Digital hate overmoderating?

[rdenney]

Remember - here you can freely discuss a 6x7 roll film back on a LF camera but don't dare to discuss a LF camera digital back on this forum! Wait until the digital sensor will grow to at least 4x5 in. In the meantime discuss freely your 6x7 cm analogue capture device!

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

[rdenney]

If I make a custom 8x10 back to mount on my Mamiya TLR, is it large format or medium format. I mean, this is confusing. The film is large, but the camera is medium. That's sort of the same if the film is medium and the camera is large.

Isn't it?

It's about the film or sensor, not the camera. Making that shift untangled many inconsistencies.

Rick "recalling arguments over press cameras" Denney

[rdenney]

Good point actually. This demonstrates another problem with this black-and-white approach the moderators have taken. It's not easy to prove that an image really came from 4x5 or larger film.

I can imagine a future rule change:

"To enforce the 4x5 rule, in image sharing posts people must post full, uncropped scans of their 4x5 and larger negatives, the full sheet of film, with a ruler next to it so we can determine that it's really 4x5 or larger. Posts without the full sheet of film and the ruler will be moved to the "Everything else" image sharing forum".

No. Quit making something simple complicated. The definition isn't based on the cropped size, but the size of the film/sensor. Any definition draws a line, and every possible line puts some on the wrong side of it. I can no longer post 6x12 images, even though they can only be made in a 4x5 camera. But the benefits of a format-based definition versus a camera-based definition outweighed the concerns. It was a long discussion, necessitated because of endless issues with the previous definition, the exceptions to which became too much of a burden and caused too much confusion.

Rick "when bubble levels define the format, they'll need to be at least 4x5" Denney

[prendt]

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

Forgive your servant another question - when was this ever announced prior to this post? It's just that I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

[Ralph Barker]

That is correct, this must now be discussed in the lounge. And any discussions of 6X9 cm technical cameras must also be in the lounge. Same for the use of 3X4" scanning backs.

All of this breaks with the entire history of the LF forum, and has served, in my opinion, to encourage divisions of analog versus digital, as would have been predicted as a logical outcome of the decision of the moderators.

Sandy

Actually, the "entire history" of the forum, starting back in the old Lusenet days, has been fraught with inconsistencies and a few vague areas that seemed to make sense at the time. When a few people started to "over-parse" the rules for their own purposes and the advancement of their personal agendas, those inconsistencies became more problematic. What we have attempted to do in the last few years is to clarify the primary goal of the forum while still providing some accommodations for other non-LF formats. It is likely that the guidelines will continue to evolve as new issues come to the fore. But, our continuing goal is to promote large format photography, as it has been generally understood for the last few decades.

[fishbulb]

Clearly. You are not the servant here. Moderators volunteer to serve the forum community, not vice versa. And they deserve our gratitude for that service, not persistent harassment when enforcing the Usage Guidelines.

That is true, but even though moderators are volunteers, they are not above the law, above criticism, or above reproach.

I moderate a few other sites' forums - Vbulletin and Drupal based, not related to photography. I've seen a lot of rules and moderators come and go over the years. I've seen other sites fail or dwindle due to dictator mods, poorly-chosen rules, cherry-picking rule enforcement, under-the-table dealings, and tribal mentalities among the owners/mods. Usually the sites dwindle to a small "in group" and become an echo chamber. I've seen such things attempted by moderators at sites that I manage too. Moderating is a thankless job that never ends, but someone needs to do it.

From my experience, a public, democratic, free-speech approach to questions of moderation and rules is a good policy in order to avoid the above issues and to increase the credibility of moderators within the community they serve.

[rdenney]

Forgive your servant another question - when was this ever announced prior to this post? It's just that I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-Clarification

Rick "noting the extended discussion at that time" Denney

[prendt]

That is true, but even though moderators are volunteers, they are not above the law, above criticism, or above reproach.


From my experience, a public, democratic, free-speech approach to questions of moderation and rules is a good policy in order to avoid the above issues and to increase the credibility of moderators within the community they serve.

Well, Kirk Gittings, the former moderator, sees it quite differently: "I don't think our discussions will change anything. This forum is not a democracy-but that is another question." (LF clarification thread).
Go wonder.

[prendt]

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-Clarification

Rick "noting the extended discussion at that time" Denney

Thank you for the reference.

[MikeH]

I don't post very often, but I read this forum almost daily, and I find the moderation to be very reasonable.