What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

[pbromaghin]

Just tell me where else I can discuss film and darkroom in peace without all the digital discussions intruding. Then think of all the places one can discuss digital flow. Go there and leave the digital talk out of this place.

 

[Nige]

everything 'they' seek is here.

 

[RobC]

or here

 

[removedacct1]

In regard to the forum's charter, I find it puzzling that APUG allows electronically-produced (you have to use a scanner) images in the gallery.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Not so mon ami... making pt pd and gum overs, as well as inkjet.. and still blathering here... I am the master of multitasking..

Fifteen pages of arguments by about 10 people out of the 75,000+ members of APUG is a rather small and normal event. Others just don't reply or lurk and enjoy the "fun". And meanwhile, no pictures are being taken and no darkroom work is being performed by many of these posters.

I've said it before, and that is that you can count on the same people to post and to post over and over in these threads.

PE

 

[Bob Carnie]

When I make a contact silver print , these days I sometimes make a digital negative , rather than an enlarged negative.

Everything else is exactly the same as making a contact silver print- I have a contact vacumn frame in my wet darkroom and I use Ilford chemistrys and Ilford paper


So to reach out to those others here with differing views, and help me under stand their position

Is the simple fact that I used an image setter to make the negative from Photo Shop...

This stage of my workflow, is what pisses off some here , and want all discussion of this step not allowed to discuss here?

 

[removedacct1]

I'm still trying to figure out why this whole thing bothers you so much. Let's look at your total workflow for a moment (B&W film capture, digital print) in the context of APUG's forums which are largely technical (ie as opposed to artistic). Honestly, almost all the technical work comes after you've made the negative. *Please note I'm not saying that with any sort of bent against digital - I'd say the same thing about a non-digital workflow - ie most of the work is post-negative development*. I would then say in your workflow most of the technical work is related to scanning, post-processing, inkjet printing (just as I would say in my workflow almost all the technical work is at the printing stage). To me that means most of your workflow is DPUG (or LFF) related. Only a small part of it is really APUG-type stuff. Why not participate in those communities (in addition to APUG of course)?

Again, note I'm not anti-digital/hybrid in the slightest. I think hybrid is great. But it's different. So I just want to differentiate between APUGers who want to keep APUG analog, and those who think anything digital/hybrid are "lesser" (these people are just noise).

I would say that 100% of my "art" happens in my head and in the camera. The rest is just polishing the result.

 

[pdeeh]

He didn't say that at all. He explicitly said apug as well

 

[ME Super]

Wow this thread exploded yesterday. I spend a day testing things on my central air unit that sits outside only to discover the problem is exactly what my initial thought was - bad fan motor (thankfully nothing to do with the compressor) and look what happens!

TBH, APUG's charter doesn't bother me one bit. I love this place. Without it, how would I have found that Rollei IR400S is more to my liking than the other currently available IR option? Or that Provia 100F could be pushed 2 stops but in so doing it should be shot at 320 not 400? Sure I could've just tried it, but its nice to be able to know at least somewhat what to expect, and APUG is very valuable in that regard.

I freely admit that for prints and sharing, I primarily use a digital workflow (after getting it on film). But film let's me do things differently than digitally, and I LIKE that! APUG is my home for all non-digital photography related things. I am perfectly content to go elsewhere for the digital side of things.

 

[ME Super]

In regard to the forum's charter, I find it puzzling that APUG allows electronically-produced (you have to use a scanner) images in the gallery.

Not puzzling at all, IMHO. Its the nature of the medium this forum exists in-the Internet. Only digital stuff can be put online, and there's a specific exception to analog only for sharing images. Without this exception, there would be no online APUG gallery!

 

[Alan Klein]

Someone above mentioned LFPF Large Format Photography Forum. Thanks for letting me know about it. I just joined. They also allow medium format which I shoot and discussions using digital finishing.

 

[pdeeh]

LFPF is interesting inasmuch as it seems the mingling of digital, hybrid and film seems to work perfectly well.

The doom of being "overrun by digital" that so many here seem to think will occur if the odd hybrid discussion were permitted on APUG doesn't seem to have happened there.

I say this as someone who has no axe to grind - I doubt that, at least for a year or two yet, I'll be using any hybrid methods at all.

 

[MattKing]

LFPF is interesting inasmuch as it seems the mingling of digital, hybrid and film seems to work perfectly well.

The doom of being "overrun by digital" that so many here seem to think will occur if the odd hybrid discussion were permitted on APUG doesn't seem to have happened there.

I say this as someone who has no axe to grind - I doubt that, at least for a year or two yet, I'll be using any hybrid methods at all.

The "overrun by digital" problem did sort of happen to APUG several years ago when discussion of digital negatives was permitted in one sub-forum. Sean responded by creating hybridphoto.com (now DPUG.ORG) and confirming that essentially all digital discussions are banned from this site.

On the one hand, I like the fact that there are quite a few people that want APUG to expand its purpose, because that says a lot about how desirable APUG appears to be. But I'm convinced that it would end up diluting APUG's value.

Now what thread should I start on DPUG .....?

 

[pdeeh]

Yep, I sort of understood the history from other discussions on similar topics, but then as both Bob Carnie and Prof_Pixel said, a lot has changed over the years, both within APUG and in the larger photographic world.

Really, though, it is all a bit moot with the impending tighter integration of the two sites, which might change a lot. Time will tell.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Just a little perspective for those who, in spite of the desperate pleading by membership to the contrary, continue to insist that APUG must change to match their own personal digital/hybrid expectations:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

There are more examples if these are not convincing enough.

Just sayin'...

Ken

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ken probably has this answer, but I will ask it ... Is the common understanding about the new setup this..... If I sign up on APUG like I do now, I can also see threads on DPUG that I want to see without moving from APUG.

If so this allows me to pick and choose which topics on both sites ...without having to log out and go to another... I am basically lazy.


QUOTE=pdeeh;1953759469]Yep, I sort of understood the history from other discussions on similar topics, but then as both Bob Carnie and Prof_Pixel said, a lot has changed over the years, both within APUG and in the larger photographic world.

Really, though, it is all a bit moot with the impending tighter integration of the two sites, which might change a lot. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken probably has this answer, but I will ask it ... Is the common understanding about the new setup this..... If I sign up on APUG like I do now, I can also see threads on DPUG that I want to see without moving from APUG.

If so this allows me to pick and choose which topics on both sites ...without having to log out and go to another... I am basically lazy.

That's my understanding, Bob, based on my reading of the following post by Sean...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

Ken

 

[Bob Carnie]

Well this looks pretty good to me.. I clicked of the soap and lounge in 2005 and I think they exist but not in my world.

I am looking forward to this new aspect of one stop shopping.. Hell I may be able to drop the other site if this works well.

That's my understanding, Bob, based on my reading of the following post by Sean...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)...

Ken

 

[pdeeh]

Yes I've been watching that with interest. No sooner does one chime in to say how things look OK elsewhere than the elsewhere provides a counterexample

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Since there's no such thing as a digital sensor that large, any discussion of digital camera equipment gets moved to the Lounge regardless of the size of the camera, because of the size of the sensor.

There is a defensible, albeit perverse, logic underpinning that argument. The anti-digital crowd gets the right (for them) outcome, but for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Spock would understand. But Captain Kirk would need him to explain it.



Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's all relative. Just get smaller people to sign up.

 

[Dinesh]

Well, the only solution I'm left with is to have this debate settled in the octagon. Mustafa and Drew Wiley are up first.

Bingo, we have a winner!

 

[RobC]

To answer the OPs question directly:

Q. What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

A. "A non Hybrid Darkroom."

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not so mon ami... making pt pd and gum overs, as well as inkjet.. and still blathering here... I am the master of multitasking..

Awww, Bob, c'mon. You know you are the exception.

Ron

 

[palewin]

The LFPF debate is virtually the same one as this one going on at APUG, in that it is a question of what defines the respective Forums. For APUG, that is a totally analog process from image capture through print production. For the LFPF, it is the use of a Large Format camera, and the definition of what constitutes Large Format. Neither wants to be a forum for "all things photographic," so there is a certain amount of bickering at the fringes to maintain a definition of "our tribe" versus "that other tribe."