Sal has raised a damn good question: What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
So what do the owner and moderators want the forum to be?
Thomas
QT Luong no longer shoots large format? Are you sure about that? Rick Denney, a mod, clearly shoots large format. I'm not sure who the other mods are to be honest but you're making quite a claim and I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.
I think it is fair to say that our objectives, "our" being QT and the mods, for the forum remain the same as they have always been, and as stated in the FAQ/guidelines. We have made minor changes to the rules over the years to deal with new situations, but the underlying philosophy has remained constant. And, as far as I know, all of us still shoot LF, although probably not as much or as often as we'd like.
Another constant on the forum has been the relatively small number of people who either haven't read the FAQ/guidelines, don't agree with them, or simply want to "create waves". In extreme cases, some of those folks have been banned, but we try to use a light touch on the ban button. But, the behavior of those few does cause fluctuations in our frustration level, and, occasionally, a corresponding human response.
I raised no such question. Please don't change the meaning of my posts. What the owner and moderators of this forum want it to be is perfectly clear. As Ralph mentioned, everything's spelled out in the FAQ/guidelines.
Why do you raise the issue? What do you want the forum to be, if different from what it is?
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
What a great suggestion!
Actually QT said so himself right here on this forum on a couple of occasions. The first, I believe, was during the thread where Kirk Gitting was claiming that a DSLR could deliver all the movements that a view camera can. (He later toned that down somewhat by saying that there may be some esoteric movement that only a view camera could deliver that he was not aware of.) Not to be outdone Rick Denney then jumped in to say that you could get all view camera movements with a camera phone upon which a member bellied-up to explain that the camera phone could be tilted. LOL!!! Anyway I believe that it was that thread where QT first claimed that LF film no longer had the edge, resolution wise, over the DSLR and that he was shooting DSLR instead of LF. He subsequently reaffirmed that he was no longer shooting LF in another thread. But to QT's credit he has never really bashed LF or film like many others here and now thinking back he based his claim of DLSR's superior resolution on the fact that you could stitch with a DSLR.
As far as Mr Denny, well I personally don't believe that he shoots film much less LF film, and has demonstrated a decided prejudice against those that do. Take, for example, the thread that I started yesterday regarding storage for mounted film transparencies. Mr Denny moved it to the lounge because he said it wasn't LF. Yet running concurrently with mine and for some time now is a thread on stitching a Toronto church with a DSLR in which the author states "I doubt 5% of the folks shooting LF are making prints that need LF." Now since one thread was sent to the lounge while the other remained in place a good case could be made that the wrong thread (mine) was sent to the lounge. Clearly it should have been Mr. Richard's thread because it is truly all about small format digital and how it is superior to LF film. It's true that I mentioned 35mm, 6x45 and 6x7 but I shoot 35, 645, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10 film cameras and my main interest was in 6x7 storage which, I might add, is commonly shot with 6x7 film backs on LF cameras. (I also have a 6x9 back but I am unable to project anything over 6x7 so I seldom use that format except for B&W or color prints.) Moreover, I wasn't extoling the benefits of film vs digital as in the Richards post extols digital over film but was merely looking for a better storage medium for mounted slides than the Office Max/Depot card file boxes I have been using.
But Mr. Richards has a valid point when he asserts that LF is commercially dead and that "If the camera fairy gave me a top end MF digital back and a 6x9 camera, I would dump LF because it would not make sense to use it instead for the images I shoot." And many photographer have, in fact, made that switch with more switching to the small format DSLR (as QT) then to the larger (and more expensive) digital options. And therein lies the dilemma faced by this forum. So, again raising the question which Mr Sal unknowingly asked: "What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be?"
Thomas
Being realistic about the what various capture methods and equipment are capable of and useful for does not make one anti LF or pro digital. It just makes one realistic. Nor does picking and choosing the odd statement or moderation by a moderator even vaguely support your fantasy theory that:
Speaking for myself when I was a moderator (and now), I shot (and continue to shoot) so much LF that I am years behind in film processing. I also teach film and LF at the univertisty level (as well as digital). You fail to quote me the probably DOZENS AND DOZENS AND DOZENS of times in the last few years that I state, un-categorically, that I prefer shooting film for my personal work.What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.
And......Seriously, this and your subsequent sentence is evidence that he doesn't shoot LF or film?As far as Mr Denny, well I personally don't believe that he shoots film much less LF film, and has demonstrated a decided prejudice against those that do.
Large Format is not a belief system or a religion and does not require defenders of the faith. It is a tool.no longer shoots or believes in large format or film
Seriously, what do you get from this? What is your agenda with all this exaggeration and distortion?
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
My post raised no such question, either wittingly or unwittingly. Please stop trying to distort it. Again, Tuan's and the moderators desires/intentions for this forum are clearly stated.
I suspect it's the same agenda that motivates others pursuing the same line of posting. A desire to re-make this forum to their own preferences, which differ from Tuan's and the moderators', instead of going to the trouble and expense of starting their own forum.
Ah, now we see what the issue is. I moved the thread on medium-format transparencies to the Lounge because it is not large-format, by the long-stated definition used in this forum. It was not intended as a scold, and shouldn't be taken as such.
The purpose of this forum is to provide a place to discuss large-format photography. It is not about film photography, except that film is the easiest way to shoot large format at the present time. There is already an excellent forum focused solely on film photography in all formats (APUG). There is no need for this forum to compete with it rather than complement it.
It is also not about digital photography, per se. But given that we allow people to post roll-film photographs in the image-sharing forums if they were made using a large-format camera (such as a with a roll-film holder), we also allow digital photographs made with digital capture devices mounted on large-format cameras, even if they are medium-format sized. That's because this forum is officially agnostic in the film vs. digital debate.
If a discussion is about the use of medium-format film in large-format cameras, we will allow it in the regular subforums, consistent with the above regarding images. If it is about medium-format film unrelated to use in a large-format camera, other than as the occasional aside to what is mainly a thread about large format, we'll move it to the Lounge where discussions of smaller formats are always acceptable. Nothing new here--it's the way this forum has been managed at least since I've been a member.
Your thread was moved because we received several reports about it not being large format-related. We don't read all threads, so we miss things if people don't report them. Any thread that seems to violate guidelines was not "allowed" by us if we received no reports--it may just have gone unnoticed. If you see something, report it. Remember that in much of the history of this forum, there was no Lounge and your thread would simply have been deleted. I'm glad we no longer have to resort to that action to maintain the focus on large format.
I don't feel as though I should have to defend my own photography or format choices, because the photography I do has nothing to do with the moderation decisions I make. But I don't want others to think as you suggest simply because I don't respond. I made the argument that much of what can be done with large format, in terms of image management, can be done with small format, if the small format otherwise delivers sufficient image quality for the task at hand. In the commercial context, the task at hand comes with explicit requirements, and a pro--especially a busy pro--will choose the most efficient path to fulfilling those requirements. It's just a lot easier and a lot cheaper for low-production photographers trying to maximize image quality to use large format cameras when we want those image-management capabilities. And I like the results I get better, for the type of work I do and the sort of setup my life can tolerate at present. I also like that way of working, and expressing skills I've gained since my first use of a large-format camera as an architecture student in the 70's. I frequently make photos for web display with my iPhone, entirely for documentary purposes. I use a Canon 5D for event photography unless the victi...client wants film. In that case, I have a very nice Pentax 645 kit, but it's been several years since anyone asked for it. When I do my own photography for the sake of doing photography, I use either large-format (sometimes with a roll-film holder) or 6x7 these days. Like Ansel Adams, I use the biggest camera I can carry. My digital camera is now six or seven years old yet I have completely replaced much of my LF kit since I bought that Canon. I travel about 40 weeks out of the year on very busy work trips, and rarely have time for much photography in any format. But I signed up for two of the Wanderlust cameras in hopes of doing more when traveling. I'm taking some time off next month for the sole purpose of putting a portfolio together to give as a gift, and it will be about 60% large format. Kirk does more in a week than I do in a year, and I wish I did more.
Rick "otherwise, what Ralph said" Denney
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks