Discussion - scan of ???

[esearing]

This is not a discussion about analog vs digital but rather how we identify our images in an electronic format.

I am seeing some beautiful images here, some of which are obviously hand printed or created from alternative processes. I am also seeing lots of digital scans of negatives with manipulation in photoshop. If we in the LF group are going to display images as photographs then I would hope the electronic version of that image would be from the final product output and not an intermediate step, unless noted. I think it would help the darkroom movement if each image displayed would note the final image process being represented. I don't care if the final electronic version is captured on a phone camera as long as one is truthful about it. And if going from digital capture to analog output you can inspire a whole other movement.

It strikes me as odd when you look at a photographers body of work using different films, devlopers, and formats that they are all the same tone of warm brown. I can't get the same shade of brown on the same print made on the same day when using chemical means. There is variation in hand work which is what makes photography new and different every time. A golfer does not land his drives on the same spot every time.

Examples
Scan of 4x5 /8x10 Negative - Color and contrast enhanced in PS, cropped, corners darkened
Scan of toned/untoned silver Print - minimal adjustments
Scan of inkjet/pigment print
Scan of TinType - reversed and color adjustments to match/enhance original
Phone capture of print - minor adjustments
phone captue of silver print in wash tray - cant wait to see it dry
Digital Capture > large digital Negative > carbon print > scan.

[Tin Can]

Yes, many do computer corrections when posting online.

[ic-racer]

Art needs to be seen in person. The rest is computer graphics; I don't pay much attention to work (photography or otherwise) that is posted on-line, even it it is tagged with "FILM" or "DARKROOM."

This is nothing new. Check out on-line images of Mona Lisa and then go look at it in person.

[Pali K]

I wouldn't call digitizing negatives using scanners or similar equipment an intermediate step. It is a step that is from a very different workflow intended for a different outcome. I personally don't think cell phone photos of hard worked negatives does any justice and would much rather see more carefully scanned images.

There is some really amazing work on this form and the part that I like best is that it all comes for many different workflows. It inspires me to try new things when others post such beautiful work with their way of doing thing.

Pali

[Bruce Watson]

I am seeing some beautiful images here, some of which are obviously hand printed or created from alternative processes. I am also seeing lots of digital scans of negatives with manipulation in photoshop.

You know this "discussion" has been had many times already, yes? Much screaming has been done already by both of the traditional "sides". Search this website and you'll find plenty on this topic from years past. Not all (much? any?) of it pretty.

[bob carnie]

You know this "discussion" has been had many times already, yes? Much screaming has been done already by both of the traditional "sides". Search this website and you'll find plenty on this topic from years past. Not all (much? any?) of it pretty.

Yes it does get ugly and repetitive.

[Corran]

Eric, this is an interesting topic I think we should talk about today when we meet up! I have a standard warmtone editing routine for scans so i imagine you mean me. I find I sometimes make prints differently than scan and so things do look different. Both intentionally or not sometimes. The scan can be a good evaluation of the negative, and a good scan can be the basis for digital printing (both ink and onto traditional materials) but certainly a handmade print is a different thing. Even a scan of a print is different. More in-person looking at prints is always good, in any medium!

[Tin Can]

Star Trek had it all figured out.

Digitally transport the 'being' to the print IRL

We are digital toddlers, Base 2 horizon limit.

[Maris Rusis]

I absolutely agree with esearing the OP. Every image I post for display on a monitor screen is accompanied by a description of the original article that was digitised via a scanner. Here is an example:

Twinned Snow Gum, Infrared

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB photographic paper, image size 21.4cm X 16.3cm, from a 4x5 Efke IR820 negative
exposed in a Tachihara 45GF double extension field view camera fitted with a Schneider Super Angulon 75mm f5.6 lens and a IR680 filter.

Each scan I do is processed in Photoshop so that my monitor image strongly resembles the actual photograph held up next to it in ordinary room light. If you took an international flight to Australia and came to my workshop you could see and touch the article for real.
It may be a character defect of mine but I find myself despising monitor images of negatives that have been scanned, cooked in Photoshop, flipped into positives, and displayed as actual large format photographs. Monitor images are not photographs. And I don't buy the excuse "When I get around to making the print (if ever) this is what it would look like".

[Mark Sawyer]

Star Trek had it all figured out.

Digitally transport the 'being' to the print IRL...

So, if you transport up a Julia Margaret Cameron albumen print, is it still an original?