My Rollei & I Return to NYC Pride

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Thank you Geoff for the kind words. You raise an interesting point about the straight onlookers. Back in the day many intrepid gay folks even were afraid to be be seen and perhaps photographed at a pride event. A year after Stonewall Peter Hujar could only entice 18 of his many LGBTQ friends to be photographed for a famous Gay Liberation Front poster that in effect launched the first March in 1969. (Photographically it's worth a look; Hujar grouped them tightly and had them run back and forth along West 18th Street in front of his camera to give an illusion of mass and movement). Many were terrified still that they might lose jobs or be abandoned by family just for appearing in a poster daubed with the word "gay". I think one major impact of the marches over the decades has been to embolden the formerly closeted to risk being known as a sexual minority in more ordinary pursuits. (This was certainly true for me; I've been "out" in my career since the beginning, a choice that would've been unthinkable for a mental health professional not so long ago). That in turn has helped soften residual homophobia to the extent that today many of my heterosexual twenty-something patients never miss attending Pride, dancing and partying along with the LGBTQ crew. If not a revolution, this points at least to a very positive evolution. Thanks again. - David

Geoff Chaplin replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

I only found out many years after my uncle's death that he was gay. His youth and much of his adulthood was a time in the UK when it was illegal to be gay. He was pressured into a marriage and 'normal' life but he obviously hated it. Ultimately he drank himself to death.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

What a sad story, Geoff. Of course in that time and place your uncle likely had few other options, yet bearing such a secret must have taken quite a toll. As a therapist I've worked with folks from various countries and communities where being out is still quite literally dangerous (as it was, come to think of it, in my small Pennsylvania hometown!). There are fewer dangers these days for many thank goodness but not for all.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Thank you, Walter! I'm glad you liked the photos and the piece. I still haven't figured out how to get truly excellent scans of darkroom prints—the photos look so much better on paper! But until I figure that out the iPhone seems to work well enough.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

You might want to ask AI: “If you don’t have a scanner, a mobile phone works surprisingly well — but only with the right app. Best apps: Google PhotoScan, Adobe Scan, Photomyne. There are further tips on this, but it would be too much to go into here. I used to make black-and-white enlargements myself and worked in IT for 40 years. I understand where you’re coming from. The photos already look great when I compare them side by side.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Hi David… I didn't really have much to add to the photos about the parade which are great, but I did think it was worth dipping in here as I was reading through the comments - because of your conversation with Walter. I must say that often when I look at your shared photographs here on 35MMC the first thing I think is, "Hang on what's that?" and the answer is usually a bit of reflection off the paper in your iPhone shot of the print. Once I've worked that out it goes away and I think - yep I can understand that - good on you for making darkroom prints. When this print is the final objective then I agree with you that there's not much point in putting too much effort in making a digital version that will never really be what your vision was. On the other hand, the imperfections in the iPhone shots are the first thing I see, and in a way they get in between me and your intention. So perhaps it is worth finding some way that's not too onerous of digitising a bit more faithfully. It's your choice entirely of course, but I have a bit of a test that if something is the first thing I see, it's probably too much. So in my case I see the imperfections before I can see the image, which I'm sure is not what you really wanted.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

If you have the original, well-crafted paper photograph lying next to the screen, I believe you’ll be disappointed with every scan. On top of that, every monitor has its own individual settings. Nor will every scan – whether at home or in a lab using the negatives – be perfect. I always have my scans done in a lab because I can’t manage it myself at home without a specialist scanner. The best results are achieved when you process your photos using a very simple, tried-and-tested method familiar to everyone: displaying the original photos on the wall. Using a camera and lens from the same era, and developing your own negatives and positives in your own darkroom. But who dares to say that these days?

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Hi David, Thanks so much for this very helpful feedback. I think in my desire to focus on the darkroom and to share the physical prints here (as opposed to negative scans) I've been allowing myself to accept subpar iPhone captures, and perhaps to not even see the obvious flaws. I try a great many of these. While the scans I share here are undoubtedly the best of the bunch (the worst have laughably bad spectral reflections), your post makes me realize that mediocre is not something to aspire to. Although I dislike the process of scanning negatives with a digital camera, I do have a workable setup for sizes up to 6x6, and think I need to dust it off going forward for images destined for the web. That is, at least until I find a better way of photographing glossy fiber prints and rendering their subtleties in ones and zeroes. Cheers from Brooklyn, David P.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Couldn't agree more about framing darkroom prints on the wall! That said some people seem to know how to scan the bloody things...! You've given me some good ideas to think about, Walter—thanks!

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Without dragging this on too too much (which clearly I'm doing) I'll share with you my early experiences with photography, which began in digitising my paintings in order to share them with galleries and clients and all that sort of thing. I realised from the beginning that the artwork and its representation were two entirely different things. If they were not, then there would not be any point in inviting people to see the original. I went to four photographic exhibitions yesterday and was discussing them with a friend, and what came up in my assessment is there needs to be a point in going to see these things. If they are the same online as they are in the flesh then why bother? So I would offer you this in your digitisation quest. Don't view the digital image as inferior, view it as something different. I think that if you digitise a negative and see what you can do with it, you will end up with something that teaches you more about the print. You'll have two different things and your printmaking will be informed by your digitisation and vice versa.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

My research naturally also revealed the use of flatbed scanners and digital photographs of the paper print taken on a light table. It’s only when quality is a priority that the details matter. I own a book on the subject, *Analogue Photography, Digital Processing* by Erich Baier, who was presumably a design engineer for measurement technology at Gossen. I haven’t been able to establish whether it was also published in English. It’s all very labour-intensive if you want comparable quality, and I wonder whether it’s worth the effort. Especially as I’ve noticed, even here in 35mmc, that standards are getting lower and lower. I don’t find many of the scans here particularly good; on top of that, the resolution of the files is rather low due to the system. Fewer and fewer people are taking the approach you’ve chosen; someone who might have something to say on the matter is Tony Warren. What was it I read recently? That digitisation has reinvented photography. I don’t know whether the hybrid approach is the right solution.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Thanks David for this further thought. I've been doing some reading and research on alternatives to digital scanning of negatives, a process I really dislike, despite its effectiveness. Some folks seem to be using dslrs or even smartphones with polarizing filters and lighting also masked with polarizing sheets to eliminate noxious reflections. I have much of the gear needed for such a process already (an old copy stand, lights of various sorts, filters), but won't be in a position assemble for a try til the fall. But it seems like a potentially interesting approach, albeit one that per your experience still won't be a true reproduction of a physical print. Thanks again!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Fascinating, Walter, thank you. There's a course at the International Center for Photography in NYC that's devoted entirely to scanning. They have the latest and best technology, but I'm not sure I would want to devote hours to learning about scanning, digital histograms, associated software workflow, etc. In sum, I guess I want the impossible—perfect reproduction of darkroom prints without having to invest too much time with computers and associated devices.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

I’d have the same concern if I were to attend this course. Keep up the good work – perhaps the iPhone technique (composition/lighting) could still be optimised. Enjoy your originals with friends and family. Judging by the comments here, everyone’s very happy with your current scans anyway. The scanning issue would only become more important if you wanted to edit the negatives digitally from now on. Sorry, I’m often a bit of a contrarian, but I’m usually right. :-)))) Thanks, David!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Ha! I love and support all contrarian tendencies!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Hi Art, So funny that you mentioned Avedon and his white seamless! I've had the fantasy of doing the same thing with my 4x5, either on Pride or some other public occasion. When push comes to shove I almost always default to my Rollei. So much easier and less stressful! Good luck getting settled into your new home and looking forward to seeing your Pride related photos next year!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Thanks Scott for the kind words, which mean a lot coming from someone like you, a masterful urban photographer. I kept looking for you on Pride but imagined you were probably further east—we were way west on the piers and far west village. Nice to share the day and to see your excellent work.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Thank you Jeffrey so much for your kind words and astute reflections. I share your alarm about the way the political winds are blowing. The assault on trans people is vicious and ongoing, but the 'phobes won't stop there. Book-banning, parental "consent" laws, the Supreme Court upholding gay conversion therapy. Not sure my marriage license will be worth much soon enough. Societal acceptance of LGBTQ folks among the young however continues to grow, notwithstanding the attitudes of the klepto-gerontocracy currently calling thr shots. Once again we're reminded that the personal is political and vice versa. End of sermon! Cheers from NYC.

Jeffery Luhn replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

I try not to get upset about the state of affairs these days. A friend of mine said an interesting thing recently that I liked. I paraphrase. "Try to think of this as a social reset. The pendulum swings, and it's going to swing back. Perhaps even farther than it was before. We may look back at this time as a wake up period. Everything will get better, once we undo this mess." It could happen.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

I like that reframing of situation, Jeffrey, and even try to see things that way at times myself. I'm not always successful and sometimes end up in rather dark rabbit holes (as do so many of us I'm sure). I am however heartened by the calendar and by the unambiguous language of the 22nd amendment: two terms only for US presidents. Change will come, that is certain. Cheers from the Brooklyn bubble.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 03/08/2026

Merci Erik!!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 04/08/2026

Thanks so much, Gary!