Would Love to See an "Other Formats" Sub Forum

[Jay DeFehr]

Interesting discussion. The dynamics of online social groups are so well documented, one could write the script for this discussion without needing to consult anyone, and the results would not be materially different from this one. The arguments made by the opposing group were valid at the forum's inception, and initial growth period, but now the forum is mature (if not the members), the core group and the contribution distribution established, and there is a kind of stasis. While it's unlikely new members would join the group and overwhelm the core group as a result od a more liberal topic policy, there is a chance the core group themselves, in a changing world, might drift into territories beyond the currently defined borders. How far might they drift, and how might the changed landscape look? Who knows, but I don't think it's the ominous and inevitable silicon landscape predicted by some. For those satisfied with the status quo, there is nothing to be gained by relaxing constraints, but for those on the fringe of the core group, moderately satisfied with the status quo, slavish devotion to the original charter can feel uncomfortably restrictive, especially when the core group gets evangelical. Accommodations like the lounge, and the unrestricted format forum are good examples of concessions to the wider interests of the group at large. How far in that direction it is wise to go is an open question.

[Marko]

Jay,

That is an interesting observation.

Reminds me of the last years of the Eastern Block, when anybody who wanted to say anything in public had to go through the exhausting ritualistic litany confirming their undying loyalty to the Only Path to the Radiant Future in the form of class struggle led by the glorious Communist Party of (insert your country), etc, yadda, yadda, yadda... The closer it got the end, the longer, the more fervent and the more rigid those mantras became until the point where it became impossible to say anything of importance any more. Not that it mattered to the progressively calcifying "avant garde" in lead.

Which makes me wonder if this predictability of "discussions" on fora like this and APUG have more to do with the rapidly diminishing medium or with steadily increasing average age of the membership.

Which also leads to certain associations on the concept of drifting away that you mention...

[Roger Cole]

The Forum's definition is stated clearly at the top of the "General Forum Usage" FAQs:

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

I knew I had seen it somewhere.

I have no problem with this, which essentially boils down to saying, "4x5 or larger regardless of type of camera, or smaller if exposed in camera types usually associated with larger formats." Pretty well covers it. Can we get back to that now?

[Darin Boville]

I've always thought that this forum, as excellent as it is, is sometimes a bit stale image-wise. One related thought is that certain forms of small format digital photography come closes in spirit to LF work--I'm thinking of stitched images in particular.

The problem comes when you try to rewrite the definition--it seems to become over broad before you get the ink on paper.

--Darin

[SamReeves]

It's called "The Lounge".

+1

No use divying it up more.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I love the Eastern Block story. So true. I think the predictability has more to do with the venue than the content or the membership. Online social groups follow very predictable patterns, and face a handful of common pitfalls. One of the patterns is the power law distribution of participation leading to the formation of cliques and a core group, once the group is large enough. Then there's the vilification of a common enemy (digital), and religious veneration/evangelism, manifested in a set of tenets which are beyond critique. All the film v digital, LF v anything else debates we see are simply the core group defending the state religion from threats by infidels, foreign and domestic. This is all completely predictable, and to some extent, unavoidable. What's interesting (to me) is the second tier of vilification, beyond digital, other formats, camera types, etc., which extends to philosophy, and art, or anything perceived as intellectual. The folksy curmudgeon seems to be the dominant personality type here, and any discussion that threatens to drift towards the conceptual is stomped on by the overalls brigade. I don't know how related the average age is, as there are plenty of younger members who toe the core group line, eager, it seems, to earn their curmudgeon badges. I think it's mostly affectation of the GOP variety, but maybe it really is intellectual sloth.

[Tobias Key]

I think that one of the main failings of internet fora in general, is that to be manageable they have to be quite narrow in scope, otherwise they become an online version of the Lebanon. Of course the problem with that is you an never get a civil discussion of alternative approaches online. The APUG ban on the discussion scanning is a case in point. As a member you can have a gallery of images online, which must have been scanned, but you are not allowed to talk about scanning! I don't think film photography can afford to exclude people in this way, we should be catholic, and where possible, even evangelical.

[Roger Cole]

I think that one of the main failings of internet fora in general, is that to be manageable they have to be quite narrow in scope, otherwise they become an online version of the Lebanon. Of course the problem with that is you an never get a civil discussion of alternative approaches online. The APUG ban on the discussion scanning is a case in point. As a member you can have a gallery of images online, which must have been scanned, but you are not allowed to talk about scanning! I don't think film photography can afford to exclude people in this way, we should be catholic, and where possible, even evangelical.

The forum is useful to me and fun in ways, but gets downright silly about scanning. I understand it's not the focus, but when someone is asking about ways to optimize their traditional wet darkroom development, for example, to get better scans - well, that's about wet darkroom.

The UK-centric FADU forum is a really friendly group, but even nuttier about things like that. There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output. Of course the APUGers counter that DPUG welcomes that, and it apparently does. They have obvious sub forums for it, but they are among the vast hoards of messages about purely digital methods.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE]There ought to be a place that focuses on traditional "analog" photography but doesn't ban discussing interfacing it with digital output./QUOTE]

Can I ask a pretty silly question here? I sometimes wonder whether I exist in an alternate universe. Is this site not overwhelmingly about traditional photography, but doesn't discriminate about scanning or digital output?

I'm not asking this to keep people here. One of the huge advantages to a site that is entirely volunteer is that we don't have to worry about member numbers.

[Jay DeFehr]

Kirk,

You make an excellent point. Scale is the biggest danger to a forum like this one. Too large, and the signal to noise ratio declines, too small and it......gets stale? We all know (or assume we do) why people come to this site, but do we know why people leave? Does it matter? Can the group be too small?