Joel's Thread Temporarily Removed from View

[Kirk Gittings]

Responding to an attack does not set the record straight, nor does it ever solve anything.....................

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I did not start the name calling in the thread.

Telling someone that the information they presented is worthless and too technical in nature to have any meaning simply because it does not conform with your idea of what LF should be IMO is an insult.

This again is exemplified in many threads where you advocate the use of little technique and insist that any other information is worthless since it is not "easy".

If we are going to accept that this forum is for the sharing of information then the "dogma" lies on you and your insistance that more detailed information is not needed. Anybody here is free to choose whatever method they like best, but do not deprive those who wish to learn more about the science part of photography of the ability to do so simply because in your opinion it is not needed to make pictures.

As to the article, you seem to be the one not being able to let go, I could not care less.

[Thurl Ravenscroftson]

Clearly all this snarkiness is Kodak's fault. Damn them to hell!

[Scott Rosenberg]

i did not see the thread in question so can't comment on it directly. however, it seems to have brought into sharp relief a bigger issue on this forum. if memory serves, this forum was founded by a group of individuals that felt the tone over at photo.net was to abrasive and caustic, though recently it seems like there is far more civility and support over there.

certianly those that persist in these childish exchanges are partially responsible, but i feel that in these matters the moderators are also partly to blame. if there are certain personalities that can not seem to play nice, they should not be allowed to play at all. it's that simple. by allowing a few hot-heads to carry on in this fashion, the entire forum is suffering greatly. i know of several extremely knowledgeable individuals who contributed regularly but have lately given up on the forum altogether for this very reason. the folks that are going to throw their hands up and move on are precisely those that bring the most value to the forum - knowledgeable, steady, patient folks that are interested only in passing along information. once the rest of them moves on, this place won't be worth a damn.

there's a reason moderators have the authority to do certain things, it'd be nice to see them exercise those rights with greater frequency for the good of the forum.

[Robert McClure]

My comments will not solve the problem here, I don't believe, because anger is part of the human condition.

But Freud had it right, I think, when he talked about our need, in effect, to bleed off this anger. Other persons and their actions, thoughts, or feelings aren't the actual problem for those who have either lashed out, taken digs, or slammed certain others. Kirk Gittings, for example, touched on this idea.

It is never technically accurate to claim, "If it hadn't been for so-and-so and his/her actions or words, I wouldn't have been so mad." Or, "He 'made' me mad because of what he did/said to me."

It comes down to a question of personal responsibility. I mean, are the words, actions, or photographs of person X truly the cause, say, of my present anger and bitterness? Does the fact that someone took a potshot at me, for example, force me to respond in angry reaction?

Do I not have the option to either choose or reject anger, or at least the angry actions and emotions connected to that anger? Or am I at the mercy of others, not in control of my own actions?

I like the book title, "Happiness is a Choice." You could also say "Angry Reactions Are a Choice."

Besides, how do you make a great photograph while simultaneously maintaining 500 psi at the sphincter?

It's a great forum!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Besides, how do you make a great photograph while simultaneously maintaining 500 psi at the sphincter?

Very carefully, you might blow out your GG...... :-)

[Sal Santamaura]

"Most of this information was available elsewhere---I think Ellis Vener reported tests of this kind on this very forum years ago, with similar results to Paul's."

And it's still there in the archive. The best argument made so far for leaving Joel's thread permanently deleted (he can refer to the archive) and deleting this thread as well. In my opinion, redundancy is nearly as great an offense as flaming, and just as deserving of deletion.

[BrianShaw]

DRAT, I missed the original thread... but this one seems to also be getting "totally unprefessional and very ugly".

This kind of BS is the same kind of BS I can get at work any day of the week. The only difference is that at work I get paid for it and, therefore, take it more seriously. But this, I'm finding this fairly amusing!

... and I know BS... it's my initials!

[steve simmons]

My concern is that when a newcomer cmes on and asks a question and the first, or first few answers come back and are highly technical/mathmatical, that the questioner will think it is necessary to know and underetand the heavily technical information to be large format photographer. Frequently this is not true. The more technical info can certainly be interesting but not a requirement. Stating this in a thread should not be taken as a personal insult. My intent is to make lf photography seem user friendly and not just the domain of the scientific and mathmatically inclined.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree with your intent Steve and I think that View Camera, your book and your workshops have always been great reflections of that intent. I think that your contributions in that area have helped allot of newcomers find a home in LF who otherwise might be put off by the seeming complexity of the genre.

This forum of course cannot be limited to entry level informatiom or the old farts like me (or scientific types) would look somewhere else for discussion. So this forum has to serve both ends of the spectrum without creating an either/or conflict.

I know that I get my back up here every once in awhile, primarily when I see blatantly wrong information posted as gospel. But I think there must be away to challenge such postings that is not personal or degrading to the author.

All of the flamethrowers here think that they don't start the conflagration. That is because the actual conflict really started years ago in some other thread or in some other forum or in some other circumstance alltogether.