What is a better term than "Hybrid Darkroom?"

[Paul Verizzo]

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?

 

[480sparky]

I scan film because it gives me a much better base image when shooting MF than digital does. The colors and tones I get from a high-res 6x7 scan just outstrips current DSLRs. I still enjoy working under the amber lights, however.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hybrid workflow works for me.

I use it to great advantage!

PE

 

[Trail Images]

For me, a great scanner and decent software has kept me in the film game.

Not sure I would ever care about the term being used for this approach, but it's the only photographic process I've done for 20 years now. I've not been in a wet darkroom since my days in the military.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I like the idea of bunning him. I would call it what it is computer work or Photo$hopping.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Nothing wrong with using hybrid film technology of any kind whatsoever. I personally use an Epson V750-Pro flatbed for all of my negative and print scanning needs. It's an excellent lower-pricepoint piece of hardware that can also accommodate my 8x10 film requirements. Great bang for the buck.

But I don't discuss that use here on APUG because it's off-topic and I respect the community's wishes in that regard. You obviously already know this. Yet you persist in disrespecting the community as a whole by continuing to push back against those wishes. Perverse entertainment? I dunno'...

But it's good to know that the APUG management is already one step ahead of you. Relatively soon now they will roll out a new system software upgrade that, through great effort and expense on their part, will try once again to accommodate your off-topic insistence by creating much improved access to the place where you can take these topics. A place where they are not off-topic, and so will entertain a much broader audience.

Then there will no longer be any reason whatsoever for you to be forced into injecting these off-topics here. You will have a more targeted readership from which to draw hybrid knowledge. And if you should inadvertently slip up, the moderation team will have new and improved tools to seamlessly help convert your off-topics back into on-topics with but a few clicks of the mouse.

Won't that be wonderful?



Ken

 

[hoffy]

This is going to end well....

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This is going to end well....

I agree...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

i came up with the expression "hybrid photography" 20+ years ago
and it didn't have anything to to with using a scanner.

who cares what it is called.

 

[albada]

I tell folks that "I shoot with classic mechanical cameras that take film, develop it myself, scan the negatives, fix them up in the computer, and have them printed at Costco." I call this whole process:

Dinosaur Digital​

Nobody forgets that!
But I keep thinking about building a darkroom like I had in High School. For now, my darkroom is a changing-bag.

Mark Overton

 

[Pioneer]

Each time I fight with one of my curly FB prints I think with some fondness of my other printing options.

 

[Wayne]

What he said. Nicer than I would have.

Nothing wrong with using hybrid film technology of any kind whatsoever. I personally use an Epson V750-Pro flatbed for all of my negative and print scanning needs. It's an excellent lower-pricepoint piece of hardware that can also accommodate my 8x10 film requirements. Great bang for the buck.

But I don't discuss that use here on APUG because it's off-topic and I respect the community's wishes in that regard. You obviously already know this. Yet you persist in disrespecting the community as a whole by continuing to push back against those wishes. Perverse entertainment? I dunno'...

But it's good to know that the APUG management is already one step ahead of you. Relatively soon now they will roll out a new system software upgrade that, through great effort and expense on their part, will try once again to accommodate your off-topic insistence by creating much improved access to the place where you can take these topics. A place where they are not off-topic, and so will entertain a much broader audience.

Then there will no longer be any reason whatsoever for you to be forced into injecting these off-topics here. You will have a more targeted readership from which to draw hybrid knowledge. And if you should inadvertently slip up, the moderation team will have new and improved tools to seamlessly help convert your off-topics back into on-topics with but a few clicks of the mouse.

Won't that be wonderful?



Ken

 

[pbromaghin]

Hybrid is the only way I have to print. I have come to hate it, but that's the way it is, so I tolerate it. As a programmer, I have been chained to a keyboard and mouse for 30+ years, and digital printing of analogue photography is my only outlet. In fact, I don't like the "analog" vs "digital", and prefer "chemical" vs "electronic", because it is a much more accurate representation of reality.

I can't wait for the day when I can print my own fully chemically-derived photographs in my own basement darkroom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Edwin Land used the term Hybrid many years ago predicting all the options we have today, it's the best term still to describe the Analogue/Digital interfaces in photography.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Tisk

Stick a plaque on door

'toilet'

Noel

 

[Dr Croubie]

I started on digital, then came MF lenses on adapters, then MF cameras, a scanner, an inkjet, LF cameras, then paterson tanks, then finally a jobo, an enlarger, and a darkroom full of paper and chemicals.
I still scan all my negs, for this I prefer to use the terms "backup", and "triage" - we can't all afford the time or money to print out everything on a roll (even as small as 4x6") in order to decide what to print large.
But for the whole scanning / inkjet process in general, I think the term that sums it up the best is "gateway drug".

 

[Lamar]

Agreed!! I've always felt using the term "analog" to describe film photography processes was wrong.

...............I don't like the "analog" vs "digital", and prefer "chemical" vs "electronic", because it is a much more accurate representation of reality?......

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

The only 'hybrid' processing I'm interested in is digital capture going to digital negatives followed by analog print.scanning film is not hybrid in my book.That's wanna be analog.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hybrid workflow works for me.

I use it to great advantage!

PE

You just can't letgo of film and this allows you to claim still be using film.You are a digital user in hiding!.Come clean

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Nothing wrong with using hybrid film technology of any kind whatsoever. I personally use an Epson V750-Pro flatbed for all of my negative and print scanning needs. It's an excellent lower-pricepoint piece of hardware that can also accommodate my 8x10 film requirements. Great bang for the buck.

But I don't discuss that use here on APUG because it's off-topic and I respect the community's wishes in that regard. You obviously already know this. Yet you persist in disrespecting the community as a whole by continuing to push back against those wishes. Perverse entertainment? I dunno'...

But it's good to know that the APUG management is already one step ahead of you. Relatively soon now they will roll out a new system software upgrade that, through great effort and expense on their part, will try once again to accommodate your off-topic insistence by creating much improved access to the place where you can take these topics. A place where they are not off-topic, and so will entertain a much broader audience.

Then there will no longer be any reason whatsoever for you to be forced into injecting these off-topics here. You will have a more targeted readership from which to draw hybrid knowledge. And if you should inadvertently slip up, the moderation team will have new and improved tools to seamlessly help convert your off-topics back into on-topics with but a few clicks of the mouse.

Won't that be wonderful?



Ken

great! Get these ixel peepers out of here

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I tell folks that "I shoot with classic mechanical cameras that take film, develop it myself, scan the negatives, fix them up in the computer, and have them printed at Costco." I call this whole process:

Dinosaur Digital​

Nobody forgets that!
But I keep thinking about building a darkroom like I had in High School. For now, my darkroom is a changing-bag.

Mark Overton

Dinosaur digital sounds great! I love it.Hybrid sterts digital and ends analog!

 

[gone]

Is it really that off topic? If someone is shooting film in a film camera and developing the film.....its a film process. We have to electronically convert things to get them up here for people to see.

My memories of inkjet printing are not good! Expensive scanners, tedious hours cloning little teeny spots on the image, tiring of staring at a computer monitor, cantankerous printers that ate paper and ink like some primordial dragon, and expensive finicky papers. It's much preferable walking around and standing in the "darkroom" (bedroom w/ blocked out windows).

It's an issue I'm conflicted on. Any way you can get the thing on the wall is absolutely true. That's the important part. But the other part of me says, no, traditional photography is one thing, using all of these electronic gadgets is something else. I posted something in the lounge the other day (that's always a safe haven for borderline things) about how I have all these RC 8x10's on the wall from getting the feel of a new enlarger, new lens, and new paper. That seemed the smart thing to do before working w/ the bigger papers. With those proofs, I put up some prints that had been sent to Snapfish for printing a long time ago. Can't really tell them apart, except that the RC prints aren't laying as flat. Also made some comparison prints using RC and fiber paper of the same neg and can't see much if any difference between them either. Minimal stuff in the whites and blacks, but very subtle. Might need to switch from glossy to matte for that fiber look or something. And aren't the Snapfish prints optical in a sense too? I mean they're not inkjet, they're on real photo sensitive paper.

As to what to call things, it probably doesn't matter.

 

[ME Super]

Hybrid, schmybrid. I do both chemical and electronic photography. To get my slides into prints, the easiest (and most accurate with currently available technology) involves using electronics.

Having said all that, I dislike inkjet prints printed at home. The quality of those isn't as good as a print on real photo paper (or, horrors! an inkjet print from a so-called "dry photolab"), and I don't have my own darkroom, so I prefer to let others do my printing.

For me, at least, a hybrid workflow lets me have the best of both worlds.

 

[fdonadio]

Agreed!! I've always felt using the term "analog" to describe film photography processes was wrong.

I agree too! Someone with a distorted sense of reality rechristened traditional photography as "analog photography" after the advent of digital.

Digital is the different and new process. Photography has been there for decades, always all the same: chemical.

By the way, I also agree with another poster: there's nothing inherently wrong with using digital photography manipulation, but insisting that a forum dedicated to traditional photography accommodates the topic is plain wrong.

And, to be honest, I scan my slides and negatives for easier browsing of my archives.


Flavio


Sent with Tapatalk. Please, forgive autocorrect and my fat fingers.

 

[mr rusty]

I think this forum is better for being restricted to talking about wet/chemical processes only. There are other places to discuss other things. I know we all involve electronic means, even if only to get our prints in the gallery, but agree it doesn't have to be discussed here. It is slightly ironic though, that if you send a neg to Ilford for them to print, it gets scanned and then printed on photopaper by lightjet...............