Would Love to See an "Other Formats" Sub Forum

[Andre Noble]

Hello, I know a lot of LF'ers shoot medium and 35mm, probably more towards traditional processes as well.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tap their expertise here on a sub forum for medium format and 35mm?

Anyone else had this idea? Has this been proposed before?

[cdholden]

Traditional work (aka "analog") is what APUG is all about, regardless of format.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tap their expertise here on a sub forum for medium format and 35mm?...No, it wouldn't. This is the Large Format Photography Forum. There are plenty of other general photography forums available to discuss medium format and 35mm.

[Oren Grad]

It's called "The Lounge".

[Lachlan 717]

Yeah, cool.

And let's add one for point and shoot digitals!

And one for shots made with mobile phones!

And one for finger paintings from kids!

(Note the sarcasm. No thanks).

[sully75]

Definitely agree. I found Apug to be a massively annoying group. Frustrating to want to ask a question here and know that people here have the answer but feeling lame about it because it's a small format question.

I'll try to keep it to the lounge but I do agree.

Apug is useless to me particularly because you can't even mention the concept of scanning without people jumping down your throat. Ridiculous. Generally the pictures I see there are pretty lame and people seem overly obsessed with the idea of shooting film being some moral imperative.

Anyway, not likely but I agree!

[Bruce Watson]

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tap their expertise here on a sub forum for medium format and 35mm?

No, it would not.

The 'net is littered with forums for small formats. This is one of the few, and the best, of the LF forums -- because it specializes in LF.

[Andre Noble]

Sully75, thanks for the positive feedback.

As to the others: I know we are all getting up there in age, but I thought black and white (so to speak) thinking was more of a product of youth than of experience and wisdom.

Or is it that the state of Large Format Photography is so fragile that *some* people unconsciously feel that it could get squeezed out (I doubt it) on its' own forum?

[Ole Tjugen]

The way I see it, this is a specialist forum. It specialises on large format photography, whether that is with film or silicon, whether the results are printed with 18th century techniques or with a modern inkjet printer.

APUG is also a specialist forum, it specialises in "all silver photography". Yes, mention scanning as a part of the process leading to the final print and the moderators (myself included) will stomp on it. And the 100 members who scream blue murder before we catch it.

The strength of these two forums is that they are specialist forums. They have clearly defined "scopes of interest", and are well guarded to prevent them going the way of most other forums - to ever greater diversity, but also less depth. That lets them retain some very clever individuals, whose knowledge and experience would simply drown in more general forums. And then perhaps they would get bored of the endless NiCanon discussions, and stop posting and even reading the forums...

I have a question I can't find a good place for myself, too. It's about my 6x4.5cm plate camera - it isn't large format, so this is the wrong place. Yet it isn't MF either, since that really implies roll film. But that doesn't mean I want the forums to change to accommodate MY wishes.

[vinny]

Definitely agree. I found Apug to be a massively annoying group. Frustrating to want to ask a question here and know that people here have the answer but feeling lame about it because it's a small format question.

I'll try to keep it to the lounge but I do agree.

Apug is useless to me particularly because you can't even mention the concept of scanning without people jumping down your throat. Ridiculous. Generally the pictures I see there are pretty lame and people seem overly obsessed with the idea of shooting film being some moral imperative.

Anyway, not likely but I agree!

Nice. Reminds me of the girl who sued her school because the boys basketball team wouldn't let her join the team. Those apuggers and their analog equipment, how dare they!

[Roger Cole]

There is also DPUG which, name aside, invites discussion of scanning and hybrid work modes.

[Tim Meisburger]

Hi Ole. I have a similar dilemma with my 6.5x9 Kodak Recomar, which functionally is closer in shooting and film processing to my 4x5 than any other camera type, and have thought about starting a thread in the Lounge called "Medium Format Sheet Film" for posting photos and asking camera questions. These negatives don't fit in my scanner film holders (they are made for roll film), so have not gotten around to scanning any yet, but a thread like that might be a good work-around for your question.

Tim

[Roger Cole]

Hi Ole. I have a similar dilemma with my 6.5x9 Kodak Recomar, which functionally is closer in shooting and film processing to my 4x5 than any other camera type, and have thought about starting a thread in the Lounge called "Medium Format Sheet Film" for posting photos and asking camera questions. These negatives don't fit in my scanner film holders (they are made for roll film), so have not gotten around to scanning any yet, but a thread like that might be a good work-around for your question.

Tim

I thought this forum was for any users of sheet film, or in cameras with movements?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure where the line is, but I know I've seen discussion of 3.25x4.25 sheet film and I'm pretty sure it isn't just "4x5 and larger."

[lenser]

Interesting problem as there are some of us (I am certainly one) who may routinely use roll film backs on large format cameras. How is that supposed to be classified.

Also in my case, I've had a machinist friend make adapters so I can use my wonderful Wollensak Veritar (covers up to 5x7), on my Hasselblad 2000FCM with bellows for focusing, and on my Nikons with my PB-4 bellows for that system.

Definitely large format equipment, but hybridized to other formats.

So are medium format film images shot with a large format camera or lenses excluded?

[Tim Meisburger]

No, I think the criteria is film size, not movements or view cameras. Minimum is 4x5 or 9x12, I think.

I'm okay with that, but my little camera uses sheet film in film holders, has rise and shift, is triggered with a cable release, and focused with a loupe on a ground glass, so I am more likely to find useful information here than anywhere else, but am happy to seek that in the lounge. In the "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" thread I'm sure to find people that understand sheet film and view cameras.

[lenser]

What about 2.25 x 3.25? Didn't Gowland make a pocket view camera in that size? Galvin certainly did (I used to own one) with very full movements just as with many 4x5 and 8x10 etc. cameras.

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

[Oren Grad]

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

The Forum's definition is stated clearly at the top of the "General Forum Usage" FAQs:

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

[jnanian]

What about 2.25 x 3.25? Didn't Gowland make a pocket view camera in that size? Galvin certainly did (I used to own one) with very full movements just as with many 4x5 and 8x10 etc. cameras.

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

once every six months or so
there is a question whether or not a certain format
is considered large format ...

[jnanian]

there are good photographers ( and photographs ) and bad ones
on every forum regardless of the format and media ...
i don't think apug has the lion's share because it is film/silver based ..

[Wayne Crider]

For the small format stuff I generally go to Pnet or APUG. RFF is not bad as well

[Jay DeFehr]

Interesting discussion. The dynamics of online social groups are so well documented, one could write the script for this discussion without needing to consult anyone, and the results would not be materially different from this one. The arguments made by the opposing group were valid at the forum's inception, and initial growth period, but now the forum is mature (if not the members), the core group and the contribution distribution established, and there is a kind of stasis. While it's unlikely new members would join the group and overwhelm the core group as a result od a more liberal topic policy, there is a chance the core group themselves, in a changing world, might drift into territories beyond the currently defined borders. How far might they drift, and how might the changed landscape look? Who knows, but I don't think it's the ominous and inevitable silicon landscape predicted by some. For those satisfied with the status quo, there is nothing to be gained by relaxing constraints, but for those on the fringe of the core group, moderately satisfied with the status quo, slavish devotion to the original charter can feel uncomfortably restrictive, especially when the core group gets evangelical. Accommodations like the lounge, and the unrestricted format forum are good examples of concessions to the wider interests of the group at large. How far in that direction it is wise to go is an open question.

[Marko]

Jay,

That is an interesting observation.

Reminds me of the last years of the Eastern Block, when anybody who wanted to say anything in public had to go through the exhausting ritualistic litany confirming their undying loyalty to the Only Path to the Radiant Future in the form of class struggle led by the glorious Communist Party of (insert your country), etc, yadda, yadda, yadda... The closer it got the end, the longer, the more fervent and the more rigid those mantras became until the point where it became impossible to say anything of importance any more. Not that it mattered to the progressively calcifying "avant garde" in lead. ;)

Which makes me wonder if this predictability of "discussions" on fora like this and APUG have more to do with the rapidly diminishing medium or with steadily increasing average age of the membership.

Which also leads to certain associations on the concept of drifting away that you mention... :D

[Roger Cole]

The Forum's definition is stated clearly at the top of the "General Forum Usage" FAQs:

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

I knew I had seen it somewhere.

I have no problem with this, which essentially boils down to saying, "4x5 or larger regardless of type of camera, or smaller if exposed in camera types usually associated with larger formats." Pretty well covers it. Can we get back to that now? ;)

[Darin Boville]

I've always thought that this forum, as excellent as it is, is sometimes a bit stale image-wise. One related thought is that certain forms of small format digital photography come closes in spirit to LF work--I'm thinking of stitched images in particular.

The problem comes when you try to rewrite the definition--it seems to become over broad before you get the ink on paper.

--Darin

[SamReeves]

It's called "The Lounge".

+1

No use divying it up more.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I love the Eastern Block story. So true. I think the predictability has more to do with the venue than the content or the membership. Online social groups follow very predictable patterns, and face a handful of common pitfalls. One of the patterns is the power law distribution of participation leading to the formation of cliques and a core group, once the group is large enough. Then there's the vilification of a common enemy (digital), and religious veneration/evangelism, manifested in a set of tenets which are beyond critique. All the film v digital, LF v anything else debates we see are simply the core group defending the state religion from threats by infidels, foreign and domestic. This is all completely predictable, and to some extent, unavoidable. What's interesting (to me) is the second tier of vilification, beyond digital, other formats, camera types, etc., which extends to philosophy, and art, or anything perceived as intellectual. The folksy curmudgeon seems to be the dominant personality type here, and any discussion that threatens to drift towards the conceptual is stomped on by the overalls brigade. I don't know how related the average age is, as there are plenty of younger members who toe the core group line, eager, it seems, to earn their curmudgeon badges. I think it's mostly affectation of the GOP variety, but maybe it really is intellectual sloth.

[Tobias Key]

I think that one of the main failings of internet fora in general, is that to be manageable they have to be quite narrow in scope, otherwise they become an online version of the Lebanon. Of course the problem with that is you an never get a civil discussion of alternative approaches online. The APUG ban on the discussion scanning is a case in point. As a member you can have a gallery of images online, which must have been scanned, but you are not allowed to talk about scanning! I don't think film photography can afford to exclude people in this way, we should be catholic, and where possible, even evangelical.

[Roger Cole]

I think that one of the main failings of internet fora in general, is that to be manageable they have to be quite narrow in scope, otherwise they become an online version of the Lebanon. Of course the problem with that is you an never get a civil discussion of alternative approaches online. The APUG ban on the discussion scanning is a case in point. As a member you can have a gallery of images online, which must have been scanned, but you are not allowed to talk about scanning! I don't think film photography can afford to exclude people in this way, we should be catholic, and where possible, even evangelical.

The forum is useful to me and fun in ways, but gets downright silly about scanning. I understand it's not the focus, but when someone is asking about ways to optimize their traditional wet darkroom development, for example, to get better scans - well, that's about wet darkroom.

The UK-centric FADU forum is a really friendly group, but even nuttier about things like that. There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output. Of course the APUGers counter that DPUG welcomes that, and it apparently does. They have obvious sub forums for it, but they are among the vast hoards of messages about purely digital methods.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE]There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output./QUOTE]

Can I ask a pretty silly question here? I sometimes wonder whether I exist in an alternate universe. Is this site not overwhelmingly about traditional photography, but doesn't discriminate about scanning or digital output?

I'm not asking this to keep people here. One of the huge advantages to a site that is entirely volunteer is that we don't have to worry about member numbers.

[Jay DeFehr]

Kirk,

You make an excellent point. Scale is the biggest danger to a forum like this one. Too large, and the signal to noise ratio declines, too small and it......gets stale? We all know (or assume we do) why people come to this site, but do we know why people leave? Does it matter? Can the group be too small?

[Bruce Watson]

It's a matter of breadth vs. depth. What makes this forum so effective is that it's narrow in scope but deep in knowledge inside that narrow scope.

Widening scope will necessarily shallow the forum and make it less useful -- both to LFers, and the others. I've seen it happen many times. And it happens *every* time. Every single time.

And it's not like the small format people can't get their answers. There are plenty of resources catering to the small format crowds. Just not here please.

[bigdog]

Apug is useless to me particularly because you can't even mention the concept of scanning without people jumping down your throat.

I got the same reaction here when I asked if I could post some roll-film pictures in the "post your churches" thread. It was not polite.

[Jay DeFehr]

Widening scope will necessarily shallow the forum and make it less useful


Why so? How will widening the scope change the depth of knowledge about the current scope? I'd be willing to bet that something on the order of 90%+ of the LF photographers here also shoot smaller formats, so we're not talking about the introduction/invasion of new, small format members, but the liberalization of topics among current members. I'm not saying I favor the move, but I think the distinction is important.

[Roger Cole]

There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output.

Can I ask a pretty silly question here? I sometimes wonder whether I exist in an alternate universe. Is this site not overwhelmingly about traditional photography, but doesn't discriminate about scanning or digital output?

I'm not asking this to keep people here. One of the huge advantages to a site that is entirely volunteer is that we don't have to worry about member numbers.

I think you misunderstood me Kirk. This forum does indeed welcome that - provided it's concerning shots on sheet film or the particular exceptions of certain medium format listed.

I like this forum a lot and want to keep it just as it is. But if I want information on the best way of converting all those 35mm Kodachromes I shot last year into prints without shelling out the bucks for Ilfochrome material, this isn't the place for that. Neither is APUG which kind of illustrates my point. I could go to DPUG and the appropriate forum therein, which I might when I get to that point.

I don't want this forum to expand beyond LF more than the current safe haven thread. But as someone who also shoots other formats it isn't everything or the only forum I use.

[Kirk Gittings]

thanks. I get it.

[sully75]

[QUOTE]There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output./QUOTE]

Can I ask a pretty silly question here? I sometimes wonder whether I exist in an alternate universe. Is this site not overwhelmingly about traditional photography, but doesn't discriminate about scanning or digital output?

I'm not asking this to keep people here. One of the huge advantages to a site that is entirely volunteer is that we don't have to worry about member numbers.

That's actually why I ended up using the forums here. Because there seemed to be an open attitude about things like scanning and yes, even small format cameras. I saw people flip out(!) on apug about scanning questions. For me I guess it's purely about the photographs. I mean, I like the cameras too, but try to keep them as a means to an end.

Anyway, I like the forums here a lot. I think a small format forum wouldn't hurt anything but I assume that's not going to happen.

The worst of the worst is the hybrid photography forum part of apug, where there's like 4 people logging in every 2 months. Hate to say that the flickr group forums are much much more useful.

[evan clarke]

I look at this forum because it is about view cameras..period. I can see all that other stuff all over the web..Evan Clarke

[D. Bryant]

Large format and large format only, anyone suggesting otherwise is simply engaging in rhetoric or bomb throwing to put it another way. Or as we say down South, "They're just stirring the puddin'".

[Sal Santamaura]

...but now the forum is mature (if not the members)...I thought ad hominem attacks against participants -- even if you've cleverly avoided naming specific posters with whom you disagree when calling them immature -- was as welcome here as small format discussions outside the lounge. Apparently not.


...why people come to this site, but do we know why people leave?...I've observed that most who leave do so for one of two reasons. Either they can't deal with the rules or (much more common) they've moved on to a digital-capture workflow. Some of the latter continue to participate here, contributing the knowledge/experience gained when they did work with large format film cameras.


...Does it matter? Can the group be too small?In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Except for those few former LFers who visit here regularly, neither of those two departee categories contributes much beyond strife.

Certainly forum participation could decline beyond a critical point. In my opinion, those who've left because they don't like the rules or 'went digital' haven't brought the numbers down to any substantial degree, with many new posters more than taking up the slack. Also, the distinction between this forum and "chat rooms" should not be forgotten. Everyone who once shared valuable information and then departed has left a record in the archive. Anyone properly searching before posting redundantly will continue to reap the benefits.

[Marko]

I have great respect for a lot of LF shooters whose work I've seen thanks to this forum. It is obvious that they know a lot about photography in general and not just the narrow craft of using a particular type of camera and I'm pretty sure they shoot other formats too.

Ergo, I would love to see their other work, at least occasionally as I'm sure I could both enjoy it and learn from it as much as I did from their much narrower LF scope. IOW, it is not about simply the other formats, it is about the other formats shot by the LF people.

I still think judicious broadening of the scope in this way would help and support the mainstay of the forum rather than hurt it in the same way as the most recent discussion about Cindy Sherman has, despite the obvious differences in opinion and despite the fact that the format was not mentioned once there.

Perhaps the worries can be minimized by requiring members who wish to post smaller format images to have posted LF work previously? Or something along those lines...

Just my $0.02 and no pudding.

Marko

[David R Munson]

I like the idea of a smaller formats subforum, but that doesn't mean I think that the LF forum should have one. I don't. There are plenty of good alternatives for that, and one of the strengths of this place is its specificity. It works well as it is and really doesn't need any other categories tacked on to muddy the waters.

Regarding alternatives, I avoid APUG as much as I can (far, *far* too high a weenie quotient in general), but there are a lot of other options out there. RFF is great. There are lots of good discussions in groups on flickr as well. Photo.net isn't so bad here and there. With those and the LF forum, I have what I need.

The only area where I feel that maybe there should be a bit more leeway would be with image sharing/posting. Maybe just a specific thread for non-LF images for those of us who want to share something that wasn't shot on large format but which we'd rather share with the LF group here than with the individuals somewhere else who perhaps we do not like or respect as much.

[Brian Ellis]

Hello, I know a lot of LF'ers shoot medium and 35mm, probably more towards traditional processes as well.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tap their expertise here on a sub forum for medium format and 35mm?

Anyone else had this idea? Has this been proposed before?

We have one. It's called The Lounge. And I hope we don't change.

[Jay DeFehr]

I thought ad hominem attacks against participants -- even if you've cleverly avoided naming specific posters with whom you disagree when calling them immature -- was as welcome here as small format discussions outside the lounge. Apparently not.

Sal,

You misunderstood me. Maturity, as I used it, refers to the age of the members, not their attitudes, and I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, just making a point. It is interesting, on a social level, that you are at the same time eager to criticize another member's (misinterpreted) use of ad hominem reasoning, with the use of blatant sarcasm. It seems rudeness is acceptable if you deem your target has earned it.



I've observed that most who leave do so for one of two reasons. Either they can't deal with the rules or (much more common) they've moved on to a digital-capture workflow. Some of the latter continue to participate here, contributing the knowledge/experience gained when they did work with large format film cameras.

I hope you won't be offended if I doubt your analysis. People rarely make decisions of any kind based on a single factor. Even if they did, we wouldn't know it unless we polled them, and then compiled the data, which I'm assuming you haven't done. Please pardon me if that's not the case.


In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Except for those few former LFers who visit here regularly, neither of those two departee categories contributes much beyond strife.

Certainly forum participation could decline beyond a critical point.

I agree with the second part. I can think of at least one core group member who left, and it would be hard to make the case that he didn't " contribute much beyond strife."


In my opinion, those who've left because they don't like the rules or 'went digital' haven't brought the numbers down to any substantial degree, with many new posters more than taking up the slack. Also, the distinction between this forum and "chat rooms" should not be forgotten. Everyone who once shared valuable information and then departed has left a record in the archive. Anyone properly searching before posting redundantly will continue to reap the benefits.



I agree there's a distinction to be made between this forum and a chat room, and another to be made between this forum and an archive.

[Sal Santamaura]

...but now the forum is mature (if not the members)...


I thought ad hominem attacks against participants -- even if you've cleverly avoided naming specific posters with whom you disagree when calling them immature -- was as welcome here as small format discussions outside the lounge. Apparently not...


You misunderstood me. Maturity, as I used it, refers to the age of the members, not their attitudes, and I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, just making a point. It is interesting, on a social level, that you are at the same time eager to criticize another member's (misinterpreted) use of ad hominem reasoning, with the use of blatant sarcasm. It seems rudeness is acceptable if you deem your target has earned it...Whether you've used "immature" with reference to chronological or emotional age, it most definitely was an ad hominem attack against those with whom you disagree in this thread. No verbal gymnastics after the fact can successfully obfuscate what's posted. Pointing out facts is not rude; I'm unaware of any forum rules prohibiting sarcasm when doing so.

Repeating my salient points:


Those who leave because they won't follow the rules are no loss to the community
Those who leave because they moved on to a digital capture workflow bequeath to this site's archive everything they've previously contributed
Those who move on to a digital capture workflow but continue to participate here within the rules are valuable contributors.

[Ken Lee]

Many forum members display their photos on the web - either on their own web sites or elsewhere.

We have always been free to view their work - at those locations - whatever the format.

[Nathan Smith]

I like the idea, but I agree that the Lounge fills that niche adequately. Any attempt to do otherwise will obviously cause a rift in the community, and since this is a LF forum after all there's just no point in going there.

One point, and I sincerely hope I don't get flamed (though I won't respond if I do), is that I really appreciate those who can respond to an honest suggestion without histrionics & rudeness. I left APUG because no thread seemed to stay on track without devolving into a flame war. This forum seems on the edge of that now. I have a feeling that many of our folks would never speak to one another in person the way they freely blast each other over the web.

[Jay DeFehr]

Whether you've used "immature" with reference to chronological or emotional age, it most definitely was an ad hominem attack against those with whom you disagree in this thread. No verbal gymnastics after the fact can successfully obfuscate what's posted. Pointing out facts is not rude; I'm unaware of any forum rules prohibiting sarcasm when doing so.

Repeating my salient points:


Those who leave because they won't follow the rules are no loss to the community
Those who leave because they moved on to a digital capture workflow bequeath to this site's archive everything they've previously contributed
Those who move on to a digital capture workflow but continue to participate here within the rules are valuable contributors.

Sal,

I didn't use "immature" at all- you did. What I said is quoted. I was referring to another poster who mentioned the ages of members. It's quite common for people to see/read what they want/expect, but to insist on your interpretation after the author has clarified is something else. With whom, in your opinion, have I disagreed? I haven't endorsed or recommended anything in this thread; I've simply made some observations and asked a few questions. You've misinterpreted my posts, made unfounded accusations, and have been generally rude and obnoxious, hiding behind forum guidelines for conduct. And for the record, I don't find any of your points particularly salient.

[jnanian]

The only area where I feel that maybe there should be a bit more leeway would be with image sharing/posting. Maybe just a specific thread for non-LF images for those of us who want to share something that wasn't shot on large format but which we'd rather share with the LF group here than with the individuals somewhere else who perhaps we do not like or respect as much.

there is a thread exactly like that in the lounge .....

[Heespharm]

We have one. It's called The Lounge. And I hope we don't change.

+1

[David R Munson]

there is a thread exactly like that in the lounge .....

Sweet.

Edit: The only problem is, it's in the lounge. I don't visit the lounge here or on any equivalent board on any other forum. But then, that's my problem.

[jnanian]

Sweet.

Edit: The only problem is, it's in the lounge. I don't visit the lounge here or on any equivalent board on any other forum. But then, that's my problem.

i think it is in the lounge because it isn't large format,
and is considered "off-topic chatter" ...

it's actually a huge leap for this board to allow that sort of thing here to begin with .
the original lf forum was on lusenet long ago, and it was just
technical aspects of large format photography ... when it went to photo-net
and then migrated back here, it became a different sort of place, more of
a community than a technical board ... i think the owners and moderators do a
great job keeping the flavor of this website what it is (strictly large format- modern / antiquarian ) ...
allowing off topic multi-format image posting in the lounge
is really kind of nice seeing the old board didn't even have a way to host images ...

[Jay DeFehr]

Compared to photo.net, this forum has a narrow focus, even more narrow than apug, but there is a lot of commonality in the memberships, in the topics, and in the information shared. Each site has its own way of categorizing and limiting topics, but I think those mechanisms are outdated. Compare any of the above sites to Flickr, where users (as distinct from members) do the categorization by tagging. Tagging allows one to find photos based on any criteria one chooses, and group them together based on the chosen criteria. What's missing from Flickr is the ability to tag discussions, and even individual posts. If Flickr enabled discussion/post tagging, I think it would threaten the existence of all the other sites mentioned above.

[sully75]

Well basically it would be nice to have a section that you could just ask Frank Petronio how to do sh1t and then he would put up some racy pictures and tell you what you wanted to know. Maybe he should start his own forum. As long as it was a forum that was exclusively Frank Petronio all the time, and nothing else, I would join that forum!

[rdenney]

...Too large, and the signal to noise ratio declines, too small and it......gets stale?

I no longer participate (except for occasional drive-bys) in Photography On The Net, which is devoted to Canon digital photography. It has many zillions of members, leading contributors with post counts in the many tens of thousands, and about a hundred threads a day asking for advice on whether to buy a wide angle or a telephoto zoom as the first accessory lens. I could never keep up with the few discussions on more advanced topics. That's an example of a forum that grew too large, though the thousands who participate seem to enjoy doing so.

I tried the manual-focus forum as an alternative to POTN, but like POTN it was still too equipment-oriented.

I host the Kiev Report, which is about ex-Second-World photography equipment. That equipment peaked in the late 90's and early 00's, and since then the group has dwindled down to a devoted few. We used to have in-depth discussions of photography as art as we do here, but the focus of the group was too small to survive at that level of participation. And the art training of most participants on that forum was far more limited than here. Now, the core group uses it to keep up with each other. We opened one of the sub-forums up to off-topic equipment, though truthfully the topic had never been that vigorously enforced, but it was too little too late to revive a broader activity. But we still do get a handful of new participants every month or so.

I do not participate in APUG, being agnostic on the subject of digital versus film.

This forum seems to be large enough to promote self-regeneration, while being small enough to allow in-depth discussion. I have not found at all that the "folksy curmudgeon" types are able to squelch discussions of any particular topic. The Cindy Sherman thread currently running is an example. There have been plenty who have expressed negative opinions about recent art photography, but in all my years of reading camera forums, this is the first where I have seen any discussion of theory, semiotics, and so on. These have not been deleted or relegated to The Lounge, because even though they are not format-specific they bear directly on what most large-format photographers do, even if they don't care about it or realize it. The result is that this forum attracts those with real artistic experience and training, and many good professional art photographers. The learning opportunities therefore greatly exceed that of other forums in which I've participated.

I have many photos from medium and small formats that I would love to post on the various image threads, if for no other reason than to test them against better work from other participants here. But I would not put at risk what the forum has in order to be able to do so. Restricting the discussion to the use of large format does act as a filter against the type of flood that drowns POTN. It may seem arbitrary at times, but any such filter will have to be.

Rick "who believes a status quo can be successful" Denney

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

You make some good points with real examples. The scale issues (on both ends) you cite are just what I referred to in earlier posts. There are several ways to limit scale, but there is a danger of over-limiting, as your KR example shows. My own view is that once a group of LF photographers has formed, let them discuss/share whatever they like. The group's common thread of LF should be enough to maintain coherence, and the interaction would be far more natural. If tagging was enabled, forums and sub-forums could be eliminated, and there would be no need for much of the moderation that's needed now. If I wanted to find discussions about any subject, I would type my search criteria into a box and find a list of results, ranked by whatever criteria I choose. This would permit more participation and content with a better signal to noise ratio.

I realize there is a search function here, but a keyword search is a different thing than a tag search. Tagging allows members to organize the content in ways meaningful to themselves. For instance, I might tag this discussion "theory of online social groups", and you might tag it "forum rules", and someone else might tag it "other formats", etc. These descriptions allow for this discussion to be found in ways a keyword search might not.

Clique formation is an interesting phenomenon, and is essentially the formation of groups within groups. This group is organized around LF cameras, but a sub-group might from based on the members of the larger group who are also contact printers, or portraitists, or digital printers, etc., but one might also be based on the group's shared philosophy, or politics, or sexual orientation. I don't think the technical can be separated from the social.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating any of these changes, or any others here; just discussing theory.

[John Koehrer]

If it works, don't fix it!

When a forum gets to be large enough you have to assume a certain amount of weenieness will creep in. APUG has over 50k members now and if you don't put a muzzle on digi topics it will force the traditional forums out. What then?
RFF? is another specialized forum with an even narrower focus, most of thier threads seem to along with the "just got" or "which is best" line. I just gets old, fast.

[Roger Cole]

The complaints about the "muzzling" at APUG aren't against forbidding overtly digital topics, but about the broadness of the definition of what constitutes a digital topic. An example would be someone asking about development techniques to improve scanning of negatives. Some (including me) think such should be allowed, but others don't. Shrug. The focus here seems right to me for a large format forum.

[Wayne Crider]

I think that the proposition overall was a nice way of saying that this forum is appreciated for the community, the depth of knowledge, the wonderful photography and the discussions that take place here. While some wish that could be expanded to encompass the totality of our photographic interests, it would probably in the end pollute the stream so to say.
Perhaps the new and exciting LargeFormatPhotographersSmallFormatUsersGroup would be an alternative?

[Henry Ambrose]

This is a very nice place as is.