What an eye opener; darkroom printing vs scanning.

[eddie]

Analog... Digital... Hybrid... The end results are the same- photographs. The only important decision anyone needs to make, when choosing which route to pursue, is which one best stirs their creative juices, keeps their passion ablaze, and fits into their life circumstances.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

LOL. You wrote: "Except... I made the mistake of observing that I would still prefer using my Nikon F2 bodies over any DSLR options. And worse, that I intended to tape over the LCD screen because I didn't want to see the photos that way. I think I may have also mentioned self-limiting to only 36 exposures per outing, or something like that." and that sounds pretty much "in your face" to me. Imagine what would happen here on APUG if someone behaved that way.

The context of those remarks was in answer to a couple of questions posed to me regarding how I intended to use the Nikon DSLR body, given that those older lenses would not, of course, mate with any of the later computerized features of the digital body I was asking about.* I was being asked which DSLR features were important to me. My response was I wanted it to work as closely to an F2 as possible. (This was before the Nikon Df was introduced.)

In other words, I did not offer that information in a vacuum solely to poke sticks in eyes, or to change other's technology viewpoints or preferences, but rather as factual responses to questions being asked of me.

Then the hyenas pounced...

Ken

* But I don't discuss that here on APUG because, well... That would be rude.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I'm sure there are people on the digital boards that take that technology as seriously as many folks here take analog technology. An "in your face' reply is unlikely to be well received in either case.

I though your comments were funny (hence the LOL), but not everyone has a sense of humor.

 

[Roger Cole]

yup



you are in one of those forums ! there are a few anti digital things spouted in this very thread !

No I'm not in "one of those forums." I was referring specifically to Ken's comment:

After all, the membership of many online sites that specialize in digital reproduction methods are quite vocal in their opinions that traditional darkroom methods of photographic reproduction have nothing at all to do with modern photography.

Unless I really missed the boat on what APUG is about it isn't one of the "online sites that specialize in digital reproduction methods." AFAIK

 

[Roger Cole]

Oh. My. God. I was set upon like hyenas. Why are you even using such an antiquated approach? LF made sense a hundred years ago, but not now. Nobody uses film anymore. My DSLR can beat the pants off any negative, including yours. Don't you know that you're killing yourself using those toxic chemicals? And killing your family with you? And poisoning the environment? Where's your social responsibility? Haven't you heard about Bhopal? (I'm not kidding!)

It went on and on. Even after I quietly left and just figured out what I needed to know by experimentation. Ironically, in retrospect in a number of ways it was virtually identical to some of the ravings I hear right here on APUG, especially regarding the use and disposal of mostly benign b&w photochemistry.

That does remind me of something similar that I found odd. My coworkers, bunch of network engineers, found I do darkroom work and THEY all thought it was pretty cool. But when I mentioned I needed and planned to get the darkroom going again after an extended time off from it dealing with huge personal issues someone said something like "you'll have to replace all your chemicals." I told them no, not all, but some. Someone asked how hard they were to get and I said "very easy, if you order online." Someone else said "just have to be 18 huh?" and I said "not even that, just have a credit card." One colleague, a Russian guy, started talking about all the nefarious potential uses that would make sellers have to be careful who they sold to. Scratching my head (figuratively) I said it was almost all really benign and you couldn't really do any harm with it if you wanted to, aside from ingestion or something. I was kindly and jokingly ridiculed as naive. I thought about it and said "well there might be a way to liberate the cyanide from the potassium ferricyanide for bleaching but in that form it's really not very toxic and..." and got hoots and howls (I exaggerate here, slightly) about how it's always possible via some reaction or other. I just gave up. These are people who should know better but the word "chemical" just isn't understood by so many people, even otherwise intelligent and educated ones. (I did look it up then and it takes a strongly acidic environment to liberate cyanide gas. Remind me not to dump battery acid into my bleach.)

I didn't mention the hydrogen sulfide that is given off by my brown toner leading me to, when weather permits, set up a folding table in the backyard and tone there. I figured their heads might explode, even if I DID point out that the same gas is what makes rotten eggs smell like they do.

 

[removed account4]

No I'm not in "one of those forums." I was referring specifically to Ken's comment:



Unless I really missed the boat on what APUG is about it isn't one of the "online sites that specialize in digital reproduction methods." AFAIK

sorry roger, i thought you were referring to something i might have said i didn't read the other comments you are talking about.

 

[Roger Cole]

You probably still have Ken on ignore and you didn't see his posts with the new way ignored posters are treated.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You probably still have Ken on ignore and you didn't see his posts with the new way ignored posters are treated.

Heh, heh...

My presence on John's Ignore List varies pretty much sinusoidally, but with a notably short period. Unfortunately this is what happens when one cuts oneself off from some parts of a discussion. One then only hears confusing bits and pieces of it. It's one of the reasons I have never, and will never, Ignore anyone, for any reason.



Ken

 

[removed account4]

You probably still have Ken on ignore and you didn't see his posts with the new way ignored posters are treated.

uh huh

 

[Sirius Glass]

Heh, heh...

My presence on John's Ignore List varies pretty much sinusoidally, but with a notably short period. Unfortunately this is what happens when one cuts oneself off from some parts of a discussion. One then only hears confusing bits and pieces of it. It's one of the reasons I have never, and will never, Ignore anyone, for any reason.



Ken

Actually it is not sinusoidal since it is binary [on-off] so it would more accurately classed as a bang bang system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang–bang_control Much like banging ones head against the wall.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Actually it is not sinusoidal since it is binary [on-off] so it would more accurately classed as a bang bang system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang–bang_control Much like banging ones head against the wall.

Point taken...

Except that I also have some evidence to suspect that a little bit of not-signed-in peeking goes on as well. So it's never really all the way off. It just varies periodically between greater and lesser levels of on, without ever truly reaching zero.



Ken

 

[MattKing]

It just varies periodically between greater and lesser levels of on, without ever truly reaching zero.

I can't resist ...

Much the way most of us read your posts Ken.

 

[markbarendt]

I can't resist ...

Much the way most of us read your posts Ken.

I've been considering a bike helmet.

 

[eddie]

... I have never, and will never, Ignore anyone, for any reason.

I haven't either, and can't think of a single reason Ignore is even offered as an option.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

until you learn to make proper exposures, every single print in the darkroom will be a fight. When the contact looks uniform, you are already 90% there.

Congrats. You learned film does not push. Shadows are controlled by exposure. Highlights by time in developer. Always has been true. always will be true.

 

[Fr. Mark]

Someone a couple pages ago defined analog photo as silver based prints. Wow. Narrow minded. I print with Iron chemistry...and am looking to do more with Chromium. Doesn't the rest of the periodic table get any love? The negative is based on silver halides or dare I say it here, an inkjet print if original capture didn't happen with film. I don't always lug the Sinar or the Press camera or even the 35mm gear around.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I can't resist ...

Much the way most of us read your posts Ken.

No worries, Matt. Although I do sometimes wish you'd engage a little more. Full-duplex can often be rewarding, regardless of whether one wins or loses the momentary point at issue.



Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I re-read Ken's long post, and I see he probably wasn't even thinking of my posts. Whew. But still, I won't contribute to the digital-analog debate further. Thanks.

No, I wasn't. Actually, I was defending your post. Or rather your right to post without being abused.

My only issue, regardless of what our endearing herd of APUG cats says, was that someone swore at your emotionally stated preference for film over digital. I didn't feel that was appropriate, especially on a forum exclusively "devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes." Bad behavioral decorum. That's it.

We desperately need a nice long line of those concrete Jersey barriers around here to permanently separate the lanes of oncoming traffic. Hopefully we are now a bit closer...

Ken

 

[eddie]

My only issue, regardless of what our endearing herd of APUG cats says, was that someone swore at your emotionally stated preference for film over digital.

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...
As someone who only works with traditional materials, I cringe when I see other traditional practitioners feeling the need to build an artificial wall between what we choose to do, and what digital photographers choose to do, in so far as the final product is concerned. It smacks of insecurity and, frankly, embarrasses us all.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I haven't either, and can't think of a single reason Ignore is even offered as an option.

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

 

[markbarendt]

I've put myself on ignore before.

My wife occasionally uses the ignore function.

 

[eddie]

My wife occasionally uses the ignore function.

Mine didn't. Probably why we're divorced.

 

[MattKing]

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

I prefer the old-fashioned type of Ignore function.

 

[eddie]

Ever notice how many members feel the need to publicly announce that they are putting another member on Ignore?

I have, and it's always good for a chuckle.

 

[Roger Cole]

I haven't either, and can't think of a single reason Ignore is even offered as an option.

Oh there are people I have ignored. And before an update to Firefox broke it there was a nifty plug in for it and vBulletin called FfVb or something like that, that did what this system does and vBulletin itself doesn't, completly removed the person ignored and quotes from them so you didn't see the little reminder to click to show spoiler that you see with vBulletin itself and you didn't see the quote when someone quoted them, like seems to be happening here.

I used it for a few people on some pilot forums, and was really bummed when Firefox broke it and the developer stopped supporting it. To give you an idea, one of the people I had on ignore still has the distinction of being the ONLY person EVER banned from one of those forums since it started in 2007, because after someone argued with his political positions he threatened to sue the owner and administrators for some imagined infringement of his free speech rights. Of course that's nonsense and he apparently had no idea what that right really means and doesn't mean, but it was the real last straw and they banned him. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who had his rantings on ignore, nor the only one who used FfVb to completely avoid him.