PDA

View Full Version : Is the Forum a repository or a community?



Michael R
27-Apr-2016, 16:58
MODERATOR'S NOTE: I've moved the "repository vs community" discussion to its own thread, both so as not to derail Kirk's useful "Forum growth" thread and because this is an important topic in its own right.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


As well as the number of redundant questions and responses.

Honestly, Sal, why are you so opposed to redundant questions? You really never know. Perhaps the 20th time something is asked, we finally get a correct answer. Asking for no redundant questions/discussions and asking everyone to wade through searches instead, implies this (or any other forum) is some sort of factual database and that everything authoritatively correct. Yikes.

Sal Santamaura
27-Apr-2016, 17:10
As well as the number of redundant questions and responses.


Why does that...matter? The information is being passed. What about schools -- they been teaching some of the same crap for decades?...It matters because, as originally envisioned by LUSENET's founder Phillip Greenspun, from whence this forum sprang, it's intended to be a useful archive of information, not a chat room. Cluttering up the database with redundant questions and answers makes it more difficult to search and adds no new information. In your school analogy, this is the textbook. Repeating the content of each chapter again and again, in random sequence, makes the book larger and larger, at the same time making it more difficult to carry around and use.

There. I've once again answered that redundant rhetorical question, contributing to the very clutter problem I describe. :eek:


...Once most topics have already been discussed several times, which is pretty much the case, I suppose, what else is there to talk about?...Fortunately, this is not a commercial site. Maximizing traffic doesn't need to be a goal. There would be nothing wrong with not talking about those topics unless new or revised information were available that could be added to them. That and an occasional genuinely new topic; we haven't exhausted every facet yet.

There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. :D

Sal Santamaura
27-Apr-2016, 17:18
Honestly, Sal, why are you so opposed to redundant questions? You really never know. Perhaps the 20th time something is asked, we finally get a correct answer. Asking for no redundant questions/discussions and asking everyone to wade through searches instead, implies this (or any other forum) is some sort of factual database and that everything authoritatively correct. Yikes.I see no problem with further exploring questions that are already threads in the database. If additional refinement or understanding is sought, I suggest posters add to the most relevant existing thread.

Call me old fashioned. I don't think searching this forum is akin to "wading." It's a simple matter of going to Google, entering one's search terms and adding site:largeformatphotography.info at the end (or beginning). In my opinion, the interested person will learn much more that way than by being spoon fed immediately upon starting a redundant thread. Also, the responses posted to a new, redundant thread will not be inherently more authoritative than those already posted in existing, relevant threads.

Yet again I've answered a redundant question, contributing even more to the clutter problem. :eek::eek:

Randy Moe
27-Apr-2016, 17:23
This is not an organized database and never has been since the first pioneers. It's more like a pile of loose leaf folders of scribbled random data.

Which is OK for me, but not searchable unless you know the answer already.

Just like most of the Internet, which has grown into a mess.

We are first going to struggle with data, then lose all data, then figure out better ways to organize, store and use data.

That's a ways off. Like decades or more.

Insisting that we never revisit a topic (data) will result in even worse loss of data.

IMHO

BrianShaw
27-Apr-2016, 17:35
Greenspun is long gone and this isn't the good old days anymore.

Randy Moe
27-Apr-2016, 17:41
I really worry this haystack will get shut down and Humpty Dumpty will not get rebuilt.

Humans are real good at losing History (data), forgetting History (data) and destroying History (data).

Photographers like many 'geniuses' don't share their formulae willingly, and often pride themselves as having 'A' secret to their success.

Sorry, not really, for my repetition, but it seems we need to hammer many nails to hold our House together.

:)

Consider how badly photography has been documented heretofore...

Sal Santamaura
27-Apr-2016, 17:42
These are the good old days. :D

Randy Moe
27-Apr-2016, 17:48
Greenspun is long gone and this isn't the good old days anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun

I hear many early adopters rue the day the masses gained access.

More genius exclusivity. That will save the world...

Randy Moe
27-Apr-2016, 17:49
These are the good old days. :D

I will agree with that, and tell anybody who will listen, live now today.

BrianShaw
27-Apr-2016, 18:11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun

I hear many early adopters rue the day the masses gained access.

More genius exclusivity. That will save the world...

He is a genius, to be sure! Always has been. But times also have changed dramatically.

Corran
27-Apr-2016, 20:02
There will always be questions needing answers and searching the topic may not adequately answer anything.

Sometimes newbies do not know the proper nomenclature. They might wonder "does this lens work on 4x5?" but don't realize what they are asking about is the "image circle," or know what that even is. Then there are the innumerable number of similarly-named lenses from large companies which may vary greatly in specifications. And even if you do grasp everything and know exactly what you are looking for, a Google search of a specific lens and a question about using it on 8x10 will often discover one person saying it has almost enough IC for 11x14 and another poster saying the corners are so poor you shouldn't go past 5x7. Oh and of course no example images or possibly dead links.

I've also even recently read posts saying to go to "XYZ website" and search for this or that tidbit of information, but then that specific site had been gone for years. Such is the nature of the web.

koh303
27-Apr-2016, 20:46
There will always be questions needing answers and searching the topic may not adequately answer anything.

Sometimes newbies do not know the proper nomenclature. They might wonder "does this lens work on 4x5?" but don't realize what they are asking about is the "image circle," or know what that even is. Then there are the innumerable number of similarly-named lenses from large companies which may vary greatly in specifications. And even if you do grasp everything and know exactly what you are looking for, a Google search of a specific lens and a question about using it on 8x10 will often discover one person saying it has almost enough IC for 11x14 and another poster saying the corners are so poor you shouldn't go past 5x7. Oh and of course no example images or possibly dead links.

I've also even recently read posts saying to go to "XYZ website" and search for this or that tidbit of information, but then that specific site had been gone for years. Such is the nature of the web.

In the age of google, this is all moot.
Think of any noob question you can think of and type it into google in free text question form. See if you do not find the answer you were looking for in the first page results.

Darin Boville
27-Apr-2016, 20:56
It matters because, as originally envisioned by LUSENET's founder Phillip Greenspun, from whence this forum sprang, it's intended to be a useful archive of information, not a chat room. Cluttering up the database with redundant questions and answers makes it more difficult to search and adds no new information. In your school analogy, this is the textbook. Repeating the content of each chapter again and again, in random sequence, makes the book larger and larger, at the same time making it more difficult to carry around and use.


Deep down on this forum *and on others) this is the very schism that we encounter again and again. Some people see the forum as a database of technical knowledge, assembled and kept current by users. The knowledge base is the reason for being and everything else is clutter and distraction. Nothing wrong with that view.

My view is that this forum is more like a large party at someone's house. There are clusters of groups talking about various topics. Not everyone stays on topic not do they have to. Conversation ebbs and flows. It's all recorded so later other coming to the party late can share the good stuff, too. There's a huge social element, and by "social" I don't mean idle chit chat but "Social" with a capital "S."

Some of the issues on the board seem to spring from these two sometimes opposing views.

--Darin

Jac@stafford.net
27-Apr-2016, 20:56
In the age of google, this is all moot.
Think of any noob question you can think of and type it into google in free text question form. See if you do not find the answer you were looking for in the first page results.

I'm going to hold you to that. You are certain to make an uninformed comment or ask a question someone here can answer.
.

Corran
27-Apr-2016, 20:58
In the age of google, this is all moot.
Think of any noob question you can think of and type it into google in free text question form. See if you do not find the answer you were looking for in the first page results.

You are absolutely right, within the confines of me thinking of a "noob question" and already knowing the answer, thus "finding" that answer easily.

If I was not already quite familiar with LF gear and various terms, that would not hold true. Just search for example "fuji 300mm lens for 8x10" and you will find nearly 200,000 results. This does nothing to help our supposed noob who has no idea what the A, C, CM, CM-W, W, S, etc. nomenclature means or implies, what IC is needed for 8x10 or indeed what "image circle" even is. Then his head starts to spin when finding info stating "this lens covers 42 degrees" as if that means anything to most. Let's also not forget that terms and understanding can vary greatly between generations. Many young newbies entering LF did not learn the same vocabulary in photography having grown up in the digital age or are simply not well versed in it. I am reminded of questions about "telephoto lenses" for LF which as we all know means one thing but most young folks simply mean "longer than normal" lenses when they say that. It is complete folly to think that all questions have been answered and you can just Google anything and find your answer.

Some questions though, yes. If you want to know about a lens that you have in your hand, and are already well-versed in terminology, just Google the exact name of the lens and you'll find tons of info. A thread asking for opinions on a "Symmar-S 210mm f/5.6" lens for example might be responded to with "Google it." If they are a brand-new poster perhaps a helpful reply asking what they'd like to know would be better.

Peter De Smidt
28-Apr-2016, 04:14
This site isn't just a repository of knowledge. It's a community, one that depends on other people becoming interested in LF photography for it's survival down the road. Be nice.

Fred L
28-Apr-2016, 05:19
Numbers are useful, but there is no metric for the concentrated expertise that has grown thanks to long-term participants. This is definitely my go-to place for expertise

^^ Exactly why I love this place. the kb here is deep, very deep.

StoneNYC
28-Apr-2016, 06:09
It matters because, as originally envisioned by LUSENET's founder Phillip Greenspun, from whence this forum sprang, it's intended to be a useful archive of information, not a chat room. Cluttering up the database with redundant questions and answers makes it more difficult to search and adds no new information. In your school analogy, this is the textbook. Repeating the content of each chapter again and again, in random sequence, makes the book larger and larger, at the same time making it more difficult to carry around and use.

There. I've once again answered that redundant rhetorical question, contributing to the very clutter problem I describe. :eek:

Fortunately, this is not a commercial site. Maximizing traffic doesn't need to be a goal. There would be nothing wrong with not talking about those topics unless new or revised information were available that could be added to them. That and an occasional genuinely new topic; we haven't exhausted every facet yet.

There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. :D

Perhaps you could compile a list of forum threads that are FAQ and create a sticky with a list of links to each FAQ thread?

This would allow for the current desire of many to utilize this as a chat room, while also honoring the original purpose.

The list could be added to/updated/edited as needed?

It could be added as a kind of "resources" section?

You're really good at identifying the often asked questions, and I know that it might take some effort but perhaps this is a way to alleviate the frustration and allow you to also reference the FAQ list for new members or people who are asking "the same old questions?

I think there's already a FAQ? but I mean a more thorough one?

Would you be willing to compile that Sal?

Just a thought.

~Stone

IanG
28-Apr-2016, 06:58
Deep down on this forum *and on others) this is the very schism that we encounter again and again. Some people see the forum as a database of technical knowledge, assembled and kept current by users. The knowledge base is the reason for being and everything else is clutter and distraction. Nothing wrong with that view.

My view is that this forum is more like a large party at someone's house. There are clusters of groups talking about various topics. Not everyone stays on topic not do they have to. Conversation ebbs and flows. It's all recorded so later other coming to the party late can share the good stuff, too. There's a huge social element, and by "social" I don't mean idle chit chat but "Social" with a capital "S."

Some of the issues on the board seem to spring from these two sometimes opposing views.

--Darin

You're right.

There's a big dilemma here because yes this website as a whole is that resource and knowledge base but outside the actual forum there's little updating being done to the rest of the website to update or add new articles, resources etc. There's huge potential to dramatically improve the website, many of the current articles would benefit enormously ly from the addition of images, diagrams etc or just being updated with more current information. There are issues though because the text of the articles are the copyright of the original writers, sometimes there's multiple contributors.

I think it was Brian Wallen who actually wrote some sample pages of what the site resources could look like, this was a few years ago.

So at the moment there's a disconnection between the Resources and the Forum and maybe that's what needs discussion.

Ian

Peter De Smidt
28-Apr-2016, 07:05
Purposes can change.

"There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. " You're welcome to give that a try.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 07:23
The Day the Image Only Thread Died.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121575-LF-image-only-no-written-comments-reply-by-image-only

Please discuss. In writing.





Purposes can change.

"There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. " You're welcome to give that a try.

Jac@stafford.net
28-Apr-2016, 07:38
[...] Not talking for a while might be a good thing.

Greg Hindy had the right idea.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 07:46
Greg Hindy had the right idea.

He didn't talk but did write brief notes, just like we do here to communicate.

We can imagine photographers communicating only with images.

Can we...

Jody_S
28-Apr-2016, 07:47
I just come for the pretty pictures.

vinny
28-Apr-2016, 07:52
what tripod should I get for 4x5?
where can I buy film?

pdh
28-Apr-2016, 07:57
what tripod should I get for 4x5?
where can I buy film?

1. The best one
2. You can't, they stopped making it years ago

koh303
28-Apr-2016, 07:58
You are absolutely right, within the confines of me thinking of a "noob question" and already knowing the answer, thus "finding" that answer easily.

If I was not already quite familiar with LF gear and various terms, that would not hold true. Just search for example "fuji 300mm lens for 8x10" and you will find nearly 200,000 results. This does nothing to help our supposed noob who has no idea what the A, C, CM, CM-W, W, S, etc. nomenclature means or implies, what IC is needed for 8x10 or indeed what "image circle" even is. Then his head starts to spin when finding info stating "this lens covers 42 degrees" as if that means anything to most. Let's also not forget that terms and understanding can vary greatly between generations. Many young newbies entering LF did not learn the same vocabulary in photography having grown up in the digital age or are simply not well versed in it. I am reminded of questions about "telephoto lenses" for LF which as we all know means one thing but most young folks simply mean "longer than normal" lenses when they say that. It is complete folly to think that all questions have been answered and you can just Google anything and find your answer.

Some questions though, yes. If you want to know about a lens that you have in your hand, and are already well-versed in terminology, just Google the exact name of the lens and you'll find tons of info. A thread asking for opinions on a "Symmar-S 210mm f/5.6" lens for example might be responded to with "Google it." If they are a brand-new poster perhaps a helpful reply asking what they'd like to know would be better.

Just beets and diggles, i typed Fuji 300mm for 8X10 (which is not a question, but whatever), into google, and low and behold, the first three links:
photo.net
LFPF
Thellamns page
discuss every single and possible aspect of the statment "fuji 300mm for 8X10",
in fact, these links discuss way more including all the stuff you mentioned, because as this and other forums tend to be, repetitive when someone asks a google question.

If someone really wants to know something, and asks google, then gets an answer with parts he does not understand, that can only lead to another google search, for those questions too, have been asked and answered.

Oren Grad
28-Apr-2016, 08:02
I've moved the "repository vs community" discussion to its own thread, both so as not to derail Kirk's useful "Forum growth" thread and because this is an important topic in its own right.

The answer is "both". Although the LF Home Page still refers to this as the "Questions & Answers Forum", the social interaction helps build and strengthen our community of shared interest and is valued in its own right. The challenge is to maintain a reasonable balance between the two functions. Certain constraints are placed on the social function - for example, a few extremely divisive off-topics are not allowed; the Lounge is provided for non-LF discussion; and most recently, limits have been placed on tangential discussion in the FS and WTB sections. The purpose of these is to assure that chat does not unreasonably dilute or overwhelm the value and usability of the Forum as a reference, interfere with Forum operations, or make Forum management unsustainable for volunteer moderators.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 08:12
Do you suggest the forum close and remain an image of historical methods with no possibility of change, evolution or improvement in Large Format Photograghy?

Our job is done. Let's go home?



Just beets and diggles, i typed Fuji 300mm for 8X10 (which is not a question, but whatever), into google, and low and behold, the first three links:
photo.net
LFPF
Thellamns page
discuss every single and possible aspect of the statment "fuji 300mm for 8X10",
in fact, these links discuss way more including all the stuff you mentioned, because as this and other forums tend to be, repetitive when someone asks a google question.

If someone really wants to know something, and asks google, then gets an answer with parts he does not understand, that can only lead to another google search, for those questions too, have been asked and answered.

Oren Grad
28-Apr-2016, 08:20
There's a big dilemma here because yes this website as a whole is that resource and knowledge base but outside the actual forum there's little updating being done to the rest of the website to update or add new articles, resources etc. There's huge potential to dramatically improve the website, many of the current articles would benefit enormously ly from the addition of images, diagrams etc or just being updated with more current information. There are issues though because the text of the articles are the copyright of the original writers, sometimes there's multiple contributors.

I think it was Brian Wallen who actually wrote some sample pages of what the site resources could look like, this was a few years ago.

So at the moment there's a disconnection between the Resources and the Forum and maybe that's what needs discussion.

The Forum and the Home Page are managed separately. Renovations of the Home Page would require people who are willing and able to put in the necessary volunteer effort, and who can negotiate and coordinate any proposed changes with Tuan.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 08:24
...I think there's already a FAQ? but I mean a more thorough one?

Would you be willing to compile that Sal?...With the highly effective search capability available to anyone via Google, I find an FAQ approach obsolete for a field as broad as large format photography. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. :)

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2016, 08:29
Interesting discussion.

Ever so slightly off-topic suggestion. I often answer questions with a link. Because of the dread link decay, also known as the disappearing site problem, these days I make sure that the pages the links I post point to are saved by archive.org. I don't always give a link to the archived page, on the probably mistaken assumption that people know to check what archive.org has when a link is dead.

Perhaps we should all post links to archived pages rather than to the pages themselves. To the extent that the pages are dynamic, doing this will keep innocent link clickers from getting the latest most best.

A related comment. Someone remarked up-thread that not everything posted here is correct. On the one hand, yes, this is true. And it leads to the idea of periodic purges of complete nonsense. On the other, these days when I encounter what looks like pure BS I check to make sure my understanding is correct. I'm mistaken much too often to serve as an, um, censor and I wouldn't trust anyone else to check before deleting.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 08:34
..."There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. " You're welcome to give that a try.Actually, Peter, except for posting to counterbalance the vocal proponents of "all chat room all the time," "let's out eBay eBay" and "moderation here stinks," I do practice that most of the time. My posts here relating to the forum's primary purpose, i.e. large format photography, are limited to a very occasional update of an existing thread or an even more rare new question thread. My opinion that the database contains many redundant topics drives me to mostly just read the duplicative threads and shake my head. Sometimes it's difficult to resist jumping in when misinformation is being spread, but I try to remain silent when I've nothing new to contribute to the knowledge base.

Note that everyone else, including you, is "welcome to give that a try." :)

Kirk Gittings
28-Apr-2016, 08:35
If this is not a community first the database is irrelevant nor would it even exist.

Corran
28-Apr-2016, 08:36
Do you suggest the forum close and remain an image of historical methods with no possibility of change, evolution or improvement in Large Format Photograghy?

Our job is done. Let's go home?

A brief perusal of koh303's "Created Threads" show many questions posted. I am not going to dig into whether or not the relevant information could be found via Google. The very basis of koh's argument is shown as flawed by his own post activity IMO.

Oren Grad
28-Apr-2016, 08:41
There will always be questions needing answers and searching the topic may not adequately answer anything.

Sometimes newbies do not know the proper nomenclature. They might wonder "does this lens work on 4x5?" but don't realize what they are asking about is the "image circle," or know what that even is. Then there are the innumerable number of similarly-named lenses from large companies which may vary greatly in specifications. And even if you do grasp everything and know exactly what you are looking for, a Google search of a specific lens and a question about using it on 8x10 will often discover one person saying it has almost enough IC for 11x14 and another poster saying the corners are so poor you shouldn't go past 5x7. Oh and of course no example images or possibly dead links.

I've also even recently read posts saying to go to "XYZ website" and search for this or that tidbit of information, but then that specific site had been gone for years. Such is the nature of the web.


If I was not already quite familiar with LF gear and various terms, that would not hold true. Just search for example "fuji 300mm lens for 8x10" and you will find nearly 200,000 results. This does nothing to help our supposed noob who has no idea what the A, C, CM, CM-W, W, S, etc. nomenclature means or implies, what IC is needed for 8x10 or indeed what "image circle" even is. Then his head starts to spin when finding info stating "this lens covers 42 degrees" as if that means anything to most. Let's also not forget that terms and understanding can vary greatly between generations. Many young newbies entering LF did not learn the same vocabulary in photography having grown up in the digital age or are simply not well versed in it. I am reminded of questions about "telephoto lenses" for LF which as we all know means one thing but most young folks simply mean "longer than normal" lenses when they say that. It is complete folly to think that all questions have been answered and you can just Google anything and find your answer.

Some questions though, yes. If you want to know about a lens that you have in your hand, and are already well-versed in terminology, just Google the exact name of the lens and you'll find tons of info. A thread asking for opinions on a "Symmar-S 210mm f/5.6" lens for example might be responded to with "Google it." If they are a brand-new poster perhaps a helpful reply asking what they'd like to know would be better.

What Corran said. We should certainly try to build on existing threads, encourage searching before posting and help new members understand how to do both. But newbies often don't know how to formulate their questions and not everybody is facile with search engines. It's unfortunate that it requires saying, but snark and knuckle-rapping over supposed breaches of posting or search etiquette are never appropriate responses to a newcomer who joins in good faith looking for help.

BrianShaw
28-Apr-2016, 08:44
If this is not a community first the database is irrelevant nor would it even exist.

... and who, exactly, is chartered/authorized to maintain the orthodoxy of the forums intent and style? Communities don't often work well under dictatorship. I prefer the "ebb and flow" of communal environments, and while I have respect for "stodgy, old-fashioned, boat anchors with out-dated visions" I always wonder why they tend to feel personally affected by change when they are just members themselves. It happens here and it happens elsewhere as well. I doubt that Tuan needs a nanny.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 08:48
...snark and knuckle-rapping over supposed breaches of posting or search etiquette are never appropriate responses to a newcomer who joins in good faith looking for help.Agreed. If one is sufficiently patient, performing the search oneself, then replying in a polite post that explains how it was done and including links to the relevant resulting thread(s) seems a good approach to me.

I'm usually too frustrated, don't expend that effort and remain silent instead.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 08:52
... and who, exactly, is chartered/authorized to maintain the orthodoxy of the forums intent and style? Communities don't often work well under dictatorship. I prefer the "ebb and flow" of communal environments, and while I have respect for "stodgy, old-fashioned, boat anchors with out-dated visions" I always wonder why they tend to feel personally affected by change when they are just members themselves. It happens here and it happens elsewhere as well. I doubt that Tuan needs a nanny.

Now, now Brian, there are no members here who dictate. This is the "Feedback" category and everyone is equally entitled to express opinions/preferences.

With respect to "stodgy, old-fashioned boat anchors with out-dated visions," what could that description be more applicable to than large format photography itself? :D

pdh
28-Apr-2016, 08:55
Sal, I really admired the way you put the anti-digital bigots away a few months ago, in a now-closed thread.

So it saddens me to see you use your powers for evil rather than good in threads like this ...

Moaning that things aren't how they started out being, or that people don't do things the way they used to (or, better, perhaps, "ought to") is an an old man's game. And not worthy of someone who in other circumstances thinks rather clearly and flexibly.

Lighten up, go smoke some meth or something ...

[adds smiley to indicate lighthearted tone despite serious intent]

BrianShaw
28-Apr-2016, 08:56
Now, now Brian, there are no members here who dictate. This is the "Feedback" category and everyone is equally entitled to express opinions/preferences.

With respect to "stodgy, old-fashioned boat anchors with out-dated visions," what could that description be more applicable to than large format photography itself? :D

Thanks for correcting my punctuation error. :)

Your one of my favorites, Sal!

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 08:58
On the "data repository" purpose, that was tried, and failed. Remember the LF Wiki that was bandied about 3-4 years ago? I do. Members and Moderators were going to select expert authors to write a topical, searchable section on All Questions Great and Small! I predicted it would never get off the ground. It never got off the ground. That was your "data repository" dream, that didn't fly.

As much as some want to mold the world of technology, processes, users, and cultural trends into a 1985 view of "Databases", it won't work. The tool we choose here is called the Internet Forum. That means anyone can write, answer, discuss. For different people it's either:

1. a place to join, ask a quick question, leave forever.
2. a place to socialize and show your work.
3. a place to sell things.
4. a place to buy things.
5. a place to find work you like, and learn how to mimic it.
6. rarely, a place to do a technologically difficult search (because of the tool, and the unqualified respondents), and research the myriad answers to your question given by random, unqualified respondents.

This is not a "data repository" on Photography any more than the recorded radio chatter from 1939 is a "data repository" on the causes of WWII. But it is a valuable community. Note I didn't say "resource", the term usually used.

IanG
28-Apr-2016, 09:02
On the "data repository" purpose, that was tried, and failed. Remember the LF Wiki that was bandied about 3-4 years ago? I do. Members and Moderators were going to select expert authors to write a topical, searchable section on All Questions Great and Small! I predicted it would never get off the ground. It never got off the ground. That was your "data repository" dream, that didn't fly.

As much as some want to mold the world of technology, processes, users, and cultural trends into a 1985 view of "Databases", it won't work. The tool we choose here is called the Internet Forum. That means anyone can write, answer, discuss. For different people it's either:

1. a place to join, ask a quick question, leave forever.
2. a place to socialize and show your work.
3. a place to sell things.
4. a place to buy things.
5. rarely, a place to do a difficult search, and research the myriad answers to your question given by random, unqualified respondents.

This is not a "data repository" on Photography any more than the recorded radio chatter from 1939 is a "data repository" on the causes of WWII. But it is a valuable community. Note I didn't say "resource", the term usually used.

Correct, the Forum is not a repository., however the site as a whole is and that's what should be discussed.

Ian

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 09:24
...Moaning that things aren't how they started out being, or that people don't do things the way they used to (or, better, perhaps, "ought to") is an an old man's game. And not worthy of someone who in other circumstances thinks rather clearly and flexibly...Although I plead guilty to being an old man chronologically, the opinions I express here aren't substantially different than those I held as a young person. The crux of the matter is whether change, for the sake of change, is inherently good.

I did indeed make a strong case that automatic denigration of digital photography, including hybrid printing of large format negatives, is bad and has no place here. Nonetheless, my personal work remains entirely in the wet darkroom. I don't advocate that others take the same approach. After looking at numerous examples and researching the technology, I simply haven't yet been convinced that, considering everything, inkjet printing represents an overall improvement.

Changing how this forum started out just because "that's the way things are done now" seems akin to moving from film to digital because "it's trending." I've yet to be shown a convincing explanation of why running this forum as a chat room would be an improvement. Would more people begin practicing large format photography? Why? Would more people come here to discuss large format photography? Why?

Participants have come and gone over the years since this forum was founded. Some left because they bridled under the rules and were banned. Others, having the same reaction, left on their own. There were quite a few who departed simply because they ceased practicing large format photography. And many just found there was nothing more for them to say or learn. In my opinion, Tuan and Brian Reid provide this Web site to promote large format photography's continued existence. It seems to me the textbook model serves that purpose better than the chat room model does. I'm always open to being convinced otherwise. Make your case. Enlighten me to the sociological factors of which I'm unaware that support an opposite conclusion. Please explain. :)

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 09:47
... The crux of the matter is whether change, for the sake of change, is inherently good...

Changing how this forum started out just because "that's the way things are done now" seems akin to moving from film to digital because "it's trending." I've yet to be shown a convincing explanation of why running this forum as a chat room would be an improvement. Would more people begin practicing large format photography? Why? Would more people come here to discuss large format photography? Why?

Participants have come and gone over the years since this forum was founded. Some left because they bridled under the rules and were banned. Others, having the same reaction, left on their own. There were quite a few who departed simply because they ceased practicing large format photography. And many just found there was nothing more for them to say or learn. In my opinion, Tuan and Brian Reid provide this Web site to promote large format photography's continued existence. It seems to me the textbook model serves that purpose better than the chat room model does. I'm always open to being convinced otherwise. Make your case. Enlighten me to the sociological factors of which I'm unaware that support an opposite conclusion. Please explain. :)

I've already explained it, you are not seeing it. You say "Changing how this forum started just because..." is not acknowledging the current condition. Nothing is changing, it is exactly what I said, currently, now. You would have to change it BACK to be what you want. How would you do that? Require vetting of potential members, so that only experts can respond? Have vetting of replies, and Moderation to delete those that are "not factual?" Remove all posting, and make that proverbial Wiki that never happened?

I agree with the goal of this forum to "... promote large format photography's continued existence." I don't agree that you do that by having an steril database where you can search for answers to basic "how do I" questions. People get excited by .....excitement. Not data, not facts. It's a living, breathing community that has a lot of paths to "being a LF photographer." If you publish just facts, you've got the Ansel Adams series of books. And guess what? Few newbies read them anymore, they used the more instant gratification of the Internet to piece together the process they are deciding to follow. Libraries are data repositories, and are dying. If you want to continue an archaic process, it takes more than data. It takes live, frequent interactions with others. Clubs (which this is most closely related to) have members leave for whatever reason. There must be turnover. If you don't get new members excited, your club folds. But there would still be "data" in dusty libraries and archives, for the rare person that wants to discover it. A forum makes "discovery" easy, fun, and constant.

This is a forum, you don't have to "make it a chat room." It is already. If you changed it to what you want, the goal of the forum would die.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 09:58
Sal, you clearly do not want nor accept change. You are happy with your 'position'.

Sociologically 'people' like to chatter. Sometimes, in idle time, a good idea pops up, yet mostly folks gain social community and trust, which is vastly changing, even disappearing for most. Some like I, even in a large city cannot find 'my' cohort, yet through this forum I have made at least 10 good Large Format friends who now chat and physically visit each other as often as we can. This summer I will physically visit more LFPF found friends.

If I/we had used this miasma (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miasma) solely as techincal sourrce, we would be poorly served.






Although I plead guilty to being an old man chronologically, the opinions I express here aren't substantially different than those I held as a young person. The crux of the matter is whether change, for the sake of change, is inherently good...
...It seems to me the textbook model serves that purpose better than the chat room model does. I'm always open to being convinced otherwise. Make your case. Enlighten me to the sociological factors of which I'm unaware that support an opposite conclusion. Please explain. :)

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2016, 10:04
On the "data repository" purpose, that was tried, and failed.

Garrett, I'm ashamed to report that I don't recall this at all. More evidence that I'm not as good as I like to think I used to be.

This board's parent site is somewhat of a data repository. As has been mentioned upthread, it isn't often updated and as hasn't, I think, been mentioned getting an article into it isn't easy. The French LF board's parent http://www.galerie-photo.com/ has an interesting repository of data that gets, apparently, several new articles/month. Its a good model for us.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 10:12
...You say "Changing how this forum started just because..." is not acknowledging the current condition...I am not naive. I know that the current condition doesn't reflect Greenspun's initial intent.


...You would have to change it BACK to be what you want. How would you do that?...I'm not under the illusion that I could do that. My posts, like everyone else's posts, simply reflect an opinion on how things ought be. They're feedback to the owner and moderators. Intended to convince.


...Require vetting of potential members, so that only experts can respond? Have vetting of replies, and Moderation to delete those that are "not factual?"...You misinterpret what I've written. From day one, the determination of what's factual and what's not has always been made by individual readers based on how much confidence they develop in whoever posted to threads. There's never been a "fact arbiter" function performed by moderators. It's the reputation of posters, over time, that leads someone to accept or reject posted information.

My opinion is simply that redundant threads clutter things. Appropriate, advanced searching before posting keeps things cleaner. Repetition ends up being just more blah, blah, blah a searcher must sort through.


...If you publish just facts, you've got the Ansel Adams series of books. And guess what? Few newbies read them anymore, they used the more instant gratification of the Internet to piece together the process they are deciding to follow...I contend that anyone seeking instant gratification who puts their toe into the waters of large format photography will pull it out and leave almost immediately. It's not amenable to that approach. The work necessary to become proficient is more compatible with those Ansel Adams books. Or, for someone who grew up on line, extracting similar information from the threads in this forum's database.

It's also important to note that materials and methods have changed since 1984. The repository here contains much useful information about those changes which isn't found in Adams' book series. Ideally, a student of large format photography would use both resources.


...This is a forum, you don't have to "make it a chat room." It is already.Yup. I know that. And when chat rooms are extolled, I point out their deficiencies as a tool to promote large format photography's continued existence.

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 10:29
Garrett, I'm ashamed to report that I don't recall this at all. More evidence that I'm not as good as I like to think I used to be.

This board's parent site is somewhat of a data repository. As has been mentioned upthread, it isn't often updated and as hasn't, I think, been mentioned getting an article into it isn't easy. The French LF board's parent http://www.galerie-photo.com/ has an interesting repository of data that gets, apparently, several new articles/month. Its a good model for us.

Here is the Wiki discussion: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101896-Large-Format-Wiki

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 10:32
Sal, you are daisy picking from my comments, and trying to rebutt them. That's fine. But you are not mentioning the main point of my post, you are just commenting on the tiny points, out of context.

Here are the two main points I make, you can comment if you want, but I'm not in a debating mode right now. I'll quote myself for the first. I believe these things are self evident, and incontrovertible:

1.
I agree with the goal of this forum to "... promote large format photography's continued existence." I don't agree that you do that by having an sterile database where you can search for answers to basic "how do I" questions. People get excited by .....excitement. Not data, not facts....." I.E. the goal of the forum is best being served as it is run now.

2. The forum is not currently what you want it to be. Someone would have to change it to become a "database" of information, from the current "discussion place" it is now. So unless there is a discussion to radically change largeformatphotography to something else like a Wiki, data library, website, etc.....what are we discussing it for? It is now an open discussion and work sharing community.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 10:44
+1.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 10:44
Here is the Wiki discussion: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101896-Large-Format-WikiAnd, in post #69 of that thread, Brian Miller said he'd got the domain name viewcamerawiki.org and would be using a hoster he'd used for years.

Fast forward to today. The domain www.viewcamerawiki.org cannot be found. Brian Miller's last activity at this site was on March 20 of last year. And a Google search for that domain eventually leads one to:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera

I remain of the opinion that there's no better on-line resource available or needed to find large format photography information than this forum. Appropriately searched. :)

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 11:05
Agreed, I didn't want the Wiki in the first place.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 11:06
Sal, you are daisy picking from my comments, and trying to rebutt them. That's fine. But you are not mentioning the main point of my post, you are just commenting on the tiny points, out of context...Not at all, I've addressed what appeared to be the main point of your post, i.e. things are optimum as they are now.


...the goal of the forum is best being served as it is run now...I disagree to the extent that there are numerous redundant question and answer threads. Note that the title of this thread was created by Oren when he broke it out from another thread. I would not have titled it that way, since, in my opinion, there is no inherent contradiction between the forum's database being a repository of information and the users of that repository being a community.


...The forum is not currently what you want it to be. Someone would have to change it to become a "database" of information, from the current "discussion place" it is now. So unless there is a discussion to radically change largeformatphotography to something else like a Wiki, data library, website, etc.....what are we discussing it for? It is now an open discussion and work sharing community.Again, I disagree. Except for its FS/WTB categories, which I've never been in favor of and still am not, no changes are necessary to the forum itself for it to be a database of information. It already is that database. I've never advocated for a Wiki or any other alternative to the existing forum format.

Only the members (with moderator encouragement if they agreed with my position) could effect a change in how this forum is used. And the members could accomplish that by simply searching the resource before starting a new thread. If there's an existing thread concerning what they seek information about that doesn't fully answer their question, but is relevant, add on to it. I've been encouraged to see this happening a bit lately. The only negative aspect of those occurrences is the questioners apologizing and/or mocking by others for "resurrecting an old thread." Instead they should be applauded; it's the right thing to do.

If no relevant thread(s) exist, someone seeking information ought go ahead and start a new one. Nothing wrong with that.

These are the only changes I've ever expressed a desire to see here.

goamules
28-Apr-2016, 11:35
I think we're in pretty close agreement, upon discussion. That's good!

I also wonder why someone asks a question before doing a simple search, but it's another sign of the times I think.

Rael
28-Apr-2016, 11:56
I think we're in pretty close agreement, upon discussion. That's good!

I also wonder why someone asks a question before doing a simple search, but it's another sign of the times I think. When I first got here, I didn't realize that the advanced search was the only one that worked well. If you type something in the quick search, you sometimes get no results. I thought it was broken for the longest time.

BrianShaw
28-Apr-2016, 12:03
I think we're in pretty close agreement, upon discussion. That's good!

I also wonder why someone asks a question before doing a simple search, but it's another sign of the times I think.

That's a great question. I often wonder that too but only get annoyed when the question is completely naive or lazy. There is a lot of questions that appear naive but aren't really because knowing where to go for detailed information isn't easy. Like the cap size for the rear element of a lens. Sure, the data exists and has been there for years... But it's not easy to find even if one is a skilled internet user.

But I also have another question that I ponder often: why do we keep coming back to the forum. "We" is people like us who have been LF photographers for years. I know that I rarely have questions I want answered - I either know it already or know how to find the answer or don't really need to answer the question. And I'm not reall too interested in establishing a virtual legacy as a know-it-all, nor do I want to post for any kind of accolades that might bolster my already-inflated ego. And I know I'm not the only stodgy old person who fits that profile!

So what's the answer... A habit, an addiction, or a desire to participate in a community and talk about stuff that bores the day lights out of most folks?

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 12:22
When I first got here, I didn't realize that the advanced search was the only one that worked well. If you type something in the quick search, you sometimes get no results. I thought it was broken for the longest time.Thanks for pointing that out. You've identified another change that would be good here, namely to get rid of the forum search function and replace it with a Google search field pre-populated with "site:largeformatphotography.info."

Unfortunately, I anticipate the moderators will say that requires a change to the vBulletin code and isn't something they're willing to do since it would complicate software updates. If that's the case, perhaps a Google search field as I've described could be added to some "before you start a new thread" information.

Sal Santamaura
28-Apr-2016, 13:04
...There is a lot of questions that appear naive but aren't really because knowing where to go for detailed information isn't easy. Like the cap size for the rear element of a lens. Sure, the data exists and has been there for years... But it's not easy to find even if one is a skilled internet user...I'd wager that an advanced Google search of this site would take someone to one or more existing threads covering the cap sizes for any given lens, each containing one or more answers. Those answers would likely be just as authoritative/correct as any elicited via a new, redundant thread asking the same question. :)


...I also have another question that I ponder often: why do we keep coming back to the forum. "We" is people like us who have been LF photographers for years. I know that I rarely have questions I want answered - I either know it already or know how to find the answer or don't really need to answer the question. And I'm not reall too interested in establishing a virtual legacy as a know-it-all, nor do I want to post for any kind of accolades that might bolster my already-inflated ego. And I know I'm not the only stodgy old person who fits that profile!

So what's the answer... A habit, an addiction, or a desire to participate in a community and talk about stuff that bores the day lights out of most folks?I can answer only for myself, not the others in "we."

I initially came here 16-1/2 years ago to learn, and still seek that benefit. Having read, re-read and re-re-read the Adams books, I sought knowledge about aspects of large format photography equipment and materials that had changed or were new since 1984. As with all fields of endeavor, this required effort and discernment. Establishing who knows what they're talking about and who blows smoke takes time, but, eventually, it became clear whose posts were worthwhile. I don't know everything :D and, as a result, still participate in this forum with the objective of expanding my large format photography knowledge. I also attempt to share any relevant information that seems to be missing from the archive whenever I come upon it, both by answering non-redundant questions and initiating posts as appropriate.

Like you are now, Brian, I was a cubicle inmate when first becoming a member of this forum. Reading about large format photography when circumstances prevented actually engaging in it was a welcome relief. It certainly became an addictive habit. Even now, fully retired, given that my preferred subject matter isn't easily accessible, life is frequently more conducive to "picture talking" than "picture taking." Perhaps if my residence location changes, more images will be made and less time spent at this Web site. Until then, the community is stuck with me. :D

BrianShaw
28-Apr-2016, 13:24
Speaking on behalf of all when I should be speaking for myself - we are happy to be stuck with you!

When in the solitary confine of my cube I find this forum, in particular, to be a best way to streetch the Braine between meetings. Even though I have one of the best views from my window office I'd rather be thinking about photography.

For the past few months I've been working part time from home due to a health malady. That makes all sorts of other diversions possible and I really thought I'd be ignoring the few online forums in which I participate. But that didn't happen. I enjoy the camaraderie... Even when it involves some differences of opinion and rivalry and ego/arrogance... But I don't care for hostility too much. I'm actually glad that the forum has evolved as it has. I tend to agree with some of the recent criticisms but only because I like a loose leash in all aspects of my life. But since it's always someone else holding the leash I'll either take it as it comes... Or I'll bark, bite, and run away.

It's back to work on Monday... So these comments might get revised after getting back into the politics and the grind. I envy you retired guys at times!

Jim Galli
28-Apr-2016, 14:53
Is the Forum a repository or a community?

Yes.

:rolleyes:

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2016, 15:39
Jimbo, to keep our tradition of respectful and friendly disagreement alive, I'm going to disagree with you.

No.

Jim Galli
28-Apr-2016, 15:48
Jimbo, to keep our tradition of respectful and friendly disagreement alive, I'm going to disagree with you.

No.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want to be confused with "maybe". Just glad we settled this for the folks after 6+ pages of indecision and nonsense.

Michael R
28-Apr-2016, 17:15
Yes.

:rolleyes:

That's nice. However I didn't ask the question, nor did I start this thread.

Tim Meisburger
28-Apr-2016, 17:17
No need for advanced google search. Just search what you are looking for, and if it is on LFPF it will come up in normal results. If its on photo.net or apug, do you really care, as long as you get an answer?

On the wiki issue, I wish Sal would volunteer to summarise the x-ray thread. I'm overwhelmed when someone asks a question on x-ray and the response is "read the thread, the answers in there.

The answer is: we are a community, complete with batty uncles, bratty kids, those that want to stir the pot for the sake of stirring, the politically correct and incorrect, etc. etc.--united only by one thing, an interest or passion for LF. In that sense--the endlessly diverse connected through a single aspect--we resemble a family...

Corran
28-Apr-2016, 17:23
There is supposedly an x-ray FAQ that has been submitted to the higher-ups. I volunteered to help with that. No word either way.

Oren Grad
28-Apr-2016, 17:33
That's nice. However I didn't ask the question, nor did I start this thread.

I've added a note at the top to make that clearer.

StoneNYC
28-Apr-2016, 17:37
Thanks for pointing that out. You've identified another change that would be good here, namely to get rid of the forum search function and replace it with a Google search field pre-populated with "site:largeformatphotography.info."

Unfortunately, I anticipate the moderators will say that requires a change to the vBulletin code and isn't something they're willing to do since it would complicate software updates. If that's the case, perhaps a Google search field as I've described could be added to some "before you start a new thread" information.

I'm not sure any results would show up since Google now requires sites to be mobile ready to their standards, to which LFPF is not. Remember many younger people are on mobile devices not sitting all day and night in front of a computer. They are out and about in the world while posting.

This may also account for their inability to search for answers easily.

Just a thought.

Randy Moe
28-Apr-2016, 18:08
That's a good point about mobile users. While I prefer a desktop computer and dual monitors, I am using an iPod to post this.

And I have figured out what everybody is doing staring at all these tiny gadgets.

They are trying to figure them out...

Sure a few can do a lot with one but I know far more less savvy of all ages.

Of course I am connected nearly every moment as I have wanted these computing abilities since 1964.

Where's my implant.




I'm not sure any results would show up since Google now requires sites to be mobile ready to their standards, to which LFPF is not. Remember many younger people are on mobile devices not sitting all day and night in front of a computer. They are out and about in the world while posting.

This may also account for their inability to search for answers easily.

Just a thought.

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2016, 18:10
Stone, please try a Google search for something that might be on this forum. I just did, for Perigraphe and "som" or "s.o.m." or lacour or Berthiot. The first hit was this forum. Sheesh!

I use Google Advanced Search, not Google Search for Dunces. The URL is https://www.google.com/advanced_search. The search form has a slot for "site or domain" To limit searches to this site, put www.largeformatphotography.info in that slot.

This site's search function has nothing to do with Google. It isn't very good. Only people who don't know better use it. Learn better.

StoneNYC
28-Apr-2016, 18:54
Stone, please try a Google search for something that might be on this forum. I just did, for Perigraphe and "som" or "s.o.m." or lacour or Berthiot. The first hit was this forum. Sheesh!

I use Google Advanced Search, not Google Search for Dunces. The URL is https://www.google.com/advanced_search. The search form has a slot for "site or domain" To limit searches to this site, put www.largeformatphotography.info in that slot.

This site's search function has nothing to do with Google. It isn't very good. Only people who don't know better use it. Learn better.

Hey Dan,

It's been mentioned above, but I think the point was more that again most newbs won't be so thorough and most people in general on a mobile device won't use "advanced search" because it's not the first thing they see when they search, and actually these days the search bar is the browser bar.

Again yes it's POSSIBLE to find ways to make it all work, the point is that most people don't use them or don't know they exist. In fact, until last semester at school I didn't even know that there was a way to limit your search to a particular website. Most people don't know how to do that, sure advanced researchers and computer people do, but that's not the majority of the population.

Eh, it is what it is, I just figured a decent FAQ referenced for Newb questions would be useful.

And the comment about the LFPF not coming up in Google because of their new search parameters for "mobile only" was sort of meant tongue in cheek. It's true, I've been struggling to find sites lately that aren't mobile friendly that I used to be able to find, and the location based GPS addition sometimes messes up those results further, AND the advanced search feature doesn't seem to always lwork" on my mobile devices (iPhone 6s / iPad Mini 4) as in when I hit "go" it just refreshes the page and won't actually search. But mostly it was meant tongue in cheek.

koh303
29-Apr-2016, 05:53
A brief perusal of koh303's "Created Threads" show many questions posted. I am not going to dig into whether or not the relevant information could be found via Google. The very basis of koh's argument is shown as flawed by his own post activity IMO.

I admit, i too posted google questions, when answers were in plain sight. I was called out a few times, and from then on, only posted questions that some serious research did not reveal answers for, in those cases, for the most part, the forum was not able to answer either. There is a deeper conclusion to draw from this, but on the surface, it would appear that the knowledge not already imparted by the forum, is not going to be revealed with new questions, unfortunately.

A testament to this is the fact that there is very little new knowledge or data added to the stream here, possibly due to historic and social trend reasons.

mdarnton
29-Apr-2016, 06:33
This is a bizarre thread. What I mainly see is complaints against moderation combined with complaints about the direction of the board, which implies MORE not less moderation. These complaints are in some cases coming from the same people, who don't want to change, but expect everyone else to change around their wishes. What I mainly see is a bunch of selfishness from people who want things their way, and can't live with the fact that a forum has a natural life, flow, and also, death, depending on what people put into it. I will tell you for sure that if you want something to happen, contributing more of that is probably more effective than leaving the forum.

tgtaylor
29-Apr-2016, 06:55
A Confederacy of Dunces?

Thomas

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2016, 07:25
I don't believe all topics are fully explored. One of my pet projects is Gas Burst film and plate processing that I believe is under explored and shrouded in obfuscation.

I further suspect known users of Gas Burst as supporting dissemination. Perhaps to protect suppliers and keep secrets for secrets sake.

I suggest this from frustration after heavy research which yielded little and the few sources not being forthwith. I empirically concluded Gas Burst as a name is one key to the process as it does not necessary mean Nitrogen Burst as most assume. I have written my ideas and process in DIY. My current solution is a mix of historical data that combines vintage gear with modern.

I am also not trying to ruin a business. I am trying to revive a once common commercial process on a hobbiests scale, which is the lifeblood of LF and Alt Process going forward.

Sal Santamaura
29-Apr-2016, 09:23
I'm not sure any results would show up since Google now requires sites to be mobile ready to their standards, to which LFPF is not. Remember many younger people are on mobile devices not sitting all day and night in front of a computer. They are out and about in the world while posting.

This may also account for their inability to search for answers easily.

Just a thought.I'd assumed that Brian's post which I was responding to had been prompted by his recollection of a recent thread about rear lens cap size for a specific optic. Without remembering which lens it was, I just performed a Google advanced search. Here are the results:


https://www.google.com/search?num=50&site=&source=hp&q=rear+lens+cap+size+site%3Alargeformatphotography.info&oq=rear+lens+cap+size+site%3Alargeformatphotography.info&gs_l=hp.3...1466.15576.0.15834.53.51.1.1.1.0.155.4428.38j10.48.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..3.18.1675...0j0i155i3j0i131j0i131i46j46i131j0i10j0i22i30j0i7i30j0i13j0i13i30j0i7i5i30j33i21.wGDyBaaw2zk

Note that the fourth match in those results is exactly the thread from 11 days ago I suspected was on Brian's mind. Works like a charm. Had I recalled it concerned a 135mm Sironar N and included that information in the search terms, the first match would probably been the one of interest. Can one not see that page on a phone?

I eschew mobile devices, so don't know how they would differ in this situation. Doesn't one access Google, type in the search terms, then get results on a phone just like on a desktop or laptop computer? I've occasionally had my wife look something up that way for me on her iPhone 6+. What other search implementation(s) are employed on mobile devices that would prevent someone from obtaining the same Google result I linked to above, regardless of format?

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2016, 09:31
None. But you knew that.

Sal Santamaura
29-Apr-2016, 09:34
...What other search implementation(s) are employed on mobile devices that would prevent someone from obtaining the same Google result I linked to above, regardless of format?


None. But you knew that.If your post is a response to my quoted question, no, I didn't know that. I don't use mobile devices (my wife does, not me). But thanks for your answer. :)

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2016, 09:44
If your post is a response to my quoted question, no, I didn't know that. I don't use mobile devices (my wife does, not me). But thanks for your answer. :)

Even with your relic desktop, research could have answered your unnecessary question.

BrianShaw
29-Apr-2016, 09:44
Good searching, Sal. Had the person with the question used this search the information appears to be findable:

https://www.google.com/search?num=50&site=&source=hp&q=rear+lens+cap+size+site%3Alargeformatphotography.info&oq=rear+lens+cap+size+site%3Alargeformatphotography.info&gs_l=hp.3...1466.15576.0.15834.53.51.1.1.1.0.155.4428.38j10.48.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..3.18.1675...0j0i155i3j0i131j0i131i46j46i131j0i10j0i22i30j0i7i30j0i13j0i13i30j0i7i5i30j33i21.wGDyBaaw2zk#q=rear+lens+cap+size+site+rodenstock+sironar+135

Personally, I don't know why that isn't one's first action... but what do I know?

The capabilities of mobile device and desktop is basically the same anymore. But the readability of information displayed on the mobile devices is sometimes an issue. Some sites are mobile-enabled, which is often better than looking at the "full site". Typing is easier on a desktop computer too for most people.

The bigger issue, I think, is the mindset of a lot of folks these days. Research is a unique skill; some folks like to do research and some are even good at it. To those who are skilled it seems like a no-brainer. But for the rest... it is a black art and often there isn't even a willingness to try. It's just too easy to ask the question and expect an answer. I've seen some folks say exactly that when challenged with the ease with which their question can be answered by even the simplest search.

Related to that mindset is the ever-growing mindset that posting a link, and nothing more than the link, is useful and a good way to stimulate a discussion. Some add the phrase, "Discuss." as if they are entitled to task us to do something... something they are unwilling to do themselves like state an assessment or opinion.

I don't want to blame the millennial generation, but...

p.s. Nice, Randy. LOL (as they say)

BrianShaw
29-Apr-2016, 09:52
p.s. My wife and I are both avid mobile phone users. And there are times, like yesterday, when I tell her that using the desktop computer will be a lot easier. But I seem to have to say that over and over again before it is heard. At one time our generation gap was focused only on movies and television shows, but now it is on computing devices too. Next time I'll avoid the child-bride and marry for money. :D

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2016, 10:10
p.s. My wife and I are both avid mobile phone users. And there are times, like yesterday, when I tell her that using the desktop computer will be a lot easier. But I seem to have to say that over and over again before it is heard. At one time our generation gap was focused only on movies and television shows, but now it is on computing devices too. Next time I'll avoid the child-bride and marry for money. :D

I have vastly improved my desktop usability with DIY, permanent stand up desk holding dual monitors and scanner with roll under stool for long sessions. Centrally located in my multi use loft, I can use it quickly. I was inspired by a certain major political figure who had no desk in his office. I even met the man, a long time ago.

I always carry an iPod and never use any phone. :)

Corran
29-Apr-2016, 10:21
Note that the fourth match in those results is exactly the thread from 11 days ago

This brings up an interesting point - how does a Google search decide which threads to show first when searching a topic? Is it newness, or # of keywords? I'm sure it's a combination of many things, but the point is that some information that might be found in a thread from 10 years ago could very well be buried in the Google results due to age.

Oren Grad
29-Apr-2016, 10:26
This brings up an interesting point - how does a Google search decide which threads to show first when searching a topic? Is it newness, or # of keywords? I'm sure it's a combination of many things, but the point is that some information that might be found in a thread from 10 years ago could very well be buried in the Google results due to age.

This is at the heart of what made Google as a company. Look up "PageRank" to find lots of interesting technical details and history, though to make a long story short, they've moved on to more elaborate and ever-changing ranking criteria to stay ahead of would-be search engine optimizers trying to game the rankings.

And yes, if one is looking for something obscure but gives up after the first page, one might as well not be searching.

Corran
29-Apr-2016, 11:00
Ah yes the "PageRank" system, I forgot the name.

I remember when I was about 12 and in a computer class in middle school. My favorite search engine back then was called WebCrawler and had a little spider on the page. Hmm, apparently it still exists!

IanG
29-Apr-2016, 11:40
The Forum and the Home Page are managed separately. Renovations of the Home Page would require people who are willing and able to put in the necessary volunteer effort, and who can negotiate and coordinate any proposed changes with Tuan.

I missed this reply yesterday the threads split as I was posting a reply.

The suggestion of upgrading the front end of the website was brought up before and Tuan at the time was not against this. I'm not suggesting drastic action just taking it from the Text based format it's in now to something rather more modern. There's not a huge number of pages so it's not a big task, essentially it needs a template and the current pages would just be cut and pasted into place with minor tweaking.

However it then probably needs expanding, new articles added, and that has to come from contributions in the main forum, So an example would be using X-ray film.

The problem is that at teh moment the front end now lags well behind the forum and needs bringing into line. I'm sure there ae people here who would volunteer to help, and maybe it needs Moderators to ask Tuan about whether they could be responsible the addition of new articles/resources themselves.

Ian

Oren Grad
29-Apr-2016, 12:06
I missed this reply yesterday the threads split as I was posting a reply.

The suggestion of upgrading the front end of the website was brought up before and Tuan at the time was not against this. I'm not suggesting drastic action just taking it from the Text based format it's in now to something rather more modern. There's not a huge number of pages so it's not a big task, essentially it needs a template and the current pages would just be cut and pasted into place with minor tweaking.

However it then probably needs expanding, new articles added, and that has to come from contributions in the main forum, So an example would be using X-ray film.

The problem is that at teh moment the front end now lags well behind the forum and needs bringing into line. I'm sure there ae people here who would volunteer to help, and maybe it needs Moderators to ask Tuan about whether they could be responsible the addition of new articles/resources themselves.

Ian

No problem!

I agree that it would be nice if the Home Page could be updated/augmented. With the other things he's working on, Tuan can sometimes be difficult to reach. Before chasing him down and imposing on his time, it would probably be best if someone can move beyond a general expression of interest to draft a concrete proposal for specific upgrades and/or additions, co-signed by collaborators who commit to working on it within a defined timeframe.

Ralph Barker
29-Apr-2016, 12:17
. . . The problem is that at teh moment the front end now lags well behind the forum and needs bringing into line. I'm sure there ae people here who would volunteer to help, and maybe it needs Moderators to ask Tuan about whether they could be responsible the addition of new articles/resources themselves.

Ian

I'm in general agreement with your observations, Ian.

Like eating an elephant, it's probably best done one bite at a time, or the task seems (or, actually is) overwhelming.

Instead of "lions, tigers, and bears, oh my" we need a cadre of authors, editors and reviewers to volunteer, along with someone who has enough time to coordinate the effort over an extended period.

Sal Santamaura
29-Apr-2016, 13:09
I'm not sure any results would show up since Google now requires sites to be mobile ready to their standards, to which LFPF is not. Remember many younger people are on mobile devices not sitting all day and night in front of a computer. They are out and about in the world while posting.

This may also account for their inability to search for answers easily...


I just performed a Google advanced search. Here are the results:...Can one not see that page on a phone?...What other search implementation(s) are employed on mobile devices that would prevent someone from obtaining the same Google result I linked to above, regardless of format?


None. But you knew that.


Even with your relic desktop, research could have answered your unnecessary question.


...Nice, Randy. LOL (as they say)OK, Randy made his snide comment and Brian enjoyed it. You both seem to have missed the point.

Stone made a claim. I don't feel obligated to investigate his claim via searching or in-person research. The question I asked was intended to lead him into discovering for himself that, ultimately, those "younger people on mobile devices" have all the information available they need. No quirks of those devices stands their way. Mine was essentially a leading question. The burden of supporting his claim falls on him.

This may reflect the later posts where discussion of most people's unwillingness to search was raised. In my opinion, anyone who's not willing to learn how to find information effectively isn't likely to learn how to execute large format photography effectively.

My other passion is acoustic jazz of the type where a musically literate listener can always hear the original melody and chord changes during all periods of improvisation. I dare say there are even fewer young people engaged in that genre today than there are practicing large format photography. Nonetheless, it hasn't died out, and the small group of millennials who discover and fall in love with it are outstanding performers. In my opinion, if this Web site, as well other resources concerning large format photography (think books) are too much trouble for the millennial masses to mine, so be it. The few with sufficient interest and drive will find what they need.

Corran
29-Apr-2016, 13:13
That's de rigueur in the teaching of jazz, at least here, where I took 3 semesters of jazz improv and played in various ensembles. And the photo area has a section of the advanced course dedicated to shooting LF (4x5). The future of both is in the hands of the newbies - let them ask questions!!! :cool:

BrianShaw
29-Apr-2016, 13:18
OK, Randy made his snide comment and Brian enjoyed it. You both seem to have missed the point.

Stone made a claim. I don't feel obligated to investigate his claim via searching or in-person research. The question I asked was intended to lead him into discovering for himself that, ultimately, those "younger people on mobile devices" have all the information available they need. No quirks of those devices stands their way. Mine was essentially a leading question. The burden of supporting his claim falls on him.

This may reflect the later posts where discussion of most people's unwillingness to search was raised. In my opinion, anyone who's not willing to learn how to find information effectively isn't likely to learn how to execute large format photography effectively.

My other passion is acoustic jazz of the type where a musically literate listener can always hear the original melody and chord changes during all periods of improvisation. I dare say there are even fewer young people engaged in that genre today than there are practicing large format photography. Nonetheless, it hasn't died out, and the small group of millennials who discover and fall in love with it are outstanding performers. In my opinion, if this Web site, as well other resources concerning large format photography (think books) are too much trouble for the millennial masses to mine, so be it. The few with sufficient interest and drive will find what they need.

We are not in a court of law, Sal. This is a discussion forum. I don't take these posts or their opinions as a challenge or an assault on manhood... and nor should you. Let's discuss without worrying about who's responsibility it is to prove their point.

... and I don't think either Randy or myself missed the point. But I apologize for both of us (hope that's okay with you, Randy) if you took offense.

Your conclusion, however, is so correct... not for just this discipline/forum but for all of life: "The few with sufficient interest and drive will find what they need."

StoneNYC
29-Apr-2016, 13:39
p.s. My wife and I are both avid mobile phone users. And there are times, like yesterday, when I tell her that using the desktop computer will be a lot easier. But I seem to have to say that over and over again before it is heard. At one time our generation gap was focused only on movies and television shows, but now it is on computing devices too. Next time I'll avoid the child-bride and marry for money. :D

You could just have a 21 year old girlfriend and a 39 year old girlfriend as well like me, this satisfies both ends, though I may need to find a third 33 year old girlfriend to match my movie/music experiences :)

Everything in Jazz has already been done before ;)

I've had legitimate search issues using Google now that they have implemented their mobile requirements for mobile devices and there's also the Google advertising ranks that move up and down depending on who's bidding, that doesn't really affect this forum, or shouldn't, unless a LF camera maker starts bidding on ad spots, but that's unlikely.

I haven't tried testing the "selected site only search" on my mobile, I would guess that if a site weren't mobile friendly that the choice to select the exact site would nullify that mobile only rule.

But again, most people aren't researchers and as stated by others don't even know what to search for when they are very new.

Can't really change an obvious Newb pattern, it's much easier to "cater" to their actions in a way that prevents more of the same old "which developer?" thread, than to try and change them when they don't know any better.

I.E.a main forum right at the top of the site with a title "New to Large Format? CLICK HERE!" And under that a list of the most basic questions and threads about them. That will solve more than trying to change people.

My opinion only of course.

Sal Santamaura
29-Apr-2016, 14:00
...I haven't tried testing the "selected site only search" on my mobile, I would guess that if a site weren't mobile friendly that the choice to select the exact site would nullify that mobile only rule...Please do try it and let us know the outcome.


...Can't really change an obvious Newb pattern, it's much easier to "cater" to their actions in a way that prevents more of the same old "which developer?" thread, than to try and change them when they don't know any better.

I.E.a main forum right at the top of the site with a title "New to Large Format? CLICK HERE!" And under that a list of the most basic questions and threads about them...How about that page also explaining the way to do a site-specific Google search as well as the benefits of such an approach? :D

goamules
29-Apr-2016, 17:11
It seems like fixing the searching of this site will be an invisible improvement. Those newbies that don't search well, usually write their redundant question, and either get an answer, or get explained how to search. You just got engagement, and know a person is getting into LF.

Other newbies find their answer without needing to get assistance move on, never to be heard from again. They join because they have to, or think they do, and you never hear from them again.

Those old timers that understand the limits of this website have figured out how to do their own searches. They are already LF photographers, they don't have many questions, and if they do, they're novel, new ones, that we need to see.

If the idea is that a better search will allow users to get their questions answered faster, thereby sustaining and increasing large format photography (our goal) - you'll never know if they don't then use their membership to participate. So giving a "how to search" instruction, or a better search button, will allow this to be a better "data repository", but we'll never know the results. Postings will decrease as no one ever again asks a redundant question. Which again points to the best purpose of this site, which is to build and maintain a community of LF photographers.

The idea that you can use the metric of "frequently returns" to mean "active member" and therefore the site is "sustaining LF photography" is skewed. If you don't know why someone visits the site every month, for 18 seconds say, you don't know much. If they are getting their LF questions answered and going elsewhere to discuss their photography, I guess we are somehow "sustaining" LF, but in a very weak, disengaged way. At the lowest level, we could only have the FAQ or Wiki database, with no ability for a user to leave any text or graphic comment. We could just have a click counter that reveals how many unknown people visited. Come to think of it, why do you even need membership, if it's just a database, and no forum?

To me, this forum (aka "online community") is a great success story, as it is.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Apr-2016, 17:22
First, my thanks to Garrett for his most cogent post. I will add just two-bits.

People who post questions that could be answered with a search are not just looking for answers. LF photography is an exceptionally lonely aspiration for some people, so their questions might be an attempt to engage the community that answers, to find cohorts. As suggested by many, that is a Good Thing if we understand their motive.
.

Darin Boville
29-Apr-2016, 23:10
First, my thanks to Garrett for his most cogent post. I will add just two-bits.

People who post questions that could be answered with a search are not just looking for answers. LF photography is an exceptionally lonely aspiration for some people, so their questions might be an attempt to engage the community that answers, to find cohorts. As suggested by many, that is a Good Thing if we understand their motive.
.

Exactly. Consider newbie questions an opportunity to further the long term goals of the LF community, to bring in (slowly) new blood and young people. If you go around saying "do a search" or even provide a nice page instructing them how to do nice searches they will never come back.

--Darin

soeren
30-Apr-2016, 00:58
Hmm I wonder how much information in old threads, articles and websites is redderen obsolete due to discontinuation, change in formula or other? And how many pages do you have to browser through and what if you have additional question or need something to be elaborated? Add to that the bad info out there :(

tgtaylor
30-Apr-2016, 08:13
The forum's search tool is...extremely poor. For example I typed in "uranium toner" and is pulled-up 772 results only one of which was uranium + toner together and that one was the recent thread that I started with Uranium Toner in the title. The rest apparently had toner somewhere in the threads but you would have to open all 772 up to see. Conversely a search for the key words Uranium Toner on apug turned-up 19 threads and highlighted those in-which uranium and toner appeared in so one could immediately go to the relevant ones.

Need some database programming here!

Thomas

mdarnton
30-Apr-2016, 08:34
When I search any forum, I always use Google, directly. It does a better job than most forum searches, and has the advantage of bringing in things from other sites, if you wish.

Jac@stafford.net
30-Apr-2016, 08:41
The forum's search tool is...extremely poor. For example I typed in "uranium toner" and is pulled-up 772 results only one of which was uranium + toner together [...]

Yes, our expectations for searching have grown with the success of Google's methods. For example, in the early days we would elevate the value of a string search when the words were found 'near' each other rather than 'anywhere', however it was up to the user to specify 'near'. Silly. Google also does some very good synonym matching, and all of this is statistically driven.

Some might wonder how Google queries are anticipated as they are typed, well it is probable that almost all the (relatively significant) queries have already been made and likely matches are based upon previous successes.

koh303
30-Apr-2016, 13:40
I don't believe all topics are fully explored. One of my pet projects is Gas Burst film and plate processing that I believe is under explored and shrouded in obfuscation.

Perhaps for a good reason.

Peter De Smidt
30-Apr-2016, 14:18
And perhaps not.

Jac@stafford.net
30-Apr-2016, 14:41
Perhaps for a good reason.

For large processing batches, gas burst is a whole lot better than the piddly-squat capacity of JOBO gear.
.

Leszek Vogt
30-Apr-2016, 14:51
Perhaps all the topics don't need to be pulled up in search, but LF INFO would take the person through all the available cameras, lenses and tree branch of related topics....the rest would have to be scanned through previous posts or starting fresh ones. There is no way to contain everything in a search function. Furthermore, some of the tech/options/films, etc has changed and things get updated...or should be. Just my 2 centavos.


Les

koh303
30-Apr-2016, 14:58
For large processing batches, gas burst is a whole lot better than the piddly-squat capacity of JOBO gear.
.

it must a be a mystery then, why it not a whole lot more popular.
Hint - the answer is hiding in the above quote.
Jac - how many boxes of film have you purchased and shot this year?

Jac@stafford.net
30-Apr-2016, 15:08
it must a be a mystery then, why it not a whole lot more popular.
Hint - the answer is hiding in the above quote.
Jac - how many boxes of film have you purchased and shot this year?

No mystery because not many people shoot enough to justify gas burst, but endeavoring to make it work for smaller than commercial batches remains a good thing. We can mix various sizes of sheet film and roll film in the same batch with gas. OTOH, JOBO is for small efforts, and it's too damned expensive

How many boxes I use is none of your business, and irrelevant besides. Probably more than you do. This is not a duel. Drop it.

koh303
30-Apr-2016, 18:59
No mystery because not many people shoot enough to justify gas burst, but endeavoring to make it work for smaller than commercial batches remains a good thing. We can mix various sizes of sheet film and roll film in the same batch with gas. OTOH, JOBO is for small efforts, and it's too damned expensive

How many boxes I use is none of your business, and irrelevant besides. Probably more than you do. This is not a duel. Drop it.

Not very popular = not much public info (or none) = randy posts a question and gets no answer = no new knowledge brought out by posting a question on this forum = the knowledge not already imparted by the forum, is not going to be revealed with new questions, unfortunately.
As i said before. There is a reason for most things.

And to preempt the next toss - a bunch of photo nerds having a theoretical technical discussion about stuff none of them have actual knowledge about, but most have some form of "i heard it on the internweb" tidbit of irrelevant personal and anecdotal story which they must share with the world, does not constitute new knowledge or a progress of any kind.

Doremus Scudder
1-May-2016, 01:44
The premise of this thread is a logical fallacy: This is not an "either-or" issue and there is no reason why this forum cannot be both repository and community and a few other things as well.

As far as finding information here: The problem lies in the search tools easily available and not on the cataloging (although my OCD half wishes for better organization of content). Until the forum software makes it into the 21st century, I'm happy using Google or one of the other big search engines to find info here (and elsewhere). Keep in mind that, as useful and comprehensive as this forum is, it's not the only source of useful information on most photo topics. I don't seem to have a problem finding what I need unless (gasp!) there just isn't much information about a particular topic on the Internet. I then have to go really analog and find a book...

Best,

Doremus

Tim Meisburger
1-May-2016, 06:41
book?

StoneNYC
1-May-2016, 07:21
The premise of this thread is a logical fallacy: This is not an "either-or" issue and there is no reason why this forum cannot be both repository and community and a few other things as well.

As far as finding information here: The problem lies in the search tools easily available and not on the cataloging (although my OCD half wishes for better organization of content). Until the forum software makes it into the 21st century, I'm happy using Google or one of the other big search engines to find info here (and elsewhere). Keep in mind that, as useful and comprehensive as this forum is, it's not the only source of useful information on most photo topics. I don't seem to have a problem finding what I need unless (gasp!) there just isn't much information about a particular topic on the Internet. I then have to go really analog and find a book...

Best,

Doremus

Maybe the LFF people could talk to APUG? Their software upgrade seems to work well, although they are no longer using Tapatalk, which makes it difficult, they claim to have a new app in the works soon that will be better than Tapatalk. Anyway, just a thought on an upgrade.

jnanian
1-May-2016, 08:09
MODERATOR'S NOTE: I've moved the "repository vs community" discussion to its own thread, both so as not to derail Kirk's useful "Forum growth" thread and because this is an important topic in its own right.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Honestly, Sal, why are you so opposed to redundant questions? You really never know. Perhaps the 20th time something is asked, we finally get a correct answer. Asking for no redundant questions/discussions and asking everyone to wade through searches instead, implies this (or any other forum) is some sort of factual database and that everything authoritatively correct. Yikes.

its both.
===
redundant questions are kind of funny.
my favorites have to do with dark cloths.

Vaughn
1-May-2016, 08:27
A community-based gathering and storing of information.

Ralph Barker
1-May-2016, 16:57
A community-based gathering and storing of information.

Getting closer. ;)

The community offers up the information, the software gathers and stores it away, and the admins try to keep the termites out. ;)

I dislike the term "repository," however, as it reminds me of that other kind of pository. ;)

BrianShaw
1-May-2016, 21:29
Getting closer. ;)

The community offers up the information, the software gathers and stores it away, and the admins try to keep the termites out. ;)

I dislike the term "repository," however, as it reminds me of that other kind of pository. ;)

I suppose.

Taija71A
1-May-2016, 21:38
This is not an organized database and never has been since the first pioneers. It's more like a pile of loose leaf folders of scribbled random data. Which is OK for me, but not searchable unless you know the answer already...


The forum's search tool is...extremely poor. For example I typed in "uranium toner" and is pulled-up 772 results only one of which was uranium + toner together and that one was the recent thread that I started with Uranium Toner in the title. The rest apparently had toner somewhere in the threads but you would have to open all 772 up to see. Conversely a search for the key words Uranium Toner on apug turned-up 19 threads and highlighted those in-which uranium and toner appeared in so one could immediately go to the relevant ones.

Need some database programming here! Thomas

"I beg to differ..."

Maybe, what is 'perhaps' needed even more (*As has already been 'touched upon' in this thread by Sal, Doremus and others)...
Is the 'Learning/Developing' of Techniques -- To help Improve one's Internet Research Skills and make it even more Enjoyable!

Google supports all manner of handy search tricks today.
--
For example... Even using a very 'basic' Google Search such as:

>> site:http://www.largeformatphotography.info Uranium AND Toner <<
>> site:www.apug.org Uranium AND Toner <<

... would return about 103 Results here on the LFPF -- With an additional 94 Results on APUG.

A quick perusal of the Thread Titles...
Could then lead you to the most 'Relevant' Threads -- For further investigation.
--
Thank-you!
Kind Regards, -Tim.

knjkrock
1-May-2016, 23:26
Reflections of a noob.

I check the forum several times a day. I have very little to offer or advise except non-photographic issues. Still I believe I have learned much passively from questions, for sale or to buy, or from the "post your .....". Many time if I am looking for an answer the question is often answered if I wait a few days.

At this point most of my questions are gear acquisition issues. No more bricks and mortar shops in nearby city to go try out a tripod/case/lens. I depend on those here who are willing to share, and I am grateful. I once posted a "what's the best tripod for........" and received a PM from a well known member for a tripod which I did buy. Was a great deal. There are many here willing to pass it on in some form.

The home page has been a great resource and I have printed and punched and filed several of the articles for easy reference. Still some of the information is dated. Some running threads(?) on some frequent noob topics would be helpful--tripods, heads, quick release systems, dark cloths, loupes, cables releases, cases and bags, filters, locations, workshops, exhibits,....... Sometimes threads get too long to read all the posts though. "http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?125382-The-250mm-10-quot-Wide-Field-Ektar-thread" is a great idea and I would welcome that for other lenses as well. I had just bought the ektar when that thread was posted and wish it was still active.

I realize my post count is meager. Still I am buying film, books, equipment, paper, chemicals. Much of this is stimulated by what I read and see here. When I do post a noob question I do try to spend a little time to craft it so it is somewhat unique.

Thanks to all those who do post regularly, answer noob question, offer encouragement, moderate, inspire, and make this what ever it is.

Ken

Ari
5-May-2016, 19:46
I suppose.

Nice one!