Here's how I personally feel:
Sandy's right on this one...
This subsection is titled On Photography. There should be no restrictions here re camera size or about digital anything.
Does this mean we should not discuss HCB or Kertesz here? That would be ridiculous and I'm sure if you go back in the archives you'll find people discussing non-LF related photographers and/or philosophy.
As much as I am dedicated to analog processes, this particular forum (LF Forum) is not an analog only one.
The title and subheading "On Photography - Discuss aesthetics, philosophy, history, photographers and photographs." doesn't preclude any format, and the aesthetics, philosophy and history that inform one set of formats always informs and cross-pollinates to another, because art wants to be free and not pigeon holed into tight little boxes.
OTOH, if you don't have the courage to make a stand for the above, move the thread as suggested to The Lounge. Most, if not, all of us read this thing in Unified View and NEVER look to see what dumb category a particular thread happens to reside in.
After reading the Guidelines...I understand the ENTIRE FORUM is for posting about LF ONLY.
BUT, there must be a btter way to include these discussions PLUS it also states that exceptions can be made for frequent contributors. Sandy is a frequent contributor and a huge asset to any photographic community...let's not start chasing people away, esp people of his stature and talent. You already did that last year and now we don't see Domenico around anymore...sheesh!
Lothar Osterburg's classes in Brooklyn, NY) which is quite difficult -- what with the chromium and the ferric chloride etc -- but there are much easier techniques out there.
For example, try solar plate etching.
I'm with Sandy, too, but on a different level.
While there may be disagreement about whether an image that started as small format digital should be posted here, I don't see it as a crisis if the management choses to rule it out. Yes the distinction can be seen as arbitrary, but it can also be seen as an attempt to keep this place the way we like it. Isn't that the motivation rather than suppressing somebody's vision?
You have for some reason gotten the wrong take on this. For one thing, I show my work rather widely to lay kind of folks. For example, I just had a month long exhibition of my work at the Holos Gallery in Xalapa, Mexico that was seen by persons of rather diverse background, incluidng but not limited to the presons frequently the Symposium on Alternative Photography of which my exhibit of carbon transfer prints was one small part. About 75% of the work I showed there was from 5X7" film capture, printed with digital negatives, and most of the rest was from 6X7cm film capture, and two or three prints from DSLR capture. No one who saw the exhibition that I spoke to, regardless of back ground, asked me anything about camera format, but many recognized the uniquess of the images because of the dimensional surface quality of carbon transfer prints. The issue is not that the moderators are suppressing my vision since well over 80% of the work I have done with alternative printing over the past twenty years has been from LF and ULF negatives and I could just have easily posted that work in the thread.
So if my purpose was just to show work on this forum, or even best work, I would have chosen something other than the IR shots made with the Canon G9. However, my purpose was not to show "best" work or to impress others but to show what was possible in alternative work with such a small camera. Like most of the images I post the work was quite recent and the prints made just day before yesterday so I was just pretty excited about the results. I was really quite surprised that anyone would have seen this a a violation of the forum rules since this thread is a category that has absolutely nothing to do with camrea format and where, as others have pointed out, many topics not LF in nature have been discussed in the past.
It would be quite simple to resolve this issue by segregating categories that have nothing to do with format from those that relate to equipment, where format is an important issue. For example, just shift categories like On Photogtraphy, Style and Technique, Resources, etc to Community. That would be the right thing to do, not only for discussions of alternative work, but also for all of the other discussions about aesthetics, history, etc. that are not format specific. However, it seems to me that folks have just drawn a line in the sand with their rules. So be it.
Well, thanks for the comment. But aside from a couple of miscommunications I don't think we have gotten along all that poorly.
BTW, no one is forcing me to leave the LF forum and I have no plans to do so. I have only stated that under the circumstances I do not plan to contribute anything in the area of alternative printing, or post any images of that work. I have taken the same stand on APUG, and for similar reasons. I see no reason to participate in discussions about alternative print making when arbitrary and unreasonable boundaries are placed on what can and can not be discussed. Camera format, fill or digital capture, in-camera versus digital negatives, etc. are simply not relevant to alternative print making as I see it.
That said, there are many other areas of discussion, both here and on APUG, where I have no problem at all with the rules and how they are applied and I plan to continue in those areas.
I stated over my image, that it is a "photopolymer gravure". I never said it was the traditional copper-plate gravure.
I have an objection, however... it is not easy!!
You link to a site describing the "solar plate" techniques..
And I have been confused for some time now..
What is - if any - the difference between photopolymer gravure and solar plates?
Photopolymer gravure is "invented" by a Dane (Eli Ponsaing) in 1989 -(http://personal.inet.fi/taide/kari.h...yyri/page1.htm)
on the other site it states that solar plates have been in use since the 70ties (Dan Welden).
are they just similar - or is there a difference?
Do you guys know of Jon Goodman? Jon is a master photogravure worker who works with copper-plate gravure. I had a chance to spend some time with him a couple of weeks ago in Xalapa, Mexico where we both were doing workshops. Jon much prefers the traditional copper plate gravure process to photopolymer, as do I. The work he does with copper plate is so much superior to anything I have seen with photopolymer that I consider the two totally different media.
Just for the record, I have an article on making carbon tissue for copper plate gravure in a book by David Morrish and Mrlene MacCallum, Copper Plate Gravure: Demystifying the Process, Focal Press, 2003.
Anyway, check out Jon's site. http://jgoodgravure.com/
you say "The work he does with copper plate is so much superior to anything I have seen with photopolymer that I consider the two totally different media."
I have heard this before (there is a danish master copper gravure printer that states the same), and I am not telling you, you're wrong.
Different medias, yes.
The Finnish Guy I linked to (Kari Holopainen), makes polymer gravures from up to 5 plates (separation of the gray tones, and printing them on top of each other), with more than stunning results..
I am doing the polymer gravures, as that is my option.
I think it is a very difficult technique to master, but I am content with the fact, it for once is not poisonous (we have an ongoing fight with the goverment about the use of poisonous/hazardous chemicals...)