What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

[Ken Nadvornick]

OK...

So the problem seems to be that appropriate places do exist here for people to move beyond the APUG charter and discuss digital/hybrid. The main place would be DPUG.

But for some reason no one wants to do that, even though that's exactly what that site was created for in the first place. It seems as if no one wants to go there unless and until DPUG already has the same level of participation that took years to establish on APUG. And until that happens everyone refuses to go first.

So how about something like this?

Once the updated system software is in place, thus (hopefully) allowing much greater ease of member mobility and topic visibility, perhaps a small incentive should be offered. Something like three additional months of subscription added to every member's account, provided that member authors at least 30 relevant posts on DPUG within those same first three months.*

The idea being, if members won't start using DPUG because it's the more appropriate forum for discussion of their digital/hybrid topics, then maybe they will start using it for the $6 reward of additional subscription time?

And if there is truly the enormous backlog of pent up demand for digital discussion (as we are continually being told), then 30 posts per person over three months should be a piece of cake for these members. Even if only 50 people took advantage, that's 1,500 new posts in ~12 weeks. A very nice start.

Maybe the difficulty for many digital members is just in taking that inital first step? Thresholds can be a bitch for some people. So who knows? Grease the ways with a little vigorish and maybe the DPUG liner finally slides smoothly and cleanly right down into the water.



Ken

* Or whatever other reward level the management may deem appropriate. This is just an example, so don't start yelling at Sean that you want your three months NOW...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

OK...

So the problem seems to be that appropriate places do exist here for people to move beyond the APUG charter and discuss digital/hybrid. The main place would be DPUG.

But for some reason no one wants to do that, even though that's exactly what that site was created for in the first place....

The bank robber Willie Sutton is supposed to have said he robs banks because that's where the money is. In the case of the APUG and DPUG Forums, users come to APUG over DPUG because that's where the people are.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yes, that indeed is the premise. But the meat of the post comes after that. A constructive suggestion of perhaps one way to deal with and overcome that premise.

Something needs to be done. A case could be made that the worst outcome might be if we are six months into the upgrade, and yet again sitting in another one of these divisive threads with the usual suspects still demanding that APUG include digital because DPUG is only inhabited by crickets.

Not likely, you say? Well, I never would have thought it likely the first time around either. But membership inertia proved far stronger than I imagined, and we still today have no way of knowing how deep that pool really is...

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK...

So the problem seems to be that appropriate places do exist here for people to move beyond the APUG charter and discuss digital/hybrid. The main place would be DPUG.

But for some reason no one wants to do that, even though that's exactly what that site was created for in the first place. It seems as if no one wants to go there unless and until DPUG already has the same level of participation that took years to establish on APUG. And until that happens everyone refuses to go first.

So how about something like this?

Once the updated system software is in place, thus (hopefully) allowing much greater ease of member mobility and topic visibility, perhaps a small incentive should be offered. Something like three additional months of subscription added to every member's account, provided that member authors at least 30 relevant posts on DPUG within those same first three months.*

The idea being, if members won't start using DPUG because it's the more appropriate forum for discussion of their digital/hybrid topics, then maybe they will start using it for the $6 reward of additional subscription time?

And if there is truly the enormous backlog of pent up demand for digital discussion (as we are continually being told), then 30 posts per person over three months should be a piece of cake for these members. Even if only 50 people took advantage, that's 1,500 new posts in ~12 weeks. A very nice start.

Maybe the difficulty for many digital members is just in taking that inital first step? Thresholds can be a bitch for some people. So who knows? Grease the ways with a little vigorish and maybe the DPUG liner finally slides smoothly and cleanly right down into the water.



Ken

* Or whatever other reward level the management may deem appropriate. This is just an example, so don't start yelling at Sean that you want your three months NOW...

The well stated problem starts with the digi-snappers wanting to bitch rather than use their brains to post in DPUG.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." now translates to "You can lead a digi-snapper to DPUG but you can't make them think."

Every time a digi-snapper joins APUG, the launch threads complaining about the APUG charter. I wonder if the problem is the mentality for people that do this

and this ===> Student's selfie on Brooklyn Bridge railing prompts NYPD response

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/students-selfie-on-brooklyn-bridge-railing-prompts-nypd-response/

Do digital cameras come with automatic lobotomies? Does Photo$hop come with lobotomy upgrades?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It might just be that fewer people are doing real hybrid work than we might imagine.

The alt-process world is small to begin with, and the subset of that world that is hybrid is less than the whole, though the possibility of making digital negs has brought in a whole new audience that might not otherwise have gotten involved in making handcoated prints.

There are some other excellent resources for digital photography and digital post-production also frequented by members of DPUG, and perhaps those dedicated forums established before DPUG are just better at attracting that audience. Of the group of photographers who are shooting film and digitizing it, this is also likely to be much smaller than photographers shooting digital for digital output, and the number of those who are even making fine digital prints (as opposed to outputting to the web or shooting for publication where the photographer is often not involved in the print process) from digital originals is surely a smaller subset of that.

At the beginning, DPUG attracted mainly people making handcoated prints from digital negs, but the culture of that audience didn't blend well with the culture of those who wanted to scan film and output digitally, even if some of the technical issues overlap. I'm not sure one forum can overcome that cultural divide.

I hope the new forum architecture improves things, but the question of how many people are really doing the work, and how much these different groups think they have to say to each other, may make a hybrid forum or a digital version of APUG a slim proposition.

 

[eddie]

This is APUG. It is what it is. I'm starting to think there are people here who go to Chinese restaurants, demand lasagna, then get pissed off because it isn't available.

 

[ozphoto]

This is APUG. It is what it is. I'm starting to think there are people here who go to Chinese restaurants, demand lasagna, then get pissed off because it isn't available.

Loving this analogy!!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It might just be that fewer people are doing real hybrid work than we might imagine.

This has sorta' been my unspoken but common sense presumption all along, albeit without any hard data to back it up.

If the APUG film/digital hybrid practitioners, both alt and straight, were truly a significant chunk of the overall imaging game, then they wouldn't be so quick to frequently point out that APUG is the only place they have to go because of the film side of the hybrid equation.

If there were lots of them, supply and demand would dictate there would also be lots of additional places to go. Just like the straight digital interest groups.

So if as they claim this truly is their only realistic choice on the entire Internet, then that speaks volumes regarding their small overall numbers. And it strongly hints as well to at least one reason that DPUG is so barren.

Management presumably created DPUG to be able to handle the same 75,000+ members that APUG currently handles, except there may actually only be 6,351 of them, with only the same fraction as APUG of those being active members.

Thus the crickets.

Ken

 

[ozphoto]

I hope the new forum architecture improves things, but the question of how many people are really doing the work, and how much these different groups think they have to say to each other, may make a hybrid forum or a digital version of APUG a slim proposition.

I think by being able to combine the two, it may be an advantage - simply because you'll be able to see both forums (am I reading the situation correctly??) as a whole, not as two separate sites.

I don't do a ton of hybrid work (the majority is scanning prints for me to use on website, send to clients etc) however, I am interested in that side of the coin, so that the results I get are of high quality.

DPUG is unfortunately forgotten by me, simply because I *don't* use it as I do film; by having it readily accessible from APUG and VV, I'm hoping I will start to get more from it and be able to (maybe?) have some input too.

Hybrid is here to stay - you can't get away from this fact, no matter how hard you may want to hide from it. The internet has seen to this - you can't have a website without scanning your prints/negs/alternate process creations.

However, that doesn't mean that analog is dead, nor that digital is king - it simply means they will be living as neighbours and every so often APUG will head over to DPUG for a beer, and DPUG might take a liking to APUG's coffee and pay a visit and a chat.

Living in the same house isn't possible, but visiting every now and then is more than palatable - as long as you bring the snacks to share!!.

 

[RobC]

I don't see the need to have two separate domains, Apug and Dpug. They could both be under one domain but in two separate top level forums. It so easy to exclude a forum from your views/searches that even if they are under one domain you don't need to ever see any of the D stuff.

The problem is that people keep being a PITA and break the rules by posting D stuff in the A forums. My suspicion is that they will continue to do so simply becasue they can get away with it. This seems to me like it is resolvable by simply using a more active moderation policy.

Hey ho, we'll see what if any effect the new setup has on this issue.

 

[pdeeh]

Back to the question posed in the thread title ... How about Darkrid Hybroom ?

Although that does sound as though JK Rowling might have copyright already ...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am thinking that I go to APUG and can click on the forums I want to see and unclick the others... kinda like I have never opened the soapbox , or lounge.

If this is how its going to work I would be a happy camper.
QUOTE=RobC;1953760064]I don't see the need to have two separate domains, Apug and Dpug. They could both be under one domain but in two separate top level forums. It so easy to exclude a forum from your views/searches that even if they are under one domain you don't need to ever see any of the D stuff.

The problem is that people keep being a PITA and break the rules by posting D stuff in the A forums. My suspicion is that they will continue to do so simply becasue they can get away with it. This seems to me like it is resolvable by simply using a more active moderation policy.

Hey ho, we'll see what if any effect the new setup has on this issue.[/QUOTE]

 

[RobC]

There could be many reasons why two domains are preferable that I am not aware of such as perfomance issues. But it looks like traffic/posts on Dpug are fairly light compared to Apug.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I just tried to post an image in the Gallery .. holy warnings ville..

pretty scary stuff .. not sure if this place is where I need to be in the future..lets hope the roll out is good, I may just have to take my bat and ball and leave.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why be afraid of polar bears magically transported via Fauxtoshop to some tropical island? Heck, the polar ice cap is melting. They don't have
anywhere else to go.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Just noticed this on LFF. An 8x10 sensor.

http://largesense.com/

"Sheet film work flow is slow. Worried about getting the shot? Try taking 24 shots a second, and not letting up! (with fast external drive connection)"

A motor drive 8x10. Contemplative photography becomes spray and pray...



Ken

 

[removed account4]

I came to this forum six years ago. Off and on poster as my photo interests wax and wane. In 2009, one could not ever suggest or admit using a computer after developing film. Screams of "Heretic!", "Blasphemy!". "Bun him on a stake!" abounded.

Six years later we have any number of posters that confess ("Forgive me Great Yellow Father, for I have sinned.") to using post-development computers for bringing the old silver halide images to life. Even if inkjet, and nothing prevents one from making a custom halide print. And that some use digital cameras as Polaroids in studio shooting. Still, some pitchfork bearers, but the crowd is thinning on the way to the castle. I think.

I have posted my strong opinion, and some agreed, that if the "hybrid darkroom" keeps film alive, it's all for the good. And perhaps some are lucky enough to be able to appreciate film and then do the wet darkroom. For me, a great scanner and decent software has kept me in the film game. I would have had to abandon film if not for this, um?, development. To say nothing of being able to reclaim images of dubious parameters, or damaged.

Anyway, while "hybrid darkroom" made some sense once upon a time, I don't think it does anymore. Adobe went genius with the staking turf of their Lightroom program name. I hate Adobe, but my hat is off on that bit!

"Hybrid Darkroom" implies that all processes are done in the dark. We know that they are not, anymore.

What are your thoughts, if you even care?

I'm thinking along the lines of "Hybrid processing."

What say you?

paul, yes, i care ... but i am not permitted to say that here ...

but getting back to your question, i know of folks that refer to the set up as you describe it as a light room.
film is processed and prints are made in the dark room, the other stuff you mention
gets taken care of in the light room ... but that name might be trade marked by a manufacturer.

 

[pdeeh]

Or we could just call it "photography"

 

[cliveh]

What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

How about Grey-Room Processing

 

[removed account4]

I don't think the correlation between format size and contemplation is nearly as strong as people make it out to be anyway.

if a press photographer shooting 4x5 or a portrait photographer shooting 8x10 had to contemplate every photograph they made there wouldn't be any news photography, or portraits. i can't see weegee or karsh waiting a long time to make a photograph ...
differnet strokes for different folks as they say ..

Or we could just call it "photography"

exactly!
it IS photography, but some don't believe it is photography ..
... can't please everyone

 

[gzinsel]

I like analog and digital output ! it makes the most sense. I like analog and digital capture. it makes the most sense. I DO like darkroom and lightroom terms, they are NICE. these are terms to explain PLACE, in process and generally speaking, what equipment I use.Over all I wouldn't be too concerned with the semantics,its easy to fret over the smallest details.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I wouldn't worry about it, Ken. Honestly I don't think the correlation between format size and contemplation is nearly as strong as people make it out to be anyway.

I agree it's not a direct link. More like an indirect one where several dots need to be connected to get from cause to effect.

There is of course no direct correlation between the surface area of a negative and how much one contemplates what goes on it. But there is, I think, a correlation between the cumbersome nature of the equipment designed to expose those larger negatives, and the time one has available during the exposing process to contemplate what one is doing.

Early this morning I was out with a Wista 45-DXII field camera. My first exposure, one I had somewhat scoped out in advance, took almost exactly 30 minutes, soup-to-nuts. This time was spent doing all of the logistical stuff that is made necessary by that equipment set.

Had I done the same subject with a TLR, possibly 83.33% of that logistical stuff disappears and I would likely have been done in 5 minutes. Had I used a 35mm, even quicker.

The indirect link comes not because of format size, it comes because of the unavoidable extra setup and breakdown and image management tasks unique to the larger format size. For instance, I certainly don't need to think about lens plane tilts relative to the film plane with that TLR, so TLRs are faster in use.

Because those extra tasks must be performed, one therefore has much more time to think about the image one is trying to put on film. That's were the extra contemplation comes from.

It's just human nature that if for whatever reason one has more time to think, generally one will think more.

Ken

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I like analog and digital output ! it makes the most sense. I like analog and digital capture. it makes the most sense. I DO like darkroom and lightroom terms, they are NICE. these are terms to explain PLACE, in process and generally speaking, what equipment I use.Over all I wouldn't be too concerned with the semantics,its easy to fret over the smallest details.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Problem is people are way more interested in discussing and debating process rather than focus on results. It's why we see all too often people posting strong opinions on equipment and technique but if you ask them to post the results achieved from the technique or equipment of their strongly-held opinion to back up the results gotten from such it's too often silence....

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd say somebody like Karsh would have been extremely nitpicky about format, gear, film, developers, lighting, the whole nine yards. I've had long discussions with one of Hurrell's main assistants about this kind of thing. Ease of retouching was a huge issue back then, and that meant the bigger the film, the better. Even 8x10 wasn't always the norm - more like 11x14, which was perfectly feasible in a studio setup. Of course, nowadays there are all kinds of wannabee apps for the digi crowd. But that's pretty much what they come out looking like too. It's not about what is allegedly "best", but what is most appropriate to the desired end result. An oil painter uses one kind of brushes, a watercolorist needs an entirely different type. I'm personally a format schizophrenic who enjoys everything from 35mm to 8x10; but I have
specific reasons for each format, each film. One does not hunt rhinoceros with a squirrel rifle, or visa versa.

 

[removed account4]

I'd say somebody like Karsh would have been extremely nitpicky about format, gear, film, developers, lighting, the whole nine yards. I've had long discussions with one of Hurrell's main assistants about this kind of thing. Ease of retouching was a huge issue back then, and that meant the bigger the film, the better. Even 8x10 wasn't always the norm - more like 11x14, which was perfectly feasible in a studio setup. Of course, nowadays there are all kinds of wannabee apps for the digi crowd. But that's pretty much what they come out looking like too. It's not about what is allegedly "best", but what is most appropriate to the desired end result. An oil painter uses one kind of brushes, a watercolorist needs an entirely different type. I'm personally a format schizophrenic who enjoys everything from 35mm to 8x10; but I have
specific reasons for each format, each film. One does not hunt rhinoceros with a squirrel rifle, or visa versa.

hi drew

i agree karsh would have been nit picky about format &c, i worked with someone who worked the same way ... big sheet film, rembrandt lighting, lead on the film &c
but she didn't spend 2 hours setting up a portrait, even when it was the gov. of the state or the head of a local corporation. the idea that one needs to
spend endless time doing endless light studies and readings &c to do all large format photography is an exaggeration ( and unfortunately a lot of people say these exaggerated things )
... personally, i use an 11x14 camera to make portraits, 35mm, 4x5-8x10 to do location work and i have never spent huge amounts of time contemplating the photographs i was to take.
i have been doing HABS/HAER work since 1991 as well, i have never contemplated my views for huge amounts of time. when i do editorial portraits or did newspaper work ...
if i spent a large amout of time contemplating i wouldn't have gotten assignments ( i photographed CEOs, CFOs/big wigs, supreme court justices heads of state &c )
... maybe it is because my background is in architecture and preservation planning and oral historiesi know about the built
environment, or i have been profesisonally making portraits since 1986 and interviewing people since 1980 so i am used to what i am doing ...
its got nothing to do with hunting rhinos with a bee bee gun, or squirrels with an elephant gun ... some people work faster/differently than others.
im not saying there is anything wrong with taking a long time to make sure things look " just right " im saying it isn't always like that ... and it has nothing to do with format.
but unfortunately people paint folks who use LF gear takes 3 hours to make an exposure &c ( people even describe themselves doing that ) ... I'm just saying it isn't always the case.