is that.

Vaughn

 

[removed account4]

David said it well.

There was a bit of kerfuffle when hybridphoto became DPUG; some of the "hybrid purists" got upset

I make emulsions 'from scratch', coat glass and paper (sometimes hand-made paper) - all very 'analog'.

Currently, I do not have the facility ($ and patience to be precise) to make optically enlarged negatives for contact printing. I scan my analog negatives to create an enlarged neg via inkjet (calibrated to provide an accurate density reproduction). That is the only 'digital' portion of my workflow. The 'terms' define my final product as being unacceptable for inclusion in the APUG galleries. So be it - I don't post my results here.

I do have the satisfaction of knowing that I produce prints that I can hold in my hands that are not the product of pixel-juggling.
My prints are REAL, not a inverted scan 'representing' what might, potentially, be a print.

Not acceptable for posting in the galleries, oh well, my prints get posted elsewhere - end of story.

ian

post your results in your apug blog !

 

[removed account4]

That leaves out the vast majority of analog photographers who never print. They may get RC stuff done at the local photo lab, but today the vast majority is scanned, even just to print. That's just the market and dominant reality.

Is this now just a site open only to optical prints?

There really are no tray areas. There's only show me what you shot and describe the analog portion of it.

Anything else is only unenforceable, quasi-religious orthodoxy the has no bearing to what is the reality for most analog users. Let's not make sure a minority of darkroom buffs make the sight less appealing or useable for the rest of us.

aristophane

we all strive to have film and paper prints, but sometimes
time won't let us, or money won't let us, or life won't let us
so if what you have is from film and given to you from the lab

just post your work and don't worry about it.

 

[papagene]

Aristophanes... to me your work falls well within the APUG guidelines, so I think you have nothing to worry about.

As one of the longtime APUGers, I have seen this issue resurface on many occasions. And David Goldfarb has made a very good and accurate post.
But I would like to add my $0.02 worth on this:
Personally I have nothing against digital or hybrid work as I have to deal on a regular basis with and hang the photos as (volunteer) curator at the Valley Photo Center here in Springfield. Photographically I exist in a sea of digital images and I am grateful for the analog oasis that is APUG. It is a great relief to visit this site.
David mentioned the hybrid photo forum within APUG and its history. And yes, things did get ugly when the digital chatter spilled over into other areas of APUG. It is my opinion that if this spillage and the ugliness never occurred the hybrid forum would still be in existence within APUG. Hybrid discussions got banished because a few people couldn't and wouldn't behave themselves. Old story.

 

[Ken N]

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.

 

[mdarnton]

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.