Quote Originally Posted by Doug Howk View Post
I don't understand the controversy. Why someone visits this site is based on what he/she expects to find. If I shop at a bicycle store I don't expect to get advice on a motorized bike for racing at Tour de France. If I visit APUG, I expect to find discussions on traditional photographic methods; not on how only the end result matters. For the Alt Photo forum, I don't expect to find discussions on how Corel Painter can emulate all processes. If I visit B&S forum on Carbon printing, hope to not find discussions on carbon inkjet printing. So why should I visit this site and expect to find discussions on replacing my Large Format cameras with some other format? Even though Photo.net is a one size fits all photo site, they have categories; and one does not find discussions of sensor size in the neg development section.
I hope the LF forum remains Large Format, its what I would expect to find here.
We agree on the fact that we visit certain sites, and threads and categories at those sites, with certain expectations. From that perspective you should undestand the controversy and I would think agree with my position. This thread is called "Post Alternative Techniques" which to me suggests two concepts: 1) that it will be about alternative printing, not equipment, and 2)there will be discussions of modern methods of printmaking. With that in mind I joined the thread to look at the work of other alternative printmakers and to post some of my own images. I had no expectation at all of discussing equipment, and the first image I posted did not mention equipment. However, when I posted the IR images I thought it would be nice to mention how they had been made because there are very few sources of LF IR film around these days and I suspected that some might be interested in the technique.

The very last thing I expected was that someone would complain to the moderators that the image capture was with a digital point and shoot camera. Why would that be a problem to anyone? Is there someone out there with the misguided notion that it is easier to make carbon transfer prints if you start with a piece of film or with a digital MF back on a LF body than if you start with a smaller camera. If so, that person is plenty ignorant of what it takes to make high quality carbon transfer prints and all I can say is that I am glad that I don't think that way.

Anyway, I have said my peace on this. The moderators can address the issue or ignore it -- makes no difference to me at all at this time.

Sandy King