What's going on??

Photo Engineer · Mar 26, 2017

As I have also said, "do what works for you".

It may not work for everyone though.

And this is where things get complex and messy.

PE

pentaxuser · Mar 26, 2017

I can understand tedr1's sentiments but as jnanian said he was actually looking for personal recommendations and there is in fact no 1+1 times for D76 or for that matter ID11 at 1+1 for D3200 that either manufacturer has listed. My point was that there appears to be a trend here that we "cut such posts much less slack" than we used to.

pentaxuser

ic-racer · Mar 26, 2017

For those that have never seen a single thread on those subjects. Not one.

Magnification and Subject area for reverse mounted lens?
intent to use this lens with an apsc camera

Save those blad lenses, folks ...
??? :confused: That link points to a digital camera.

Stolen Leica M8 reappeared ....
the M8 is a digital camera

Sharpest aperture for my Nikkor lenses?
Been looking to sharpen up the corners a bit. Trying to strike that balance. I'm using a very crappy Lomography smartphone scanner right now, so maybe that's why. I'll have to see about getting a negative viewer.

Schneider Xenoplan C-Mount Lenses?
it looks like they could be used for certain digital cameras

Dark band showing in Nikon F4 exposures
Looks like a scanning issue. The combo of SFX 200 and...

Josef Hoflehner's prints - What kind of process is this?
Benrubi Gallery (representation in USA for Hoflehner) sells the plane pictures as inkjet prints. That is not a film or darkroom process.

Strange drop shadow effect
I tried several settings on my scanner and maybe I still have to find the right one

Hasselblad, streaks on photos - something is wrong
these are neg scans you've done using an Epson scanner, yes? If so, it's not your camera, it's the scanner

Too much contrast
Another scanning question. I am trying to scan a few negatives.

Awesome effect from overhead florescents

He used no name 135 color negative film, converted to BW in post process.

Blotchy grain. Any suggestions?
This image is a crop ("100%"), that was scanned at 4800dpi. I think it shows the blotchiness

I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please
Are we looking at a scan or a print? The image is from a scan,

Will any film cameras work with my micro four third lenses?
I have a collection of micro four third lenses (nokton voigtlander, panasonic, rokinon). I shoot with a Panasonic GH3

removed account4 · Mar 27, 2017

oh well ...

can't wait for the upgrade !

pdeeh · Mar 27, 2017

Boy, there's no need to shout ... All recent? This year?
Actually I don't really give a fuck, tbh.

klownshed · Mar 27, 2017

I don't get the total aversion to digital.

What's wrong with scanning a negative? I scan all of mine. I print them in the darkroom when I can, and think that printing is the best part of the whole process. But I also scan all my negatives. We live in a digital world and you don't have to disown ones and zeroes to take a photo with a film camera.

When i started developing my own film I didn't have a darkroom. I had no idea if I would ever print a photo in the darkroom, but I did know that I could develop my own film and then scan it. Had I not started with a hybrid workflow I would never have progressed to darkroom printing.

The animosity you get on this site by mentioning scanning is unhelpful to those starting out (and even those of us that continue to scan even when they do have a darkroom). It's now part of film photography whether the grumpy old bastards like it or not.

Also, I don't get why so many people feel entitled to police the forum. Leave it to the mods.

Starting to develop your own film can be daunting. Shouting at people because they haven't burnt their DSLR doesn't help encourage film photography.

Helinophoto · Mar 27, 2017

(there was a url link here which no longer exists): I agree completely, I also had a scanner before I got my enlarger and much to the credit of the hybrid-workflow, I wanted to learn more and progress further
.
But there are steps being made, to integrate hybrid-workflows and even *D* stuff on here, without ruining the all-analog site:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

moose10101 · Mar 27, 2017

klownshed said:
Starting to develop your own film can be daunting. Shouting at people because they haven't burnt their DSLR doesn't help encourage film photography.

Do you think the site is designed (or intended) to encourage film photography among non-film users?

klownshed · Mar 27, 2017

moose10101 said:
Do you think the site is designed (or intended) to encourage film photography among non-film users?

Why do you ask? Is it intended or designed to discourage them?

BrianShaw · Mar 27, 2017

We need some consistency here - all images on this site are scanned yet there is frequent criticism of folks participating but not posting pictures. Scan, but don't talk about it...

Luckless · Mar 27, 2017

Yes, but it isn't "real" photography if a computer was involved... It is apparently highly questionable if it was real photography if you didn't haul your water up a mountain in a leaky bucket before you developed it by hand...

Supporting the even the nearest hint of the idea of hybrid workflows, or anything remotely resembling them, will give the slobbering hoards a foothold, and then next they will be here to destroy everything we all hold dear! It couldn't possibly encourage people to explore working with film more or act as a stepping stone to get more people curious about classical darkroom work. That would be crazy.

klownshed · Mar 27, 2017

ic-racer said:
I need an opinion on what is wrong with this negative please
Are we looking at a scan or a print? The image is from a scan,

How could anybody show a problem with a negative on an Internet forum without scanning it? At some point, you have to turn the image into ones and zeroes or nobody online can see it. If you have a problem with a negative, it makes sense to scan the negative. Printing it first would then require the print to be scanned. That’s just inserting a layer of obfuscation.

tedr1 said:
I saw that question also and came to the conclusion the poster had read neither the developer instructions or the film instructions. I had two choices, post saying "RTFM", or pass, I passed.

Coincidentally, I actually replied to that post as I when I first got my Jobo I was unsure about using it with B&W film. So What do you do when you are unsure of something?

Oh yeah, shut up and RTFM. So I did that and read Ilford and Jobo Manuals. Ilford say don't pre-wash. Jobo say you should pre-wash. Helpful.

So you ask a question and open yourself up to being patronised by anonymous, probably old, curmudgeons.

There are (there was a url link here which no longer exists) already, but they tend to end in arguments where the same old grumpy bastards try and show how clever they are by trying to out-knowledge PE on matters of photo chemistry. They fail of course, but it doesn't stop them dick waving. I thought it was preferable to not subject them to those threads. They don't actually help, you just get countless contradictions. (No you don't!) ;-)

klownshed · Mar 27, 2017

michael_r said:
Here we go again

Here we go again

macfred · Mar 27, 2017

what's going on ?

Raphael · Mar 27, 2017

klownshed said:
Here we go again

The Hives Mistakenly clicked to the next Youtube song, and it's also a perfect fit : "Hate to say I told you so"

tedr1 · Mar 27, 2017

Yes klownshed it is a strange phenomenon that while amateurs sometimes can agree on basic principals experts on the other hand sometimes cannot agree on details.

For myself, when it comes to technical details, I first RTFM, then if I find myself in unfamiliar territory I make experiments and take detailed notes until I find an answer.

removed account4 · Mar 27, 2017

moose10101 said:
Do you think the site is designed (or intended) to encourage film photography among non-film users?

yes! it is and film photography among film users ..
i guess as a non subscriber you see no benefit the gallery offers ?
even to cross over people who shoot film or are just starting to shoot film
it gives a reference point, whether it is a film scan or print scan ..
and that reference point might nudge someone into puting black-out in their bathroom
and converting it to a darkroom, or making enlarged negatives and contact prints using the sun.

moose10101 · Mar 27, 2017

jnanian said:
yes! it is and film photography among film users ..
i guess as a non subscriber you see no benefit the gallery offers ?
even to cross over people who shoot film or are just starting to shoot film
it gives a reference point, whether it is a film scan or print scan ..
and that reference point might nudge someone into puting black-out in their bathroom
and converting it to a darkroom, or making enlarged negatives and contact prints using the sun.

IMO, the gallery could be the most effective feature for enticing non-film photographers to give analog a try.

But not if it's behind a paywall.

And before anyone misinterprets this as an argument to give non-subscribers full run of the site, stop. I'm only suggesting gallery access FOR VIEWING. Hiding your work from people who might be interested seems self-defeating.

removed account4 · Mar 27, 2017

right, but to get the work into the gallery ..
it has to be converted to that format, so when
people have questions about how to do that
it makes sense to give them the answers ..
that is why i mentioned what i did...

Helinophoto · Mar 30, 2017

Another thing is reviving old threads.

I am notorious for doing this, since I google, and then usually end up in an old APUG discussion.
- someone almost always seem to get an itch from that though and comment that it's an old thread.

Why is that?

So what?

I think it's better to revive an old thread with a follow-up question, rather than creating a whole new thread, after all, then you have the old and the new information in the same thread.

RPC · Mar 30, 2017

Helinophoto said:
- someone almost always seem to get an itch from that though and comment that it's an old thread.

Why is that?

Usually because someone is responding to a question or comment made years ago, not realizing this, and think it is a recent thread. The person they are responding to may be long gone, not following APUG at the present time, or it may no longer be an issue for them, and thus the comment is made to alert them and everyone else to the fact.

flavio81 · Mar 30, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Many people simply don't read long threads that contain the answer to their question. They prefer to start a new thread and ask the question again. Remember that there is often no one answer to their question and it often takes a long thread to express all points of view. So, the long existing thread would be useful, and yet is not read.

PE

+1

And this is solved with "sticky" threads.
We need more threads to be put into sticky mode.

Anon Ymous · Mar 30, 2017

flavio81 said:
+1

And this is solved with "sticky" threads.
We need more threads to be put into sticky mode.

Well, yes and no. Stickies help, but too many of them ruin a subforum's page. Perhaps a "common problems - questions" sticky with pointers to other threads, or specific posts?

flavio81 · Mar 30, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
I am no expert in lighting nor am I an expert in esoteric points of camera collection or use. I have an RZ and an ETRSi

Aha!
I knew you were on the good side of the Force!!! Engineers have sensible choices!!

flavio81 · Mar 30, 2017

Anon Ymous said:
Well, yes and no. Stickies help, but too many of them ruin a subforum's page. Perhaps a "common problems - questions" sticky with pointers to other threads, or specific posts?

Yes, even better!!

I'm on many forum, one of them (benzworld, about Mercedes cars) uses this system. In this way if one has a certain problem with the car, one enters the 'sticky' of 'common car problems' and each post has a brief description of the problem, plus a URL that goes to the specific thread.

What's going on??

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency