Digital hate overmoderating?

[VictoriaPerelet]

This thread where new user asks about sinar 54 digital back for Sinar F2:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?123417-beginner-s-question-aboout-sinar-digital-backs-on-LF-camera

Was just moved from "digital hardware" to*The "Lounge"*by one of moderators.

Heres description of digital hardware forum:

Forum Digital Hardware
Large format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)


Heres description of

Forum:The Lounge
Area for off-topic (non-LF, but preferably photography-related) discussion and socializing.*Topics and discussions of politics and religion are no longer allowed,*here or elsewhere on the forum, and the forum's general behavioral standards apply here, too.


I find that incorrect and actually hostile to new person entering LF. Overall overmoderating has driven most of this site to much less useful state especially during last few years.

This is 2015, digital vs film wars are over. How trully bored moderator should be to do things like that.,

[Lachlan 717]

How trully [sic] bored moderator should be to do things like that.

How truly bored you must be to post this.

[prendt]

Overall overmoderating has driven most of this site to much less useful state especially during last few years.




+1. Thank you.

[Bernard_L]

Overall overmoderating has driven most of this site to much less useful state especially during last few years.
Maybe, but it's not even close to what it is at APUG; there you have true digital hate.

[Mark Sawyer]

Maybe, but it's not even close to what it is at APUG; there you have true digital hate.

I don't think digital photographers should be allowed to marry. It's just not natural, and not what the Bible intended.

[rdenney]

The issue is not the mode (digital) but the size (medium format). The Sinar 54H sensor is 49x37mm, and since September of 2014, this has been in the guidelines:

"The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography. Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film, regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology."

Many of us are waiting eagerly for a reasonable 4x5 or larger digital capture device. (One of our members is developing one for 8x10.) Perhaps we wait in vain; perhaps not. But this has been hashed through time and time again, and we are still a large-format forum where size is part of the definition.

As to excessive anti-digital moderation, I would say this: I have never made a decision based on the digital versus film divide, other than to stop endless and pointless arguments between antagonists on this issue, and I'm absolutely sure that each of the other moderators could say the same.

Rick "format snob, at least here" Denney

[ic-racer]

Knowledge is an amazing thing. The post was moved because it is not LARGE FORMAT by the SMALL FORMAT HATERS. So, yes if all small format haters go to hell, then allow small format film and iPhone and other digital.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Overall overmoderating has driven most of this site to much less useful state especially during last few years...I disagree. In my opinion, moderation of this forum has been on a path of continuous improvement.

It's important to remember that we're posting at the Large Format Photography Forum. Regardless of sensor (film, digital, collodion, whatever), there's got to be a definition of "large." As Rick pointed out, the subject of the moved thread you're complaining about doesn't meet that criterion as established by the owner and moderators here.

More generally, I feel that strict moderation of late has kept the forum on a path to less hostility and increased usefulness. An example of the latter trend can be seen in more frequent merging of duplicate threads as they pop up, making the archive less cluttered and easier to search.

[prendt]

Remember - here you can freely discuss putting a bubble level on your LF camera, a small knob too but don't dare to discuss putting a LF camera digital sensor on your LF camera on this forum!

[IanG]

Maybe, but it's not even close to what it is at APUG; there you have true digital hate.

It's against the ethos of this Forum to make disparaging remarks about other Forums.

This Forum is for the discussion of Large Format photography, APUG for film based photography and darkroom printing, that doesn't mean this Forum "Hates" Medium and 35mm formats, or that APUG "Hates" Digital, it's just they aren't the focus and purpose of these forums so threads get moved or deleted.

Ian

[pdh]

I get the impression that film, digital and hybrid matters rub along just fine here, without detriment to any members' interests.
There's the occasional bout of antidigital ranting from the odd bod, but it soon gets squashed and dies away.
Just a personal impression, of course

[Jac@stafford.net]

I don't think digital photographers should be allowed to marry. It's just not natural, and not what the Bible intended.

Yeah! We need our own flag, too! A large one!
--
Retsy Boss

[prendt]

Remember - here you can freely discuss a 6x7 roll film back on a LF camera but don't dare to discuss a LF camera digital back on this forum! Wait until the digital sensor will grow to at least 4x5 in. In the meantime discuss freely your 6x7 cm analogue capture device!

[Greg Miller]

The issue is not the mode (digital) but the size (medium format). The Sinar 54H sensor is 49x37mm, and since September of 2014, this has been in the guidelines:

"The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography. Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film, regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology."


I must have missed that. So a thread about using MF roll film in a roll film holder on a 4x5 camera needs to go int he lounge now too?

[prendt]

I must have missed that. So a thread about using MF roll film in a roll film holder on a 4x5 camera needs to go int he lounge now too?

What a subversive post you have written! Please, rethink it again.

[Michael Graves]

If I make a custom 8x10 back to mount on my Mamiya TLR, is it large format or medium format. I mean, this is confusing. The film is large, but the camera is medium. That's sort of the same if the film is medium and the camera is large.

Isn't it?

[Jim Jones]

Is a Nikon F with a Speed Magny back for 4x5 Polaroid sheet film a suitable topic for this site?

[Oren Grad]

It's against the ethos of this Forum to make disparaging remarks about other Forums.

This Forum is for the discussion of Large Format photography, APUG for film based photography and darkroom printing, that doesn't mean this Forum "Hates" Medium and 35mm formats, or that APUG "Hates" Digital, it's just they aren't the focus and purpose of these forums so threads get moved or deleted.

Thanks, Ian - this is exactly right.

[Oren Grad]

I must have missed that. So a thread about using MF roll film in a roll film holder on a 4x5 camera needs to go int he lounge now too?

This is correct.

[prendt]

This is correct.

Then why is the thread MPP 6X7 Roll Film Back in the camera& camera accessories subforum? Not to speak about so many other threads discussing MF rollfilm backs out of the Lounge?

[prendt]

This is correct.

And why can you discuss on this forum a small bubble level on your LF camera but not a much bigger roll film holder on the same LF camera?

[fishbulb]

There is a lot of stuff discussed here that is smaller than 4x5.

- Digital backs and roll film holders as discussed
- discussion of 3.25 x 4.25 film (FP-100C etc.)
- people posting their medium- and small-format images, (both within the "everything else" image sharing forum and outside of it)
- discussion of 35mm, MF, 2x3 sheet film, etc. in many threads
- discussion of digital adapters (sliding backs, Cambo stuff, etc.)
- discussion of digital lenses like the Schneider digitars, etc. that don't cover 4x5
- discussions in the "On Photography" forum about photographers that don't use large format, etc.
- people posting non-LF gear in the for sale forum
- discussions of lighting gear designed for 35mm use
- discussions of using scanners for other than scanning 4x5 or larger film
- et cetera ad nauseum

It's everywhere.

Hope you are willing to moderate ALL that stuff, and move ALL of it to the Lounge, including everything in the "everything else" image sharing forum.

Otherwise, you're cherry-picking and playing favorites. Either apply the rules fairly, or stop making such black and white rules.

[Oren Grad]

Is a Nikon F with a Speed Magny back for 4x5 Polaroid sheet film a suitable topic for this site?

The film area is large enough but the image area is very small, so arguably this is an ambiguous case. If a wave of Speed Magny discussions were to start flooding the Forum we might have to think about revising the guidelines to address this. But in general, we prefer to keep the guidelines as simple as we reasonably can, and not to complicate them with rules about rare special cases unless those are causing us problems.

[sanking]

I must have missed that. So a thread about using MF roll film in a roll film holder on a 4x5 camera needs to go int he lounge now too?

That is correct, this must now be discussed in the lounge. And any discussions of 6X9 cm technical cameras must also be in the lounge. Same for the use of 3X4" scanning backs.

All of this breaks with the entire history of the LF forum, and has served, in my opinion, to encourage divisions of analog versus digital, as would have been predicted as a logical outcome of the decision of the moderators.

Sandy

[Oren Grad]

There is a lot of stuff discussed here that is smaller than 4x5.

- Digital backs and roll film holders as discussed
- discussion of 3.25 x 4.25 film (FP-100C etc.)
- people posting their medium- and small-format images, (both within the "everything else" image sharing forum and outside of it)
- discussion of 35mm, MF, 2x3 sheet film, etc. in many threads
- discussion of digital adapters (sliding backs, Cambo stuff, etc.)
- discussion of digital lenses like the Schneider digitars, etc. that don't cover 4x5
- discussions in the "On Photography" forum about photographers that don't use large format, etc.
- people posting non-LF gear in the for sale forum
- discussions of lighting gear designed for 35mm use
- discussions of using scanners for other than scanning 4x5 or larger film
- et cetera ad nauseum

It's everywhere.

Hope you are willing to moderate ALL that stuff, and move ALL of it to the Lounge, including everything in the "everything else" image sharing forum.

Otherwise, you're cherry-picking and playing favorites. Either apply the rules fairly, or stop making such black and white rules.

Relative to what may look like "cherry-picking", the applicable rule is simple, and clearly stated:

Prior threads that no longer fit this definition will be moved to the appropriate forum only if new postings are made within them.

In fact, it has not been especially difficult for us to keep up on that basis. That doesn't mean we catch everything - we're only human, and there will always be some things that slip through on a board this size - but we do our best to be consistent.

Looking through your list, I should add: smaller format stuff is allowed as a matter of policy in the FS/WTB section which, like the Lounge, is considered peripheral to the main purpose of the Forum. If the FS/WTB were to become flooded with small format items in such a way as to be causing us problems, either within that section or spilling over into the main sections, we would reconsider that. But so far it seems to be working OK, and we know many members find it useful.

[prendt]

All of this breaks with the entire history of the LF forum, and has served, in my opinion, to encourage divisions of analog versus digital, as would have been predicted as a logical outcome of the decision of the moderators.

Sandy

I'm still confused. And why can you discuss on this forum a small bubble level on your LF camera but not a much bigger roll film holder on the same LF camera?
One who wants to understand.

[dasBlute]

The moderators volunteer their time and get monday-morning-quarterback comments about their choices. I think they deserve more appreciation. Walk a mile in their shoes. Words have meaning, and this forus explores what "large format" means. As if everyone could agree on what that is, and of course none of this exists in a vacuum, but they walk a a tough line to follow, trying to accomodate without the inevitable drift that comes from so many voices. Give 'em a break, or maybe volunteer for the job yourselves.

[prendt]

In fact, it has not been especially difficult for us to keep up on that basis. That doesn't mean we catch everything - we're only human, and there will always be some things that slip through on a board this size - but we do our best to be consistent.



Good for you. If you do a search for "6x7 roll film backs" you get 89 threads where they are discussed. Many threads even have this in their title. They're not in the Lounge though. Hopefully it will not be especially difficult to move them there.

[Oren Grad]

If I make a custom 8x10 back to mount on my Mamiya TLR, is it large format or medium format. I mean, this is confusing. The film is large, but the camera is medium. That's sort of the same if the film is medium and the camera is large.

Isn't it?

Similar situation as with the Speed Magny. If posts on this became a real problem, we'd come up with a policy to address it. Unless and until that happens, it's not worth complicating the guidelines further over it.

[Oren Grad]

Good for you. If you do a search for "6x7 roll film backs" you get 89 threads where they are discussed. Many threads even have this in their title. They're not in the Lounge though. Hopefully it will not be especially difficult to move them there.

As I posted a few moments ago, the rule that was adopted was that old threads that do not meet the size criterion will be moved if new posts are made within them. This is what we have been doing.

[prendt]

Good for you. If you do a search for "6x7 roll film backs" you get 89 threads where they are discussed. Many threads even have this in their title. They're not in the Lounge though. Hopefully it will not be especially difficult to move them there.

Sorry, 97 results in fact.

[Tim Meisburger]

I kind of preferred the old (perhaps unwritten) definition, where anything shot on a 4x5 view camera was more or less okay to post. That meant roll film holders on 4x5 or cropped images on 4x5 sheet film, and also included digital backs on view cameras. Likewise, it was agreed that smaller format sheet film was allowed (for example, my 6.5x9 Agfa folder). There was an understanding that all of these formats involved similar processes, whether it be loading holders or applying movements, and therefore discussion of one would inform others.

For everything else but view cameras, only size mattered. So, you could have an SLR shooting roll film and as long as it was 4x5 it was okay, but medium format no. Although called the Large Format Forum, their was a tacit understanding that it was really primarily the view camera forum, as it was the only place on the web were view camera users were the majority.

I'm okay with the way it is now, but it feels weird that I have to post a cropped 4x5 in the lounge...

[prendt]

As I posted a few moments ago, the rule that was adopted was that old threads that do not meet the size criterion will be moved if new posts are made within them. This is what we have been doing.

Thank you for your explanation.
IF you forgive your servant - I'm still confused. Why can you discuss on this forum a small bubble level on your LF camera but not a much bigger roll film holder on the same LF camera?
One who wants to understand.

[Oren Grad]

IF you forgive your servant - I'm still confused. Why can you discuss on this forum a small bubble level on your LF camera but not a much bigger roll film holder on the same LF camera?

A bubble level is not an image-capture medium.

[Oren Grad]

I'm okay with the way it is now, but it feels weird that I have to post a cropped 4x5 in the lounge...

Tim, I would have preferred a slightly different definition myself. But the current rule reflects a consensus achieved after much discussion. Having a clearer rule on this has been a big help in moderation and in keeping the scope of the main sections well-defined.

Also, such discussions are still welcome in the Lounge; there's plenty of relevant expertise here on these not-quite-LF topics, and it's great to be able to share it. Remember, the Lounge isn't a penalty box - it's just... a Lounge.

Also, a PS specifically about pictures: remember, too, that we do have a section for small format *images* in the main area.

[fishbulb]

I'm okay with the way it is now, but it feels weird that I have to post a cropped 4x5 in the lounge...

Good point actually. This demonstrates another problem with this black-and-white approach the moderators have taken. It's not easy to prove that an image really came from 4x5 or larger film.

I can imagine a future rule change:

"To enforce the 4x5 rule, in image sharing posts people must post full, uncropped scans of their 4x5 and larger negatives, the full sheet of film, with a ruler next to it so we can determine that it's really 4x5 or larger. Posts without the full sheet of film and the ruler will be moved to the "Everything else" image sharing forum".

[Vaughn]

Good job, moderators! Things are going fairly smoothly since the last rule clarification.

[Tin Can]

The fact is. this site accommodates all forms and formats of photography, each in it's place.

Not all sites do that.

[Sal Santamaura]

Then why is the thread MPP 6X7 Roll Film Back in the camera& camera accessories subforum?...It's not any longer. It's in the Lounge now, where it belongs. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...forgive your servant - I'm still confused...Clearly. You are not the servant here. Moderators volunteer to serve the forum community, not vice versa. And they deserve our gratitude for that service, not persistent harassment when enforcing the Usage Guidelines.

[rdenney]

Remember - here you can freely discuss a 6x7 roll film back on a LF camera but don't dare to discuss a LF camera digital back on this forum! Wait until the digital sensor will grow to at least 4x5 in. In the meantime discuss freely your 6x7 cm analogue capture device!

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

[rdenney]

If I make a custom 8x10 back to mount on my Mamiya TLR, is it large format or medium format. I mean, this is confusing. The film is large, but the camera is medium. That's sort of the same if the film is medium and the camera is large.

Isn't it?

It's about the film or sensor, not the camera. Making that shift untangled many inconsistencies.

Rick "recalling arguments over press cameras" Denney

[rdenney]

Good point actually. This demonstrates another problem with this black-and-white approach the moderators have taken. It's not easy to prove that an image really came from 4x5 or larger film.

I can imagine a future rule change:

"To enforce the 4x5 rule, in image sharing posts people must post full, uncropped scans of their 4x5 and larger negatives, the full sheet of film, with a ruler next to it so we can determine that it's really 4x5 or larger. Posts without the full sheet of film and the ruler will be moved to the "Everything else" image sharing forum".

No. Quit making something simple complicated. The definition isn't based on the cropped size, but the size of the film/sensor. Any definition draws a line, and every possible line puts some on the wrong side of it. I can no longer post 6x12 images, even though they can only be made in a 4x5 camera. But the benefits of a format-based definition versus a camera-based definition outweighed the concerns. It was a long discussion, necessitated because of endless issues with the previous definition, the exceptions to which became too much of a burden and caused too much confusion.

Rick "when bubble levels define the format, they'll need to be at least 4x5" Denney

[prendt]

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

Forgive your servant another question - when was this ever announced prior to this post? It's just that I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

[Ralph Barker]

That is correct, this must now be discussed in the lounge. And any discussions of 6X9 cm technical cameras must also be in the lounge. Same for the use of 3X4" scanning backs.

All of this breaks with the entire history of the LF forum, and has served, in my opinion, to encourage divisions of analog versus digital, as would have been predicted as a logical outcome of the decision of the moderators.

Sandy

Actually, the "entire history" of the forum, starting back in the old Lusenet days, has been fraught with inconsistencies and a few vague areas that seemed to make sense at the time. When a few people started to "over-parse" the rules for their own purposes and the advancement of their personal agendas, those inconsistencies became more problematic. What we have attempted to do in the last few years is to clarify the primary goal of the forum while still providing some accommodations for other non-LF formats. It is likely that the guidelines will continue to evolve as new issues come to the fore. But, our continuing goal is to promote large format photography, as it has been generally understood for the last few decades.

[fishbulb]

Clearly. You are not the servant here. Moderators volunteer to serve the forum community, not vice versa. And they deserve our gratitude for that service, not persistent harassment when enforcing the Usage Guidelines.

That is true, but even though moderators are volunteers, they are not above the law, above criticism, or above reproach.

I moderate a few other sites' forums - Vbulletin and Drupal based, not related to photography. I've seen a lot of rules and moderators come and go over the years. I've seen other sites fail or dwindle due to dictator mods, poorly-chosen rules, cherry-picking rule enforcement, under-the-table dealings, and tribal mentalities among the owners/mods. Usually the sites dwindle to a small "in group" and become an echo chamber. I've seen such things attempted by moderators at sites that I manage too. Moderating is a thankless job that never ends, but someone needs to do it.

From my experience, a public, democratic, free-speech approach to questions of moderation and rules is a good policy in order to avoid the above issues and to increase the credibility of moderators within the community they serve.

[rdenney]

Forgive your servant another question - when was this ever announced prior to this post? It's just that I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116888-LF-Clarification

Rick "noting the extended discussion at that time" Denney

[prendt]

That is true, but even though moderators are volunteers, they are not above the law, above criticism, or above reproach.


From my experience, a public, democratic, free-speech approach to questions of moderation and rules is a good policy in order to avoid the above issues and to increase the credibility of moderators within the community they serve.

Well, Kirk Gittings, the former moderator, sees it quite differently: "I don't think our discussions will change anything. This forum is not a democracy-but that is another question." (LF clarification thread).
Go wonder.

[prendt]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116888-LF-Clarification

Rick "noting the extended discussion at that time" Denney

Thank you for the reference.

[MikeH]

I don't post very often, but I read this forum almost daily, and I find the moderation to be very reasonable.

[Corran]

The new clarifications basically precludes any talk of digital imaging in the main forum, at least at this time, other than the one person posting images from the 8x10 digital camera back prototype he is working on*.

While there might not be "hate" specifically towards digital, the targeted segregation can certainly feel that way to some, I imagine.

Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area. Especially if you were to, say, use a MF digital back and a 4x5 camera, and stitch images at basically the size of a nominal 4x5 sheet of film.

*Perhaps scanning backs are acceptable, if anyone actually uses them much anymore, though technically the image area is only 1 pixel x whatever the image area is set at, right?! :rolleyes:

[Sal Santamaura]

...Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area...I find no ambiguity whatsoever. If the sensor is nominally 4x5 or larger, OK. If not, the Lounge.

[prendt]

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

[Corran]

Sal, the world is simply not black and white.

Technically speaking, tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?

And how about if in the future they actually make a 4x5-sized sensor out of, say, 6 smaller sensors in a series? Is that still not a "nominal 4x5" sensor size?

There will always be a grey area, in pretty much any set of rules.

[prendt]

Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area. Especially if you were to, say, use a MF digital back and a 4x5 camera, and stitch images at basically the size of a nominal 4x5 sheet of film.

*Perhaps scanning backs are acceptable, if anyone actually uses them much anymore, though technically the image area is only 1 pixel x whatever the image area is set at, right?! :rolleyes:

That's my understanding too. See the new thread - Scanning & stitching troubles. Where does it belong and why? The scanner is not 4x5 size.

[Oren Grad]

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

The scanner is not being used as an original image capture device.

[Oren Grad]

Technically speaking, tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?

The size of the original capture device.

Stitching is not strictly a digital issue. One could stitch scans from small-format film. Some have done this.

We have had this discussion. Stitching of small-format digital captures is a large and growing field with extensive discussion taking place in other venues. For now, the capture-device-size criterion serves us well in maintaining the distinctive focus of this forum. If and when technology and practice change in a way that poses new challenges for us, we will consider the particulars and decide what to do about it.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the world is simply not black and white...No, I hear some people shoot in color too. :D


...tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?...Since your question involves something that doesn't exist, I have no way to know the answer. However, you're asking me something irrelevant to my prior post.

I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them.


...And how about if in the future they actually make a 4x5-sized sensor out of, say, 6 smaller sensors in a series? Is that still not a "nominal 4x5" sensor size?...That's yet another hypothetical I'll leave for Tuan and the moderators to figure out if and when it happens. :)

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't think digital photographers should be allowed to marry. It's just not natural, and not what the Bible intended.

How does one pronounce analog?

[Corran]

The size of the original capture device.

Stitching is not strictly a digital issue. One could stitch scans from small-format film. Some have done this.

We have had this discussion. Stitching of small-format digital captures is a large and growing field with extensive discussion taking place in other venues. For now, the capture-device-size criterion serves us well in maintaining the distinctive focus of this forum. If and when technology and practice change in a way that poses new challenges for us, we will consider the particulars and decide what to do about it.

However, at least in my opinion, there is a very big difference between stitching done hand-held with a DSLR or even one of those Gigapan things and stitching done with a LF camera by moving the sensor around. The images will be distinctly different due to the nature of the capture, with the DSLR handheld/gigapan having the image plane moving, while the sliding back has a static image plane. The image from that and a single piece of film would be indistinguishable.

My point was the complete and total segregation inherent with this change of digital and film, which only fans the flames of perceived elitism.

I am also keenly aware of this discussion having been made, and I still disagree with it completely. Images made with LF cameras or LF-like cameras, such as smaller Linhofs/Graphics that use roll film or any roll film back, 6x17, etc., should be classified as LF, just as they were before, as should digital cameras with full movement capability that many use on their LF cameras or technical cameras. In my opinion, of course.

[Mark Sawyer]

Seriously, if "which sub-heading should this post fall under" is the most pressing issue, the moderation is being done in moderation. For that, and everything else they do for us, I thank the moderators

[Corran]

I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them.

Actually, I just looked again at the Usage Guidelines, and no, it's not clear and unambiguous - absolutely no mention of stitching is made. So it is in fact a grey area, since people keep bringing it up. If the mods want to make it unequivocally not allowed, they should add that.

Also, I will say now I also appreciate the mods in general for not being overbearing with their own opinions. I recently was censored on another forum for having an opposing viewpoint with a moderator, so he just deleted the opinion. That hasn't happened here AFAIK.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them...


Actually, I just looked again at the Usage Guidelines, and no, it's not clear and unambiguous - absolutely no mention of stitching is made. So it is in fact a grey area, since people keep bringing it up...I noted that there is no ambiguity concerning sensor size. I said nothing about stitching.

That people bring the same thing up repeatedly is indicative of their unhappiness with it, not that the Usage Guidelines aren't clear about it.

[Bruce Barlow]

Don't we have anything better to do? Such as photography?

[rdenney]

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

I would expect a discussion I started about using my Nikon 8000 scanner to scan 6x12 to be moved to the Lounge, just as I would expect a discussion about enlarging rollfilm in an Omega B enlarger to be moved. I would expect a discussion on using a small digital camera to scan 4x5 film, one frame at a time, to be acceptable in the main forum. Large format applies to the image capture, not to subsequent processes.

Rick "not appreciating the underlying hostility" Denney

[Heroique]

Yes, a reasonable tolerance for ambiguity would be a blessing around here.

[StoneNYC]

This would all be solved more easily if we went back to the original definition of large format before Linhof came in and redefined it and called 4x5 Large format, prior to that, 5x7 was large format and 4x5 was considered medium format... Just saying... That would solve 90% of the complaints except those pesky 6x17 users ;)

Stone "who thinks this argument is tired and also thinks non-LF/non-sheet film/70mm-and-smaller stuff shouldn't even be allowed on the forum at all, even in the lounge so just be glad I'm not in charge" NYC

[prendt]

I would expect a discussion I started about using my Nikon 8000 scanner to scan 6x22 to be moved to the Lounge, just as I would expect a discussion about enlarging rollfilm in an Omega B enlarger to be moved. I would expect a discussion on using a small digital camera to scan 4x5 film, one frame at a time, to be acceptable in the main forum. Large format applies to the image capture, not to subsequent processes.

Rick "not appreciating the underlying hostility" Denney

What underlying hostility are you speaking about? On who's side? I just got deleted posts when I doubted about MF scanner scanning 4x5 image twice and stitching the results. Do you think trying to understand rules that are not so clear is hostile endeavour? A polite explanation goes long way, don't forget that. Your servant, truly.

[Oren Grad]

What underlying hostility are you speaking about? On who's side? I just got deleted posts when I doubted about MF scanner scanning 4x5 image twice and stitching the results. Do you think trying to understand rules that are not so clear is hostile endeavour? A polite explanation goes long way, don't forget that. Your servant, truly.

We are having the discussion here. Parachuting into threads in the main section with disruptive posts, whether the motivation is to grab the moderators' attention, to press a case for a particular interpretation, or who-knows-what, is not "polite" by any stretch of the imagination. We will continue to delete such posts.

[rdenney]

In this case, the definition seems clear. Moving a sliding back and taking multiple exposures to assemble an image can be as easily done with a Canon EOS-1 as with my Canon 5D, so it is not a digital-vs.-film issue. Each image may be in the same plane, but they are not the same scene, simply because time has gone by. A stack of 24x36 digital images assembled to something bigger is no more large format than a stack of 35mm Kodachrome slides similarly assembled, by our definition.

We are not against digital, but until there is a digital capture device that allows the capture of an image of 4x5 or larger (and we know of at least one that is emerging), then digital is not large format. Many of us are hoping for that. But if I want to discuss my small and medium format digital equipment, I can do so in the Lounge, and I can even share images in the main forum. Or, I can participate in another forum, many of which have little interest in or support for large format.

And, yes, that seems clear enough to me.

Rick "most of whose work is outside the scope of this forum" Denney

[rdenney]

What underlying hostility are you speaking about? On who's side? I just got deleted posts when I doubted about MF scanner scanning 4x5 image twice and stitching the results. Do you think trying to understand rules that are not so clear is hostile endeavour? A polite explanation goes long way, don't forget that. Your servant, truly.

My ear is reasonably tuned to tone.

Rick "who doesn't always hear correctly, but who usually does" Denney

[BrianShaw]

That is true, but even though moderators are volunteers, they are not above the law, above criticism, or above reproach.

...

I pray (not in a religious way) that the TOS and guidelines fir this forum be updated to specify that mods above the forum law, above criticism, and above reproach until they voluntarily or involuntarily separate from moderation services.

[rdenney]

From my experience, a public, democratic, free-speech approach to questions of moderation and rules is a good policy in order to avoid the above issues and to increase the credibility of moderators within the community they serve.

I think you'll find all our current moderators agree with this. So, what happens when one vocal group goes one way and another vocal group goes another way? How does one determine which vocal group is representative? The number of registrants on this forum is vastly larger than the number of participants, which is similarly larger than the number of active participants. The mechanics of gathering consensus isn't trivial, and one thing is for sure: The polling tools in the forum will not do that, and would likely exclude viewpoints rather than capturing them.

Our current approach has been to gather up the comments seen in various places in the forum, and when they rise to the level of needing consideration, bring those up for moderator discussion. Based on what can be very extensive discussion, we propose a concept, test it for technical and semantic feasibility, and put it out for comment. Often, those comments are divided, with some positives and some negatives. We try to address the negatives, either with refinements or with explanations, but at the end of the day, any action will have committed detractors. We certainly give more weight to those contributors who most reflect the purpose of the forum, and that does build in some bias towards certain viewpoints, but any other process will have biases, too. We also test every change with the simple question: Does this solve a bigger problem than it creates? Of course, the answer to that is at best a prediction.

As to cherry-picking rule enforcement, we do not pick cherries. But we do not see everything, so our moderation is biased by things we see in our favorite topics, or based on complaints we receive from forum members, who each have their own biases. Those forums in which I participate that have sufficient moderation to review every post in every thread are far more tightly (and capriciously) moderated than this one. But it means that we don't see some things that would normally attract a moderator action, and if nobody complains, it may well go unaddressed. That is not cherry-picking, because we don't choose which threads to moderate on the basis of some underlying agenda, as the phrase "cherry-picking" implies.

Under the table dealing? Other than moderator discussions, there are none. We do interact with members who are related to a moderation activity, and we will continue to handle those conversations discreetly.

There is a fine line between open and transparent forum activity and uncontrolled rule of the loudest. We actually take a pretty soft hand in moderation compared to every other forum I follow, but we are committed to maintaining a place where people will not be shouted down.

Rick "who started this response two hours ago, but was interrupted by, you know, work" Denney

[prendt]

My ear is reasonably tuned to tone.

Rick "who doesn't always hear correctly, but who usually does" Denney

Not always, I agree. Not in this case, I add. Your servant, truly.

[Leszek Vogt]

Allow me to shout a bit, he he....that the dead horse is getting more (unneeded) lashes, eh ? Space is allocated for all sorts of fortmats here...and even digital (Drew, I know you grind yer teeth on this).
Can we all....? Heh

Les

[Sal Santamaura]

What underlying hostility are you speaking about?...It's as clear as the detail in an 8x10 negative. :D:D

[prendt]

We are having the discussion here. Parachuting into threads in the main section with disruptive posts, whether the motivation is to grab the moderators' attention, to press a case for a particular interpretation, or who-knows-what, is not "polite" by any stretch of the imagination. We will continue to delete such posts.

A polite explanation goes a longer way than overreacting. Your servant,truly.

[Sal Santamaura]

Don't we have anything better to do?...Some of us do, some don't. :)

[sanking]

Allow me to shout a bit, he he....that the dead horse is getting more (unneeded) lashes, eh ? Space is allocated for all sorts of fortmats here...and even digital (Drew, I know you grind yer teeth on this).
Can we all....? Heh

Les

With things going as they are large format as we have known it is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Before too long it will be limited to home-made emulsions in B&W, and to the color film and papers found in Drew's freezer.

Sandy

[VictoriaPerelet]

Oh, I think it went overboard again as it happens. My only concern is that there is forum called:

Forum Digital Hardware
Large format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)


So please add backs bigger than 4x5in to forum description. So neither myself or brand new user will not get confused with fact that that moderators ONLY allow 4x5 and bigger digital back discussion there. Simple and clear. Talking about real large things only! :D

It does not matter that such thing is not know to human society. As long at rule says digital backs of size 4x5 and bigger everybody will be fine.

Phase one and better light scan backs do not belong there either, cause imager size is smaller than 4x5.

[Sal Santamaura]

With things going as they are large format as we have known it is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Before too long it will be limited to home-made emulsions in B&W, and to the color film and papers found in Drew's freezer...Please define "before too long." I'm curious because, given how successful it's been, HARMAN seems likely to continue supplying silver halide film and paper for at least the duration of its site lease, which runs for another decade. It's entirely possible that Ilford materials will continue to be available even after that.

Why do you telegraph what feels like, at least to me, a negative attitude about this forum's very reason for being, in one of this forum's threads?

[IanG]

With things going as they are large format as we have known it is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Before too long it will be limited to home-made emulsions in B&W, and to the color film and papers found in Drew's freezer.

Sandy

Most of us would strongly disagree.

Maybe your opinion is based on a personal change in direction which I think may have been noticeable to many in your posts. I've certainly seen it happening. Normally I totally agree with you but not on this occasion.

Ian

[Michael R]

This would all be solved more easily if we went back to the original definition of large format before Linhof came in and redefined it and called 4x5 Large format, prior to that, 5x7 was large format and 4x5 was considered medium format... Just saying... That would solve 90% of the complaints except those pesky 6x17 users ;)

Stone "who thinks this argument is tired and also thinks non-LF/non-sheet film/70mm-and-smaller stuff shouldn't even be allowed on the forum at all, even in the lounge so just be glad I'm not in charge" NYC

I'm confused. I shoot 8x20, but then I cut the negative into 40 2x2 squares and scan them on a medium format scanner. What happens?

[Jac@stafford.net]

With things going as they are large format as we have known it is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Before too long it will be limited to home-made emulsions in B&W, and to the color film and papers found in Drew's freezer.

Sandy

I know you are being facetious, but inevitably others will not.

HOWEVER, I look forward to LARGER format, special categories. I want an ULF Alternative Process Action Sports Photography section.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm confused. I shoot 8x20, but then I cut the negative into 40 2x2 squares and scan them on a medium format scanner. What happens?

Oh, you want the Slice-n-Dice forum. It's to your right, just pass the room for arguments.

[prendt]

Oh, I think it went overboard again as it happens. My only concern is that there is forum called:

Forum Digital Hardware
Large format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)


So please add backs bigger than 4x5in to forum description. So neither myself or brand new user will not get confused with fact that that moderators ONLY allow 4x5 and bigger digital back discussion there. Simple and clear.

I agree. What is more, the newcomers must be terribly confused to find long and many discussions of things now outlawed in the main forum, not moved to the Lounge, only to find the hard way that somewhere new guidelines forbid them. I didn't know medium film backs were things of the Lounge if you happened to parachute yourself into their discussed threads. Naming backs in the Forum Digital Hardware but actually forbidding them in the guidelines (as not big enough) must be a bad taste joke I don't understand.

[StoneNYC]

Oh, I think it went overboard again as it happens. My only concern is that there is forum called:

Forum Digital Hardware
Large format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)


So please add backs bigger than 4x5in to forum description. So neither myself or brand new user will not get confused with fact that that moderators ONLY allow 4x5 and bigger digital back discussion there. Simple and clear. Talking about real large things only! :D

It does not matter that such thing is not know to human society. As long at rule says digital backs of size 4x5 and bigger everybody will be fine.

Phase one and better light scan backs do not belong there either, cause imager size is smaller than 4x5.

Don't get me wrong as I like you so don't want this to be heard incorrectly.

The word "large format" is described by the forum as 4x5 and larger, so any mention it "large format" is inferred automatically to mean 4x5 and larger and shouldn't require an addendum. It's implied by the "large format" part.

So if you're confused it's only because you didn't read the updated description of the forum, which is ok, but you can't plaster "4x5 and larger" after every thread that's for large format or we would have some unnecessarily long thread titles...

[StoneNYC]

I agree. What is more, the newcomers must be terribly confused to find long and many discussions of things now outlawed in the main forum, not moved to the Lounge, only to find the hard way that somewhere new guidelines forbid them. I didn't know medium film backs were things of the Lounge if you happened to parachute yourself into their discussed threads. Naming backs in the Forum Digital Hardware but actually forbidding them in the guidelines (as not big enough) must be a bad taste joke I don't understand.

It's a transition, change is hard, we can do it if we work together :)

[prendt]

It's a transition, change is hard, we can do it if we work together :)

I know, but just imagine the poor new guy asking a question and having it disappeared into the Lounge (where you cannot even go without first logging in) with no word of explanation. The OP just parachuted elsewhere and have a nice day! There Victoria was right, me thinks.

[StoneNYC]

I know, but just imagine the poor new guy asking a question and having it disappeared into the Lounge (where you cannot even go without first logging in) with no word of explanation. The OP just parachuted elsewhere and have a nice day! There Victoria was right, me thinks.

All subscribed-to threads stay subscribed when moved, the "poor newbie" will find it just fine.

[Kirks518]

As a relatively new member to the forum, I don't think 'new users' will have a problem, if, and only if, they read the sub-forum topics description.

I had a question (that was indirectly referenced in this thread earlier) regarding scanning of my LF (4x5) negatives on a non-LF scanner. I looked at the sub-forum descriptions, and decided on "Digital Processing - Software, Printing, Workflow" rather than "Digital Hardware - Large Format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)". To me, "Digital Processing" made more sense, because a) I felt it was more a digital processing issue and scanner more than the LF equipment, and also because the scanner I use is not an LF scanner, and the sub-frum of digital processing doesn't specify LF. If the question had been about scanning 120, I wouldn't have even posted on this forum, since 120 is not LF.

So unless a new user doesn't want to read the sub-forum description, or understand what LF is defined as, there really shouldn't be any difficulty in figuring out what sub-forum a question belongs in. If in doubt, let the moderator decide where it belongs, and live with it.

To me, as a newbie (to both the forum and the format), Large Format refers to the initial medium used to capture the (original) image being 4x5 or larger.

But I'm just a newbie....

[Peter Lewin]

This is a little bit like arguing the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. I'm no digital back expert, so perhaps some scanning backs are really 4x5, but to my knowledge all the digital backs are smaller. So by that standard they are medium format. On the other hand, they attach to a view camera, so one could argue that they fall within the bailiwick of our "proper" sub-forums. But my real point is that the moderators have a difficult, unpaid job, for which 99% of us would never volunteer. So in grey areas like this one, why don't we simply accept the moderator's decision, say "thank you for your service" (yes, I know I'm being unoriginal!), and get on with either taking photographs or enjoying the site.

[Wayne]

My goodness, you are quite the mosquito.


How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

[sanking]

This is a little bit like arguing the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. I'm no digital back expert, so perhaps some scanning backs are really 4x5, but to my knowledge all the digital backs are smaller. So by that standard they are medium format. On the other hand, they attach to a view camera, so one could argue that they fall within the bailiwick of our "proper" sub-forums. But my real point is that the moderators have a difficult, unpaid job, for which 99% of us would never volunteer. So in grey areas like this one, why don't we simply accept the moderator's decision, say "thank you for your service" (yes, I know I'm being unoriginal!), and get on with either taking photographs or enjoying the site.

Yes, the moderators are always right, even if they are wrong.

Personally, my opinion is that the moderators made a very flawed decision in deciding that large format was strictly to be defined by film size. For its entire existence until 2014 the mission of this forum included small (2X3" and 6X9 cm) view cameras and other technical cameras with movements and interchangeable lenses. It still does, if you look at the large format home page because there are sections on small view cameras, and on roll film backs.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this issue, but when it comes up I plan to continue to state my opinion on the matter. I respect the moderators and their work, but I am not required to agree and respect everything they do. They really could have done better in this case, in my opinion.

Thanks, and that is all I will have to say on the subject until next year when it comes up again.

Sandy

[rdenney]

Thank you all for your comments. While we note and respect the dissenting opinions, we will not be redefining "large format". But there are some good clarity suggestions that we are discussing.

One last warning: this has been litigated again for now. Do not take this discussion to other threads outside the feedback sub-forum. Let's cool it a bit and go make some photos.

Rick "waiting for that box of New55" Denney