PDA

View Full Version : How about a ULF forum



Mike A
11-Jul-2006, 20:30
Wasn't there a ultra large format forum on the old site? I say ditch the lounge forum and replace it with ULF forum, can I get a second motion?

Mike A

Frank Petronio
11-Jul-2006, 21:59
Try this:
http://www.mamutphoto.com/

Wayne
12-Jul-2006, 04:53
Personally, I just dont think ULF is or should be considered a different category from LF. I dont see a need for a new forum. We're all users of big view cameras.



Wayne

Oren Grad
12-Jul-2006, 07:13
If it's not a huge hassle to set up, I think it's a reasonable idea.

Brian Ellis
12-Jul-2006, 07:22
There's a separate ULF forum on APUG, doesn't that fill the bill if you want a place m devoted exclusively to ULF?

BrianShaw
12-Jul-2006, 17:15
Why... to separate the men from the boys?

Oren Grad
12-Jul-2006, 17:59
Folks, there was a separate tag for ULF threads under the old forum software, and I found it useful. ULF does have its own distinctive challenges, and we've never stopped having discussions about them; I'm not sure why it should be a problem to once again have a convenient way of finding and organizing those threads.

Tom Westbrook
12-Jul-2006, 18:23
We can look into it. We consolidated most camera related categories from the old forum into the Cameras section here. Not being a ULFer I don't quite see why you can't ask ULF questions in the existing spot. I mean, do we give 6x9ers their own section? How about 8x10? It's a slippery slope.

Oren Grad
12-Jul-2006, 19:03
We can look into it. We consolidated most camera related categories from the old forum into the Cameras section here. Not being a ULFer I don't quite see why you can't ask ULF questions in the existing spot.

We can, and we do. It would just be a convenience, that's all.


I mean, do we give 6x9ers their own section? How about 8x10? It's a slippery slope.

It would be reasonable if there were lots of discussion of 6x9- or 8x10-specific issues and a critical mass of people who said they'd find it helpful.

It's not something I'll lose sleep over one way or the other - if Mike and I are the only ones arguing in favor I'll certainly understand if you decide it's not worth the trouble.

Wayne
12-Jul-2006, 20:26
We can, and we do. It would just be a convenience, that's all.



It would be reasonable if there were lots of discussion of 6x9- or 8x10-specific issues and a critical mass of people who said they'd find it helpful.

It's not something I'll lose sleep over one way or the other - if Mike and I are the only ones arguing in favor I'll certainly understand if you decide it's not worth the trouble.


Well its not really a convenience. I would have change my settings and follow 2 forums instead of one, or I would miss some things. BTW I would also like to see the APUG ULF forum merged with LF, along with the plate camera forum, but thats veering OT. There is no such thing as ULF, IMO. Its either big or it isnt. :) ULF-LF have far more in common than not.


Wayne

Hugo Zhang
12-Jul-2006, 21:23
I really miss the old ULF section. Come on, you don't need to know vacuum frame if you only shoot 8x10 or smaller.

Mike A
12-Jul-2006, 22:54
Any moderators want to render a verdict here? I mean come on, two seperate forums catering to digital, the "lounge" please. Why does APUG need to brought into this, not everyone subscribes there. I do subscribe there but there are people that do not, they maybe considering a larger format and can access information easier here. I know there are times when having a ULF forum made visiting here much more convienent.

Mike

Capocheny
12-Jul-2006, 23:28
Whether there's an independent ULF forum here or not, it certainly won't make much difference to me.

If there's an independent ULF forum set up, I'll most likely peruse it occasionally just to see what's new and for general "information purposes only."

If the decision is not to set up an independent forum for ULF and to leave things "as is"... it's still easy enough to refrain from viewing postings related to subject matter I'm not interested in!

IMHO, we might just be making a mountain out of a mole-hill! But, that's just my two cents worth! :)

Cheers

robert
13-Jul-2006, 03:41
I agree ULF does have some very distinct problems that other formats don't run into. I for one don't visit this site as near as much since the ULF tag was eliminated. I'm all for a ULF forum.

John Bowen
13-Jul-2006, 04:30
I too would appreciate a ULF forum.

Thanks

David A. Goldfarb
13-Jul-2006, 11:48
I think there are enough separate issues to justify a ULF forum--transporting equipment, finding film and organizing group orders, dealing with less standardized filmholders, lenses that cover, scaling up alt-processes, increased customization and custom fabrication of equipment, etc. Organizing all the threads into one forum could be useful for someone wanting to get into ULF who wants to find out what all the complications might be and doesn't necessarily know what to search for or what questions to ask.

Arguably, many ULF issues also apply to smaller formats that have become or always were non-standard (7X11, 4X10, 5X12, full plate, half plate, quarter plate, etc.), so maybe the new forum might be "ULF and other less common formats" or something along those lines for formats other than 6x9cm, 4x5", 5x7", and 8x10".

BrianShaw
13-Jul-2006, 12:19
IMHO, we might just be making a mountain out of a mole-hill! But, that's just my two cents worth! :)

I hear that making mountains out of mole-hills is soon to be instituted as an Olympic sport!

Ole Tjugen
13-Jul-2006, 12:33
...so maybe the new forum might be "ULF and other less common formats" or something along those lines for formats other than 6x9cm, 4x5", 5x7", and 8x10".
Include 6.5x9cm, 9x12cm, 13x18cm and 18x24cm in the "exceptions from the usual", and I agree.

That way we won't have to argue about whether ULF is "larger than 8x10" or "11x14 and larger", and my 24x30cm plate camera will unarguably belong. ;)

Ralph Barker
13-Jul-2006, 22:39
As Tom mentioned earlier, it can be easily done. The question, however, is what goes into it? Gear? Film? Processing? Technique? Digital? Etc.? As such, it could easily become difficult to sort out, or become a hodge-podge of threads that only peripherally relate to ULF. If much smaller, non-standard formats are added, the issue becomes even more complex.

The "higher-level" separation of topics was an effort to separate the issues from being format specific, making the topics more subject-related than format-related.

What if those posting ULF-related threads in the current categories simply added "ULF" to the thread title as a matter of practice? Would that make it easier for ULFers to find what they are looking for?

Brian Ellis
14-Jul-2006, 08:02
Good grief, if they have to deal with all those special (not to say peculiar) problems the rest of us don't face they must be very special (not to say peculiar) people. Give 'em their special forum and let's move on.

Michael Kadillak
14-Jul-2006, 08:13
I agree. ULF is another creature and the things that we ULF shooters have to deal with to kick it up a notch are unique and considerable. Bore the hell out of the Speed Graphic shooter but to us it is a life line.

I say that a ULF forum makes sense.

Cheers!

Ralph Barker
14-Jul-2006, 11:10
. . . I say that a ULF forum makes sense.

On the surface, I tend to agree. However, can you define what format sizes qualify and what topics would go in the proposed ULF sub-forum rather than one of the existing ones? (Note the earlier suggestion that it include smaller, non-standard formats, as well.) That is:

1. does everyone agree on a definition of "ULF"?
2. does it become a catch-all forum for anything related (directly or remotely) to ULF?
3. or, does the existing topic structure need to be replicated under ULF as sub-sub-forums?

Unless we are able to clearly define the parameters in a way that doesn't conflict with the balance of the structure, we'll end up with posts all over the place, making it difficult for people to find what they are looking for.

Michael Kadillak
14-Jul-2006, 14:14
A sub sub venue would be fine. I would define ULF as any equipment or process that uses a negative that has one dimension larger than 10 inches. For example I do not feel that 4x10 is ULF but 5x12 is.

Under the ULF category I would recommend sub categories such as:

darkroom, developers, negative processing and chemicals
cameras and tripods
film and film holders
lenses
printing and finishing
accessories

Robert Skeoch
14-Jul-2006, 14:35
I didn't know we allowed 6 x 9 users..... what's happening to the neighbourhood.


I like the idea of splitting lf from ULF. When the two are mixed it's possible to take advice from someone who's using ULF... and we know where that can lead. If we separate the two it's easier to keep the sane from the "others".

just kidding of course.

-Rob

Wayne
14-Jul-2006, 14:37
[QUOTE=Michael Kadillak]A sub sub venue would be fine. I would define ULF as any equipment or process that uses a negative that has one dimension larger than 10 inches. For example I do not feel that 4x10 is ULF but 5x12 is.


I dont even consider 11x14 ULF. If (if!) there is such a thing as ULF, I think there has to be at least one 16 or larger in there. 5 x12 is smaller than 8x10! 11x14 was once a fairly commonly used format. ULF should be reserved for really big (ULTRA!) sizes that have always been oddballs.

A number of the things mentioned above as unique to "ULF" really are just as big a concern for 8x10, and arent unique at all.

While I will continue to argue against the whole silly idea, if it came to a vote I would abstain so if "ULF"ers really want it let them have it. Especially if 11x14 is left out of ULF.

Wayne

Michael Kadillak
14-Jul-2006, 17:02
I dont even consider 11x14 ULF. If (if!) there is such a thing as ULF, I think there has to be at least one 16 or larger in there. 5 x12 is smaller than 8x10! 11x14 was once a fairly commonly used format. ULF should be reserved for really big (ULTRA!) sizes that have always been oddballs.

After thinking about the situation, the criteria for including certain sizes into a category called ULF or something like it should be driven by logistics as opposed to a criteria by format. My point is that for view camera formats that are considered industry standard (4x5, 5x7 and 8x10) there is considerable infrastructure in film holders and cameras, film and camera support. This is just not the case with other large format sizes that require custom cameras, specialty sheet film holders, custom cases, odd sized film (and the difficulty in acquiring it), and the challenge in processing and printing these odd sized formats that places those that answer to this calling in common territory. That is the rational for a separate category that avoids a specific "format" size as to what should be included in the forum.

As a result, any view camera format other than 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 should be open season in the ULF discussion. There is a natural tendency to want to draw the line using "size" only but that is not what I feel is the best way to skin this cat.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers!

David Vickery
16-Jul-2006, 08:48
I like what Michael Kadillak just said.

Ralph Barker
16-Jul-2006, 09:30
So far, I'm not seeing a resounding consensus forming around any of the alternatives for a separate ULF forum. Including smaller, logistically-troublesome formats under the title of ULF, however, strikes me as highly counter-intuitive (look in ULF for half-plate issues?). Many people would consider any view-camera format to be logistically-troublesome.

We should remember that the objective of the topic organizational structure is to create logical and intuitive places for people to find what they are looking for. (Even though most folks are using some variation on the "Unified View" to read posts.) Obviously, that also relates to providing people with logical and intuitive places to make their posts in the first place.

Michael Kadillak
16-Jul-2006, 11:36
So far, I'm not seeing a resounding consensus forming around any of the alternatives for a separate ULF forum. Including smaller, logistically-troublesome formats under the title of ULF, however, strikes me as highly counter-intuitive (look in ULF for half-plate issues?). Many people would consider any view-camera format to be logistically-troublesome.

Then take away the variable that may be causing the concerns - ULF.

How about consider adjusting the forum title to " Alternative Large Format" or "Unconventional Large Format" or ??

Just my $0.02.

Ole Tjugen
16-Jul-2006, 11:53
ULF = "Unusual or Long Film"?

That should cover all the bases... :p

Wayne
16-Jul-2006, 21:14
logistically-troublesome formats


LTF. :)


Wayne

Rick Moore
17-Jul-2006, 10:03
I do not feel it is a good idea to further divide our community here. As an 8x10 user, I often get useful information from messages that pertain to ULF issues, for instance, the covering power of long FL lenses.

The same arguments made to separate ULF from other large formats applies to separating 4x5 from 8x10, IMHO. It can be argued that few 4x5 users are interested in the problems and solutions that apply to the 8x10 shooter.

Our community here is small enough already without further sub-division.

Hugo Zhang
21-Jul-2006, 20:43
Come on, get ULF back. I want to spend more time here instead of APUG.

tim atherton
21-Jul-2006, 21:17
Actually one thing I find I'm missing is the old subdivision of the Cameras Forum into 4x5 (and smaller), 8x10, and 11x14 and bigger (or if you really want to be a pita - 11x14 and then ULF [aka cameras you can't carry]).

In fact while we may have had a number of forums that were somewhat redundant on the old site, perhaps we've consolidated a few too many of them here for "simplicity"?