Whats the big deal about scanned negs ?

[vincent]

I wonder sometimes about the big deal people make about knowing whether an image posted is from a neg. scan or a print scan. Is the scan from one more true than the other.
It reminds me of people posting that the image posted is from a Holga (in other words go easy in your critism, after all its only from a Holga).
If people take part in this site, it is surely because they love the use of film even if they cannot have access to a darkroom. Many of the great photographers never printed their own work.

[Dave miller]

We don’t have any difficulty in Friends posting negative scans, we simply ask that they note the fact along with other relevant factors, for the sake of completeness, and refrain from manipulating them beyond basic corrections. It's worth knowing, for example that an image on screen resulted from a colour print, or transparency, without such a note we wouldn't know.

What sparked the comment?

[vincent]

I have just read the tread from "darkclassical" and his inability to work in the darkroom and several people mentioned that they had no problem with him posting scanned images as long as they knew that they were scanned negs.
Why would people stay in this group if they were cheating in some way, surely they would be only fooling themselves. After all there are no prizes for good work on this site, just the satisfaction of knowing that you took a good shot and other people appreciate it.
My response comes from many years spent in a camera club where there are rules and regulations governing everything. One day I just realised what was the point of cheating and for what (not that I ever did).

[darkclassical]

Interesting topic Victor. Having had personal experience with being forced to scan negatives, this is something I struggled with for months.
At first, I asked the same question; then, after scanning many old and new negatives the reasons for this discussion became more clear. I even tried many scanners and have settled on an Epson V500 - which leads to my points:

Different scanners and their associated drivers/software "see" negatives in different ways. (Most flatbed scanners are quite consistent when it comes to reflective scanning of photographs.)

I found that significant use of "non-default" settings were required to make scanned negatives "look like" a darkroom print for the same negative. I suspect this is the case with most any transparency scans to to the variables of scanner light colour and emulsion thickness.

This being said, I found generally that thinner negatives scanned with better results than thicker ones... and the thicker ones work best in the darkroom! This got me worried that I would start shooting film that I could never print. As a result, I found myself constantly going back to my best prints and negatives for a "reality" check. Maybe that's why I understand why it's important to know the source of an image.

So, what's the big deal? What is "reality" here? I guess it all comes to the desired end result - a digital image from scanned film, or a darkroom print. In some cases, they look very similar. For whatever reason, I always feel better knowing that a negative is best when it can print well in the traditional sense of the word. I won't throw out some thin mega pushed Delta 3200 because the resulting negative scans look great with lots of contrast and grain, but I do sleep better knowing my last roll of film is better in the darkroom than the scanner.

And, I do sleep better knowing that I can print once again!! Scanned prints look better to me :-)

[darkclassical]

Ooops, I mean interesting topic Vincent :-) That's why I'm always scared to click that "Post" button - it's everlasting...

[Bob]

Originally Posted by darkclassical

Ooops, I mean interesting topic Vincent :-) That's why I'm always scared to click that "Post" button - it's everlasting...

Not quite - you have some time to edit a post if you suddenly remember you left something out or misspelt something. If you edit within three minutes of posting, the system does not even flag that you edited the post, but after that you will see a small note "Last edited by JoeBloggs at hh:mm" or something similar underneath the post. After 30 mins since first posting the message you can no longer edit the post.

I've edited this post three times now... The last time was outside the 3-minute curfew so you will see the note below the post...

[Dave miller]

Originally Posted by vincent

I have just read the tread from "darkclassical" and his inability to work in the darkroom and several people mentioned that they had no problem with him posting scanned images as long as they knew that they were scanned negs.
Why would people stay in this group if they were cheating in some way, surely they would be only fooling themselves. After all there are no prizes for good work on this site, just the satisfaction of knowing that you took a good shot and other people appreciate it.
My response comes from many years spent in a camera club where there are rules and regulations governing everything. One day I just realised what was the point of cheating and for what (not that I ever did).

We have rules, but I hope only those essential to keep us all going in roughly the same direction, avoid chaos.
If someone wants to circumvent those rules surreptitiously, then there is little that we can do, other than to let them live with themselves.

[knikki]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone wants to stick images in the Gallery or link from Flickr for example, would they not have to 'scan' their images in order for them to be uploaded?

Or is it a case of if some one has manipulated an image in Photoshop, dodge, burn using curves or levels for example, to get lots of grey tones and nice blacks, to say in the image info, "scanned neg adjusting in photoshop" just to let people know its been done?

[Dave miller]

Originally Posted by knikki

Just out of curiosity, if anyone wants to stick images in the Gallery or link from Flickr for example, would they not have to 'scan' their images in order for them to be uploaded?

Or is it a case of if some one has manipulated an image in Photoshop, dodge, burn using curves or levels for example, to get lots of grey tones and nice blacks, to say in the image info, "scanned neg adjusting in photoshop" just to let people know its been done?

It is accepted that the only way to upload an image of a photograph to this site is to scan it in some way. We prefer that scans of prints are posted unless the original was a transparency. We accept that there are sometimes good reason to post a scan of a negative, and have asked that where that is done it is noted as such. Manipulation of any scan should be limited to the minimum necessary to approximate as closely as is possible the look of the original image. Enhancement, if it could be called that, should be reserved for other forum since it then falls outside of this one.

[Paul Owen]

As a newcomer to this (wonderful) resource I appreciate that the forum has rules that posters need to follow; but I wonder if the "digital" side of photography is really so evil?

I would argue the point that Dave makes regarding keeping manipulation to a minimum - I for one remember when the trend was to "drop" a sky from one negative into a landscape from another ... surely a marked degree of manipulation of an image and if anything a million miles from a "truthful" representation of the original scene? But this procedure was positively encouraged when I started out in photography!

Having been a committed traditional darkroom user I too find myself in the position of having lost my darkroom. However, I have embraced technology and although a committed film user I see no issue at all with scanning the piece of film, making adjustments in Photoshop and then (when funds allow) printing from an inkjet printer.

I would also argue that as long as the original medium is film then does it matter what the final medium of presentation is - traditional fibre or inkjet paper?

Furthermore, the digital revolution has meant an explosion in the types of papers available to the inkjet user - much more than was ever available to me when I wet-printed!

Modern technology means that I can also make digitally-produced negatives for alternative processes - an area I am keen to explore and as my largest film format is 5x7 I can see amazing opportunities to "print" an enlarged negative for contact printing processes.

I agree that this forum should be reserved for "traditional" photography - but I think it short-sighted that a workflow involving film, scanning and inkjet printing cannot be considered as "acceptable".