I find myself looking really hard for details of how the results of gallery submissions were achieved.
Some are obvious, like cyanotypes or other hand coated paper processes that have not been cropped to hide the brush marks. Others are not obvious at all, and it's difficult to understand how to think of the images.
I personally think differently of a manipulated neg/pos scan intended for inkjet printing compared to something where a lot more work was put into it, like digital negatives for platinum for instance.
Can some fields be added to the gallery to indicate what the process was?

- Thomas

Thomas, I've been having the same problem, and I'm glad you brought it up. I notice that I'm not very interested in images that have been uploaded to the subject galleries if they aren't labeled, because I don't know what they are. I realized, looking at an upload just in the last couple of days, that knowing the process that produced the image is an important part of appreciating the image for me. Which just shows, I suppose, that for me it's definitely not true that the image is everything and the form it takes is irrelevant.

Hi Katharine, this does tie in nicely with the thread over at APUG. I think a lot of people that hang out here and at APUG are interested in process, but perhaps as a means to get to the final result, not just the process itself.

Beisdes, I also look in the galleries to see effects of various techniques and processes used in the printing or prep stage. I try to learn from it, so the more I can know, the better it is. I hope I'm not the only one feeling this way.

- Thomas

If an image interests you and the poster did not offer any information about the post the only thing you can do is ask questions. It would be nice if people gave complete information about an image.

I think a lot of people that hang out here and at APUG are interested in process, but perhaps as a means to get to the final result, not just the process itself.


Of course; that's my position too.

Hi All,

If anyone hasn't checked out the Gallery recently, you're really missing something. I've been away for awhile and finally got a chance look things over. Wow! Great stuff.

I'd reply to each image, but it would get redundant. How many times can one say, 'Beautiful!' or 'Wonderfully seen and executed!'? I suspect most people looking at the Gallery feel the same way.

I would echo the previous posts that request more process information along with each Gallery submission. It's not always easy for people to know how to ask questions. It should be, but it's probably a fact that most people tend toward shy.

d

I would echo the previous posts that request more process information along with each Gallery submission. It's not always easy for people to know how to ask questions. It should be, but it's probably a fact that most people tend toward shy.


Well, I'm not particularly shy, but I can be intimidated. Before the present galleries were set up, when everything was in one gallery all together, I complained about having to sift through a lot of other stuff to find the handcoated prints, and was treated to some backhanded scorn for caring by what process the images were printed. I appreciated it when jd made separate galleries for the different types of prints; that has satisfied my wish to look at handcoated prints separately from other kinds of prints.

But in the subject galleries, there's often no way of knowing what you're looking at. I notice that on some of the uploads there's rather an extensive spreadsheet giving detailed information about the camera, which I couldn't care less about, but nowhere on the upload do I see a specific place to say what kind of print it is, or what final form the image takes or will take. I always put the print type "gum bichromate" in the description field, but other people use that field for different kinds of descriptions. Would it be too difficult to add a field for print type?

Katharine,
I think a 'print type' field would help free up some of the confusion on my part.
I am not interested in the process of making an image just for the sake of knowing, it's all about learning from others what results might be had from various techniques, so that I can apply that to my own art if I choose to. Inspiration, if you will. But we talked about that already... :)

- Thomas

seems the life gallery in particular needs some policing. Appears to be just a bunch of digi camera images. Maybe I'm missing something.

seems the life gallery in particular needs some policing. Appears to be just a bunch of digi camera images. Maybe I'm missing something.

The above comment, which I notice hasn't been honored with a response, serves as a case in point re my comment earlier today about confused and conflicting perceptions about the hybrid site. A year ago or so we discussed what hybrid meant, and the one thing we agreed on, as I recall, was that there had to be an analog component in order for it to be hybrid. But at the same time, there was also a lot of talk about wanting no boundaries, no prohibitions (we, by gum, were not going to be like APUG and draw lines that shut anyone out). Can we have it both ways?

Katharine

Well, no boundaries would mean you can have it any way you want, but then it would be indistinguishable from other web fora that are 'open'.
I think the purpose of having a 'hybrid' forum is to discuss hybrid techniques. Identify what 'hybrid' means? It just means that it's a mix of analog and digital techniques. To make it hybrid, you need one ingredient of each, simple as that. Logically at least.
But then, essentially, a neg scan could then go for 'hybrid' but to me it must be in the best interest of the poster to be a bit more involved than that. To me 'hybrid' really is about using the best of both worlds. Use your favorite medium of image capture, then take 'hybrid' intermediate steps to arrive at a print that is satisfying. Same as on APUG, I almost want the final product to be a 'print' - digital or analog. What else is the purpose? To show the images in web forums with a poor rendition of the actual product?
Why else do it, unless your final product is a digital file?
- Thomas

Permit me the observation that this discussion is moot: there is no discussion going on in the gallery at all.

Permit me the observation that this discussion is moot: there is no discussion going on in the gallery at all.

and that's just how they like it Keith, must be safer or something

i thought the discussion was about indentifing process types.

why create waves about something so simple!

I don't know, how do you think it should be discussed? I'm just stating my opinion on what I think is appropriate content for a website dedicated to hybrid photography techniques. This in particular to the gallery. I am very interested in applying hybrid techniques to my work in the future, when I can afford the equipment, and wish to learn about hybrid techniques, as well as see what results people obtain with these various techniques. I came to this website and started partaking for that very reason, as I would hope others would too.

It attracted me because it seemed like a place dedicated to hybrid photography / printing. When I see gallery submissions it would be incredibly interesting to know what skills they applied to get to their results. If it's just a reduced size image from a digital camera, how does it help the purpose of having a hybrid gallery for people to learn from?

I'm not trying to be elitist or anything, I just came here to learn. It was the same with APUG, I have learned so much about analog photography there, that now I actually feel I have something to teach to those around me, children of friends, I lecture at my son's school about it, etc. I was hoping this web site could be such a resource too. If not now, perhaps in the future? What do you want it to be? What's your vision?

- Thomas

Permit me the observation that this discussion is moot: there is no discussion going on in the gallery at all.

Keith, this comment bewilders me. There's no particular reason this thread should have anything to do with anything going on in the gallery at the moment, although it's possible it may have been influenced at points by things people have seen in the gallery over the six weeks the thread has been "active" (we have a different view of an "active" conversation here). As I read it, the issues being considered in this thread are: (1) whether there's a way to encourage people to give more process information with gallery uploads, such as adding an "output" field to the image information array, and (2)whether there is, or should be, a policy that images uploaded to the hybridphoto gallery should be hybrid images? These are general questions of procedure, policy and philosophy of the site, and aren't meant to be directly connected to any specific images or comments in the gallery.
Katharine

Fair enough, maybe the best way to ensure that gallery posts are truly hybrid is to require two fields of information be filled out, namely digital and analogue techniques.

Katherine, I don't see how to decouple this discussion from the fact that there is no activity at all in the gallery. Newcomers (like me) should come in and see that this is an active site, then we will feel motivated to stick around. I gather that this site has been here for quite a long time now, but frankly it looks to me like it's totally stagnated. That is disappointing to me because on the surface it did seem like a good place to discuss the hybrid approach.

My honest and brutal assessment is that little or nothing is getting posted or discussed in the gallery, and there are no discussions outside the gallery except which printer or scanner to use or whatever, and as far as I can tell, the majority of the other discussions on the site are about what's wrong with the apug attitude and how many people are on somebody's ignore list. So it's just a gloomy and negative place to be. Just calling it as I see it.

Let me suggest consolidating the gallery into one category, requiring posts to be accompanied with details about the analogue and digital process used, and eliminating all the negative chatter about apug and so forth.

N.b. I helped start another beginner/intermediate photo discussion site some time ago, and there were a lot of "refugees" from another site who were disgruntled for various reasons and wanted a higher level of discussion. We mods found it necessary to outlaw any discussions of that other site because it just created a negative atmosphere that repelled newcomers.

All I am saying is: eliminate the refugee mentality, start posting actual work and discussing it, and as the saying goes, "they will come..." As Thomas put it well, this site should be a positive resource.

Of course the alternative is to conclude that I am full of sh*t and put me on an ignore list ;)

thomas my comment was about not about your statements, it was with regard to Ray's veiled statement.

keith, this site is not very old and it is too bad that you find it stagnated.

i don't post to the gallery and rarely look into it.

i find that it is hard to really get a grip on the quality of the work on line and would rather view the work in hand. that is not to say that others may find the gallery a valuable asset.
just giving some feedback.

i have also found a lot of people here are busy making images not talking about them.
.

also with regard to the references about APUG. i am active on that site and it has only been a recent thread that APUG has even come up.

also with regard to the references about APUG. i am active on that site and it has only been a recent thread that APUG has even come up.

Thanks for saying that ann; I certainly can't remember seeing very much talk about APUG here. It was just that one thread where a discussion from APUG was brought over here; it's not something we do as a rule. And I only responded to that thread because the original post in the thread was about me and I felt it presented my position in a way that required some clarification; otherwise I wouldn't have entered into it at all. I would be perfectly happy, and I'm sure most people here would be perfectly happy, banning any discussion of APUG here at all, but I think the issue is, shall we say, moot, since as ann commented, the subject almost never comes up.