post alternative techniques

[D. Bryant]

Kirk,

I think before the moderators make any decisions they need to at least get on the same page on this thread because you and Ralph Barker are asserting points of view that are quite simply out of line with one another.

Barker clearly stated, “Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.”

On the basis of that statement I re-posted my image file, which clearly falls under the guidelines noted by Barker, at least by my reading and understanding of what he said.

Consistency is an important operating principle of any organization. It is lacking here.

Not undermining the people you work with is also important. That also appears to be lacking. At the very least, if you assert that "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong" you should do in a context where the moderators at least are in agreement.

Sandy

I have to agree with Sandy - Kirk's decision seems to be quite abritrary based on the context of this thread contained in this forum and reading Ralph's post.

Hopefully, whatever the outcome, Sandy will post a few of his latest carbons derived from a large format negative if prints from a small format camera are banned.

For me personally I have some tri-color gums that I would like to share here but since their origin was from non-large format roots i'll refrain from posting them.

I agree that THIS IS the Large Format Forum and that our mods wish to maintain a pruritiy of large format essence. However as you can see from a couple of my previous posts showing my alt-process work some of the images were made with digitally generated negatives. As such I don't see the big deal including images made from digital negatives not initially exposed with a Large Format camera since the topic of this thread is alternative techniques.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Wow! Absolutely stunning. What a glow! Post some more. I can't wait to complete my move so I can set up a darkroom. I am so motivated.

Jim

Thanks Jim, good luck with your darkroom.

Don

[Jan Pedersen]

Kirk, Keep up the good work you have provided since you became a moderator on this forum.
If capture of the original photo was digital or something other than what most agree is Large Format it should only be displayed in the Lounge as the rules are now.
It is unfortunate that some have desided to change the work flow to include other formats than what this Forum is about and then expect the forum to mold into something that it was not meant to be.
A negative whether it is created digitally or in the wet darkroom does not make it Large Format unless the capture was with a large format camera in the first place.

My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of work from both Sandy's and others work that is simply outstanding, this is just my opinion on the principle of this Forum.
The Large Format Forum can soon enough be flooded with anything but Large Format Images if everybody choose to put more importance on own ambitions than to continue to keep this place a unique outlet for a little but important group of people who share the the love for large in camera negatives.

Jan

[Paul Metcalf]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

Dang, between you, Colin, Sandy, Jim C., Jim F., g-man, etc. I can see I have a (very) long way to go. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that I think the "alternative process" moniker ought to just be "THE process." The heck with any "standard" process.

Ok, I know the rules, no word-only posts - so here's another 8x10 salt print from near the ocean in Washington State (of course, salt, naturally). I wish I'd been there when Colin was so I could learn something.

[Doug Howk]

If a potential post is germane to current thread/discussion yet is outside the rules of that particular forum, then a link to the image/text would seem to be the appropriate means to share the information yet not violate the rules.

Here's an image on Arches Platine using liquid emulsion thinned with water 1:1

[Emil Schildt]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

this is absolutely STUNNING!
I can't see any brush strokes or anything else, that gives the technique away..

And it is glowing!!

[Emil Schildt]

Here's an image on Arches Platine using liquid emulsion thinned with water 1:1

AHA!!
good to see others working with liquid emulsion. (What brand are you using?)

BUT it doesn't answer my question, I asked some time ago: IS liquid emulsion work considered alternative?
It doesn't require contact printing...

I'd like to know what others think - I have a LOT of images made with LE, as it is my favourite choise of "paper"...

[kev curry]

Hi Emil, quick question... what kind of paper are you using for painting your liquid emulsion on to?

[Pete Watkins]

I agree with Jan Pederson and Kirk. It's a Large Format Photography Forum. Big cameras, big negatives and a minimal use of Photoshop, or whatever digi programme is your choice. Personally when I scan a neg to put on my hard drive I use a very out of date version of Paint Shop Pro to get rid of dust etc. and change the brightness and contrast if neccessary to get a decent image on my monitor. Big digital "negatives" are not Large Format, never were, never will be.
Just my opinion,
Pete.

[Paul Metcalf]

I agree with Jan Pederson and Kirk. It's a Large Format Photography Forum. Big cameras, big negatives and a minimal use of Photoshop, or whatever digi programme is your choice. Personally when I scan a neg to put on my hard drive I use a very out of date version of Paint Shop Pro to get rid of dust etc. and change the brightness and contrast if neccessary to get a decent image on my monitor. Big digital "negatives" are not Large Format, never were, never will be.
Just my opinion,
Pete.

Pete - there seems to be a couple number of contridictions in your comment. First, a "minimal use of photoshop" to "change the brightness and contrast" may be simple/easy with digital file, but compared to "standard" analog process this is very involved and very fundamental to the photographic printing process. Also, getting rid of dust conventionally is a major PITA using print spotting and/or negative retouching. I bring this contradiction up because I don't think the rules on this forum can apply simply because they are considered "minimal" as that is too subjective.

Secondly, your last sentence (big digital negatives) seems at odds with many of the posters on this thread as they are using enhanced big digital negatives created from scans of smaller (hopefully LF, right?) formats. Or did you mean big digital negatives from megapixel cameras, perhaps?

Ok, so I don't violate "my" rule of no word-only posts on post-request threads, here's another 8x10 saltprint from Kamloops Island. Cheers.