PDA

View Full Version : New Category for Alternative Printmaking via various digital means



bob carnie
18-Jul-2015, 10:35
Is it possible to start a dedicated area for us print makers using digital and wet process. ?

I for one would love to see this area of printmaking more cataloged here as a forum topic.

paulr
18-Jul-2015, 11:04
It could be called the Demilitarized Zone.

bob carnie
18-Jul-2015, 11:08
good one,,, or the meeting of minds


It could be called the Demilitarized Zone.

ndg
18-Jul-2015, 11:24
What about the "Handmade Print" sub forum? That would encompass all alternative-made prints including those made with digital negatives.

bob carnie
18-Jul-2015, 11:31
I like this - I would love to see it open to any and all methods of making prints.
What about the "Handmade Print" sub forum? That would encompass all alternative-made prints including those made with digital negatives.

jp
18-Jul-2015, 13:37
What about the "Handmade Print" sub forum? That would encompass all alternative-made prints including those made with digital negatives.

+1

ndg
18-Jul-2015, 14:16
Mods, would you consider a poll? Like you did for the ULF sub-forum?

Randy Moe
18-Jul-2015, 14:26
Not picking sides, but I think digital to wet deserves it's own place or we end up with 'unknowns to knowns' or something like that.

lecarp
18-Jul-2015, 15:29
Since the image has been digitized at some point to produce the final print, it would seem more appropriate to use the digital processing sub-forum.

ic-racer
18-Jul-2015, 17:10
The rules for the darkroom are : Lounge, unless it is Large Format. Where is the "Large Format" in a Lambda print since no film is involved?

Kirk Gittings
18-Jul-2015, 17:53
Where is the "Large Format" in a Lambda print since no film is involved?

digital printing from scanned large format-but should be in the "digital processing" sub forum anyway (for "Software, printing, workflow").

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 05:48
We are making 30 x40 lambda silver films, have been for about 6years.
use them for contacting onto all types of media..
we do not discriminate against any film format coming into the machine.

The rules for the darkroom are : Lounge, unless it is Large Format. Where is the "Large Format" in a Lambda print since no film is involved?

Randy
19-Jul-2015, 05:49
I was just going to see about suggesting a sub forum for alternative processes, as I am going ga-ga over cyanotypes as of late. It's fine being all lumped together in the image sharing page but it would be nice if it had its own label on the main forum page, then seperated by type of alternative process, kind of like the f/295 forum (http://www.f295.org/main/forum.php).

Doug Howk
19-Jul-2015, 05:55
Is the proposed workflow a digital capture with iPhone, etc; massaged in PS or similar software; printed on transparent material for a digital negative; then printed on paper using an alternative process? Where is large format photography part of this workflow?

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 06:34
Ok good point.. just replace 8x10 film scanned for Iphone .

I hope this does not turn into a stupid pissing contest like what we see sometimes.

How about a Alternative Wet Process Hand made print catagory.. I really don't care how people get to the point of laying down tone on paper but I would like to see a dedicated forum, this
is actually something I think would take off nicely.

And FYI all the work I do personally is on a 4 x5 sinar and 8 x10 century camera, which is then made into tri colour gums and this would be the workflow I would like to talk about. I am sure there are many other print makers here that could jump on and discuss their particular methods137124



Is the proposed workflow a digital capture with iPhone, etc; massaged in PS or similar software; printed on transparent material for a digital negative; then printed on paper using an alternative process? Where is large format photography part of this workflow?

Ralph Barker
19-Jul-2015, 07:00
We are making 30 x40 lambda silver films, have been for about 6years.
use them for contacting onto all types of media..
we do not discriminate against any film format coming into the machine.

As I see it, Bob, the current "Digital Processing" sub-forum would probably be appropriate for the discussion of elements of your workflow occurring after scanning the original negative. If the original negative is LF, scanning issues would also go there. If the original negative is not LF, scanning issues would be Lounge topics. However, once the digital internegative is created, contact printing that internegative would go into the current "Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing". Sharing the resulting printed images would take place in one of the "Image Sharing" sub-forums.

We could, however, explore the feasibility of an Alternate Process Printing sub-forum. The print negatives (contact or otherwise) would still be 4x5 or larger, some of them being produced digitally.

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 07:11
We could, however, explore the feasibility of an Alternate Process Printing sub-forum. The print negatives (contact or otherwise) would still be 4x5 or larger, some of them being produced digitally.

Hi Ralph - thanks for jumping in ..

A space where all this Alternative process printing discussion would be very helpful... for example I have not looked into the lounge , since the day I joined this forum , It did not even
occur to me that I would find discussion of printing there.
I am quite sure there are many workers here that could benefit from a concentrated sub-forum- myself included.

Bob

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 08:35
I am looking at Safe Haven for Small Format. as well Images from medium format. Both are really well viewed.

I always know what I am getting into with these two forums.. that is what I am kind of thinking for Alternative Process printing.

jb7
19-Jul-2015, 08:47
I've just shot some 4x5, and I don't have an enlarger so I would find it difficult to produce a wet print without a digitally produced internegative. Really, do we have to penalize large format photographers on the off-chance that some people would be able to use the same processes for non LF originals? In my opinion, this subject would be lost in the lounge, which I hardly ever visit either...

dwross
19-Jul-2015, 08:48
Is it possible to start a dedicated area for us print makers using digital and wet process. ?

I for one would love to see this area of printmaking more cataloged here as a forum topic.

+1

Oren Grad
19-Jul-2015, 09:40
Really, do we have to penalize large format photographers on the off-chance that some people would be able to use the same processes for non LF originals?

We don't do that now, and we don't intend to do it in the future. Any methods that our members use to process images and arrive at a print are fair game for discussion in the main sections, so long as 1) the original capture is large format and 2) the discussion is focused on application of the methods to large format captures.

The restriction that is relevant works the other way around: threads that are purely about applying alternative methods to original captures that are not LF belong in the Lounge. For example, the fact that an inkjet internegative is large, or a final alt-process print is large, doesn't make the process "large format" for purposes of this forum if the original capture was not.

A separate section to discuss alt-process printmaking for pictures that started as LF captures would certainly be within our scope. Whether there is enough interest among members to justify such a section is a good question to raise and discuss here.

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 09:54
Hi Oren

I think that there would be great interest , as now we are seeing many alt prints being desired by collectors and gallery's. I think this will only grow and I would love to see a dedicated area here on Large Format Forum.

I understand the LF aspect , in my case for my personal work I comply, but I do have to admit that over the next few years the bulk of the work I do for a living using these methods do not fall into original LF capture.
I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.

I have been trying my best to convince another site to allow just this topic and it seems that will be fruitless.

I would hate to be told to go somewhere else as the two sites I frequent has most of the wet workers in the World, unless there is something else out there I am not aware of.



We don't do that now, and we don't intend to do it in the future. Any methods that our members use to process images and arrive at a print are fair game for discussion in the main sections, so long as 1) the original capture is large format and 2) the discussion is focused on application of the methods to large format captures.

The restriction that is relevant works the other way around: threads that are purely about applying methods to original captures that are not LF belong in the Lounge. For example, the fact that an inkjet internegative is large, or a final alt-process print is large, doesn't make the process "large format" for purposes of this forum if the original capture was not.

A separate section to discuss alt-process printmaking for pictures that started as LF captures would certainly be within our scope. Whether there is enough interest among members to justify such a section is a good question to raise and discuss here.

Oren Grad
19-Jul-2015, 10:18
I understand the LF aspect , in my case for my personal work I comply, but I do have to admit that over the next few years the bulk of the work I do for a living using these methods do not fall into original LF capture.
I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.

I have been trying my best to convince another site to allow just this topic and it seems that will be fruitless.

Both APUG and LFF were created to support specialty interests. As the market has evolved, both of these specialty interests have become smaller niches, and more vulnerable to being overrun by other interests if their original purposes are not carefully delineated and sustained.

Hand-crafted alt-process work is different from digital in the sense that it's unlikely ever to have anywhere near as large a market presence. But in its core, defining focus it really is a different interest from both film-capture photography per se and large-format-capture photography per se. I think ideally, alt-process printing as a core interest would have its own discussion community, while specialty forums with a different core focus such as APUG and LFPF could have subsections addressing the application of alt-processes to their respective domains. Yes, that means there would be overlap, but I think fruitful exchange as well.

Those of us who are members of both are well aware of the flak that APUG sometimes gets for trying to maintain a distinctive focus. It's not our place to tell them how best to pick their way through this minefield, though we wish them well however they proceed. But for our purposes here, I think we do need to worry about the risks that would posed to the core mission of the Forum by tacking on a new mission that is fundamentally different and might potentially, over time, grow to become a tail that wags the dog.

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 10:31
Those of us who are members of both are well aware of the flak that APUG sometimes gets for trying to maintain a distinctive focus. It's not our place to tell them how best to pick their way through this minefield, though we wish them well however they proceed. But for our purposes here, I think we do need to worry about the risks that would posed to the core mission of the Forum by tacking on a new mission that is fundamentally different and might potentially, over time, grow to become a tail that wags the dog.


I am one of those agitators, I admit. .. I have been researching this alternative printmaking wormhole for quite a time and as a long time member I do think a sub forum would be a great asset to this site.

I think you are saying the same thing Yes / No? I think the risks are minimal.. There will come a day when large format sensors will be available for all our big ass cameras and a discussion form that relates to a way of printing them in a permanent artistic method would be a natural fit here.

Oren Grad
19-Jul-2015, 10:49
Hand-crafted alt-process work is different from digital in the sense that it's unlikely ever to have anywhere near as large a market presence. But in its core, defining focus it really is a different interest from both film-capture photography per se and large-format-capture photography per se. I think ideally, alt-process printing as a core interest would have its own discussion community, while specialty forums with a different core focus such as APUG and LFPF could have subsections addressing the application of alt-processes to their respective domains. Yes, that means there would be overlap, but I think fruitful exchange as well.

In fairness to APUG, I should clarify that their mission is defined not in terms of film capture, but rather end-to-end analog processes. So whereas alt-process methods that include digital processing and/or output stages are considered on-topic here so long as they relate to LF captures, APUG excludes alt-process approaches that involve digital processing and/or output techniques.

Doug Howk
19-Jul-2015, 11:06
Bostick & Sullivan maintain a forum on alternative processes which, as far as I can tell, allows discussions that include digital capture.

bob carnie
19-Jul-2015, 11:08
I am aware of that I purchase the bulk of my alt materials from them..
But I am hoping to discuss it here in a dedicated forum?

Bostick & Sullivan maintain a forum on alternative processes which, as far as I can tell, allows discussions that include digital capture.

lecarp
19-Jul-2015, 11:25
Hi Oren


I am hoping we can make some room for any and all capture as it relates to wet alt prints.





Why, when it goes directly against the point of this forum, which is large format photography, arguably the most traditional form of photography. Large format photography is about film and negatives, like it not. Negatives that can be used to make alt process prints.

I also find it odd that people who defend the original purpose of this forum against digital intrusion are the bad guys. It would be different if
this forum had been started to promote digital and we were trying to now ban digital. I have nothing against digital in its proper place, I don't personally believe this should be that place.

Oren Grad
19-Jul-2015, 11:52
Why, when it goes directly against the point of this forum, which is large format photography, arguably the most traditional form of photography. Large format photography is about film and negatives, like it not. Negatives that can be used to make alt process prints.

I also find it odd that people who defend the original purpose of this forum against digital intrusion are the bad guys. It would be different if
this forum had been started to promote digital and we were trying to now ban digital. I have nothing against digital in its proper place, I don't personally believe this should be that place.

We are not APUG. Digital methods are within scope here so long as they relate to large format capture and/or processing of large format captures.

Bob is raising an entirely different question: whether LFPF should host a forum whose core interest is not large format but rather a defined set of printing methods and associated processing techniques.

Corran
19-Jul-2015, 15:27
"Alternative Processes / Printmaking (Large Format Capture)"

Y/N?

Still restrictive but on the other hand, how many people here are shooting smaller formats / digital and making larger digital negatives, compared to shooting LF / ULF and making direct contact prints with alt processes?

Personally, the more I think about this, the more I think the forums here could benefit from a bit more inclusion by adding an additional subforum - a catch-all for small formats that almost all of us shoot in addition to LF. Perhaps placed below the "Community" subforum. But that's a topic for another thread, I guess. I don't post at APUG and have no interest in it, so this affects my perspective (and I also quit RFF earlier this month due to what I consider censorship).

Kirk Gittings
19-Jul-2015, 16:18
Why, when it goes directly against the point of this forum, which is large format photography, arguably the most traditional form of photography. Large format photography is about film and negatives, like it not. Negatives that can be used to make alt process prints.

I also find it odd that people who defend the original purpose of this forum against digital intrusion are the bad guys. It would be different if
this forum had been started to promote digital and we were trying to now ban digital. I have nothing against digital in its proper place, I don't personally believe this should be that place.

The LF digital sub-forums forums here go back to 1998 and were introduced by the sites founder and owner, QT Luong.

NedL
19-Jul-2015, 18:06
...
Still restrictive but on the other hand, how many people here are shooting smaller formats / digital and making larger digital negatives, compared to shooting LF / ULF and making direct contact prints with alt processes?
...

I'm new here and won't venture an opinion. Until recently my contact prints are all from LF or 122 film sized negatives ( "almost LF" at 3.25 x 5.5 inches ). Recently though, I've become interested in a way of making enlarged paper negatives and will be focusing a lot of attention on it this fall. And I think that is also one of the main attractions of the bromoil process, which uses an enlarged negative, compared to the dichromated gelatin oil pigment process which needs a full-sized negative. My work is 100% analog, so I can talk about it at APUG and I can talk about the great majority of it here. But I'll probably be one of the few making alt process prints from both small and large format negatives.

In any case, it's interesting to think of things from the printmaking perspective, once we are past the source of the negative, then most aspects are the same. I have recently had my eyes opened about the world of printmaking ( not just photographic ) and how much is out there that you don't really pick up just from reading about "alt process". A whole world of techniques to learn about and explore.

Kirk Gittings
19-Jul-2015, 18:12
once we are past the source of the negative, then most aspects are the same.

Indeed even in traditional photography or digital printing from scanned film or even enlarging onto silver gelatin paper. When I was moderating (not saying I was right) I tried to look at a post taking into account if the technique could be used in some form for LF photography. And if it could it was of potential use to LF photographers and could stay. That was a bit too loosy goosy for some but it made sense to me.

Jim Fitzgerald
19-Jul-2015, 18:42
Since the image has been digitized at some point to produce the final print, it would seem more appropriate to use the digital processing sub-forum.

I agree with this. My understanding has always been that this is a Large Format Photography Forum. I think that like it or not the digital negative is becoming the norm. As we age the big cameras get harder to carry so we go to digital in some point of the process. Some do not have darkrooms available.
I am a traditional film large and Ultra large format photographer and alternative printer. I will be for as long as I can.

I think there is a need for a separate area for the digital negative wet print. Unfortunately IMHO I see so much of it that it is becoming the norm I feel.
So,this is the way technology is going but I feel that this is not the place in the main forum for these discussions. If something is needed then Bob can be the moderator because he has the expertise and I'm sure many others do as well. A sub forum would be the place.

I believe that the forum is for the film shooters and any digital interface should be separate.

Randy Moe
19-Jul-2015, 19:30
A big part of what we doing here is buying, using, preserving LF and ULF in the manner already prescribed. The originating sensor, film et al, must be nominal 4x5" or larger period, to be LF.

BUT we do include ALL forms of imaging in our sub forums and are far more inclusive and simultaneously exclusive than any other forum. We have it all, right now!

Let's not muddy our purpose, let's see all that is imaging.

Add a category to a category wherever mods decide.

Now back to developing 2x3 sheets. :)

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 06:11
Jim - I would be the worst moderator the internet has ever seen.. but thanks for thinking of me.

I do promise that if a sub forum is started to be an active contributor, I have done ton's of research and have gone down many wormholes with this and had fantastic mentoring when needed(Sam, Sandy , Ron Reeder, PE over on APUg, Ian and Ian , and countless others who share their info.
Right now I have three young workers on the case putting countless hours learning to coat, make neg's, process out and also they are all working on long term projects. So I have an overload of Alternative Process, right now and would love to put it out there in a simple , but singular space where others can access it.

I doubt any of what I have learned is new, or threatened to leave us , but I think it would be fantastic to have it availble to those on this site and visitors.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 06:34
I believe that the forum is for the film shooters and any digital interface should be separate.

I think you mean that you want the forum to be just for film shooters. The forum included digital 9 years before you joined.

Ralph Barker
20-Jul-2015, 07:55
I think you mean that you want the forum to be just for film shooters. The forum included digital 9 years before you joined.

Not really. "Digital" includes everything digital, whereas what we have included is the subset of digital that relates to processing LF negatives for digital printing, making digital internegatives for alternate process printing, etc. - all based off of LF capture. Although there has been some confusion and some stretching of the rules from time to time, we have never been about all things digital.

Doug Howk
20-Jul-2015, 07:55
The ideal solution would be to have a recognizable site name for alternative photographay and host the forum there. Unfortunately, some time ago AlternativePhotography.com closed their forum. Maybe someone should contact Ms Maitlin to arrange hosting a forum on some other server than hers.

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 08:55
Doug I would think a new site for this would be great, but I my case I only look at two sites- Large Format and APUG . I am pretty faithful with this and I would have to drop on of these sites to go to a third..

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.


The ideal solution would be to have a recognizable site name for alternative photographay and host the forum there. Unfortunately, some time ago AlternativePhotography.com closed their forum. Maybe someone should contact Ms Maitlin to arrange hosting a forum on some other server than hers.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 08:58
Not really. "Digital" includes everything digital, whereas what we have included is the subset of digital that relates to processing LF negatives for digital printing, making digital internegatives for alternate process printing, etc. - all based off of LF capture. Although there has been some confusion and some stretching of the rules from time to time, we have never been about all things digital.

Thats what I meant. Didn't think I had To mention LF digital uses. Thought that was a given. We did include Betterlight backs for many years.

Betterlight Scanner back posts go back to 2000 even though they have always been a bit smaller that 4x5.

Ralph Barker
20-Jul-2015, 09:58
Thats what I meant. Didn't think I had To mention LF digital uses. Thought that was a given. We did include Betterlight backs for many years.

Betterlight Scanner back posts go back to 2000 even though they have always been a bit smaller that 4x5.

I just wanted to clarify the semantics, since the dichotomy between how rules are perceived (or, misconstrued for any number of reasons) and how they are enforced is always a matter of semantics. ;)

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 09:59
I just wanted to clarify the semantics, since the dichotomy between how rules are perceived (or, misconstrued for any number of reasons) and how they are enforced is always a matter of semantics. ;)

indeed :)

Joe Smigiel
20-Jul-2015, 10:42
I agree with this. My understanding has always been that this is a Large Format Photography Forum. I think that like it or not the digital negative is becoming the norm. As we age the big cameras get harder to carry so we go to digital in some point of the process. Some do not have darkrooms available.
I am a traditional film large and Ultra large format photographer and alternative printer. I will be for as long as I can.

I think there is a need for a separate area for the digital negative wet print. Unfortunately IMHO I see so much of it that it is becoming the norm I feel.
So,this is the way technology is going but I feel that this is not the place in the main forum for these discussions. If something is needed then Bob can be the moderator because he has the expertise and I'm sure many others do as well. A sub forum would be the place.

I believe that the forum is for the film shooters and any digital interface should be separate.

I very much agree with Jim and think any discussion or gallery about digital printing, alternative process or not, should be separate from discussion/exhibition of handmade prints using in-camera LF/ULF negatives.

Has everyone forgotten/abandoned DPUG? That forum comes to mind immediately for such things.

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 11:00
DPUG ship sailed long time ago Joe.


I very much agree with Jim and think any discussion or gallery about digital printing, alternative process or not, should be separate from discussion/exhibition of handmade prints using in-camera LF/ULF negatives.

Has everyone forgotten/abandoned DPUG? That forum comes to mind immediately for such things.

Vaughn
20-Jul-2015, 11:25
What does everyone think about the sub-forum/thread we already have for this topic? Is it working for those using it?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111611-Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 11:28
Has everyone forgotten/abandoned DPUG? That forum comes to mind immediately for such things. Haven't paid any attention to APUG/DPUG in maybe a decade. The rigidity and separation seemed counterproductive to me. Maybe that is what some people want and need but my photographic life involves using the best tool for the situation and sometimes that is film and sometimes that is digital and sometimes that is both in some hybrid mix.

Vaughn
20-Jul-2015, 11:35
Kirk, APUG/DPUG is going through a big change in their software that will hopefully make it easier to go between the two...and pick up more activity for DPUG.

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 12:34
I have posted on this Thread but what I am hoping that a Sub Forum on the home page for Alternative Printing could contain Threads that are exactly
like this one . I would hope to keep them all in one place so everyone can view or ignore.

Actually this is the thread that got me thinking about all of this sub forum or forum stuff.



What does everyone think about the sub-forum/thread we already have for this topic? Is it working for those using it?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111611-Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 12:35
I am hopeful Vaughn but there really is a lot of nonsense to deal with to think this will ever happen smoothly or at all.



Kirk, APUG/DPUG is going through a big change in their software that will hopefully make it easier to go between the two...and pick up more activity for DPUG.

sanking
20-Jul-2015, 12:55
What does everyone think about the sub-forum/thread we already have for this topic? Is it working for those using it?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111611-Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives

Putting aside all of the other issues that is really all that is needed to satisfy Bob's request, a sub-forum called Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives.

I really don't understand why that should be an issue for anyone, the thread itself did not seem to bother anyone!!

Sandy

Randy Moe
20-Jul-2015, 13:02
Putting aside all of the other issues that is really all that is needed to satisfy Bob's request, a sub-forum called Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives.

I really don't understand why that should be an issue for anyone, the thread itself did not seem to bother anyone!!

Sandy

+1

Oren Grad
20-Jul-2015, 13:06
Putting aside all of the other issues that is really all that is needed to satisfy Bob's request, a sub-forum called Alt-Process-Prints-from-Digital-Negatives-or-Positives.

I really don't understand why that should be an issue for anyone, the thread itself did not seem to bother anyone!!

Sandy, that thread is in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else)" section, which is a carved-out exception to our general rule of LF-only and is intended to be limited to discussion around member-made pictures. Setting up a separate subforum for general discussion of tools and techniques that is explicitly defined to include non-LF capture, as Bob would like, would be a deeper break with the long-established mission, policy and clear identity of this Forum and thus is a step that would require careful thought and strong justification.

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 13:12
All I can ask is some consideration on this request .. thanks

Sandy, that thread is in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else)" section, which is a carved-out exception to our general rule of LF-only and is intended to be limited to discussion around member-made pictures. Setting up a separate subforum for general discussion of tools and techniques that is explicitly defined to include non-LF capture, as Bob would like, would be a deeper break with the long-established mission, policy and clear identity of this Forum and thus is a step that would require careful thought and strong justification.

Vaughn
20-Jul-2015, 13:17
Sandy, that thread is in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else)" section, which is a carved-out exception to our general rule of LF-only ...

That is also my thinking, although I certainly would support the idea of an Alternative Photography sub-forum.

Sandy, your Carbron (carbon printing) Yahoo Group is a great resource, especially for those using digital negatives. The amount of information and the community there is just fantastic. Perhaps you would be willing to open it up to all alternative processes , including using digital negatives for silver gelatin printing. It would be a great asset to the photographic community.

paulr
20-Jul-2015, 14:17
Bob is raising an entirely different question: whether LFPF should host a forum whose core interest is not large format but rather a defined set of printing methods and associated processing techniques.

It's worth keeping in mind that most the digital negatives people are talking about are large.

Also many of the printing techniques people use them for are antique processes that this forum has always been friendly to.

In my mind the reason for a sub-forum is that this is a complex and specialized discipline. I don't do it, but if I did, I'd like to have a sub-forum dedicated to it. This is a pragmatic argument, not a political one. Political/religious analog vs. digital feuds just bore me.

bob carnie
20-Jul-2015, 14:19
I wish I could have said that at the beginning. thanks Paul


It's worth keeping in mind that most the digital negatives people are talking about are large.

Also many of the printing techniques people use them for are antique processes that this forum has always been friendly to.

In my mind the reason for a sub-forum is that this is a complex and specialized discipline. I don't do it, but if I did, I'd like to have a sub-forum dedicated to it. This is a pragmatic argument, not a political one. Political/religious analog vs. digital feuds just bore me.

Oren Grad
20-Jul-2015, 15:25
It's worth keeping in mind that most the digital negatives people are talking about are large.

Also many of the printing techniques people use them for are antique processes that this forum has always been friendly to.

In my mind the reason for a sub-forum is that this is a complex and specialized discipline. I don't do it, but if I did, I'd like to have a sub-forum dedicated to it. This is a pragmatic argument, not a political one. Political/religious analog vs. digital feuds just bore me.

There's no problem at all with discussion of any or all of those processes here. And as was noted earlier in this thread, a separate section to discuss alt-process wet printmaking for pictures that started as LF captures would certainly be within our scope. We're watching this discussion closely, and may yet post a poll to help us gauge interest. This has nothing to do with digital-vs-traditional: relevant digital tools and methods have been welcome here and will continue to be, as will other processes yet to be invented, if they prove to be useful to the LF photographer. So as you say, the decision about a possible specialty subforum is a purely a pragmatic one, and we'll make it on that basis.

But the extra wrinkle of Bob's proposal in particular is that he wants it to be explicitly *not* a subforum just about LF use of these tools. He would like to take advantage of the resources of the LFPF, which have been donated to the mission of sustaining a large format discussion community, to host a general-interest subforum on wet-print alternative processes. In Bob's vision of this subforum, all, including those whose work begins in small format and has nothing at all to do with LF, would be invited to participate. Accordingly, the subforum would host, among others, discussion threads addressing questions that have nothing to do with LF. Indeed, non-LF threads could well come to dominate such a subforum, because the number of people starting with small-format captures who might conceivably be interested in these methods is potentially quite a bit larger than the number of LF users who will be.

I think that these methods are wonderful tools for the artist and craftsman, that such an all-comers forum would have the potential to be a lively, productive community, and that the idea of launching one somewhere makes a lot of sense. But I have very serious doubts about whether it would be appropriate, or wise for the health of the LFPF, to host it here, and so far I've seen no arguments that address that.

TXFZ1
20-Jul-2015, 16:17
Sandy, that thread is in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else)" section, which is a carved-out exception to our general rule of LF-only and is intended to be limited to discussion around member-made pictures. Setting up a separate subforum for general discussion of tools and techniques that is explicitly defined to include non-LF capture, as Bob would like, would be a deeper break with the long-established mission, policy and clear identity of this Forum and thus is a step that would require careful thought and strong justification.

Too funny, irony at it's best. The ULF peoples cried for a new section by saying they used different processes than LF (still haven't figured that one out) received moderator support. Bob is asking for a section that is defined by real or true different processes than traditional LF, just happens that small format or digial is also supported by these processes but the moderators cry out foul. My 0.02, create an alternative process section and let the chips fall where they may, everybody learns from the processes.

David

sanking
20-Jul-2015, 18:20
Hi Vaughn,

Thanks for your kind remark about the carbon yahoo forum. Its success is due in large part to the generous sharing of knowledge and information about carbon printing by folks like yourself, so thank you for that as well. We are fortunate to have so many accomplished individuals contributing to the forum.

As for the rest, since the forum does appear to be working so well let's not leap into the wild unknown and open it up to the rest of the alternative community!! I truly wish some of the forums were more inclusive of the knowledge base, but I can not change the world, only my part of it.

Sandy

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 19:03
Too funny, irony at it's best. The ULF peoples cried for a new section by saying they used different processes than LF (still haven't figured that one out) received moderator support. Bob is asking for a section that is defined by real or true different processes than traditional LF, just happens that small format or digial is also supported by these processes but the moderators cry out foul. My 0.02, create an alternative process section and let the chips fall where they may, everybody learns from the processes.

David

Agreed, but moderators change and/or evolve in their thinking. The "moderators" now are not the moderators then, even if some are the same people.

Oren Grad
20-Jul-2015, 20:31
Let's try to take the heat out of this. Here's a recap of what's actually on the table:

1) Can we discuss hybrid alt-processes here?

Yes, such discussion has been welcome all along and will continue to be.

2) Can we have a subforum that's dedicated to hybrid alt-processes as they are applied to LF captures?

No reason why not, just depends whether the interest level is high enough. That's something we're trying to figure out.

3) Should we have a hybrid alt-process subforum that invites participation by small-format users and addresses small-format-specific issues as well as large format ones?

I have my doubts, because the purpose of this forum is to support and sustain large format photography, and small-niche specialty forums are always at risk of being diluted out of existence if they don't keep a clear focus on their defined mission.

1) is a settled issue. Thoughtful comments on 2) and 3) are appreciated.

If you are in favor of 3), please offer positive arguments as to why you think it would help the Forum preserve and strengthen its large format mission.

Thanks...

TXFZ1
21-Jul-2015, 03:53
Agreed, but moderators change and/or evolve in their thinking. The "moderators" now are not the moderators then, even if some are the same people.

I'm discussing a time period of the last three months.

David

bob carnie
21-Jul-2015, 06:16
reply to 3.

It was not until 2009 that I learned how to use a large format camera, now I only use a large format camera. 4 x5 and 8 x10.

I joined in 2004 and by lurking on threads here and finally starting to add my 2cents I garnered a love for the larger format.. I believe many alt workers no matter what ilk over time if participating on
a Alternative sub forum here will get the bug like I did, as our great leader once said.. Its only logical.

Oren Grad
21-Jul-2015, 06:44
Thanks, Bob.

Kirk Gittings
21-Jul-2015, 06:51
As per#3. It is pretty simple in my simple mind. ANY discussion of hybrid alt-process technique is totally applicable to LF usage of same. Just as any discussion of silver printing technique is totally applicable to LF silver printing.


Let's try to take the heat out of this. Here's a recap of what's actually on the table:

1) Can we discuss hybrid alt-processes here?

Yes, such discussion has been welcome all along and will continue to be.

2) Can we have a subforum that's dedicated to hybrid alt-processes as they are applied to LF captures?

No reason why not, just depends whether the interest level is high enough. That's something we're trying to figure out.

3) Should we have a hybrid alt-process subforum that invites participation by small-format users and addresses small-format-specific issues as well as large format ones?

I have my doubts, because the purpose of this forum is to support and sustain large format photography, and small-niche specialty forums are always at risk of being diluted out of existence if they don't keep a clear focus on their defined mission.

1) is a settled issue. Thoughtful comments on 2) and 3) are appreciated.

If you are in favor of 3), please offer positive arguments as to why you think it would help the Forum preserve and strengthen its large format mission.

Thanks...

Oren Grad
21-Jul-2015, 07:34
As per#3. It is pretty simple in my simple mind. ANY discussion of hybrid alt-process technique is totally applicable to LF usage of same. Just as any discussion of silver printing technique is totally applicable to LF silver printing.

There is certainly much common ground, and we already allow for that in discussions of silver and hybrid techniques.

OTOH, if someone comes along asking how to adjust the condensers on his Omega B-22 so that he can get even illumination in prints from 6x6 cm negatives, it goes to the Lounge. Or how to optimize development or printing technique for a film that's not available in sheet formats. Or how to process and scan 35mm negatives. And so on.

Inclusion of small-format capture in a subforum about hybrid alt processes will also raise distinctive questions, particularly as relates to the front end of the capture-and-processing chain. I take Bob's point about small-format users potentially being inspired by exposure to LF talk - no doubt some will. But I think a likelier scenario is that such a subforum will become dominated by small format digital capture and discussion will mostly revolve around that, with the majority of participants ignoring, and a smaller group actively deprecating, the rest of the Forum.

Jim Fitzgerald
21-Jul-2015, 08:39
There is certainly much common ground, and we already allow for that in discussions of silver and hybrid techniques.

OTOH, if someone comes along asking how to adjust the condensers on his Omega B-22 so that he can get even illumination in prints from 6x6 cm negatives, it goes to the Lounge. Or how to optimize development or printing technique for a film that's not available in sheet formats. Or how to process and scan 35mm negatives. And so on.

Inclusion of small-format capture in a subforum about hybrid alt processes will also raise distinctive questions, particularly as relates to the front end of the capture-and-processing chain. I take Bob's point about small-format users potentially being inspired by exposure to LF talk - no doubt some will. But I think a likelier scenario is that such a subforum will become dominated by small format digital capture and discussion will mostly revolve around that, with the majority of participants ignoring, and a smaller group actively deprecating, the rest of the Forum.

I agree with this. I just finished the APIS conference at Art Center College of Design in Pasadena and this was about Alternative process work. Even the wet plate guys are scanning the plates. Some for digital presentation, printing etc. Most if they print were using traditional methods. I would say that the majority of photographers both young and old are using digital cameras and printing digital negatives and making large alternative process prints.
The talk of digital adjustments you can do before you print was a big topic of discussion. I was in the minority as a film LF/ULF photographer.
Just my take and .02 on this but I know how the discussion will eventually go. The question is where should it go. I feel not on Large Format Photography Forum.

sanking
21-Jul-2015, 13:38
As someone mentioned earlier, alternative photography could be considered an aesthetic sub-set of photography. The processes it embraces include historical processes such as albumen, carbon, tintype, pt/pd, etc. that were at one time mainstream commercial processes, but also control processes that developed during the period of Pictorialism, such as gum bichromate, oil, bromoil, etc.

Alternative printing is not about the type of equipment used in image capture, and never has been. It is about hand crafting a final print, and about the rejection of more normative methods of photography. The popularity of hand crafted photographic processes has increased in recent years because the mechanized nature of producing the final print has left many photographers detached and unfulfilled. The contemporary laser and inkjet printers are capable of producing prints of exceptional beauty, but with a lack of physical labor, or hands-on activities. In the present dim-room where alternative printers do their work, making a print requires a high level of individual problem solving. The many steps involved in making a print may seem like a lot of work, but the activity itself can be highly satisfying if successful. The handcrafted print consequently offers the potential for incremental improvement through small steps in individual customizations, and of small discoveries. These discoveries invariably lead to visual expressions that reflect the uniqueness of the individuals who made them.

The negative itself, however obtained, is only a part of the beginning process of making a hand crafted print, and how the image is captured, whether by a digital sensor, small or medium format film, or large format or ultra large format film, is hugely subordinate in importance to the process of hand crafting the print. For that reason, any discussion of the type of camera used for image capture is irrelevant. What matters is that the negative be developed (if film) or processed (if digital capture or digital through film scan) to enhance the alternative process for which it will be used.

Sandy

ndg
21-Jul-2015, 14:33
Sandy, very well said.


As someone mentioned earlier, alternative photography could be considered an aesthetic sub-set of photography. The processes it embraces include historical processes such as albumen, carbon, tintype, pt/pd, etc. that were at one time mainstream commercial processes, but also control processes that developed during the period of Pictorialism, such as gum bichromate, oil, bromoil, etc.

Alternative printing is not about the type of equipment used in image capture, and never has been. It is about hand crafting a final print, and about the rejection of more normative methods of photography. The popularity of hand crafted photographic processes has increased in recent years because the mechanized nature of producing the final print has left many photographers detached and unfulfilled. The contemporary laser and inkjet printers are capable of producing prints of exceptional beauty, but with a lack of physical labor, or hands-on activities. In the present dim-room where alternative printers do their work, making a print requires a high level of individual problem solving. The many steps involved in making a print may seem like a lot of work, but the activity itself can be highly satisfying if successful. The handcrafted print consequently offers the potential for incremental improvement through small steps in individual customizations, and of small discoveries. These discoveries invariably lead to visual expressions that reflect the uniqueness of the individuals who made them.

The negative itself, however obtained, is only a part of the beginning process of making a hand crafted print, and how the image is captured, whether by a digital sensor, small or medium format film, or large format or ultra large format film, is hugely subordinate in importance to the process of hand crafting the print. For that reason, any discussion of the type of camera used for image capture is irrelevant. What matters is that the negative be developed (if film) or processed (if digital capture or digital through film scan) to enhance the alternative process for which it will be used.

Sandy

Vaughn
21-Jul-2015, 14:38
...The negative itself, however obtained, is only a part of the beginning process of making a hand crafted print, and how the image is captured, whether by a digital sensor, small or medium format film, or large format or ultra large format film, is hugely subordinate in importance to the process of hand crafting the print. For that reason, any discussion of the type of camera used for image capture is irrelevant. What matters is that the negative be developed (if film) or processed (if digital capture or digital through film scan) to enhance the alternative process for which it will be used.

Sandy

Excellent points, Sandy. But for me and my work, the negative -- from setting up the camera, composing the image, exposing the film, and then to developing the film -- is highly important and not at all subordinate to the printing process. My negative is part of the entire process...and about in the middle of it, not the beginning.

#2 -- yes...a no-brainer for me.

#3 -- maybe. Following the guidelines for the forum (of which I approve of and like), any discussion about how to scan small format negs or how to use small format digital capture for making inkjet negatives would not be allowed. But the reality of it is that one does not need to mention the source of the digital files when discussing the making of inkjet negatives for alt processes. The problem may arise if someone asks what film and/or camera was used to capture a shared image. If the answer is "A Nikon D12057", then how can the forum justify not including images in the main forum area that were made on a 6x6 or 6x17 rollfilm camera?

Oren Grad
21-Jul-2015, 15:25
Sandy, that's an eloquent statement of why alternative photography deserves a forum of its own - and why it needs to be somewhere other than here.


The negative itself, however obtained, is only a part of the beginning process of making a hand crafted print, and how the image is captured, whether by a digital sensor, small or medium format film, or large format or ultra large format film, is hugely subordinate in importance to the process of hand crafting the print. For that reason, any discussion of the type of camera used for image capture is irrelevant. What matters is that the negative be developed (if film) or processed (if digital capture or digital through film scan) to enhance the alternative process for which it will be used.

This is a valid philosophy, but it represents a complete rejection of the philosophy, purpose and mission of this Forum. We will all be best served if a dedicated alternative photography forum lives in its own space, where the whole-hearted support of a community of like-minded practitioners will enable it to thrive, rather than being shoehorned into some other community where its philosophy is in fundamental conflict with that of the host and will serve as a constant source of friction.

This does not in any way preclude discussing alt processes here, or even having a distinct subforum here if interest warrants. But in this Forum alt processes are discussed in the service of large format photography, not the other way around.

sanking
21-Jul-2015, 16:22
Oren,

I would certainly appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I expressed a philosophy about alternative printing, not a rejection of large format photography, or of this forum.

Sandy

Oren Grad
21-Jul-2015, 17:48
Oren,

I would certainly appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I expressed a philosophy about alternative printing, not a rejection of large format photography, or of this forum.

Sandy

I observed that your philosophy of alternative photography conflicts with the philosophy of this Forum, and that a forum on alternative photography that is based on your view would be a poor fit here. That is all - no more, no less.

ndg
21-Jul-2015, 18:24
I must say that as an alternative photographic printer, the philosophy Sandy outlined holds true for me too. It surely does not jell with the philosophy of this forum but that does not make it any less true. It is great that this forum affords the opportunity to post prints made from digital negatives and positives besides prints from in-camera negatives. For that I am truly grateful. I also think that it is only fair to respect the founding principles of this forum. However, the only way for an alternative printer to really bloom and show all his/her work is in an environment where the printing method and not the method of capture is the more important issue. On that note, I totally agree with the idea that the solution would truly be a forum dedicated to the handmade print.

dwross
22-Jul-2015, 05:52
If a healthy number of us could come to agreement on where to go to discuss printing, and then actually go there with work and discussion, often and regularly, I think whatever site we chose would fly. That would be a nice thing.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 06:49
I am really hoping its here- Personally I do not have the ability , skills or desire to make a site .

I do notice that there are over 7 thousand views to this thread that just recently started so that may be a good sign.. Most of my threads end up with about 3-4hundred views if I am lucky.


If a healthy number of us could come to agreement on where to go to discuss printing, and then actually go there with work and discussion, often and regularly, I think whatever site we chose would fly. That would be a nice thing.

dwross
22-Jul-2015, 07:09
Bob,
Me, too, and actually I don't quite understand the objections to adding an appropriate sub-forum. This site has always been flexible around its key mission. That said, it's not my right to tell Oren, etc, how to run things. If the choice is this forum or nowhere, I guess I'd rather bend and move to a different (already existing) forum. DPUG fell apart when it lost its "hybrid" identity. It could thrive again if people posted.

Sal Santamaura
22-Jul-2015, 07:10
I am really hoping its here...Before retiring, I commuted 100 miles per day round trip for 33 years. While never displaying bumper stickers on my own car, I did read all that came into view on other vehicles. My favorite one was:


"I feel much better since I gave up hope."

:D

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 07:35
Thanks Sal - that's a lot of driving and for that to stick out for you.

My favourite from managing/playing on fastball teams for twenty years... Never Panic

Oren Grad
22-Jul-2015, 07:58
Me, too, and actually I don't quite understand the objections to adding an appropriate sub-forum.

Denise: once again, the issue is not about whether we can have a subforum here - we can, and maybe we will - but what the rules of engagement would be.


This site has always been flexible around its key mission.

Not quite. What we have been, and will continue to be, is very open to the many different ways in which our stated mission can be realized. For example, we've welcomed discussion of digital technology as it relates to large format photography. But we have not opened a subforum for wide-open discussion of any and all things digital, or to serve digital as a primary interest. The same logic applies here.

Oren Grad
22-Jul-2015, 08:08
I am really hoping its here- Personally I do not have the ability , skills or desire to make a site.

To state the obvious: you need to find some volunteers to help. With the passion on display here, it would seem that a dedicated forum should be a great success. But the acid test of commitment is whether anyone is willing to step up to the plate to make it happen.

BarryS
22-Jul-2015, 08:21
I find this forum and APUG useful because they each have a defined focus. By definition, having a focus means that certain topics are excluded. Digital negatives are great tools, and I appreciate that some LFF members make them with iPhones, small cameras, and other non-large format equipment. However, I though the moderators had already defined large format for the purposes of this forum--and that definition seems reasonable (if not perfect). The forum shouldn't stray from it's primary topic.

Corran
22-Jul-2015, 08:24
Bob, you have a website, what host are you using?

Out of curiosity I was looking at what it would cost to host a php forum.

See here for some information on installing one:

https://www.phpbb.com/community/docs/INSTALL.html

dwross
22-Jul-2015, 08:26
Oren,
Well, I guess it is clear that I am totally unclear about how your proposals dovetail with Bob's request :). We can fuss around the LF edges of the issue but that will never make it a totally open alt-process printing forum. Nor should it necessarily. I can understand the impulse for purity in a phone camera gone amuck world.

(By "flexible" I was referring to Safe Haven for Tiny Formats.)

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 08:40
Thanks Corran

I am not skilled enough to even consider such an option. I think I pointed out this in an earlier post.
If I was 20 years younger , and one million dollars richer it would be possible

Bob

Bob, you have a website, what host are you using?

Out of curiosity I was looking at what it would cost to host a php forum.

See here for some information on installing one:

https://www.phpbb.com/community/docs/INSTALL.html

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 08:41
I am referring to this as well Denise thanks for pointing this out.

Oren,
Well, I guess it is clear that I am totally unclear about how your proposals dovetail with Bob's request :). We can fuss around the LF edges of the issue but that will never make it a totally open alt-process printing forum. Nor should it necessarily. I can understand the impulse for purity in a phone camera gone amuck world.

(By "flexible" I was referring to Safe Haven for Tiny Formats.)

Oren Grad
22-Jul-2015, 08:45
Well, I guess it is clear that I am totally unclear about how your proposals dovetail with Bob's request . We can fuss around the LF edges of the issue but that will never make it a totally open alt-process printing forum. Nor should it necessarily. I can understand the impulse for purity in a phone camera gone amuck world.

Bob wants a wide-open forum where hybrid alt-process itself is the driving force. That's why it has turned into such a tempest in our little teapot.


(By "flexible" I was referring to Safe Haven for Tiny Formats.)

"Safe Haven" [EDIT: and the "Everything Else" section more generally] is an exception, with intentionally limited scope, provided for the convenience of members who enjoy sharing their small format work with others they have come to know through their common large format interest.

But there is always the slippery-slope problem. "Safe Haven" was never intended as a license to promote the progressive demolition of the Forum's distinctive mission.

Corran
22-Jul-2015, 08:46
Bob, I think you are missing the point. If you already have a host that is compatible, someone could set up the forum for you and it would be done. You would probably want to buy a domain name (altprocessforum.com or whatever) which is like $10.

Websites/hosting is really cheap these days. This forum here is on a dedicated server and services 30,000 users, which really isn't that much - one of the forums I post at has 10x that. Anyway, an Alt Process forum would be tiny compared to the LFPF for at least a while. So you don't need a dedicated server or anything like that. At most you would later need to upgrade to a dedicated hosting server package, probably a cheaper one that hosts multiple larger sites on a dedicated server serviced by the host.

From what I'm seeing from my GoDaddy site, I could upgrade my service for about $100 a year and install a forum.

I am NOT a php expert and I may be simplifying it. But I'm not seeing a whole lot of difficulty in those instructions. Again, you could find someone to do this for you.

ndg
22-Jul-2015, 08:52
Corran, I've been thinking along the same lines too. My site is on Bluehost and I could host it there. I have been dreaming of a Handmade Prints forum for ever and have even bought domain names in hopes of realizing that one day.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 09:00
I truly want to see how this plays out here , as I really like this site and its membership... I would miss Drew immensely if I had to leave.

Also as I print for others it would be self serving for me to host something like this and still stay unbiased.

tgtaylor
22-Jul-2015, 09:08
Joe (Panik) plays 2d base and bats fantastically for the SF Giants.

Thomas

Oren Grad
22-Jul-2015, 09:12
The out-of-pocket cost of launching a small specialty forum and running the host computer or renting the required hosting capacity can be very affordable indeed. The main "cost" is the time and effort required to set it up and then for ongoing moderation and technical maintenance.

StoneNYC
22-Jul-2015, 10:07
I find this forum and APUG useful because they each have a defined focus. By definition, having a focus means that certain topics are excluded. Digital negatives are great tools, and I appreciate that some LFF members make them with iPhones, small cameras, and other non-large format equipment. However, I though the moderators had already defined large format for the purposes of this forum--and that definition seems reasonable (if not perfect). The forum shouldn't stray from it's primary topic.

+1

Very eloquently put.


(...snip)

"Safe Haven" is an exception, with intentionally limited scope, provided for the convenience of members who enjoy sharing their small format work with others they have come to know through their common large format interest.

But there is always the slippery-slope problem. "Safe Haven" was never intended as a license to promote the progressive demolition of the Forum's distinctive mission.

To which is my biggest problem with the safe haven, it's grown so big in the image sharing sub-topic-headings that it almost outnumbers LF image threads.

It's better now that "everything else" exists, but I still maintain that this is the LF forum and that the sub-forums for image sharing smaller than LF shouldn't exist here and should be shut down for the archives only, we are not so destitute in other places that we can't share that on some other site, and it's only served to invite further detraction from LF with even DSLR images being posted etc. If you want to see a person's non-LF work, check their profile links or ask them where to see it. Not hard.

I fear the same would happen with the alt process, and lots of moderation for flagging of images accidentally posted that were captured on non-LF originated media.

Slippery slope with a side of grease.

If the origination is on a digital 8x10 back, that's another story, but much of the alt process we are talking about would probably not be 4x5+ scans, but scans from smaller formats or non-LF-digital.

It would become a headache quickly.

IMO anyway.

Doug Howk
22-Jul-2015, 10:13
Unless you already have servers with 24/7 maintenance,would suggest using a service.
If you google "forum hosting services" there is everything form free (ProBoards.com) to those with long track record (RackSpace.com).
A domain name registration costs only about $10-15 per year.
In order to get started, someone could discuss with Sean at APUG for guidance.

Corran
22-Jul-2015, 10:18
...the safe haven, it's grown so big in the image sharing sub-topic-headings that it almost outnumbers LF image threads.

Um, no?

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/imageforumnumbers.jpg

The Everything Else subforum is perfectly fine. Some of the best images on this forum are posted there. And most everyone here shoots at least one smaller format. It makes sense, it builds the community, and it increase the number of images we can share and look at.

Randy Moe
22-Jul-2015, 10:28
Be careful starting a new forum elsewhere as it is best to do that with history and destiny in mind.

Are you willing and able to run one for decades?

Don't make another Internet Dead End.

Please!

Colin Graham
22-Jul-2015, 11:59
Anyway, it seems that if there was serious interest in discussing this here, then wouldn't we already be discussing it? As a hybrid alt printer myself, there seem to be a good number of options for discussion within the exiting framework of this forum. No single sub-forum may cover every workflow from start to finish, but discussion of every aspect of LF hybrid printing is pretty easily accommodated by the distinct forums, whatever route a large format negative takes to get to a final print. It's been my experience that each alt-process routine is so user-specific that it's difficult to even discuss alt printing without tempers flaring. When you add a hybrid routine to the mix....forget about it.

Speaking of tempers- Is the alt-process email list still active? That was a pretty easy subscription-based resource, you could sign up for weekly digests if I remember right, delivered automatically to your email address.

Oren Grad
22-Jul-2015, 12:16
Let's stay on-topic, please. The only reason I've commented here on the "everything else" forum is to make clear that we will give zero weight to the argument that the existence of the "everything else" image-sharing section somehow obliges us to accept other exceptions.

Doug Howk
22-Jul-2015, 12:30
The AltPhotoList.org still exists and does have a daily batch option. Its a ListServ and rather clunky to use. But it could be used to gauge interest in an actual alternative Photo process forum.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 12:42
I think there is interest as there are close to 10 thousand views. I have no interest in using a clunky site . My request is for it to happen here.


The AltPhotoList.org still exists and does have a daily batch option. Its a ListServ and rather clunky to use. But it could be used to gauge interest in an actual alternative Photo process forum.

Dave Wooten
22-Jul-2015, 13:05
Bob has unique techniques all first rate, produces beautiful images, has been a gracious and giving contributor to "our community". I am having a " duh, what's the hold up here"?
What a classy and relative addition to the forum!

Vaughn
22-Jul-2015, 13:17
I think there is interest as there are close to 10 thousand views. I have no interest in using a clunky site . My request is for it to happen here.

But I bet the number of views per individual is quite high...:cool:

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 13:32
I admit it .. Hi my name is Bob and I am addicted to Large Format Forums..

But I bet the number of views per individual is quite high...:cool:

Colin Graham
22-Jul-2015, 13:33
If a healthy number of us could come to agreement on where to go to discuss printing, and then actually go there with work and discussion, often and regularly, I think whatever site we chose would fly. That would be a nice thing.

This is a great idea. AltPhotoList.org (thanks Doug), DPUG, F295, and the Bostick & Sullivan forum have all done great and generous things for the alt community and they really should be supported, not abandoned because they are a little less convenient.

There's a point to be made that the more visibility these processes have on the internet, the greater the potential participation. But there is also a risk of losing a lot of archived information in these existing forums due to declining membership.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2015, 13:36
Thanks Dave
It should be pointed out that when I got the bug for large format I did not have a 8 x10 camera... Dave sent me a complete kit with lens and backs.. I think answers Oren's #3
It arrived on my doorstep with no charge all the way from Vegas.


Bob has unique techniques all first rate, produces beautiful images, has been a gracious and giving contributor to "our community". I am having a " duh, what's the hold up here"?
What a classy and relative addition to the forum!

TXFZ1
23-Jul-2015, 05:11
It's inconceivable that an Alt Process section would not enhance the forum.

David

dwross
23-Jul-2015, 05:38
It's inconceivable that an Alt Process section would not enhance the forum.

David

I agree. I've been thinking about Jim's experience at APIS last week and I had the same thing at an alt-process symposium last September. I think it is very likely that an alt-process printing section here would be a LF evangelizing force. Face it, most new photographers are starting with digital. Small digital. Their images may never make it past a computer screen. Maybe an inkjet print if they are very ambitious. I can imagine a handmade print from small film or digital capture might lead to a LF camera and film, once the scary expensive steep learning curve doesn't look like such a complete unknown.

Jim Fitzgerald
23-Jul-2015, 06:44
Denise, maybe some would look to LF but my thought is that people will turn away from Large Format. Why? Because it is to slow, to heavy and to much trouble to develop film. Many people at APIS did not have darkrooms. Let's face it as some people on this forum age we go to push carts from backpacks to go out in the field. Then it is just to much trouble and if all of the talk here is about a digital workflow some may say why not. How many pro's make all of their living shooting film? Eventually all of the talk is about digital negatives etc. It is already happening in a big way and there is no stopping it. I just don't think it should be here. It should be on it's own site.

I know that at some point I may have to go that way. I just think that a traditional large format site should stay that way. Just my opinion nothing more. I understand and support both sides but let's keep them separate please.

dwross
23-Jul-2015, 07:04
Jim,

Well, that makes painfully too much sense. I could hope your crystal ball is broken, but I suspect it works just fine.
I'm probably going to try DPUG again. I agree with Randy's sentiment about not starting a new, potentially short-lived forum. I find APUG "difficult", but I do believe it and therefore DPUG will be around for awhile. Needs more traffic, though.

Jim Fitzgerald
23-Jul-2015, 07:10
Denise, sometimes I get lucky! Coffee and my vitamin drink that is all. I'll drift back to normal soon and make no sense. With so many people going digital I think it is only natural that this DPUG should be a hit. People just have to support it. I mean how hard is it to go to the site and contribute? Really?

Greg Miller
23-Jul-2015, 07:22
Maybe this thread could have it's own sub-forum? ;)

Colin Graham
23-Jul-2015, 10:05
It's inconceivable that an Alt Process section would not enhance the forum.

David

Possibly, but since there are relatively few alt printers that continue to use traditional LF negatives, there is also risk of overburdening the purpose of this forum while reducing the traffic to existing alt forums. So instead of starting yet another specialty alt sub-forum, why not use the existing forums elsewhere that have been supportive of alt and hybrid-alt printing for years, have active databases and archives, but declining membership?

A new forum for such a complicated subject as alt/alt-hybrid printing may take a long time to gather interest, and participation, and a useful database. It's like looking for a granite slab to knock the corners off of when there are plenty of wheels already to use.

Colin Graham
23-Jul-2015, 10:46
But regardless of what I think, the best way to gauge real demand is to start threads and actually talk about the stuff that interests you. If it's popular I'm sure the forum will accommodate it.

Not for nothing, but I'm seeing a lot of the same names in this thread that used to participate on the other forums. DPUG. That place was pretty great, and it could easily be great again. It's wide open for anything alternative; hybrid, digital, traditional- anything goes. It had the many of the respected and generous alternative photographer/printers that I've followed from the altprocess list to APUG and then to DPUG when digital negatives came into their own. It's a shame that activity died out on DPUG- I'm as guilty as anyone. But it does make me wonder what would be different here.

bob carnie
23-Jul-2015, 10:50
Most of the Alt printers that I know use large format film as their source.. most of my clients though I will admit come at it with digital camera systems and from what I am gathering not one of the sensor
systems make the large format criteria yet for this site.


I have tried using some of the other wheels and frankly I like the wheels here better.

After 10 years of being on this site, I always felt this was an all encompassing place for photography. Right now after reading some of the posts I am not so sure..

After 18000 views - Moderators is there any way this request could be solved or dealt with ? I am not sure there is much to add to this thread.

Colin Graham
23-Jul-2015, 11:06
After 10 years of being on this site, I always felt this was an all encompassing place for photography. Right now after reading some of the posts I am not so sure..


Bob, I'm coming up on my 10 year anniversary too. I've always tried to respect and appreciate the core purpose of this forum, even if in conflict with my own interests. I'm a dedicated hybrid alt-process printer myself and would like a hybrid forum here too, but can appreciate that it may not be in the best interest of the place.

The main point I'm trying to make isn't exclusion. I think we should just try to use the resources that are already out there, and not dilute them by adding redundancy here.

Oren Grad
23-Jul-2015, 11:45
Bob - not to leave you hanging: so far we're not seeing a compelling justification for bending our mission. This is not an all-encompassing place for photography. It was never intended to be. That does not imply any disrespect whatsoever for other types of photography - the vast majority of us, including yours truly, happily participate in, respect and admire non-LF types of photography too. It's just that specialty interests benefit greatly from having a dedicated and clearly delineated space, and large format is what this one is for.

But the discussion that has emerged later in this thread, about where and how an any-capture-mode specialty forum for alt-printing processes might best be implemented, is a worthy one. If the questions raised and discussed here catalyze a clear decision about how to proceed in that respect, and lead to the creation or revival of a viable alt-process forum elsewhere, we'll be happy to have helped "midwife" that result.

bob carnie
23-Jul-2015, 11:57
Ok I respect the sites mandate. is it possible to close this thread ?

Oren Grad
23-Jul-2015, 12:05
Indeed.