It's a matter of breadth vs. depth. What makes this forum so effective is that it's narrow in scope but deep in knowledge inside that narrow scope.
Widening scope will necessarily shallow the forum and make it less useful -- both to LFers, and the others. I've seen it happen many times. And it happens *every* time. Every single time.
And it's not like the small format people can't get their answers. There are plenty of resources catering to the small format crowds. Just not here please.
Bruce Watson
I got the same reaction here when I asked if I could post some roll-film pictures in the "post your churches" thread. It was not polite.Originally Posted by sully75
Why so? How will widening the scope change the depth of knowledge about the current scope? I'd be willing to bet that something on the order of 90%+ of the LF photographers here also shoot smaller formats, so we're not talking about the introduction/invasion of new, small format members, but the liberalization of topics among current members. I'm not saying I favor the move, but I think the distinction is important.Widening scope will necessarily shallow the forum and make it less useful
I think you misunderstood me Kirk. This forum does indeed welcome that - provided it's concerning shots on sheet film or the particular exceptions of certain medium format listed.
I like this forum a lot and want to keep it just as it is. But if I want information on the best way of converting all those 35mm Kodachromes I shot last year into prints without shelling out the bucks for Ilfochrome material, this isn't the place for that. Neither is APUG which kind of illustrates my point. I could go to DPUG and the appropriate forum therein, which I might when I get to that point.
I don't want this forum to expand beyond LF more than the current safe haven thread. But as someone who also shoots other formats it isn't everything or the only forum I use.
thanks. I get it.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
[QUOTE=Kirk Gittings;734691]That's actually why I ended up using the forums here. Because there seemed to be an open attitude about things like scanning and yes, even small format cameras. I saw people flip out(!) on apug about scanning questions. For me I guess it's purely about the photographs. I mean, I like the cameras too, but try to keep them as a means to an end.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.
Anyway, I like the forums here a lot. I think a small format forum wouldn't hurt anything but I assume that's not going to happen.
The worst of the worst is the hybrid photography forum part of apug, where there's like 4 people logging in every 2 months. Hate to say that the flickr group forums are much much more useful.
I look at this forum because it is about view cameras..period. I can see all that other stuff all over the web..Evan Clarke
Large format and large format only, anyone suggesting otherwise is simply engaging in rhetoric or bomb throwing to put it another way. Or as we say down South, "They're just stirring the puddin'".
I thought ad hominem attacks against participants -- even if you've cleverly avoided naming specific posters with whom you disagree when calling them immature -- was as welcome here as small format discussions outside the lounge. Apparently not.
I've observed that most who leave do so for one of two reasons. Either they can't deal with the rules or (much more common) they've moved on to a digital-capture workflow. Some of the latter continue to participate here, contributing the knowledge/experience gained when they did work with large format film cameras.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Except for those few former LFers who visit here regularly, neither of those two departee categories contributes much beyond strife.
Certainly forum participation could decline beyond a critical point. In my opinion, those who've left because they don't like the rules or 'went digital' haven't brought the numbers down to any substantial degree, with many new posters more than taking up the slack. Also, the distinction between this forum and "chat rooms" should not be forgotten. Everyone who once shared valuable information and then departed has left a record in the archive. Anyone properly searching before posting redundantly will continue to reap the benefits.
I have great respect for a lot of LF shooters whose work I've seen thanks to this forum. It is obvious that they know a lot about photography in general and not just the narrow craft of using a particular type of camera and I'm pretty sure they shoot other formats too.
Ergo, I would love to see their other work, at least occasionally as I'm sure I could both enjoy it and learn from it as much as I did from their much narrower LF scope. IOW, it is not about simply the other formats, it is about the other formats shot by the LF people.
I still think judicious broadening of the scope in this way would help and support the mainstay of the forum rather than hurt it in the same way as the most recent discussion about Cindy Sherman has, despite the obvious differences in opinion and despite the fact that the format was not mentioned once there.
Perhaps the worries can be minimized by requiring members who wish to post smaller format images to have posted LF work previously? Or something along those lines...
Just my $0.02 and no pudding.
Marko
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks