The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

jovo · Dec 8, 2007

George Papantoniou said:
I am sorry this has turned to an argument about the difference between photography and digital imaging. It was not my intention to make it so. I was only worried things might start to get foggy in this Forum (that we get confused about which is which)...

This is a bit off topic, but here's a home decor site that sells paintings and photography and actually identifies the process used in each (the photography section at least...I've not yet looked at the paintings they offer.). When it's a silver gelatin photograph, they call it a 'photograph', and when it's not, they call it whatever else it may be....giclee print etc. It's the first time I've ever been aware of such scrupulous precision, and I really appreciate it. Perhaps it's a harbinger of things to come.

Dead Link Removed

(click on 'Photography' under 'Art for the Wall')

JBrunner · Dec 8, 2007

This is wonderful. It is all I have ever asked for, and I don't understand why it is so hard for some persons to grasp.

How incredibly refreshing.

Sean · Dec 8, 2007

jovo said:
This is a bit off topic, but here's a home decor site that sells paintings and photography and actually identifies the process used in each (the photography section at least...I've not yet looked at the paintings they offer.). When it's a silver gelatin photograph, they call it a 'photograph', and when it's not, they call it whatever else it may be....giclee print etc. It's the first time I've ever been aware of such scrupulous precision, and I really appreciate it. Perhaps it's a harbinger of things to come.

Dead Link Removed

(click on 'Photography' under 'Art for the Wall')

Wow, that is nice to see. I've always been a stickler for labeling mainly because I think people should know exactly what they are purchasing. I love to know everything about something I buy. Also, just to clarify, I do not condone people trying to pass off any type of artistic process as another process. I know I am saying let's focus on our own work and move on, but also if we see someone selling an inkjet print as a silver gelatin print then yes of course they should be called out on that, etc..

Sean · Dec 8, 2007

Katharine Thayer said:
I've been watching this discussion with interest and some bemusement, as a person with very traditional photographic values who was essentially shut out of APUG even before I arrived here, by the militant, elitist and exclusivist attitudes you now seem to be disavowing.

But never mind that; I'm outside and I accept my outsider status; I feel more a part of the hybrid community than of APUG and that's where I mostly contribute, except when I can occasionally lend a hand here in discussions about gum printing technique. But the status of hybrid has never been clear to me, and now I'm trying to understand how this new corporate structure affects hybrid.

We were told, when discussing guidelines for the hybridphoto community, that as a sister site of APUG we could be assured that it could never turn into just a digital site as some of us feared, because it was part of APUG and shared, to some extent, APUG's mandate. So we started with the understanding, I thought, that the definition of "hybrid" requires an analog component; that is, hybrid means work that includes both traditional and digital methods.

Okay, good enough, and we've limped along with that, although we've lost some active contributors who feel that in spite of the lip service given to the hybrid definition, the site has no center and no purpose except to be a disposal site for whatever isn't wanted at APUG. So in practice they see it as just a drive-up window where APUG members come and get their digital answers in a brown paper bag, rather than being an active, exciting place for showing and discussing hybrid work. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors there, but I'll leave it as is, as I think it illustrates well the confused perceptions about what hybrid is for. Is it a toxic waste dump, or a place to obtain illegal substances? Either way, it's not seen as a very attractive place in its own right.)

I have told those people that it seems to me that the way to make the site what they want it to be is to take a "if you build it, they will come" approach: make the site so interesting that people wlll want to go there and see what's cooking. But this argument hasn't been persuasive: the perception persists that the site is just a place where it's okay for APUG members to ask digital questions, and that most people who check the site don't want anything more from it than that; this perception has driven some actual hybrid workers off to join other groups or start their own.

I'm gathering from discussions of this new corporate structure a sense that APUG is the only one of the sites where the analog focus is to be preserved, and hybrid is just one of several more open sites under the larger corporate umbrella that won't be required to have even a glancing allegiance to the core values of APUG, and that are intended to bring the larger photographic world into the tent. So what does this mean for hybrid's mission and purpose, if it has any?

It's a serious question.

Katharine

Hi Katherine, I know some share your view but some also take the view that it's better to have a hybrid community shared by those that also use APUG than nothing at all. The hybrid site was actually requested by several at the time it was built. When people on APUG were told to discuss their digital side on the 100's of other sites the response was typically "but, I am friends with those here and want to discuss it with them". I never felt comfortable having digital processes on APUG so in hindsight never having it would have led to less turmoil. Ultimately it was decided to 1) keep apug 100% traditional 2) create a seperate forum for those on APUG who wanted to discuss the other processes among themselves. I can't see either site changing over my 'corporate infrastructure' because the other sites are not going to be discussion based communities. I appreciate your feedback and will definitely think more about what you said and see what can be done to improve the hybrid site.

Sean

doughowk · Dec 8, 2007

Somebody over at TOP suggested that, if we want the digital imagers to quit using "photograph" for describing their images, we need to come up with some real cool term that will entice them away from bastardizing photography. Someone suggested "Imaginography" which I thought was good. However, the likelihood of digital users (& manufacturers) dropping the use of photography in describing their ware is nil.
So, I agree with others that declaring our prints as "photograph - silver gelatin", etc. may be the best recourse for educating the public. Instead of exclusivity, we should be showing our prints mixed in with the digital; but including the method in the description. Who knows, we may actually win some converts.

Katharine Thayer · Dec 8, 2007

Sean said:
Hi Katherine, I know some share your view but some also take the view that it's better to have a hybrid community shared by those that also use APUG than nothing at all.

Strange. I wasn't aware of having expressed a view, only of having asked a question. From the above, it seems like you're trying to make a case that my view must be that I would prefer to have nothing at all than a hybrid shared by APUG members, which would be a singularly bizarre interpretation of what I said. I wasn't objecting to APUG members on hybrid; I was only trying to understand what is your view of the mission and purpose of hybrid. From your answer, I guess I can only gather that being a disposal site for topics unwanted at APUG is indeed its mission and purpose, and that I've been foolish and naive when I've tried to convince hybrid workers to stay with hybrid by arguing that the perception that it's intended to be primarily a digital site is a mistaken perception. Apparently I've been the one that's been mistaken.

Of course I wouldn't rather have nothing than a hybrid site that includes APUG members; that's just silly, a "straw man" argument if I ever saw one. But I *would* rather have nothing than a site that's essentially a digital site, regardless of the APUG status of the members, and if that's what it ends up to be, I'll be following my fellow hybrid friends out the door.

Sean · Dec 8, 2007

Katharine Thayer said:
From your answer, I guess I can only gather that being a disposal site for topics unwanted at APUG is indeed its mission and purpose

Why would I go through any effort, time and expense to create a rubbish bin for APUG topics? If that were my attitude I wouldn't have created the site to begin with, what would be the point? APUG could have gone 100% traditional, removed hybrid discussion and that would have been the end of it. I wanted to give hybrid users their own space, it's really as simple as that. I did what I could to accommodate those working in both mediums while at the same time staying true to the scope of APUG. John Callow has played a major role here as well and I can't thank him enough for the work he's done. This is the mission statement we came up with on the home page:

"HybridPhoto.com is an international community of photographers that combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes; our forums will grow to contain a highly detailed archive of these processes. This site was born out of the APUG.ORG alt. process subforum where it became evident it needed it's own space."

Are you saying the site is deviating from it's intended purpose? I just browsed through a large number of threads and I do not see anything unusual. I see discussions that reflect the mission statement and purpose of the site.

*would* rather have nothing than a site that's essentially a digital site

If that is what you are seeing then feel free to report posts and get into contact with John and I about it. There is no intention to make it an all digital site whatsoever..

jovo · Dec 8, 2007

Katharine Thayer said:
But I *would* rather have nothing than a site that's essentially a digital site, regardless of the APUG status of the members, and if that's what it ends up to be, I'll be following my fellow hybrid friends out the door.

As I'm not using a hybrid process, I don't have occasion to frequent HybridPhoto very often, though I did enroll as a member early on. But my wife does hybrid work, and enjoys that forum when she can. What I don't understand, Katharine, is that you seem to feel there's a particular percantage of digital posts that makes the site essentially digital.....or perhaps I should pose that as a queston: What percent of digital conversation renders HybridPhoto no longer a hybrid site?

For example, a discussion of enlarged digital negatives from film will quite quickly leave the domain of film, and concentrate on the process of making the digital negative. Does that exceed critical mass for you?

Katharine Thayer · Dec 8, 2007

Sean said:
This is the mission statement we came up with on the home page:

"HybridPhoto.com is an international community of photographers that combine digital imaging and traditional photographic processes; our forums will grow to contain a highly detailed archive of these processes. This site was born out of the APUG.ORG alt. process subforum where it became evident it needed it's own space."

Sean, I don't know if you realize it, but the hybrid home page has not been accessible for most of the time I've been on hybrid. Until very recently, if I tried to go to the home page by entering the URL www.hybridphoto.com, it would shunt me to the forums page.

So this is the first I've been aware that there's an actual mission statement for the site, and I appreciate knowing it. That was my original question: what is the mission and purpose of the hybrid site, and is it changing? I'm glad to know that there is a stated mission and purpose of the site, that it's something that I can live with, and that it's not going to change. It would have been nice if you'd said so in the first place rather than dismissing my question and misconstruing what I was asking.

I'm not the one who's complaining about the hybrid site at the present time; I was simply mentioning that hybrid has lost some good hybrid people because they find the site "too digital." I was simply saying that if the intention of the site is to be the digital site for APUG members, as your first response left me thinking I must conclude, and if that's the direction it's going to go, then I wouldn't be interested in frequenting the site either. But that's not the case at present, as far as I can see.

Sean · Dec 8, 2007

I should have made the site more aware of the homepage updates. I can do that today. My first response may not have come across right, a lot can get lost in trying to convey things in forums posts and I'm not the most apt communicator at times. That's another reason I like meeting people in person at the conferences

Katharine Thayer · Dec 8, 2007

jovo said:
For example, a discussion of enlarged digital negatives from film will quite quickly leave the domain of film, and concentrate on the process of making the digital negative. Does that exceed critical mass for you?

Of course not. I'm quite interested in digital negatives and I participate often in discussions of digital negatives. Digital negatives is all about hybrid; the digital negative of course is just an intermediate step in a basically analog process: analog input (for most of us) and analog output. So why would anyone who believes in hybrid processes and wants to keep the hybrid site focused on hybrid processes object to discussion of digital negatives? The question makes no sense at all.
kt

walter23 · Dec 8, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
Our interests lie primarily and and relatively intensely in the area of traditional, "wet", analog photography

I don't think that's a fair generalization. Many of us dabble in digital, or even regularly use it.

But obviously APUG is analogue and there's a good reason to keep discussions geared towards that. I'm fully supportive of the segregation of APUG from hybridphoto and the banning of digital discussions (other than these more philosophical ones).

As individuals, we can keep open minds and present our work in other arenas, perhaps especially if they have a strong digital sway. Let the evangelism begin!

APUG itself should stay purely analogue; that's the point of it.

Katharine Thayer · Dec 8, 2007

jovo said:
What I don't understand, Katharine, is that you seem to feel there's a particular percantage of digital posts that makes the site essentially digital.....or perhaps I should pose that as a queston: What percent of digital conversation renders HybridPhoto no longer a hybrid site?

To answer your question a different way, it's not the percentage of digital conversation that would determine whether I consider hybridphoto a hybrid site or a digital site; it's the focus and scope of the site that would determine that. Sean says, if I'm not misconstruing his latest post on the subject, that he considers the site a hybrid site, not a digital site, and intends to keep it as a hybrid site. That's good enough for me.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Dec 8, 2007

I think to me the basic assumption behind APUG is: "if you have something you wanna talk about analog processes, regardless of who you are or what you believe in, please feel welcome." That should be easy to deal with.

However, there is a second stage of discussion, and that is: "we've known each other for a while, so I'd like to ask XYZ to the folks I know and appreciate even if that does not fall squarely into APUG's mandate." That's where I see the hard questions.

Personally, I'd be glad to discuss film scanners &c on APUG simply because I happen to like the people who talk in here. I also happen to spend most of my photo time on purely analog processes. I don't do enough hybrid work to have a sustained participation to HybridPhoto, so while I do appreciate what is being done over there, I haven't yet developed the bonds and the artistic lifestyle that would draw me to ask my basic questions about scanning there.

That said, the "grey area" experiment has shown to be rather incompatible with the mission statement of APUG. What I find interesting in the umbrella approach that Sean has taken is that it can create the sense of a larger community to address the needs that are not relevant to the core concerns of either APUG or Hybrid.

Maybe in the end it's all about branding: if people feel they can have a one-step access to all information about pure analog, pure digital, and hybrid in a somewhat coherent package (a Federation of Photography/Imaging sites, let's say), then perhaps that is the best way.

The kitchen sink approach of one forum=everything can be limiting and/or confusing in the end. On the other hand, the association (not the fusion) of sovereign sites who deal with their own resources in their own way, and who have their own identity might solve much of the sociological wars inherent to sites with too wide a purpose.

If you notice political undertones, it's just that this situation reminds me of the Canada/Québec constitutional wars, some of which could have been settled if we were a true federation.

JBrunner · Dec 9, 2007

[...]

No site can be all things to all people, so a line needs to be drawn, if a site like APUG is to have any purpose. The line where hybrid begins is crystal clear, and to me seems the logical place to have a line- at a clear demarcation, instead of someplace arbitrary. As far as the militant anti digital things that pop up, those are personalities and opinions, and the stance has absolutely nothing to do with the "analog photography" that APUG is about.

To me, APUG is far from "exclusive". I find it "inclusive" of every analog process you can think of. I'm fairly sure that it is the single largest repository of information regarding traditional photography in the world, and if you are interested, you are welcome.

If you take a good look at the forums, you will see that for every flaming hot thread with name calling, there are about fifty threads with lively discussions regarding methods, equipment, products, philosophy, marketing, shows, photographers, and so on. Those other fifty threads are the heart beat of this forum. If you somehow managed to miss them, you either have no reason to be here, or you have yet to find the real point of APUG.

Chuck_P · Dec 9, 2007

JBrunner said:
[...]

No site can be all things to all people, so a line needs to be drawn, if a site like APUG is to have any purpose. The line where hybrid begins is crystal clear, and to me seems the logical place to have a line- at a clear demarcation, instead of someplace arbitrary. As far as the militant anti digital things that pop up, those are personalities and opinions, and the stance has absolutely nothing to do with the "analog photography" that APUG is about.

To me, APUG is far from "exclusive". I find it "inclusive" of every analog process you can think of. I'm fairly sure that it is the single largest repository of information regarding traditional photography in the world, and if you are interested, you are welcome.

If you take a good look at the forums, you will see that for every flaming hot thread with name calling, there are about fifty threads with lively discussions regarding methods, equipment, products, philosophy, marketing, shows, photographers, and so on. Those other fifty threads are the heart beat of this forum. If you somehow managed to miss them, you either have no reason to be here, or you have yet to find the real point of APUG.

I agree...there is nothing else to say about the reason for APUG's existence and no better qualifying remarks about the contributions it is making?

I vote that this thread be closed. This is a statement that appeals to reason and not personal interests, prejudices, or emotions.

Katharine Thayer · Dec 9, 2007

Sean said:
I should have made the site more aware of the homepage updates. I can do that today. My first response may not have come across right, a lot can get lost in trying to convey things in forums posts and I'm not the most apt communicator at times. That's another reason I like meeting people in person at the conferences

Sean, I appreciate your candor and graciousness; I daresay I wasn't communicating perfectly myself, or we might have understood each other better. I'm sorry I won't have a chance to meet you at a conference, as I don't go to conferences, but I wish you all the best.

Now that my concern about hybrid has been cleared up, I'd like to address your original thought if I may. I think it's a good thought; the problem is that we're very often put in the defensive mode by evangelists on the other side who enjoy taunting us as dinosaurs and luddites and idiots who don't understand that the image is everything and that how it's derived is irrelevant. It's hard to take a pro-active stance in the face of the ridicule, but if you can figure out a way to do it without feeling embattled and fighting back, more power to you.

One thing I've noticed, and I don't think it's just my imagination: I've noticed a real backlash the last couple of years. I think there's a renewed interest in gum printing, and much of the interest is coming from young people who started out with digital methods and have never worked in a wet darkroom, who find themselves hungry for a more hands-on, hand-crafted photographic process. I don't live or die by how many other people are doing what I do; I do what I do because I love what I do. But I do find this trend interesting and offer it here as encouragement.
Katharine

papagene · Dec 9, 2007

Good Grief!!!!!!!!! This thread has gotten so far of course I don't think it can be salvaged. It's time for it to be locked up tight as a drum.
But one last time...
Get out there with your analog cameras, be positive and enthusiastic, mingle with the greater photography world, hang your traditional prints, along side the other mediums, to exhibit their inherent beauty. Let's show the world we are proud of our artistic choice and we aren't about to go away.
'Nough said... no lock this room up for good!

Katharine Thayer · Dec 9, 2007

JBrunner said:
[...]

No site can be all things to all people, so a line needs to be drawn, if a site like APUG is to have any purpose. The line where hybrid begins is crystal clear, and to me seems the logical place to have a line- at a clear demarcation, instead of someplace arbitrary.

I don't know what was in the deleted posts, so for all I know this is about something entirely different, but since to my own knowledge I'm the only one who has brought up a concern about hybridphoto in this thread, I'll just clarify here, begging your indulgence, that I don't think anyone is questioning the line between APUG and hybrid; I'm certainly not. As someone said in a thread about hybrid some months ago, "The divorce is final," and I think we all accept that.

My concern wasn't about the boundary between hybrid's territory and APUG's territory, but about the other side of hybrid; in other words, whether there is and will continue to be a boundary dividing hybrid from the rest of the world.

BobbyR · Dec 9, 2007

Let's take a look at the reason that a partial exclusion can be a necessity.

Film photography needs three main ingredients: A film camera, FILM and PAPER to print it on.
The cameras are probably permanently never going to be further developed--film can hold its quality edge only as long as it has development tech. being put in to it. (I am NOT going to debate this point but of the tech. people I have spoken to, the only way digital format can "equal" film is if film development stops)--paper can survive and improve ONLY if it is used. (this is not just home printing but using custom labs)
If some prefer the simpler method of digital printing, fine for them but then what reason is there for photo paper to be produced.

It is IMPOSSIBLE not to mention digital processes, to a point,(I have wondered if anyone will ever produce a method to which the images on a disk can be durectly transferred to a slide, or print, film for reasons of permanence, if no other) but the more digital is mentioned gives a valid reason for those in an industry, if they read this, or really anywhere, to believe that putting more time and money into film is a waste of time as no one truly cares or NEEDS it.

This is my opinion.
Bobby

clay · Dec 9, 2007

Why is everyone still talking about this Ad Hominem dude? I thought his work was pretty tired twenty years ago, and yet his name still pops up in these discussions. Go figure.

JBrunner · Dec 9, 2007

BobbyR said:
Let's take a look at the reason that a partial exclusion can be a necessity.

I have wondered if anyone will ever produce a method to which the images on a disk can be durectly transferred to a slide, or print, film for reasons of permanence, if no other

These things are current technology. Lightjet/Chromira output is ubiquitous for color printing on photographic paper in almost all custom labs, and Ilford introduced a silver gelatin paper last year that can be used in the machines, digital output to slide has been available for many years, and I think it's DeVere that manufactures an enlarger that can project digital files, (there may be others), and I think you can have negatives made from a digital file by a couple of methods (I'm not totally up on that, I think it's part of the graphics world).

Alex Hawley · Dec 9, 2007

clay said:
Why is everyone still talking about this Ad Hominem dude? I thought his work was pretty tired twenty years ago, and yet his name still pops up in these discussions. Go figure.

That's the advantage of having a college professor as an Admin. I had to look up Ad Hominem on Wikipedia. You're right Clay, pretty tired work.

BobbyR · Dec 9, 2007

JBrunner said:
These things are current technology. Lightjet/Chromira output is ubiquitous for color printing on photographic paper in almost all custom labs, and Ilford introduced a silver gelatin paper last year that can be used in the machines, digital output to slide has been available for many years, and I think it's DeVere that manufactures an enlarger that can project digital files, (there may be others), and I think you can have negatives made from a digital file by a couple of methods (I'm not totally up on that, I think it's part of the graphics world).

Is it possible, for a price of course, to insert a disk in one machine and a one hundred or x foot roll of film in another and have an x foot roll of film to use and save at one's desiring?

Serious question, not sarcasm.
One reason I asked, was I was speaking to a fellow who worked in computer development, how does one transfer a disk to tape.

He had no idea and was not sure if it could be done.
I said we watch digital movies on analog TVs so there must be a way, and he said, that he would imagine but had no idea how.

Bobby

removed account4 · Dec 9, 2007

BobbyR said:
Is it possible, for a price of course, to insert a disk in one machine and a one hundred or x foot roll of film in another and have an x foot roll of film to use and save at one's desiring?

Bobby

i think that is exactly what they do in the big mail order labs.
run the film end to end ... scan and output ... all day long ...

now that i think about it, probably all of the my lab printed film
is printed just like this at fuji ..
probably shouldn't post much of it now that i realize what i have been doing

The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

jovo

Membership Council

JBrunner

Moderator

Sean

Admin

Sean

Admin

doughowk

Katharine Thayer

Sean

Admin

jovo

Membership Council

Katharine Thayer

Sean

Admin

Katharine Thayer

walter23

Katharine Thayer

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

JBrunner

Moderator

Chuck_P

Katharine Thayer

papagene

Membership Council

Katharine Thayer

BobbyR

clay

JBrunner

Moderator

Alex Hawley

BobbyR

removed account4

The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

Membership Council

Moderator

Admin

Admin

Admin

Membership Council

Admin

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency