What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

[Bill Burk]

I don't know what he's doing here ... (there was a url link here which no longer exists) :munch:

Ralph Lambrecht wrote a monumental and lasting contribution to analog photography; Way Beyond Monochrome. His standing is unimpeachable.

 

[pdeeh]

Oh bill please engage your sense of humour

 

[pdeeh]

And no-one's "unimpeachable", not Weston, not Adams, not Stieglitz, and certainly not Lambrecht

 

[Bill Burk]

And no-one's "unimpeachable", not Weston, not Adams, not Stieglitz, and certainly not Lambrecht

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off harsh. I'll lighten up.

Meanwhile, as a positive position statement, I'll stand by my remark... Ralph Lambrecht has a Free Pass to say anything he wants.

 

[pschwart]

Without a doubt. And I'm one of them, albeit mostly for online transparency sharing and APUG gallery uploads. This is 2015, after all.

The issue here is not and has never been one of appropriateness of purpose. It's one of appropriateness of discussion topic. And the occasional one-off transgression has never been a problem. It's the with-malice-aforethought serial transgressors that are the problem.

But again, help is on the way...



Ken

The ignore list is a great feature, and regular, egregious offenders can be ejected by the moderators. I think these will more effective than lecturing about discipline and respect.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

:munch:I made a comment awhile back that out of the 60,000 plus members here I doubted more than 1000 have ever made a traditional print using an enlarger... I take back that estimate, I now estimate there are less than 500.

does this make me a bad person to point this out?

Well, the original iteration of the Darkroom Portraits thread (started in Dec, 2004) was capped by Sean for database performance reasons at 407,773 views of 1,290 posts. And the follow-on part 2 of that thread currently adds another 45,318 views of 152 posts.

That's an aggregate 453,091 views of 1,442 posts. So someone is certainly interested in traditional chemical darkrooms...

:w00t:

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The ignore list is a great feature, and regular, egregious offenders can be ejected by the moderators. I think these will more effective than lecturing about discipline and respect.

I see it differently.

The ignore list is a crutch for those who wish to hide from the real world, and need someone or something else to help them do it. Covering one's eyes and ears in a public square discussion does nothing to promote one's understanding of the issues at hand. And it does even less for the credibility of the one who is willfully hiding from that discussion. If one disagrees, civilly disagree back. But don't run away.

There's a reason that the story of the Three Little Monkeys is traditionally a pejorative tale...

Ken

 

[MattKing]

I see it differently.

The ignore list is a crutch for those who wish to hide from the real world, and need someone or something else to help them do it. Covering one's eyes and ears in a public square discussion does nothing to promote one's understanding of the issues at hand. And it does even less for the credibility of the one who is willfully hiding from that discussion. If one disagrees, civilly disagree back. But don't run away.

There's a reason that the story of the Three Little Monkeys is traditionally a pejorative tale...

Ken

Sorry Ken:

I use the ignore function to deal with people whose attitude or mode of discourse or lack of civility irritate me.

Not those who I disagree with.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sorry Ken:

I use the ignore function to deal with people whose attitude or mode of discourse or lack of civility irritate me.

Not those who I disagree with.

As is your right, of course.

But what if someone on your ignore list makes a very good point? Or says something useful of which you were unaware? Or unknowingly answers one of your longstanding photo questions? Or renders are really, really cool insight into a topic regarding which you have a great interest?

Then, because you have killed the messenger before you heard the message, the message dies with him. Dislike of the person has cost you knowledge. You have missed out. Your overall understanding is less than it might have been.

Further, if the missed comment bends the trajectory of the discussion, then you risk unknowingly speaking out of context. Of possibly making points that are already moot. Of making readers scratch their heads when they read your contributions.

On the other hand, by not ignoring anyone, you miss nothing. And you can still use your well-honed sense of self-discipline to continue reading everyone's contributions regardless, while at the same time simply not responding to those individuals you dislike.

Ignore lists do not exist to allow one to not hear. They exist to allow one to feel they have control. Control over someone else that, due to the abstract nature of online discussion, they really don't.

They are designed to let one walk away feeling victorious, when in reality all they have accomplished is to surround themselves with others who will only tell them exactly what they want to hear.

As always, I respect the fact that YMMV...

Ken

 

[gzinsel]

im not worried about FILM, But FB I am concerned about.I think film will be around for awhile, but as more people who prefer speed and simplicity, or don't like chemistry, will stray into the Dumb "D".

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Wow, the Purity Police is alive and well. Even though a significant number of significant contributors tell us here that they use scanners, either sometimes or even all of the time.

So, all you PP'ers, how would you feel if film sales collapsed because so much of the market is now being scanned for output and your attitudes make them unwelcome? Hybrid, not good enough. Sure, there are the students new to film and darkroom, but they probably can't support film and home darkrooms and such. It's an interesting lark, a detour to digital everything. The part of the process that for many of us is the only option to still use film, you disdain at your own risk.

When this forum was started, film was alive and well. Digital cameras were barely starting to sell to consumers. Scanners sucked, 1200 dpi was about tops for anything other than dedicated film and slide ones. Times have changed, Luddites. Camera stores and drugstore processing are no more in many communities, like mine, a small city of 54,000 people. None. Scanners can be bought for a few hundred dollars that hit 4800 dpi native.

Religion doesn't have to be spiritual. It can be secular. Plenty to be seen here. Deification of films and software, the preference of belief over evidence (think evolution), the dismissal of anyone not toeing the church dogma.

Oh, I think "hybrid work flow" is about as good as it gets. It was the "darkroom" part of "hybrid darkroom" that grated on me.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Religion doesn't have to be spiritual. It can be secular. Plenty to be seen here. Deification of films and software, the preference of belief over evidence (think evolution), the dismissal of anyone not toeing the church dogma.

Oh, I think "hybrid work flow" is about as good as it gets. It was the "darkroom" part of "hybrid darkroom" that grated on me.

I can't recall ever seeing the term "hybrid darkroom". It doesn't make sense. I've seen "hybrid workflow", "hybrid process" etc. and those are fine.

The term Hybrid Darkroom implies in a darkroom. It's not all "traditional / chemical / analogue" because of the "hybrid", but it is in a darkroom. Ergo, the only thing I can think of that would truly qualify as a "hybrid darkroom" is inkjetting 'digital negatives' and contact printing them.

So what's it called when I scan velvia and inkjet print it? How about "Digital Chemistry"?


ps, as to the religion analogy, one of my favourite quotes is written on the door of the Agnostic Society, "Lord, please save me from your followers".

 

[eddie]

I don't think anyone is expressing any disdain for hybrid methods. It's just not the purpose of this website.
I agree, "hybrid workflow" is about the best it's gonna get. It allows for movement in both directions, too.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Wow, the Purity Police is alive and well.

So, all you PP'ers, how would you feel if film sales collapsed because so much of the market is now being scanned for output and your attitudes make them unwelcome?

Times have changed, Luddites.

Religion doesn't have to be spiritual. It can be secular. Plenty to be seen here. Deification of films and software, the preference of belief over evidence (think evolution), the dismissal of anyone not toeing the church dogma.

To all those reading who came here simply because you love traditional photography, please be patient, help is on the way. The name-calling and abuse won't last for much longer...



Ken

 

[fotch]

:munch:I made a comment awhile back that out of the 60,000 plus members here I doubted more than 1000 have ever made a traditional print using an enlarger... I take back that estimate, I now estimate there are less than 500.

does this make me a bad person to point this out?

I think your estimate is way to low, especially when you say "1000 have ever made a traditional print". I may not have made any prints for quite a while however, I have made thousands of prints in the darkroom for over 40 years. It may be that many, like me, have changed our workflow for what ever reason.

Personally, I find it funny that since we must use a computer to discuss any photo process, or look at a photo, that there is this big deal when we mention hybrid. But, I don't make the rules, and don't think it is such a big thing when someone breaks the rules, either thru ignorance or deliberate.

To be pure, we would have to mail letters around, wouldn't we?:confused:

 

[MattKing]

Wow, the Purity Police is alive and well. Even though a significant number of significant contributors tell us here that they use scanners, either sometimes or even all of the time.

No purity involved - just focus here on APUG.

I frequently converse with people about digital topics, just not here on APUG.

I infrequently use a digital camera, but I don't talk about it here on APUG.

I have three scanners, two of which can scan film, and two of which can scan prints, but I don't ask questions about them here on APUG.

I'm happy to learn about digital negatives, ink sets (sort of), complex sets of printer instructions (sort of), a bit about the manipulations available using software (a very little bit), printers that print digitally on to light sensitive photographic paper (a lot), scanners and a few other similar things, just not here on APUG.

With great trepidation, I would say that if you want to discuss all these things on APUG:

1) those discussions are not wanted here on APUG; and
2) if you insist on it, you are not welcome here on APUG.

It is not about the subjects themselves, it is about the characteristics of this forum.

Since this forum was started, over 75,000 have signed on as members, and they have, collectively, posted more than 1,650,000 different posts. As I type, nearly 900 are on line.

Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with that "purity" you so decry.

 

[RobC]

To be pure, we would have to mail letters around, wouldn't we?:confused:

Well the old pure-silver mailing list which ceased around 2004 was the most civilised photo community I have ever participated in. There was only one flame war by two very well known people in the UK that I can recall and a bit of moaning by someone who complained when the list shut down and moved to its current location.

http://www.freelists.org/archive/pure-silver/

 

[Maris]

There are lots of ways of making pictures and I can't see that any one method has moral ascendency over another. But admittedly I find it curious that there is a penchant for doing digital pictures of photographs of things rather than going direct and just doing digital pictures of things. If the practitioners of this oblique art want to call what they do "Hybrid Darkroom" I'll applaud. Personally I'm dedicated to making pictures out of light-sensitive materials and don't really care to look at stuff touched by the curse of the hidden pixel.

The challenge of looking at images on a monitor screen instead of in real life is that a monitor picture of an physical photograph may look somewhat like the display of an electronic file that has never had material existence. Hopefully these immaterial (virtual?) files are identified as "Hybrid Darkroom" (or some such) on APUG rather than being presented as images of actual photographs.

 

[MattKing]

As is your right, of course.

But what if someone on your ignore list makes a very good point? Or says something useful of which you were unaware? Or unknowingly answers one of your longstanding photo questions? Or renders are really, really cool insight into a topic regarding which you have a great interest?

Then, because you have killed the messenger before you heard the message, the message dies with him. Dislike of the person has cost you knowledge. You have missed out. Your overall understanding is less than it might have been.

Further, if the missed comment bends the trajectory of the discussion, then you risk unknowingly speaking out of context. Of possibly making points that are already moot. Of making readers scratch their heads when they read your contributions.

On the other hand, by not ignoring anyone, you miss nothing. And you can still use your well-honed sense of self-discipline to continue reading everyone's contributions regardless, while at the same time simply not responding to those individuals you dislike.

Ignore lists do not exist to allow one to not hear. They exist to allow one to feel they have control. Control over someone else that, due to the abstract nature of online discussion, they really don't.

They are designed to let one walk away feeling victorious, when in reality all they have accomplished is to surround themselves with others who will only tell them exactly what they want to hear.

As always, I respect the fact that YMMV...

Ken

Just for clarity, I would point out that I have made very little use of the ignore function and, of the very few members I have placed on "ignore", all but one has been banned from the site. And the other one has been taken off my ignore list, because they seem to have learned to refrain from the insulting and irrational posts that caused me (and apparently others) to want him/her to stop posting.

I don't use it to feel victorious, I use it to be able to enjoy APUG without experiencing an overwhelming desire to scream and spit at the screen of my computer - and I am generally considered to be extremely even tempered.

 

[tkamiya]

In many occasions, Sean (the site owner) has expressed his position on this clearly. APUG is for analog processes. Scanning discussion is allowed only for posting to gallery purposes. Hybrid process belongs in DPUG.

I don't understand why would anyone want to start a thread here on APUG knowing (or should know) it will cause arguments and will never come to consensus.

All the logic one can come up with aside, Sean said the site is for all analog processes, and he gets to set the rules.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Just for clarity...

That was just my own personal take on Ignore. As I said, YMMV. And often does. I understand that.

Still and all, you did block quote me directly after reading my post directly. So there's always that from which to take a measure of solace...



Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sean said the site is for all analog processes, and he gets to set the rules.

And by definition THAT is the last and final word. If Sean decided to alter the APUG charter tomorrow to include or exclude anything different that he desired, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. This is his house. We are simply guests visiting at his prerogative and pleasure.

Perhaps there may be benefit for some to gently reconsider exactly how one behaves when visiting someone's house as a guest?

Ken

 

[palewin]

Let me try a question from a different angle. Let's assume that you are a hybrid workflow photographer. You can come to APUG's B&W Film, Paper & Chemistry forum for all the information you want on film processing, which is wonderful. But now you want to scan your film and print it on an inkjet printer. Where do you go? I looked at the DPUG Image Editing and Printer forums; the first had maybe 10 threads with 2015 dates (we are roughly half way through the year!) and I believe 2 threads on Printers. IOW, DPUG is not a viable source of information for the digital printer. So where is one supposed to look? (Incidentally, the APUG Enlarging forum is pretty inactive as well, making me wonder where people are going with questions on darkroom printing too.)

In my case this isn't critical, since I have something like 45 years of darkroom experience, and still get most of my info from the LFPF which is less restrictive than APUG in terms of process. But it seems to me that in some ways the APUG requirement to remain analog at every stage from image capture through image output leaves many film-based photographers hanging in mid-air, unless there is another forum to fill the gap.

 

[removed account4]

Paul Verizzo:

there is a hybrid "group" ( tab next to forum at the top of the page )
you can ask hybrid workflow questions there.
===


hi palewin

not sure if you saw this
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[tkamiya]

A funny thing about DPUG is that many of us are actually there as well as here. There isn't a lot of chit chat going on and no one posts fictitious question to stir the pot. But, when you do post something, someone will jump on it with his/her answer. Signal/Noise ratio is quite high there.