markminard

I'll contact them, thanks!

Under image size: width 20 inches, height 30 inches, resolution 300 PPI. Aspect ratio OOC was 3:2 so there was no cropping (if that matters).

Thanks SCL. I use Nations Photo Lab. So I think going forward I should size to 18x28 in PS, then go with the 20x30 print with 1 inch border? (I like the border for mounting purposes but that's another discussion lol).

Exactly. As print size increases, so does the stand back distance for the viewer, and you'll only see the gains when getting right in the face of the print, perhaps with a loupe (if that's your thing). Regardless, a loupe would hardly be necessary when walking right up to a highway billboard printed at 3 or 4 DPI. At my last gallery showing, no one seemed interested in the silver gelatin vs. inkjet narrative, but several did put their faces right in there LOL.

So I decided on 20x30 inches for a print I sent to the lab; this was set under image size in PS. After uploading to the lab I was presented with the option of having a 1 inch border around the print; I liked this idea and went with it, forgetting about the size I indicated in PS until after the order was placed. The print of course arrived with an image size of 18x28 centered on a 20x30 sheet. Looks great and I'm happy with it but am wondering what just happened there in technical terms, and will there be a visual difference between two prints, one sized 20x30 and printed 18x28 (is this "scaled down?" Help me with the terminology) and one sized and printed at 20x30. I know it's a silly question, I'm just curious and before I do any testing I thought I'd run it by you folks here.. thanks

Exactly. Look at any photographer getting traction in the "art world" - whether an amateur successfully exhibiting in galleries, or those in academia (Robert Knight at Hamilton College comes to mind, as does Gregory Crewdson) and there is always a theme; never do you see a body of work presented as "Here's My 30 Best Shots." Having a theme allows a narrative to be built, something that seems to be mandatory for success. I almost said mandatory nowadays, but it's nothing new. The mental gymnastics that go into some of these narratives is often interesting and is a playground for critics and scholars. Building a narrative behind Robert Frank's "The Americans" seems a much simpler proposition than that surrounding a project like "The New Industrial Parks" by Lewis Baltz, but both give the writer/critic ample opportunity to flex their muscle. Recognition and success becomes a collaborative effort.

Because it beats sitting in front of a computer! Why would one sacrifice an experience in nature to the fact that a scene you encountered possibly could've been created and/or altered digitally on a computer? Don't lose sight of the end result: the experience of being in nature, with a hardcopy print as a memento, one you might see fit to present to the word as "art." And regarding that print: few if anyone will care whether it was photoshopped or not. And, if the answer to that is: "well I care," then the solution is easy: make contact prints, unmanipulated, and present them as such. Don't surrender your passion to the whims of the masses.

John Charles Woods wrote a definitive biography about Brett and devotes 5 pages to this event. After much lobbying by friends, family, and the CCP, approximately 60 of his negatives made it unmolested to the CCP in Arizona; he gave his brother Cole the negatives for his most well-known photographs, however they had been punched thru several times each with a hole-puncher and each had "NO PRINTS" written across them. He gave negatives to other assorted friends with the understanding they would never be printed but the bio doesn't say whether of not those negs had been hole punched or whatever. The CCP holds an amazing archive of his work for anyone interested: eMuseum

LOL yeah we're going off track a bit but still enjoyable, especially when the subject of Brett Weston comes up. My initial motivation for buying that SL66 you see in my avatar pic was Brett.

Lets say you make that cat picture with an iPhone and present it unmanipulated to the world (not counting whatever sharpening or post processing is baked into the phone) in the form of a 4x6 print. Is that photography? If so, we've moved beyond the idea that ANY photograph captured digitally isn't "real photography." That was once a bridge too far for many people; still is for some I suspect. So if one can reach that point of agreement move on to part 2: Scan that Deardorff 8x10 you captured using the Zone System to guide you, water bath development, etc. etc. into 0's and 1's and the whole world pf PS opens to you, ripe with opportunities for "manipulation." So "traditional film photography" doesn't necessarily free one from concerns over "digital manipulation" if you're in fact looking for and concerned over such manipulation. Such is the power of the current technology. "Back in the day" a guy like Uelsmann made his manipulation a part of the show - of course it was obvious, it was a big part of his artistic statement, his métier, his was of expressing himself to the world through photography. Some I believe even questioned whether or not his entirely analog manipulation qualified as photography. The only way around it I can see is to present unmanipulated contact prints to the world and talk them up as such, if it really means that much to you. No one will care, although some might show a passing interest in your discussion of said matters - as long as you're an interesting person to talk to and present yourself well. Not sure it would lead to increase in sales, if sales are in fact what you're after, but generally trying to convince the world that your definition of photography is the only valid one possible is like screaming into the maelstrom - sort of like engaging in "conversation" on Twitter. Life is too short for that. P.S. To the OP: I am 100% sympathetic to your question; if my post reads like an attack it most certainly is not.

The question is one of craft. Making a silver contact print from an 8x10 negative exposed in your Deardorff is, from a craft perspective, a very different process than digital capture followed by processing thru PS. That's a no-brainer. Taking my Rollei 6x6 out is worlds removed from my S1R. An entirely different experience and mindset. Now try this: Present your straight, "computerless" contact print to an audience and describe it as such. Talk up the "hours of darkroom toil" required to get that print just right (dodging and burning is allowed). Talk up your frozen stash of AZO. Go over Steiglitz's definition of a creative photograph as representing what one saw AND felt at the time they made the exposure, and how any digital manipulation is a violation of that creed. If you're in really deep mix up some Amidol and flaunt your black fingernails as proof of a genuine artistic commitment. And guess what: 99.99999% of the world doesn't care. DOES NOT CARE. Really. I've tried it (except the Amidol). Nobody cares anymore (if they ever did?).. That's when you realize the way forward is simple: Do what you enjoy. Not enjoying it anymore? Like Sandy said, walk away. No one will know. I suspect most of the "is it still photography" questions emanate from a frustration that the world isn't as impressed with the "traditional" darkroom processes that so captivated us all those decades ago, and in many ways changed our lives. 15 years ago I felt some of that frustration, wanted to rally behind other fellow photographers who, like me, might've passed a particular scene for over a year until the cloud formations and sky lined up to make the photograph worthwhile and something special - the point being we didn't dress it up in PS. We weren't pasting in clouds that weren't there when we were (remember Steiglitz's definition of a creative photograph), and see digital as usurping what was once our special province. Much of it might be a fear of the unknown; eventually I came to realize that just because one is using digital capture and PS doesn't automatically mean that any manipulation beyond dodging and burning is talking place, but for some reason such manipulation always seemed to be implied. Of course In time I got over all that. It's a journey for some.

It's a lot of work. I spent a week at Light Work taking advantage of their Flextight scanner. Even the 20 year-old digital/PS gurus there were floored by the scans I got from my 6x6 negs.

PS 2020 not only won't open my fff files, it crashes when I make the attempt, just locks right up, requiring a restart. Windows photo opens them immediately. Weird.

With a very slow internet connection! No impatience really; I was just blindsided by how long the process would take and this has given me pause to consider how to best manage my files going forward, something I've completely ignored until now. I have a vague recollection of reading that somewhere.. Will research it a bit more.

Thank you both for the feedback.. I've already got them on an external HD + the thumb drive I used when shuttling back and forth to Light Work when I was working on this. And of course the film originals. I'll send the tiff's to the cloud but not the fff's.. just needed some support for the idea LOL