Why hybrid?

[removed account4]

when the grey area was here
there were never ending flame wars.
EVEN with the "ignore forum" option activated
it didn't really matter because flames followed
people from place to place, and the nastiness polluted
apug in general. it's too bad people can't play nice ...

 

[Ken N]

Bill, I recon that between the two of us, if we wanted to wake up HybridPhoto we probably could. But the question is "do we want to?"

These forums are "communities". It is so frustrating that in the alt-process world that you can freely discuss 90% of everything involved, but should one person say "hey, I have this one negative with a scratch and I needed to digitize it for repair", but otherwise everything is still the alt-process the poor guy gets crucified for going off the reservation.

As a community, we discuss not only the technology and technique, but things related or sometime barely related to the technology and technique. This is one reason why the OM List is so blasted unique, because we'll as freely discuss our camera haulers as we do our cameras. Unfortunately, other online communities are rarely as free-form as the OM List.

I'm leary of mentioning the presence of my laptop in the darkroom. Talk about a bridge too far. Sometimes we are a bit "Amish" around here, but if that's the rules, I guess that's the rules.

 

[nsurit]

Hmm, I have no interest in an "either/or" war about analog vs digital and doubt that anyone who has an interest in alternative photographic processes whould be so inclined. Think about it.

It surprises me that a "troll" who took the side of digital in an analog vs digital war would find themselves in an alternative photographic processes discussion. Think about it.

Most, if not all, current literature about alternative processes talks about digital negatives. An example, for any who have an interest, would be Christopher James', "The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes." Considered by many to be the definitive text on the subject, it is worth a read by any serious student of the subject. Other means of producing negatives is also discussed, however I would not avoid reading it if I were an analog purist as there is much to be learned from the images and the techniques.

My observation about the amount of traffic on Hybridphoto site is just that, an observation, not to be confused with a complaint. My request to have an intelligent conversation about the merits of including hybrid photos in an alternative discussion group on APUG, was just that, a request. A request that was based on reason and logic. One that I thought would bring something to the table that was of value. Some have seen it as an opportunity to see the possibilities of such a change. Others have not.

Biill Barber

 

[Sirius Glass]

It surprises me that a "troll" who took the side of digital in an analog vs digital war would find themselves in an alternative photographic processes discussion. Think about it.

Well, I guess that you are surprised.

Now go back and look at the threads in the past on this subject. If almost everyone is telling you that it was tired and did not work, the problem is not the site but your unyielding position. Think about it.

Steve

 

[jd callow]

Unfortunately, in the sister site, there is disagreement of what is proper "hybrid". Some say digital camera, analog output, others say analog source, digital output. Frankly, it's all so childish, no matter how you slice it. At least we're not like that other all-digital site out there.

This is patently incorrect.

Hybrid has far more signal to noise than any list I know of (including APUG) and there is no debate on the site about what is hybrid (although we did discussed it early on), nor has there ever been any need for moderation.

Any change will come from dialog with Sean and discussion on this site, rather from "yelling" at offenders for past or current misdeeds. Assuming what you say is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, all APUGers are being adversely affect by the actions of a few. I would like to see the "Gray Area" be re-opened. In my opinion the hybrid.com site has not been a particularly successful experiment. Bill Barber

There will be no change in the site. There is always crossover from digital to traditional and the line has been drawn at the most easily identifiable area. If digi negs were allowed, then scanning would need to be included as well as the best output device and then there would need to be work flow and on and on.

APUG is a tradition photo site. Full stop. Nothing more or less. Its uniqueness and success is due to its narrow scope.

 

[Ian Leake]

APUG is an analogue community before it's an alt process community. Personally I regret the hybrid separation but I also see the merits of simple, clear rules which everyone can understand. Ultimately, separation of hybrid is the settled will of the community and as such I accept it. There are more important things to worry about in life.

 

[Ian Grant]

It surprises me that a "troll" who took the side of digital in an analog vs digital war would find themselves in an alternative photographic processes discussion. Think about it.

Biill Barber

Easy if the thread is listed as a New Post, you don't always notice what sub forum it's listed as being in.

What might be useful would be a small number articles (in that section on APUG) by a respected Member/Subscriber on Basic scanning for the Web, and for submitting to magazines etc, Making Digital negatives for Alternative processes, Copying prints (of all types) for the web etc (sometimes a camera copy is better than a scan). The articles would be closed to further posts, but have a link to the relevant section of the Hybrid Forum (for further discussion).

I think the Hybrid Forum uses a different database so closer integration isn't possible, but better cross linking would be helpful.

Ian

 

[archphoto]

Bill, I recon that between the two of us, if we wanted to wake up HybridPhoto we probably could. But the question is "do we want to?"

These forums are "communities". It is so frustrating that in the alt-process world that you can freely discuss 90% of everything involved, but should one person say "hey, I have this one negative with a scratch and I needed to digitize it for repair", but otherwise everything is still the alt-process the poor guy gets crucified for going off the reservation.

As a community, we discuss not only the technology and technique, but things related or sometime barely related to the technology and technique. This is one reason why the OM List is so blasted unique, because we'll as freely discuss our camera haulers as we do our cameras. Unfortunately, other online communities are rarely as free-form as the OM List.

I'm leary of mentioning the presence of my laptop in the darkroom. Talk about a bridge too far. Sometimes we are a bit "Amish" around here, but if that's the rules, I guess that's the rules.

I think you are right: we should use the technique that is best suited for the job at hand.
On the other hand, in case of the scatched neg one could mention the possibility of doing a negative retouch, a technique that is more elaborate to do, but allso gives one the oportunity to stay within the "old" techniques.

"Use PhotoShop" for that is the magical thing now a day's into the absurd, I have heard that too often lately.

Oddly I have never heard of a digital negative that can be put into an enlarger to make a carbon print from a digital image.......
Shure, it would be hybrid, but still it could be a part of the old process renewed.

Peter

 

[garysamson]

I would assert that many, if not most. folks doing alternative processes, processes that that date back to the beginning of photography, use negatives that have been created by scanning a negative and enlarging it. There are some who use large format cameras and contact print from a negative, however these are certainly in the minority. \
Bill Barber

What evidence are you basing this statement on? The majority of photographers I know who print using alternative processes work from in-camera negatives. In the college where I teach our photography students use 4x5 cameras to make original negatives for our handmade photography course and discussion on negative making for handmade processes here and on the large format forum suggest that many, many photographers are using large format cameras to make negatives specifically so they can explore platinum, cyanotype, kalitype and albumen printing processes etc. I am no doubt a bit biased, but if I want to make a 12x20 palladium print I am going to use a camera and film as part of the process to accomplish it.

 

[archphoto]

I agree with you, every student in photography should learn how to work with a TC, it is the most versitile camera there is.
I have learned more about camera-technique with the TC than any other camera I have.

Peter

 

[nsurit]

Gary, My statement is simply a reflection of my limited experience. It may not reflect the real world, although I suspect that there are many more folks enlarging smaller negatives than those using a 12 X 20 camera. Most of my recent alt. process work has been 6 1/2' square prints made from enlarged 2 1/4 square negatives. I have done some from 4X5 negatives however that is not the format in which I normally work. Regardless of the film format from which my negative originated I've enjoyed working in alternative processes. I've worked from original negatives and also from enlarged ones. I big advantage I see from working with an enlarged negative, other than the obvious of its giving a larger image, is I don't have to worry about the possible damage to my original. I've discovered several ways to damage them. As you know, most alt process work does not have to be done in a darkroom. Non-analog enlargement of ones negatives opens this type of old process photography to those who don't have the luxury of a darkroom and/or a large/ultra large format camera. Kind of makes it available to everyone with an interest in learning a new old way of doing things. Bill Barber

 

[MattKing]

The only complaint I have about the APUG vs. hybridphoto dichotomy is that it should be easier to refer users back and forth between threads on the respective sites.

Matt

 

[Ian Leake]

Bill. There's no doubting that digital negatives offer people new ways to work; much the same as digital cameras offer people new ways to work. But APUG is analogue not digital.

 

[nsurit]

Amen, brother. They always seem to have trouble finding the woodshed. Bill Barber

 

[nsurit]

Ian, "Uncle." There I said it. I recognise a "no possibility" conversation when I see one. I do wonder why negative scans are allowed by those who wish to keep the water pure. Bill Barber

 

[Sirius Glass]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... snort, snort ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[jd callow]

I do wonder why negative scans are allowed by those who wish to keep the water pure. Bill Barber

Bill,
do a search. This subject has been gone over many times. The gist is that in many instances it is easier to get a digital image that looks more like the print when scanning the neg than it is when scanning the print it self. This is true for myself. We do ask that when people who scan negs post images that look either like the print or like the print they intend to make. Everyone knows it is not perfect. It does leave the site open for some criticism, but far less than we received when we had the grey area and far less than we would receive if we tried to enforce a print only image posting.

I do appreciate that you didn't or haven't called APUG out for haveing a gallery made up of scans (digital images) as most do when arguing for a grey area or against the site's orthodoxy.

 

[Ian Grant]

You raise another issue here Mister Callow. I can but I rarely do scan negs (up to 5x4) and actually it's remarkably easy to emulate how they'll print, on my usual FB papers digitally.

Against my base instincts I may have to go down that route as I have no darkroom access for around 10 moths of each year, and it would let me pre-visualise and edit before I go into extremely limited darkroom time.

Ian

 

[Ken N]

So do I need to remove the laptop computer from the darkroom?

 

[archphoto]

Ken, why should you ?
As long as it doesn't fog your paper......

As for the scanning of neg's is concerned: a friend of mine came back from Poland with some horrible flat B&W 35mm neg's.
She wanted to waste them, I scanned some and raised the contrast, results: the neg's were saved and printed and looked a lot better than previously thought.
So even the hybrid part can help you in the darkroom to get better prints.

Peter

 

[markbarendt]

As for the scanning of neg's is concerned: a friend of mine came back from Poland with some horrible flat B&W 35mm neg's.
She wanted to waste them, I scanned some and raised the contrast, results: the neg's were saved and printed and looked a lot better than previously thought.
So even the hybrid part can help you in the darkroom to get better prints.

Peter

So what.

IMHO your friend had the right idea, trash the junk, learn the lessons, and back off to Poland to try again.

AFAIAC the biggest curse of Digital is getting sucked into wasting time saving something that should be trashed.

If we (the users of APUG) were to start using digital as a crutch any time analog methods get tough or inconvenient we'd end up as a digital forum.

Our photographic aspirations and APUG's focus doesn't need to be practical, easy, or fit everybody's life. That is not what makes APUG special.

APUG is special because it's focus is Analog.

 

[nsurit]

Here are a couple of images that were selected for the Plastic Fantastic exhibition with the Texas Photographic Society. Both are traditional silver gelatin prints enlarged in the darkroom. Both have also been printed using hybrid alt processing techniques. Actually the first two are mine. All 52 that were selected are on this site. Bill Barber

http://www.lostcanuck.com/studio/exhibitions/fant/

 

[markbarendt]

Here are a couple of images that were selected for the Plastic Fantastic exhibition with the Texas Photographic Society.

And your point is what?

That good work can be done in a hybrid workflow.

That somebody here fudged the rules.

People can do good work in a full digital workflow too.

It doesn't mean I want to discuss color management or get back into the digital rat race.

People can do good work in a full analog workflow too.

None of this is exactly breaking news.

So, my question for you is why is it so important pollute this site with hybrid ideas when there are so many other sites that deal with digital?

 

[nsurit]

Mark, have a pleasant night. Bill Barber

 

[jd callow]

Mark,
Bill's point seems to be that if he can't get his way than at least he will needle people. Amazingly similar to what other members have done in the past under the same and similar circumstances.

Which reminds me there is a hybrid group here on apug: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) Try it out.