Joel's Thread Temporarily Removed from View

[neil poulsen]

Hi all.

I have temporarily removed Joel's thread on film holders from view, until I decide what to do with it. That'll give people time to cool off a little. It's an excellent thread in several respects and evolved into a discussion about the differences between depth of field and depth of focus. But personal attacks (e.g. name calling) began, and things got out of hand.

In having discussions of differences of opinions, there's a playing field that enables us to keep the discussion at a professional and informed level. I think Tuan has done a good job in defining the boundaries of that playing field in the guidelines. Probably the most important aspect of staying on that field is avoiding personal attacks. It doesn't matter how right or wrong we are, we step over a line when we call someone else a name or assassinate their character. The best time to consider this line and it's existance is when we begin getting hot under the collar.

Joel's thread will be returned to view at some time in the near future.

[steve simmons]

I would suggest editing out the character insults and name calling and then putting it back. I appreciate the moderation in this thread.

steve simmons

[robc]

I would suggest leaving it unedited so as not to create a distorted view of how the thread evolved and why.

[Steve Hamley]

Neil.

I'd kill the thread or delete any inflamatory post in its entirety because there will never be a definitive resolution (pun intended) and the absolute worst flame wars I've ever seen seem to be on film flatness between different film holders! Who would have thought? There was one on the usenet a year or three ago that was - well, infamous in my mind.

Why do people feel so strongly about this one subject?

Steve

[Kirk Gittings]

Steve,

I honestly don't think the feelings are about this subject. I think thwe feelings are about the people who posted about the subject.

[Caroline Matthews]

I leave the thread, but slap the hands of the flamers.

Alternatively, I'd ban Simmons from the board.

[darr]

I leave the thread, but slap the hands of the flamers.
Alternatively, I'd ban Jorge from the board since he wins top place for name calling (liar, liar) and personal insults. Take a poll if you really want to get a sampling of what forum readers think.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Why can't we all get along? Boys, play nicely! ;)

[Mark_3632]

Caz, Darr

Grow up.

Thank you neil. I had tried to wade through the childishness for the informtive stuff but it was a head ache.

[Caroline Matthews]

Markie,

I am grown up. There are some people who are at the root of the flaming here. Get real.

[Merg Ross]

Neil,

Thank you for your good judgement which may send a message as we begin the new year. This forum is not the place for personal attacks but, rather, a place to learn and share our knowledge and experience.

[darr]

Mark: Take a poll if you really want to get a sampling of what forum readers think.

[Jim collum]

i think a lot of people left their computers unsecured over New Years, and they've been taken over by bored 15 year olds.

Come on, the # of people in this community is too small as it is to risk loosing anyone with experience and drive about large format photography.

If we were all sitting in the same room, *noone* would be discussing like this. There are time's i think Hanibal Lecter had it right about bad manners and rudeness. :^)

jim

[David Karp]

Before E-mail and near-instant instant communications via the Internet people had some time to think before sending a nasty note. The process of hand-writing or typing on paper gave people pause to think. I recall that while in an old job, when someone sent a letter that contained irritating or aggravating content, I would write a nasty response and put it in my desk drawer for a day. Those are the letters that would not be sent. Unfortunately, I think, today people send those letters quickly and don't take the time to cool down.

This is a great forum. One of the reasons many of us wanted it back was its civility. Let's keep it that way.

People can disagree without being disagreeable. It really doesn't take much effort. As I tell my kids, its much nicer to be nice.

Here's to a nice new year.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I say leave it the thread as it is.....it is very enlightening. As to Ms. Darr, it would be good if you read the thread and see who started the name calling, but of course one cannot expect something as simple as that from you.

[Frank Petronio]

Thank God that all you people are online and not in my living room. And double thank God that "Readyload" and "Quickload" refer to film holders and not to ammunition.

[darr]

"but of course one cannot expect something as simple as that from you."
You prove my point once again, another personal insult.

[Don Sparks]

The thread is gone but the people that caused the thread to be deleted by breaking the rules of the forum are still free to do it again and again. I f your going to have rules, then enforce them...ban the people that continually break them and the forum will be better off.

[Ken Lee]

Another option is for the list moderator to contact certain individuals off-line, and politely inform them that unless they adopt a more civil tone, they will be silently blocked from further postings.

This more respectful and discrete approach, could be less likely to fan any existing flames.

[Walt Calahan]

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

Frankly I've noticed from other threads that there are some who want to pounce on anything they think is wrong. When they pounce, their postings are very personal. I've also noticed in other threads that whenever Steve Simmons posts, those who pounce, do so with a pre-established dislike for Steve.

Why is that? What gives anyone the right to attack another? Why the anger? Why the dislike? I don't get it!

I'm not the most knowledgable about the technical details of LF, but I know what I know, so what little I do know, I'd like to share without someone telling me I'm an idiot. Mostly I simply want others to enjoy photography. I'm not here to blow my own horn. If I can be helpful I'll try.

I think if people contribute to help better that person asking a question, we'd all benefit. Especially the people who answer a question in error, they too will learn, instead of being told they are "every name in the book."

The bottom line for me is photography is a very personal expression. It is something that gives me a great deal of joy. It pains me very deeply when photography becomes an instrument for someone's anger.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You prove my point once again, another personal insult.

You take it any way you want......You certainly dont get to say anything you want and get away with it just because you are a woman.

[Sam Crater]

This forum used to be noted for civility. Recently it seems to have been hijacked by - as Jim suggested - bored children. Maybe the best thing to do would be to shut it down for a while so those people will go find a new hobby.

[robc]

enough's enough.

the moderator says the thread is only removed temporarily. We should take him at his word. Enciting him to remove this thread as well is only likely to result in both threads being removed permanently. Its your call.

[Kirk Gittings]

The problem has become one-upmanship rather than sharing knowledge.

Many people seem to be scouring the threads looking for something they can pounce on to show they are more knowledgeable or that their method is superior.

It is as if their sole source of career esteem is this anonymous facsimily of noteriety you get here.

[Michael Kadillak]

Lets say that someone in the public sector is interested in a particular photographer (marketing a personality does work) and this individual (or gallery) does a simple search to understand the artist a bit better. You know, get a feel for their perspective of how they view the universe and how their images transcend one to this special calm place of contemplation and purpose.

They Google this individual(s) name and discover to their surprise that the person that they are wanting to learn more of has a long history of off color commentary affixed for the ages that overshadows any attempt to discover the possible softer side of the person. Like meeting Mike Tyson when you were expecting to shake hands with Ghandi.

Anyone that thinks that for a second that they are immune from this personal or professioanl scrutiny just needs to stop and think about what hole that they are digging for themselves.

I am sure that Ansel was not perfect, but the legacy we are left with is one of respect for everyone no matter how divergent their opinion. Use your head and reserve the emotion for your photographs.

Cheers!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The problem has become one-upmanship rather than sharing knowledge.

It takes two to tango Kirk. This recent flame out was mainly caused by Mr. Simmons telling Rob his information was useless because "thousands of photographers do not care about that." Followed by the comment that these kinds of forums are full of worthless technical information.

I prefer to give the person asking the question the benefit of the doubt and think he/she is intelligent enough to discern which information is useful to them and which is not. But, IMO, no information no matter how detailed it is, is "worthless" and in many cases it is the basis to solve the problems which gave rise to the question.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Maybe we should all be warm and cuddly, like Jim Marshall or something.

[John O'Connell]

There was some useful information in the thread about the testing that different people have done on their filmholders. There was also some useful information on the difference between the dedicated holders and the Polaroid holders.

Most of this information was available elsewhere---I think Ellis Vener reported tests of this kind on this very forum years ago, with similar results to Paul's. But it was still useful information, quite likely to be sought out by someone with an intermittent focus problem looking to rule out possible sources. It'd be a pity to lose it. I say just let it stand. If someone wants to be known on the forum as the one who freaks out when questioned, or loses it when certain topics come up, so be it. I simply stopped reading when the thread got crazy.

Someone on the thread, though, mentioned that it was reminiscent of a Brian M******head thread, and it was. It would be better for everyone if he was not the new role model for community members.

[Kirk Gittings]

I understand your point Jorge, but as I have told Steve many times, nothing, absolutely nothing, is achieved in these confrontations. Responding to an attack does not set the record straight, nor does it ever solve anything. Responding only escalates the rhetoric and continues till the participants are bored with it. I don't think anyone wins or accomplishes anything, but making us all look like a bunch of sub-culture wackos.

[steve simmons]

from Jorge

"It takes two to tango Kirk. This recent flame out was mainly caused by Mr. Simmons telling Rob his information was useless because "thousands of photographers do not care about that." Followed by the comment that these kinds of forums are full of worthless technical information. "

This is another complete misrepresentation of what i said. Jorge does this a lot. The name of the game is get Steve and View Camera magazine. He has a personal grudge which he acts out almost everytime I post something. I did not start the name calling in the thread.

There is a tendency here, and on some other threads as well to put out techie info and insult people who either do not know the same info or who do not subscribe to the belief that it is necessary to know this info. It is like I know this and I am superior to those who do not know or do not believe. It is demagoguery. The same thing occurred a few weeks ago in a thread about fim testing. Sandy King made a locker room slur against me that was allowed to stand.It keeps people from particiapting on this forum. I have pointed this out many times and either the flamers ignore me or want a list of names. The problem is that when I told Jorge who the first reviewer was who thought his article was badly done he became vulgar and abusive. I do not feel like subjecting other people to his behavior. It is totally unprefessional and very ugly.

I hope the moderators will quickly delete any posts in the future that contains any type of name calling at all.

The moderating here has been too loose IMHO. If the moderators will go back and look at who started the name calling they will see it was not me.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

Responding to an attack does not set the record straight, nor does it ever solve anything.....................

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I did not start the name calling in the thread.

Telling someone that the information they presented is worthless and too technical in nature to have any meaning simply because it does not conform with your idea of what LF should be IMO is an insult.

This again is exemplified in many threads where you advocate the use of little technique and insist that any other information is worthless since it is not "easy".

If we are going to accept that this forum is for the sharing of information then the "dogma" lies on you and your insistance that more detailed information is not needed. Anybody here is free to choose whatever method they like best, but do not deprive those who wish to learn more about the science part of photography of the ability to do so simply because in your opinion it is not needed to make pictures.

As to the article, you seem to be the one not being able to let go, I could not care less.

[Thurl Ravenscroftson]

Clearly all this snarkiness is Kodak's fault. Damn them to hell!

[Scott Rosenberg]

i did not see the thread in question so can't comment on it directly. however, it seems to have brought into sharp relief a bigger issue on this forum. if memory serves, this forum was founded by a group of individuals that felt the tone over at photo.net was to abrasive and caustic, though recently it seems like there is far more civility and support over there.

certianly those that persist in these childish exchanges are partially responsible, but i feel that in these matters the moderators are also partly to blame. if there are certain personalities that can not seem to play nice, they should not be allowed to play at all. it's that simple. by allowing a few hot-heads to carry on in this fashion, the entire forum is suffering greatly. i know of several extremely knowledgeable individuals who contributed regularly but have lately given up on the forum altogether for this very reason. the folks that are going to throw their hands up and move on are precisely those that bring the most value to the forum - knowledgeable, steady, patient folks that are interested only in passing along information. once the rest of them moves on, this place won't be worth a damn.

there's a reason moderators have the authority to do certain things, it'd be nice to see them exercise those rights with greater frequency for the good of the forum.

[Robert McClure]

My comments will not solve the problem here, I don't believe, because anger is part of the human condition.

But Freud had it right, I think, when he talked about our need, in effect, to bleed off this anger. Other persons and their actions, thoughts, or feelings aren't the actual problem for those who have either lashed out, taken digs, or slammed certain others. Kirk Gittings, for example, touched on this idea.

It is never technically accurate to claim, "If it hadn't been for so-and-so and his/her actions or words, I wouldn't have been so mad." Or, "He 'made' me mad because of what he did/said to me."

It comes down to a question of personal responsibility. I mean, are the words, actions, or photographs of person X truly the cause, say, of my present anger and bitterness? Does the fact that someone took a potshot at me, for example, force me to respond in angry reaction?

Do I not have the option to either choose or reject anger, or at least the angry actions and emotions connected to that anger? Or am I at the mercy of others, not in control of my own actions?

I like the book title, "Happiness is a Choice." You could also say "Angry Reactions Are a Choice."

Besides, how do you make a great photograph while simultaneously maintaining 500 psi at the sphincter?

It's a great forum!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Besides, how do you make a great photograph while simultaneously maintaining 500 psi at the sphincter?

Very carefully, you might blow out your GG...... :-)

[Sal Santamaura]

"Most of this information was available elsewhere---I think Ellis Vener reported tests of this kind on this very forum years ago, with similar results to Paul's."

And it's still there in the archive. The best argument made so far for leaving Joel's thread permanently deleted (he can refer to the archive) and deleting this thread as well. In my opinion, redundancy is nearly as great an offense as flaming, and just as deserving of deletion.

[BrianShaw]

DRAT, I missed the original thread... but this one seems to also be getting "totally unprefessional and very ugly".

This kind of BS is the same kind of BS I can get at work any day of the week. The only difference is that at work I get paid for it and, therefore, take it more seriously. But this, I'm finding this fairly amusing!

... and I know BS... it's my initials!

[steve simmons]

My concern is that when a newcomer cmes on and asks a question and the first, or first few answers come back and are highly technical/mathmatical, that the questioner will think it is necessary to know and underetand the heavily technical information to be large format photographer. Frequently this is not true. The more technical info can certainly be interesting but not a requirement. Stating this in a thread should not be taken as a personal insult. My intent is to make lf photography seem user friendly and not just the domain of the scientific and mathmatically inclined.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree with your intent Steve and I think that View Camera, your book and your workshops have always been great reflections of that intent. I think that your contributions in that area have helped allot of newcomers find a home in LF who otherwise might be put off by the seeming complexity of the genre.

This forum of course cannot be limited to entry level informatiom or the old farts like me (or scientific types) would look somewhere else for discussion. So this forum has to serve both ends of the spectrum without creating an either/or conflict.

I know that I get my back up here every once in awhile, primarily when I see blatantly wrong information posted as gospel. But I think there must be away to challenge such postings that is not personal or degrading to the author.

All of the flamethrowers here think that they don't start the conflagration. That is because the actual conflict really started years ago in some other thread or in some other forum or in some other circumstance alltogether.

[Wayne]

certianly those that persist in these childish exchanges are partially responsible, but i feel that in these matters the moderators are also partly to blame. if there are certain personalities that can not seem to play nice, they should not be allowed to play at all. it's that simple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. I didnt see the incident in question, but I can easily imagine what transpired. I dont understand why the rules on personal attacks arent enforced, and never have been.

[QT Luong]

Steve, I respect your intend and approach, however, after examining the suspended thread, I must conclude
that the way you worded your reply contained demeaning tones which could easily be interpreted as antagonistic,
even if you didn't mean so. You are also as guilty as others by participating in the escalation and throwing out more personal arguments.
For instance, in this very thread, you repeat the allegation that Jorge has a personal grudge against your magazine. Whether true or not, this kind of ad-hominem argument has no place in the forum, especially when it is has been
rehased so many times.

However, Jorge this does not excuse your escalation of the flame war by resorting to even more direct name-calling. Case in point, you could have made the same point that you made to Darr in this thread without using antagonistic langage twice. You certainly can defend yourself without resorting to this kind of language. As for her initial statement, I would have to agree that you are one of the problematic posters in the forum.

Kirk, you might be an "old fart", but your comments on optimizing flatbed use could certainly be considered "obsessional" by some of the less technically-minded :-)

[David Luttmann]

Probably best to put the thread back, in its intact state. That way we can see where all the problems started and make a decision ourselves.

For the future, anyone who resorts to name calling and insults should be banned outright.

[Joel Truckenbrod]

I'm a bit hesitant to post as my name seems to bring bad karma ;)

I have certainly kept up with my original thread and a few more subsiquent threads that followed after it was shut down (some of which asked some interesting and relevant questions...such as Mark Sawyers difraction thread). The real shame was that quality information did exist in the thread, despite the madness that followed. Many thanks to everyone who did post a helpful response, and there were MANY. I was a bit shocked to see the digression that took place as I percieved this forum to be a highly professional and civil forum. I was thankful that nobody mocked me for my question and ignorance. I've seen that happen before, not here though.

In any case, I'm not going to offer my opinion of what happened/who's to blame. Its quite irrelevant. What is relevant, is personal responsibility for one's actions, as has already been stated. I hope that this can be something which we all can learn from rather than a catalyst for future conflicts. It is what you make of it and I challange those involved to have the courage to forgive each other, despite what has been said and exchanged. I'm certainly not holding to be "holier than thou" or any such attitude, rather I have been one who has lashed out at times and have seen the futility of it all. No good comes from such exchanges.

...I'll get off my soapbox now before I make a total fool of myself. :)



Steve,

You bring up an interesting question in regardes to presenting highly (and perhaps overly) technical information to newbies. My personal take is that it is the posters responsibility to sift through what has been said and come to their conclusion based upon what has been presented. In this sense, regardless of the rather shallow depth of my technical know-how, I can often find things to further research as a result of such posts. I hold both the "real world" use answers and the tech head answers to be of value. In many senses, such different responses serve as compliments to one another. What length we go to in regards to how carefully we investigate or ponder purely technical issues is a personal choice (IMHO).

The wonderful and yet often frustrating truth, is that as photographers we are tied to our machines as tools. Yet, each one of us must make our journeys to transcend them. The purpose of the forum is in many senses to simply function as another tool...A means for each of us to gain the neccessary knowledge that we can bring our unique visions to fruition. Because of this, I oftentimes find tangents and other related/discussed issues to be quite helpful in my personal growing process. That is, as long as the initial question is addressed. In light of this, I believe that essentially dumbing down the responses could actually prove to be a disservice rather than a help...once again, assuming that the initial question is clearly confronted. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you though to an extent.

All of this blabering on my part aside, I greatly appreciated the direct responses to my question as they put me on the right track.

[Ed K.]

It's sad when people with so much knowledge fight. Good that at least some
are so passionate about it all. Berating other colleagues work or reputation
is something everyone is usually taught to avoid, and most photo associations
have a code of ethics that bans such behavior by members.

This IS a great place to share with others or find both solid knowledge and
interesting theories.

President: "..can't we all just get along?"

Martian: "Ack Ack!" .. "ACK! ACK!"

- Mars Attacks

I'll stop short of sending an mp3 of "Indian Love Song"....

[Matthew Cordery]

I go away for a little while and look what happens to the place.
It's apparent that a large swath of you aren't ready for the Internet, or polite social discourse.
I ban all of you.

ig·nore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nôr, -nr)
tr.v. ig·nored, ig·nor·ing, ig·nores
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard

[Tom Diekwisch]

IMHO, Neil has done a fantastic job in handling this situation. I wish I could get myself to post more, but I surely like reading the comments and the wealth of information posted here. Come on guys, photography pure - here we are. I also understand the backgrounds behind the heat of the arguments, but I wish everybody would just be more concerned about the forum as a whole and not take their arguments that important. For those of you who have been there, I'd like to through in the Rodney King words, I know it's out of context, but it's hard to forget once you have been in the situation - can't we all just get along?

[Tom Diekwisch]

throw that is, for the orthographers...

[Aaron van de Sande]

Dan, I was kidding right? Can anyone come up with a more socially disadvantaged photographer?

IMHO the best solution to these situations is to simply 'lock' the thread. It leaves the information intact and seems like the least heavy handed form of censorship. The antagonistic parties are 'off the hook' so to speak because they can't respond anymore. This is a proven method that works well on other forums and requires the least amount of effort from the moderators.

[bglick]

Steve, this is not an attack, but simply a "common sense" suggestion. It's possible in the begining you were in denial of being the instigator of these flames. But after reading all of this, I am sure you can't still hold that position. It's obvious the reason no one came to your defense for name calling is because you instigated the name calling, then continue to complain everyone attacks you and calls you names? Not a favorable position in any situation in life.

Why not try, just once, to take responsibility for your actions, offer an apology and see what happens? You would be amazed how far an admission of fault and an apology can go, even after all this. You never even acknowledged the help of several of the peacemakers? You simply wanted everyone to run to your defense.

If I sold LF books and magazines, I surely would not want to alienate the bigest single group of buyers of my products. I think this forum has been overly fair, allowing you to use this forum to announce your products and web site to the LF community. You never abused the privelage either, but the forum moderators are very generous in this area. Why not give a little back?

Even the original poster (who must be traumatized by this experience) stated the obvious.... Which you have refused to accept..... allow the readers of the forum decide the level of technical endeavors they prefer to apply to their photography. And just to be clear.... and as Kirk also mentioned, there is nothing wrong with a simplistic, non technical response or even books of such. The problem I had is, you oversimplify so much, the information can border on being wrong or sometimes is so vague, it's hard to comprehend the issue. Your continued insistenece to use no numbers prevents a reader from getting a sense of scale. For example, does the term, "a lot" mean 2x, 20x, 200x? I would not consider the use of numbers like this to be "technical".

In addition, if the entire purpose of this forum is to give short, simplistic responses for non technical readers. The forum would loose 98% of its content. The beauty of these forums is for many people to learn the nitty gritty details of a subject which may be hard (or impossible) to find elsewhere.

I think Aarons suggestion is very good! Can a post be frozen?

[William Mortensen]

Just a suggestion, which I'm not sure would be workable. When a thread turns sour, what about privately locking the offenders out of just that thread? Cooler heads could continue the discussion, and maybe after a couple of such banishments, the hotter rhetoric would subside. We'd also not permanently lose the posters from the forum. Despite the heat of some discussions, they still offer insights I value.

Mind you, I'd be immediately locked out of any thread praising Anne Geddes...