Stricter Guildelines Enforcement Now In Effect

[Kirk Gittings]

5 dollars and I'm yours.......

[RichardSperry]

Cindy Sherman shoots Hasselblad digital now, are thread about her even allowed? Don't know if she shot LF, at all.

Anyway, some of her middle career stuff, the sex doll stuff, is apparently still controversial. At the SF show this summer I overheard a father parent person tell his kid persons, "this room is safe, you can go in this one." This is in San Francisco, I reiterate.

[Sal Santamaura]

Most of the participants in this forum have a conservative view about photography and I don't believe that the moderators can do anything to change that...

Nor should they try to change that -- in their role as moderators. When simply posting their opinions to threads, they are of course free to express any views about photography (within the rules) they wish. Just like all other members.

[Kirk Gittings]

Richard,

1)Of course if its in the lounge.

2) Thats not controversy. That is just a father protecting his kids from sexual stuff. Controversy is like Expressionism, or Cubism or DaDa or New Topographics in their early days. Anyway the sex doll stuff is just intellectually lazy-trying to hard to be shocking because she didn't have any real ideas to follow up her early work.

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Moderators, you do a great job here...

To give some of my own thoughts instead of trying to figure out other's thoughts... I was going to be cagey about site names but think that in this case being clear is more helpful than dropping hints...

I come here for sanctuary. APUG sometimes gets noisy. Photo.net is intolerably digital. Hang the rest of the Internet.

Sure I recall a lively discussion about art, where my work was praised without qualification (music, man, music). At one point that thread seemed to need moderation but the result from my perspective was an eye-opening awareness and respect for my fellow person's opinion.

What I mean when I see that future could take a different shape, you know how here it is OK to speak of hybrid workflow but at APUG it's not. That's a distinction shaped by rules and enforced by moderators. I take the analog approach so that I can freely talk on both sites without having to edit myself. But I totally appreciate the flexible attitude taken here.

[eddie]

5 dollars and I'm yours.......

Bought with a buy it now......for less than i was willing to bid!

[charleymeyer]

I believe the camera is a Zeiss Juwel, he owned a 5X7. Hang in there Ken!

[Darin Boville]

I think (I think....) he is asking how you attract a more forward looking, contemporary, (probably younger), membership to this forum to broaden out the discussions and aesthetic ideologies. IMO This is not a moderator issue but an attitudinal issue (I say issue-not a problem) with the present membership. I know for myself, in my own little way, that I have received allot of push back when defending artists like Robert Adams, Cindy Sherman and Sugimoto. I actually expect that here. In other parts of my artistic life (like when I teach at SAIC) these artists are not even slightly controversial-they are even looked at as yesterday's news-but here sometimes you would think they are current and subversive.

Anyone who wants to challenge the pervasive aesthetic ideologies here (that are largely stuck in pre 1960's ideas about photographic aesthetics) is going to have to have a thick skin and actually have some interest in this site to stick it out through allot of contentious discussions. For many I suspect the return is not worth the effort. Really why would anyone bother arguing over this when all you need is a little technical info?

I frankly can't see what a moderator would do about this except give preferential treatment to forward thinking people? Not let people argue with them and drive them away? What? If we did anything like that we would not be doing our jobs.

You guys (you guys and us-the moderators as members) determine the nature and direction of discussions here by what threads you start and what comments you make. Even Darin own threads are like 99% about LF technical stuff.

Kirk, you said it better than me!

--Darin

[pdmoylan]

What's missing in this discussion is the psychologist's analysis that we are all suffering from the not so gradual loss of a dying art. We have little to discuss but the subtle characteristics and value of ancient lenses, or harrass each other over non LF issues. Back in 2008 we were chanting the great renaissance of LF because those who couldn't previously have afforded great lenses and cameras were finding them at bargain prices. But we were buying into our desire to uphold what film and camera manufacturers were not. It's like losing a good friend to cancer and trying to remain enthusiastic.

This thread, IMHO, is simply the result of those offenders having too much time to discuss too little innovation and change within the limited parameters of LF, living in the past, the future looking bleeker each day. For better or for worse, we are losing the battle to sustain what we love.


Setting the aforementioned aside, as obtuse or unfeasible as the following my seem, it seems to me there are three ways to go on this:
1. Delay each posting until a moderator has chanced to "approve it" thereby eliminating any "violations"
2. Write software which automatically deletes postings which have incorporated any of a large vocabulary of specific terms such as religious, politcal words, explitives etc, or (sounds like a Chinese government plan of action)
3. Allow for self policing, i.e. members requesting that postings be deleted for reasons already established.

We should carefully consider embracing new technology such as MFDSLRs, digital backs etc as an addendum to what we are discussing in this forum. That way it can evolve rather than dying a slow (perhaps more abrudt) death.

Being a realist and a business person by trade, the writing is on the wall. Let's heed it.

PDM

[Sal Santamaura]

...it seems to me there are three ways to go on this:
1. Delay each posting until a moderator has chanced to "approve it" thereby eliminating any "violations"
2. Write software which automatically deletes postings which have incorporated any of a large vocabulary of specific terms such as religious, politcal words, explitives etc, or (sounds like a Chinese government plan of action)
3. Allow for self policing, i.e. members requesting that postings be deleted for reasons already established...

I vote for 4, simply doing what Ken described in the OP of this thread.