Anyone interested in posting/discussing LF pictures on the web?

[Philippe Gauthier]

I really love this site and I read it almost every day. My only regret is that I'd really like to see what you're shooting with your LF gear. You sometimes point to your personal page, but rarely. I'd also love tp show my stuff to LF users, but setting up and maintatining a web page can be a lot of work - and what do you learn from it?

I'm currently installing a small photo community web site; it should be completely up in a week or so, depending on my spare time. Nothing new, the original mix of forums (I don't intend to replicate this one, which is already great!) and picture gallery, except for one innovation: the software allows me to set up specialized Albums, not just a "one size fits all" Gallery.

That means that I could set up a "Large format" photo Album where only pictures made with LF gear would be uploaded; any user could comment, but is likely that only users that have at least some interest/familiarity in LF photography will be active. At the very least, your pictures won't be displayed near digital snapshots of cats or near heavily Photoshopped pics - there's another Album for manips.

How many of you would be interested in membership on this site (and the creation of a LF Album) knowing that:

1. Membership will be free (bandwidth is donated by a friend)

2. There will be no numerical "rating system", just comments

3. The community is meant to remain relatively small, perhaps 200 users.

Any thoughts/comments?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Some of us do this over on APUG.org. It's comments-only, no ratings, and it's a good crowd of people, many the same as over here. Galleries aren't divided by format or subject matter, so much, as by the kind of feedback you want (one gallery just for show, one for critique, one for technical discussions, one for print sales, one for print exchange, and one miscellaneous for things like pictures of equipment used to illustrate postings in the discussion areas), but there is a fair proportion of LF work.

[Tony Galt]

APUG seems to be limited to analog production. That would seem to let me out as I scan film and print digitally, although I use a LF camera. I aim for straight prints without extensive digital manipulation. Would such limitations hold on the newly proposed site as well, or am I wrong that APUG is strictly analog?

[Joakim Ahnfelt]

Great idea. I agree, it would be interesting to see what everybody is doing. I have found some galleries on the net but no one I really liked yet so I'm still looking for somewhere to show my work. I have a gallery on Photo.net but it seems to big. Please keep us posted on progress with the site.

[Guy Tal]

Many such forums already exist. The main issue I see is that the distinction of LF is to a great extent lost when images are posted at web-size. I have to say the concept of a dedicated *Analog Photography* user group evaluating digital scans is quite amusing to me :)

Guy

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, APUG is all film-based photography, but that accommodates some folks here, if not everyone. In addition to the online galleries, there's actually a fair amount of exchange of real prints through APUG--a traveling portfolio that gets mailed around the world, a few print exchange projects, a postcard exchange, and more (such as an alt-process traveling portfolio) in the works. The online galleries serve certain functions, but they aren't everything. Many of the APUG participants use digital technology as well as film, but they don't discuss digital techniques on the site, just the way many participants in the LF forum shoot other formats but don't discuss them on this list.

[Ole Tjugen]

There's quite a few pictures over at http://www.f32.net which is strictly LF with no restrictions as to film/digital. Most of the photos are in the discussions. They also now have a monthly assignment just starting up.

[Francis Abad]

No one is evaluating the quality of digital scans in the APUG gallaries. What is being evaluated is composition and technique. A lot of analog information is shared in these galleries despite the limitations of properly scanning film and paper. In addition, using large format does not lose its quality simply by scanning and posting at web-size. The compositional qualities from an 8x10 groundglass is not lost simply because of resizing.

[Bill_1856]

I just tried APUG. After signing my rights away, all I got was a bunch of "x"s where the pictures ought to be. What a waste of time! And there doesn't seem to be any way to "undo" registration. I expect lots of spam from the bastards.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I haven't received any spam via APUG, and it runs fine on my browser (Netscape 7). If you're having problems seeing images, e-mail admin@apug.org.

[Bill_1856]

Working fine now. My computer illiteracy lowers the threshold for irate responses.

[mark blackman]

As Ole suggested, the F32 site allows for photos to be posted for critique. Limit is 50kb and MUST be taken on an LF camera. As this limit can be a bit of a problem for colour images, some participents provide links to larger versions on their own sites.

[Graeme Hird]

Philippe,

Your intended forum sounds very much like the f32.net forum, which I contribute to and help moderate. It has about a hundred active forum members and almost no flaming: a very affible and constructive little community.

But don't let that stop you from starting up another forum - they all help promote LF photography, and that can't be a bad thing.

Good Luck,

Graeme Hird Photo Critiques Moderator, f32.net

[Tom Westbrook]

One thing that is missing from the critique fora that I've visited is the ability to post a portfolio of images in one area that people can view & comment on together, maybe with the ability to flip through the photographs as though through a book. Such a place would be preferable, IMHO, to posting individual images in isolation from their companions. Of course, posting individual images should be possible, too.

Just a thought.