the re-appearance of an old chestnut

[Joe Symchyshyn]

A slippery slope indeed.

joe

 

[mark]

Well, I guess we have a few options.

We can come up with a gallery statement that is visible on the upload page. Something along the lines of "In the spirit of traditional photography we ask.."

We can create additional galleries. Covert Standard, Critique, Technical, and experimental to: Standard Print Scans, Critique Print Scans, Technical Prints Scans, Experimental Print Scans AND add a new gallery called "Negative Scans".

Also open to additional suggestions..

That sounds really complicated.

 

[TPPhotog]

If we're going along those lines would it be better to have just one "grey gallery" like we have the grey forum?

 

[John McCallum]

Well, I guess we have a few options.

We can come up with a gallery statement that is visible on the upload page. Something along the lines of "In the spirit of traditional photography we ask.."

This first solution seems relatively simple, and may be all that's needed.

 

[Les McLean]

Jorge, I agree with all you say except the use of PS to check out interpretation. When I made my post agreeing with Joe's original comment I was not advocating that we accept such prints in the gallery. Your comments re PS images in the gallery that have not been printed traditionally is also fair, but what about those images that have been printed but are too big to scan being manipulated in PS from the negative to match the finished print. Is that allowable?

I ask this question because almost every image that I had in the gallery has been treated this way simply because I did not have the time to make smaller prints to scan. The information about the print that I posted was based on the large print that I had already made. I also have to say that the finished negative scan was faithful to the final print.

Bottom line Jorge is that I think we are both singing from the same Hymn sheet.

 

[photomc]

Or maybe just post - Scans of Analog Prints Only - Photoshopped Prints should be posted elsewhere (ie Photo.net, etc.)

 

[Flotsam]

Well, I guess we have a few options.

We can come up with a gallery statement that is visible on the upload page. Something along the lines of "In the spirit of traditional photography we ask.."

We can create additional galleries. Covert Standard, Critique, Technical, and experimental to: Standard Print Scans, Critique Print Scans, Technical Prints Scans, Experimental Print Scans AND add a new gallery called "Negative Scans".

Also open to additional suggestions..

Sean,
Last week you were expressing concern about how much of the site's resources were being sucked up by the galleries. How is that going?

In any event it sounds as if the "In the spirit of traditional photography we ask.." option might be preferable to opening the floodgates.

 

[127]

"We understand if any images do exist on this site they will be "digital" representations of analog work."

Sounds to me like this is a clear statement of what most of us consider acceptable (it also has enough wriggle room to solve Les's dilema). I'd completly forgotten about it. I think repeating this statement on the uploads page might be a worthwhile step.

Ian

 

[Leon]

Well, I guess we have a few options.

We can come up with a gallery statement that is visible on the upload page. Something along the lines of "In the spirit of traditional photography we ask.."

That sounds good to me Sean ... a clear statement on the gallery main page would help IMO.

I must admit that I would like to see an APUG guidelines page which is a bit more explicit than the current FAQ section about what is expected from members here - perhaps something that has to be signed up to upon joining the site. I think that, judging by the amount of similar threads to this one of late, the massive increase in membership means something like this will be necessary if not now, then very soon.

If course all this would mean MUCH more work for our mate Sean who would probably much rather be using that tiny excuse for an enlarger he's got in his garage than worry about our gripes and moans

 

[John McCallum]

Sounds to me like this is a clear statement of what most of us consider acceptable (it also has enough wriggle room to solve Les's dilema). I'd completly forgotten about it. I think repeating this statement on the uploads page might be a worthwhile step.

Ian

I agree. Personally I don't see any problem with what Les is advocating. This is in keeping with the spirit of the APUG forum, and quite a different chestnut from what Leon mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

 

[glbeas]

By closing the door to manipulations, the next example wouldn't be allowed...

What if one had a print that they thought might work with extensive burning and dodging? If they uploaded the original image, a mild burning version, a heavy burning version etc... In the interest of learning, wouldn't it make sense to explore the possibilities and get feedback on your image if you wanted people's opinions? If you scanned the original but made some quick changes in PS before doing the final prints... Kind of like a digital workprint.

joe

Then it would properly go into the technical gallery with any explanation as to what will be attempted.

 

[Flotsam]

Then it would properly go into the technical gallery with any explanation as to what will be attempted.

That's not a bad idea. It would be interesting to compare the scan of the actual analog paper print next to the digital preview. Especially the desaturations. The Tech gallery sounds like a good place for it.

 

[bmac]

I could be wrong, but I thought last time we went through all of this, the end result was that it was ok to post if it was a film capture and the work done digitally was work that could be done in the traditional wet darkroom. Those who did digital captures and made negatives for contact printing were banished to the bastard stepchild forum (the grey area). I don't understand how this keeps popping up every few months. Just like the thread going on about religious & political threads, my view is, if you don't like the way an image in the gallery is created, don't look at it and dont comment on it. simple enough folks. No need for extra rules, no need for an acid test.

 

[bmac]

And going back to Leon's original post. I honestly don't see an issue with it. If you are going to outlaw B/W from color negs (something that can be done with a wet darkroom) you might as well kick out all the members who don't process their own film, or print their own work. You guys have to realize that there are several thousand members here, and not all of them think of themselves as artists. In my view, this site is about celebrating traditional photography, not alienating people who don't use 100% of the same processes as I do.

 

[Flotsam]

If you are going to outlaw B/W from color negs (something that can be done with a wet darkroom) you might as well kick out all the members who don't process their own film, or print their own work.

I'm sorry but this comparison utterly escapes me. Seeing and capturing an image on film and having it processed, proofed and printed at a lab has been a traditional method of photographyalmost since the beginning. Using a computer to instantly apply pre-packaged special effects to digital images for final presentation on a monitor is a different thing. Not neccesarily bad, or even worse, but different. As I have said, I do digital work, I'm sure that many other APUGer's do. I just don't post my digital efforts here, on a website that is clearly, specifically devoted to the discussion and representation of traditional analog photography as opposed to digital imaging.

 

[roteague]

There are definitely fine lines between the acceptable and not-acceptable. I personally prefer to submit an image from a transparency scan, rather than a scan of a print - much higher quality. However, I only try to make the scan look like the original transparency.

 

[mark]

Starting to sound like Photo.net around here.

 

[bjorke]

"Acceptable" -- feh

"Recommended" -- good. With fields to describe process, and RECOMMENDATIONS that all manipulations be clearly described.

Make APUG about love (of analog) not war (against something else).

 

[Art Vandalay]

How many people are actually doing this? Is it more than one person? Is it more than 5? Are these people new to the site? What was their reasoning?

I haven't read the entire thread so these questions may have been answered but I was just curious as to whether this was an epidemic worthy of a thread or was it just one or two people with a reason that can be dealt with personally by Sean.

 

[bmac]

I'm sorry but this comparison utterly escapes me.

Scenario A) I lug my 8x10 with 4x5 reducing back out to the beach, take a few shots, come home and hand process my film. Take a negative and scan it. Adjust contrast, etc., then post it here. Some same this is wrong, and doesnt belong on APUG.

Scenario B) Joe Blow goes out "photographing" has his 35mm in idiot mode. Takes his film to the teenage pimple face at the local drugstore, gets 4x6 prints of them. Gets home and scans the 4x6 & posts it here. Some say there is nothign wrong with doing it this way.

I think both are fine, and don't forget, there are very few minilabs that arent actually digital now. the 16 year old tech at the 1hr is just feeding your film into a machine that processes it, and then feeding it into another machine that scans adjusts and prints it.

I'm sorry if it comparison utterly escapes you.

 

[FrankB]

I don't have an issue with scans from prints or slides as long as the work done in PS is to overcome any shortcomings of the scanner (e.g. to make it appear on screen as it does in real life).

I have no problem with scans from negs as long as the only manipulation is the inversion and level balancing and it is made plain that this is a proof. We can't all always get into the darkroom so I would regard this as a 'necessary "evil"'. (I appreciate this is not necessarily a consistant view. Sue me! <g>)

Desaturating a colour image is (IMO) way, way over the line and, for this site, well into "extracting the Michael" territory. (Purely my opinion; free and worth every penny!)

Sean, I'd go with the gallery statement. If you start creating new galleries for every conceivable shade of grey you'll have no time for more important matters (i.e. pretty much everything!).

 

[TPPhotog]

I agree that there is a fine line between acceptable and not acceptable. Desaturating a colour image is over the line from my perspective. Even more over the line is using filters like Gaussian Blur and we have a beautiful image in the standard gallery as we speak that has been filtered in PS.

My vote is for "the gallery statement" to ensure that the spirit of analog is maintained. I'm sure most postings that breach the spirit at the moment happen because the poster does not realise where that line is.

 

[SteveGangi]

I personally prefer to submit an image from a transparency scan, rather than a scan of a print - much higher quality. However, I only try to make the scan look like the original ....

I scan from the print. Sometimes it takes so much work just to get it to match the print, it's ridiculous. I am sometimes guilty of doing some "electronic" dodging and burning, and "goosing" the contrast. That can be a 5 minute job, or several hours just by itself. Sometimes I just say to hell with it and move on.