Printable View
When I started this thread it was about the images. I post prints. I think that is what should be done. No scans anymore. Post your work and discuss what and how it was done so we can all learn. After all this is Large Format and I feel we should post prints now.
Hey guys, I don't know if I'm stepping on anyone's toes here, but isn't the final result the print?
I mean, I find it a bit weird when traditionalists get upset for manipulations done digitally.
I'm primarily a darkroom printer with some 20 years of experience, I have exhibited prints internationally, and let me tell you that I've never shown a straight print nowhere and to no one, except for educational purposes, to illustrate what a particular technique can do for your printing.
Manipulation is the name of the game, as far as I'm concerned. The negative is the score and the print the performance, as uncle Ansel put it.
And to be clear, whatever I do in PS, I can also do in the darkroom.
The main differences for me is that PS allows undo and preview of multiple manipulations at ounce, while in the DR each manipulation over the straight print has to be locked down individually and in sequence. Also, working a full day to arrive to the first final print is much easier done sitting down than standing up, leaning over baseboards, trays, sinks, etc.
I do both, and see them both as tools that help me get to the picture I had in mind when I made the exposure.
I completely understand Wayne's point though. For anyone trying to learn a technique is of paramount importance to know the "how" behind the examples they're presented with. That was why I offered him the additional information after his comment regarding the contrast of the picture I posted.
Even though x-ray film is inherently a very high contrast material, it's also very responsive to changes in development. I have managed to bring its characteristic curve into a shape which allows me to record a rich negative with good tonal rendition which is suitable for both scanning and darkroom printing.
As I posted earlier, I'd be happy to write a FAQ, if I can figure out how to get the admins to publish it. It should be a living document so that as we learn more, we can add to it. Topics should include: different film types (green sensitive, blue sensitive, mammo, video) & their specific spectral sensitivities & dimensions, double- vs. single-emulsion, avoiding scratches, avoiding uneven development, starting points for common chemistry (dilutions & times), stripping emulsion, sources to buy film, effective use of filters, safe safelights, trimming to fit your holder. I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but you guys can remind me when I post a draft for your criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I've literally spent the last 3 weeks reading both threads (finished this one and am half-way through the other one) & think Randy is spot on when he says they are daunting & contradictory. For someone just starting out, telling them to 'read the threads' is not helpful. Hopefully, in the future the forums will move to better software that provides more nuanced search.
On the other hand, I've learned a lot from you guys, for which I am so grateful, & I want to give back. So:
Does any one here have advice on how to get a FAQ on the front page? Seems the last attempt died due to the inertia of the admins.
Once I get tray development down, I plan to try this. Will post back to let you know how it turns out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelwhip
Also just bought an HP Combi on FleaBay. Will be testing it later.
Did you use a filter? Green-sensitive film?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
I completely disagree. It isn't the thread you imagined and hasn't been for some time. This complaint is way too late -- it's 271 pages late, in fact. If you want that thread, start it now, elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
Or, you can start one for scans. Jim does express the interest in it being a print thread when he started it but was inclusive of scans. But if people aren't going to identify which they are posting the educational experience (the intent of the thread) is diminished.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
A scan is a scan. If it's scanned from a print or scanned from a negative, it's still a scan and whether or not it looks like what is in-hand is completely debatable and likely an issue with the quality of the scan (and know-how of the person scanning it).
My experience is that scanned prints look pretty bad. The negative is a much more viable medium for scanning. Also, scan adjustment should be a given. A "straight scan" usually means a dull lifeless image without much contrast, since a scanner is not [darkroom] paper and shouldn't be expected to react the same way.
I imagine that 98% of the images posted here (other than instant film prints) are scanned negatives. Evaluating image qualities and film/developer combinations via scans can be a learning experience, but obviously one should always do their own tests and experiments to decide what works best for them.
Well, it is nice to know that I am in the 2%! ;). I do not have a scanner that can handle 8 x 10 negatives hence I scan prints. Carbon prints suck when I scan them. Mainly because I don't know what I'm doing. With my ULF work I have to take a digital image and then post it. Either way I wanted to know what the images look like. So if you scan neg's or prints does not matter. What does the final interpretation look like? Lets not derail this and head to a different direction. This was meant to help everyone learn about x-ray film and the results achieved.
I'm still not sure why this thread was started, when there was already an established x-ray thread. Wouldn't it be easier if there was just one?