Yes, I'd agree with Jim-
I had written something to that effect earlier, and didn't post-
the images just get better and better,
and I'm glad to have seen them all now-
joseph
Yes, I'd agree with Jim-
I had written something to that effect earlier, and didn't post-
the images just get better and better,
and I'm glad to have seen them all now-
joseph
I have initiated a discussion amongst the moderators on this topic. This may lead to changes or clarifications. Give it time. We are a few volunteers with diverse schedules.
In the meantime, Ralph's opinion does not negate my opinion or my decision. From the guidelines: "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong." I will be happy to review my decision after some discussion on this topic amongst the moderators. In the meantime my original decision stands. Nothing that has been mentioned here so far has convinced me otherwise. This is by no means personal. Remember Dominico Fosci? He was and is a friend of mine whose work I admire greatly (as I do Sandy's). He left the forum after repeatedly having his small format images deleted from "post your images" threads that weren't in the lounge. I was one of those who regularly deleted his sf image posts. I regretted his leaving and tried to talk him out of it. He had plenty of first rate LF images to post but chose not to.
This discussion will greatly effect the future direction of this forum, if you change the On Photography threads to allow posting of images that are not LF, any "post your images" thread could justifiably be made in the On Photography section and we could be inundated with non LF image posts and change the fundamental nature of this forum. But I am open.
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"
Here is palladium print made with NA2 from a digital negative - original shot on 4x5 film.
Last edited by D. Bryant; 25-Jul-2009 at 16:58. Reason: Correction Not pure palladium
Gum over palladium from original 8x10 negative.
Ziatype from 4x5 negative
Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)
Kirk,
I think before the moderators make any decisions they need to at least get on the same page on this thread because you and Ralph Barker are asserting points of view that are quite simply out of line with one another.
Barker clearly stated, “Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.”
On the basis of that statement I re-posted my image file, which clearly falls under the guidelines noted by Barker, at least by my reading and understanding of what he said.
Consistency is an important operating principle of any organization. It is lacking here.
Not undermining the people you work with is also important. That also appears to be lacking. At the very least, if you assert that "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong" you should do in a context where the moderators at least are in agreement.
Sandy
Palladium print with NA2 print from digital negative from original 5x7 exposure
Bookmarks