Film veterans: a social question.

[JustJazzie]

There seems to be a new trend in another group I belong to. It's a very different crowd there, compared to here.

Anywyas, the newest trend I am seeing over there is to post an image that says, "This is my SOOR!" Which obviously ;-) means "straight out of (camera) raw"

It just made me wonder if photography clubs in the predominately film era went around showing off their negatives? (Unless there was a technical issue of corse)

Enlighten me, please.

 

[tirediron]

Not that I recall - other than when showing slides (which weren't actually negatives, but positives). Images were always displayed as prints and there was no real way to produce a print without at least some processing. I don't get that trend; unless I have a specific question about an aspect of the image which I would process, I want people to see my completed work, not something only part done.

 

[runnah]

Honestly **** like this is what I file in the "I have no talents but I am going to rely on some silly caveat to make my subpar work seem more exciting and pure" category.

 

[JustJazzie]

Not that I recall - other than when showing slides (which weren't actually negatives, but positives). Images were always displayed as prints and there was no real way to produce a print without at least some processing. I don't get that trend; unless I have a specific question about an aspect of the image which I would process, I want people to see my completed work, not something only part done.

I remember in photography class, my teacher NEVER asked for our negatives, except for maybe the first lesson which was on developing negatives. So I sort of figured this might be my answer.

I just can't imagine any situation barring a technical issue where posting a "negative" would be helpful. I was hoping someone would be able to prove the opposite so I could gain some sort of missed opportunity for critique.

 

[Ysarex]

They're not showing straight out of camera raw images. They're showing converted and processed RGB images. They just don't understand the technology or what they're doing. It's very difficult to actually see a camera raw image. LR and/or Photoshop certainly won't let you see one.

Joe

 

[tirediron]

They're not showing straight out of camera raw images. They're showing converted and processed RGB images. They just don't understand the technology or what they're doing. It's very difficult to actually see a camera raw image. LR and/or Photoshop certainly won't let you see one.

Joe

^^ This of course is the real answer!

 

[KenC]

The only thing like this in making prints was to file out and widen the opening in the negative carrier so there was an uneven black border around the image. This "proved" that the entire negative had been printed, with no cropping. I always thought this was both pretentious and stupid. If an image worked better with other than a 3:2 aspect ratio, would someone who did this throw it out or print it at 3:2 anyway, where it would not work as well?

 

[Mike_E]

Prints only.

If anybody brought out a slide projector they got the wooden stake treatment.

 

[limr]

I was spared the slide shows, thankfully.

Otherwise it was prints only. Unless you were more serious about photography - a pro or printing your won - no one would even know how to read the negatives, anyway.

 

[runnah]

I was spared the slide shows, thankfully.

Otherwise it was prints only. Unless you were more serious about photography - a pro or printing your won - no one would even know how to read the negatives, anyway.

Backwards of course.

 

[runnah]

They're not showing straight out of camera raw images. They're showing converted and processed RGB images. They just don't understand the technology or what they're doing. It's very difficult to actually see a camera raw image. LR and/or Photoshop certainly won't let you see one.

Joe

Here is a picture of a duck I took the other day.
"101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001"

 

[tirediron]

They're not showing straight out of camera raw images. They're showing converted and processed RGB images. They just don't understand the technology or what they're doing. It's very difficult to actually see a camera raw image. LR and/or Photoshop certainly won't let you see one.

Joe

Here is a picture of a duck I took the other day.
"101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001"

Duck???? I think that's actually a Loon!

 

[JustJazzie]

They're not showing straight out of camera raw images. They're showing converted and processed RGB images. They just don't understand the technology or what they're doing. It's very difficult to actually see a camera raw image. LR and/or Photoshop certainly won't let you see one.

Joe

Here is a picture of a duck I took the other day.
"101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001"

I'm usually a huge fan of your work Runnah, but this just feels a little too repetitive. ;-)

 

[limr]

I was spared the slide shows, thankfully.

Otherwise it was prints only. Unless you were more serious about photography - a pro or printing your won - no one would even know how to read the negatives, anyway.

Backwards of course.

Sort of.

Here is a picture of a duck I took the other day.
"101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001101000100101000100010001110000111000000110001001"

Needs fill light.

 

[runnah]

Everyone is a critic.

I made some edits

"10011000111100011001100011110001100110001111000110011000111100011001100011110001( o )Y( o )10011000111100011001100011110001
1001100011110001100110001111000100110001111000110011000111100018====D10011000111100011001100011110001100110001111000110011000111100011001100011110001"