No need for apologies, James. I knew full well that it was your opinion without your having to state it every time. And in a world where opinions are about as common as a@@holes, that makes your opinion as about valid as mine. Since you are insistent on repeating your opinion that photo.net sucks, there you go, following your tack, I am repeating my opinion that photo.net does not suck. Somewhere in there lies a sliver of truth.
Just to make sure I understand - this affects the forum only, correct? Not the "static" page with all the data, reviews, etc.?
Yes, Sean. Only this forum MAY be affected. The static page is hosted by Dr Quang Tuan Luong's own cs.berkley server.
No, David, you shouldn't give a vote to that site. That site is a repository of information on photographic equipment written by a few, not about photography per se. You must be careful to make that distinction. It is unlike photo.net or this forum, with input from a world-wide audience.
I would really like to see the current character of the site maintained, and if that is done best at photo.net, so be it. This site has a tremendous wealth of knowledge shared by long time practitioners that filters down to those of us who are not professionals but pursue image making with large format as a passion. There is no other site on the net where I can ask a question about some arcane lens I have located and have a dozen responses on manufacturer, image properties, design, coverage etc. At the same time a person can propose a discussion regarding non techie subjects and ther is always a spirited discussion.
As far as a site for the critique of images: please stop now before I lose my sanity. You only need to read so many "to dark at the top" , should have cropped this or that side, NICEST IMAGE YET!, what filter did you use for this or that effect in photoshop etc. If people want their images seen and critiqued, ask them to provide a URL for their own site or at least a completely seperate forum for critiques.
I think Katharine Thayer's post (above) is right on target. Excellent!
.
There might be two other sites which we might attempt to emulate or at least have discussions with to learn how they provide service and forums.
Perhaps there is a way that this LF Forum integrate or move to a link at Photo District News' page. I am often there and find their discussions similar and thoughtful like this one.
The other site which I use and find easy to navigate is www.Robgalbraith.com. I am not suggesting a merger or use of this page since they are focused on digital cameras and issues. They probably would not want opposite end of the spectrum forums under the same banner. However, someone might want to look at the architecture, design and the appearance of their forums. Perhaps, we can open telephone conversations and ask them who they used to create the site, what software they use and their thoughts about servers and long term operational needs. I happen to enjoy that they have a couple forum links to different topics. Maybe we could have sections for film, lenses and different bodies among other areas.
There may additional options than these and they should be given due as we are discussing Photo.net and Yahoo and the rest.
Regards,
John Bailey
I've nothing much to add, but wanted to register a vote.
My first preference would be to find another independent server. The traffic here isn't that big, and generic discussion server software comes free with most internet-aware databases these days. I would offer my servers and programming time (my University, and Swedish Law, is very tolerant of non-profit servers within the domain) but I can't promise continuity for any reasonable time, so the forum would probably have to move again in a year or so.
I would be willing to pay a small subscription fee were that necessary to keep the forum going on a commercial server, but I feel strongly that access should be free (and that cute little icons for those who've paid up are childish and divisive).
I like photo.net, but I prefer this forum, which in many ways is what photo.net was like before it went professional. Photo.net is now slow and klunky in comparison because it is too busy selling my eyeballs to advertisers to engage fully in the dull task of sending ascii down the pipe.
More seriously, I believe that photo.net claims copyright over the posts made there, which might make things difficult if the forum got sick of the adverts for 28-200 zoom lenses and tried to move again.
I am very nearly computer illiterate and can't make a qualified opinion on most of the tech issues.
I will say that this site is the only one that has a shortcut on my "personal toolbar" in Netscape. I've been to all the other ones to investigate from time to time, but don't find myself going back. Why is that? What is it about this site that makes it so classy? Whatever it is I would certainly vote to maintain that character and flavour. If it takes reaching into my pocket book, then that's what it takes. Thank you Q Tuan Luong for keeping this place an island in an ever increasing sea of "No Value."
There was a thread a while back about equipment insurance. Maybe there could be a subscriber fee that included equipment insurance in the price. I'll shut up before I say anything even dumber.
Very Best Regards to the people that make this site "special". Jim
I'm hoping that the forum can be continued with the ACS software, which is a definate example of the beauty of simplicity. A while back, after I acquired a Palm Vx with Minstrel V wireless modem and installed a little Palm OS browser called AvantGo, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this forum displayed perfectly and was incredibly useable even at the blinding (not!) connection speed of 19.2k. Consequently I have spent many hours reading this forum in bed next to my warm, sleeping wife rather than out in the cold family room at the desktop machine. I'm hopeful that this will continue!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks