Deleted View Camera Thread?

[Allen Rumme]

Kirk,

I too agree. I saw Steve's post and it was no different than Michael's post about Magnachrom.

[Walter Calahan]

I have no problem with View Camera and Magnachrome both posting to this forum.

Either no magazine should post, or all magazines should post.

I'm not making the rules, but just want to see fairness.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael, I know for profit is not the same thing as profitable. I'm sure you will get there and I wish you well.

But VC and MC are in the same business classification and should be treated the same. FI At this point, I am totally confused about the guidelines if your posts are ok and Steve's aren't. A clarification is in order at the very least.

[QT Luong]

The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site.

[Kirk Gittings]

Qt,

The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers.

(for now.....)

I don't see how that is a consideration. They both are for profit organizations. Steve charges for subscriptions where Michael posts it for free to attract paid advertisers. The final objective is exactly the same.

I know that Michael and Steve have a great love of photography and do much in service to the community, but lets not be naive. Both publications are businesses whose goal is to be profitable.

[alec4444]

The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site.

Nah, sorry...if that is truly the case then it really needs to be applied evenly. People have been actually selling things here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=23068

Back to the original thread, what if I posted the contents of the magazine to say that I thought "XYZ article sounds really stupid" or "I can't wait to see the article on ABC"? A mere discussion of what is in the magazine is very different than "Come <link>HERE</link> and buy my magazine." (Again, see the calendar thread)

--A

[MJSfoto1956]

I have no problem with View Camera and Magnachrome both posting to this forum

My needs are simple: I only ask that people spell MAGNAchrom correctly!!!

[QT Luong]

Pretty much everything that is published on the web is connected in some way to a for-profit venture. This forum doesn't exist in a vacum and allows references or links to such material, *as long as the material is accessible for free to the reader*. This is already spelled out in the guidelines.

[alec4444]

Pretty much everything that is published on the web is connected in some way to a for-profit venture. This forum doesn't exist in a vacum and allows references or links to such material, *as long as the material is accessible for free to the reader*. This is already spelled out in the guidelines.

QT, I don't disagree with the guideline, but I do respectfully disagree with the application of the guideline. I'll leave my opinion at that.

--A

[roteague]

I don't see why both can't be allowed. It isn't like they are selling life insurance. They are both supporting the LF community, and both provide a resource to the community. I assume that Emulsion would also fall under the same rules.