What an eye opener; darkroom printing vs scanning.

Ken Nadvornick said:

It's only secondarily designed to allow self-censorship. It's primary function is to give the Ignorer a false sense of superiority and control over the Ignoree. And the real benefit is low-cost self-mitigation of member conflict. No external moderation resources are required. Working entirely alone the Ignorer can suddenly feel righteously vindicated that they finally got the better of the Ignoree, without the Ignoree ever noticing anything at all has changed. So everybody wins.

Ever notice how many members feel the need to publicly announce that they are putting another member on Ignore? That's because they fear the Ignoree (and everyone else reading along) may never even notice that he or she has been "controlled", and have thus lost the battle of perceived superiority.

The winner can't feel he won until everyone else knows the loser didn't, right?



Ken

Click to expand...

I don't really buy that. Of course I've done it. But it's not so much that it's "public" as directed at the poster to let them know that they're wasting effort as far as the person putting them on ignore goes.

Some of it just habit from the old Usenet days too where putting someone in your kill file - pretty much the same thing via newsreader clients - was typically announced with the word "*plonk*" to represent the sound someone supposedly made when dropped into said file. So to some extent, for some of us, it's just an old habit.

eddie said:

I think a few people were reacting to those who claim the only thing which can correctly be called a photograph is derived from film/silver paper (or the other traditional methods). That ship sailed long ago...

Click to expand...

Agree completely, Eddie. But I also believe that members on an exclusively all-analog (by whatever analog process) discussion forum should feel free to state their preference for the subset of silver-based analog photography over software abstracted photography. Even emotionally. And do so without having their preferences verbally abused.

Now if he's on a fine wine forum claiming that beer is better, I could see the membership getting upset. But being on a fine wine forum and expressing an emotionally strong preference for fine wine should protect him from the wrath of the beer drinkers, don't you think?

I mean, that's why there are separate wine and beer forums in the first place. And if one drinks both, then just apply a little awareness and common sense.

Ken

Roger Cole said:

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who had his rantings on ignore...

Click to expand...

I find internet rants mildly amusing. I picture the ranter, with a bulging neck vein, and a purplish, reddish face. Maybe that's why I don't use the ignore function.

Even though I've defended digital from some of the more intense attacks (it isn't evil, it works very, very well for some purposes etc., things I do believe) I agree with Ken.

As I recall someone once said years ago on a Usenet forum devoted to a very different topic, "don't go on a tiddlywinks board expecting to be welcomed when you start criticizing their tiddlies."

I must have excellent judgment, because with one exception, everyone I've put on Ignore has subsequently been banned from the site.

And as for that exception, that person has been taken off ignore.

I didn't put that person on ignore because of the fact that what they posted irritated me (and it did).

I put them on ignore because they repeated essentially the same, irritating stuff over and over and over ......

They aren't posting as much any more.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Agree completely, Eddie. But I also believe that members on an exclusively all-analog (by whatever analog process) discussion forum should feel free to state their preference for the subset of silver-based analog photography over software abstracted photography. Even emotionally. And do so without having their preferences verbally abused.

Click to expand...

I really don't see the abuse. The single thing I'd hope we all have in common is a love for analog/analogue (don't want to alienate our British friends). By being a member of APUG, announcing a preference seems redundant. That's why we're here. The only times I'm adamant about the film/digital divide is when people wish to change the site's charter to include digital. I like it as is, and think it needs to be forcefully defended.

Am I the only one to notice that what started to drift into one of the stock arguments we have on APUG has turned into a respectful disagreement?

Perhaps people getting along better is one of the features of the new software, lol.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Agree completely, Eddie. But I also believe that members on an exclusively all-analog (by whatever analog process) discussion forum should feel free to state their preference for the subset of silver-based analog photography over software abstracted photography. Even emotionally. And do so without having their preferences verbally abused.

Now if he's on a fine wine forum claiming that beer is better, I could see the membership getting upset. But being on a fine wine forum and expressing an emotionally strong preference for fine wine should protect him from the wrath of the beer drinkers, don't you think?

I mean, that's why there are separate wine and beer forums in the first place. And if one drinks both, then just apply a little awareness and common sense.

Ken

Click to expand...

There is a distinct difference between doing a great job of cheerleading for ones own team and defining the other team as not even playing the same sport.

rpavich said:

Up until a few weeks ago, I was shooting film and scanning it. Everything was going fine, I was shooting box speed, sometimes pushing, sometimes pulling.

No matter what I did, the negatives survived pretty well. I got a false sense of security on how well I was exposing.

Well, I just made a contact sheet for the first time using Kentmere 400 shot at 800. indoor shots, outdoor shots.
I can see 2 things.

1.) My exposures are all over the map.
2.) Printing from a pushed negative is more of a challenge than printing from one shot at box speed. It's certainly a different look.

The experience of printing a pushed negative is much different than viewing a scan from a pushed negative...it really took me by surprise.

I really have a newfound respect for those who know their way around a darkroom.

For tonight, I'm tired, my back hurts, I only got two "working prints" and no final prints. I'll get at it tomorrow morning again

Click to expand...

Soooo, about that darkroom printing thing.....

I hope you grow to enjoy your time printing as much as I do. I find it something of a relief to escape the world's babble and just immerse myself in silence (or dance around like a lunatic!)

As you noticed, a contact sheet will tell you a great deal about your exposures. Be sure to use the same settings each time you make one and you'll soon be knowing at a glance what will print easily and how you might get an easier negative to work with next time you photograph a particular type of scene.

Above all, relax - learning something should be interesting, engaging and enjoyable.

Apologies for deviating from the other thread participants little debate, I just thought that, since you posted a thread about darkroom printing you might actually want to talk about that, yes?

eddie said:

By being a member of APUG, announcing a preference seems redundant. That's why we're here.

Click to expand...

Think about what you just wrote above. You've nailed the issue head on.

Because this is an exclusively chartered analog discussion forum, by reason of the fact that we are even here should make our preferences explicitly known. There should be no doubt. It says right in the site charter "non-digital". It can't be any more clearly stated, right?

And yet...

That so many here still feel the need to publicly differentiate themselves as analog photographers speaks volumes about the scope of the problem. No one here should ever have to defend their analog choices while visiting this exclusively analog discussion forum.

By definition, they should never even have cause to be challenged. They did not make a wrong turn. They are not in the wrong place. They are not lost and seeking the software abstracted light. They are exactly where they are supposed to be. They are exactly where they want to be.

And still their photo technology preferences are endlessly ridiculed as being too narrowly scoped. Not inclusive enough. Not modern enough. They are drinking too much wine, and not enough beer. And they are way too insistent that they like their wine better. How arrogant of them.

This needs fixing. And it will be truly fixed when the day comes that each group has their own identical space in which everyone choosing to enter that space can concentrate on practicing the preferred form of photography served by that space, and not be constantly sidetracked and forced to defend their preference.

Ken

Truzi said:

Am I the only one to notice that what started to drift into one of the stock arguments we have on APUG has turned into a respectful disagreement?

Perhaps people getting along better is one of the features of the new software, lol.

Click to expand...

Maybe the usual trouble-makers and malcontents have put all of the rest of us on Ignore?

Wouldn't THAT be sweet?



Ken

APUGuser19 said:

A contact sheet is the best barometer of exposure and process there is. Totally unforgiving; a true taskmaster.

Click to expand...

Except when one fails to notice an enlarging lens left wide open! I'd become so reliant on my contact sheets to serve up the unvarnished truth that I thought I MUST have massively underexposed my entire roll of film. It wasn't until I made a small, individual proof print that I realised the error was in the contact sheet, not in the original exposure. It was one of those "Oh ye of so little faith" moments.

APUGuser19 said:

A contact sheet is the best barometer of exposure and process there is. Totally unforgiving; a true taskmaster.

Click to expand...

It is a great tool to check ones consistency in camera work and developing.

It is IMO a better tool for predicting how to change enlarger exposure for a given frame.

Truzi said:

Am I the only one to notice that what started to drift into one of the stock arguments we have on APUG has turned into a respectful disagreement?

Perhaps people getting along better is one of the features of the new software, lol.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear! Although I don't think there is a plug-in for that, unfortunately....

Speaking of the joys of darkroom work, time for me to go get it in order for some printing.

APUGuser19 said:

A contact sheet is the best barometer of exposure and process there is. Totally unforgiving; a true taskmaster.

Click to expand...

Agree. It is a very, very good tool. If you REALLY want to use it to get the most out of learning and optimizing your exposures and are willing to endure some PITA hassle now for rewards later, use your contact printing set up to find the "minimum exposure for maximum black" on your paper, with your set up, with the contrast filter (for VC) you choose as "normal," usually 2, 2.5 or 3, and then use that for your first contact sheet from a given roll from then on. Basically you make contact exposures through clear film base and find the minimum exposure that results in your paper's maximum black, darkest tone, exposed through that base. Then expose your contact sheets, at least the first one from each roll, for that time, at that aperture setting, with the enlarger at the same height, assuming you use an enlarger for a light source. A "perfect" exposure will be right on. More exposure resulting in too-light contact prints at that time won't necessarily be difficult to print well (they will usually print just fine with modern films unless they are VERY overexposed) but is denser than it needs to be which results in more grain than it needs to have. It could also result in reduced highlight detail but with most modern films that's not likely. Any exposure that looks too thin at that time is underexposed. You can, depending on how underexposed it is, still often make an acceptable, even good print from it, but it may not be as good and you will have to work more at it. If it has areas you want to print as black you will need to either burn them in or use a higher contrast filter which will push the blacks "down" but also the whites "up" and may result in having to burn the highlights for detail. It will also change midtone rendering due to different microcontrast in a way that may or may not look good to you.

It's not that hard to work out, but gives a pretty rigorous test of your film exposures. You will most likely end up shooting at something from 1/3 to 1 stop less than box speed if you calibrate your exposures with this method. But maybe not.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Think about what you just wrote above. You've nailed the issue head on.

Because this is an exclusively chartered analog discussion forum, by reason of the fact that we are even here should make our preferences explicitly known. There should be no doubt. It says right in the site charter "non-digital". It can't be any more clearly stated, right?

And yet...

That so many here still feel the need to publicly differentiate themselves as analog photographers speaks volumes about the scope of the problem. No one here should ever have to defend their analog choices while visiting this exclusively analog discussion forum.

By definition, they should never even have cause to be challenged. They did not make a wrong turn. They are not in the wrong place. They are not lost and seeking the software abstracted light. They are exactly where they are supposed to be. They are exactly where they want to be.

And still their photo technology preferences are endlessly ridiculed as being too narrowly scoped. Not inclusive enough. Not modern enough. They are drinking too much wine, and not enough beer. And they are way too insistent that they like their wine better. How arrogant of them.

This needs fixing. And it will be truly fixed when the day comes that each group has their own identical space in which everyone choosing to enter that space can concentrate on practicing the preferred form of photography served by that space, and not be constantly sidetracked and forced to defend their preference.

Ken

Click to expand...

Yes, but though it's an exclusively analog forum, that doesn't mean all the users are exclusively analog photographers (or even necessarily "prefer" it but just use it for at least some work, though I do certainly prefer it.)

I personally wouldn't mind allowing discussions of scanning to produce enlarged negatives for alternative processes, or optimizing for web display or the like, but I know I'm in the minority. Or at least among the vocal folks I am. And that's totally ok because enlarged negatives for alternative process prints are right up the alley of the LFPF and such discussion IS allowed there, so...no problem. But I can see how the subjects will still come up, when someone bemoans the lack of any other good and reasonably easy way to print from slides now that Type R and Ciba/Ilfochrome are both gone for example.

Thanks for the comments on contact sheets, I'll try and wrap my head around that next.

You might just go ahead with what you are doing now and come back to that once you feel like you have the basics down.

It amounts to a way of doing zone system film speed testing without a densitometer. That's kind of the advanced class.

Roger Cole said:

You might just go ahead with what you are doing now and come back to that once you feel like you have the basics down.

It amounts to a way of doing zone system film speed testing without a densitometer. That's kind of the advanced class.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll do that. Thanks for the tip and thanks everyone for the good information.

MattKing said:

I prefer the old-fashioned type of Ignore function.

Click to expand...

Matt
I do the old fashioned way as well..
I have reasons why I put people on my list ...
i don't really feel like airing my dirty laundry in the forum,
I'll just say that if the ignore list wasn't here ... I might ask to have my ip banned.
i had to do that in another forum ( participated in for 15+ years )
a guy started in on me ( was abusive &c) and i asked to have my IP banned for 7months.
... it gets tiring after a while.

Molli said:

Except when one fails to notice an enlarging lens left wide open! I'd become so reliant on my contact sheets to serve up the unvarnished truth that I thought I MUST have massively underexposed my entire roll of film. It wasn't until I made a small, individual proof print that I realised the error was in the contact sheet, not in the original exposure. It was one of those "Oh ye of so little faith" moments.

Click to expand...

When I do things like that (and I do), I start humming/singing the scarecrow's song in Wizard of Oz (If I only had a Brain...) - seems to be too common during some printing sessions.

I have a set way I do my contact sheets so I can see how the film looks. It does sometimes fail if I've given in and sent the film out rather than doing it myself. Each little detail in the process has an effect.

jnanian said:

Matt
I do the old fashioned way as well..
I have reasons why I put people on my list ...
i don't really feel like airing my dirty laundry in the forum,
I'll just say that if the ignore list wasn't here ... I might ask to have my ip banned.
i had to do that in another forum ( participated in for 15+ years )
a guy started in on me ( was abusive &c) and i asked to have my IP banned for 7months.
... it gets tiring after a while.

Click to expand...

Good stuff John. Extreme action liking IP banning is uncommon, but unfortunately necessary in extreme cases. There are bullies populating the web everywhere, always have and always will. Ignore lists are essential to effectively skip over them.