Is the Forum a repository or a community?

[Sal Santamaura]

...I think there's already a FAQ? but I mean a more thorough one?

Would you be willing to compile that Sal?...

With the highly effective search capability available to anyone via Google, I find an FAQ approach obsolete for a field as broad as large format photography. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion.

Ever so slightly off-topic suggestion. I often answer questions with a link. Because of the dread link decay, also known as the disappearing site problem, these days I make sure that the pages the links I post point to are saved by archive.org. I don't always give a link to the archived page, on the probably mistaken assumption that people know to check what archive.org has when a link is dead.

Perhaps we should all post links to archived pages rather than to the pages themselves. To the extent that the pages are dynamic, doing this will keep innocent link clickers from getting the latest most best.

A related comment. Someone remarked up-thread that not everything posted here is correct. On the one hand, yes, this is true. And it leads to the idea of periodic purges of complete nonsense. On the other, these days when I encounter what looks like pure BS I check to make sure my understanding is correct. I'm mistaken much too often to serve as an, um, censor and I wouldn't trust anyone else to check before deleting.

[Sal Santamaura]

..."There's massive blah, blah, blah in the world. Not talking for a while might be a good thing. " You're welcome to give that a try.

Actually, Peter, except for posting to counterbalance the vocal proponents of "all chat room all the time," "let's out eBay eBay" and "moderation here stinks," I do practice that most of the time. My posts here relating to the forum's primary purpose, i.e. large format photography, are limited to a very occasional update of an existing thread or an even more rare new question thread. My opinion that the database contains many redundant topics drives me to mostly just read the duplicative threads and shake my head. Sometimes it's difficult to resist jumping in when misinformation is being spread, but I try to remain silent when I've nothing new to contribute to the knowledge base.

Note that everyone else, including you, is "welcome to give that a try."

[Kirk Gittings]

If this is not a community first the database is irrelevant nor would it even exist.

[Corran]

Do you suggest the forum close and remain an image of historical methods with no possibility of change, evolution or improvement in Large Format Photograghy?

Our job is done. Let's go home?

A brief perusal of koh303's "Created Threads" show many questions posted. I am not going to dig into whether or not the relevant information could be found via Google. The very basis of koh's argument is shown as flawed by his own post activity IMO.

[Oren Grad]

There will always be questions needing answers and searching the topic may not adequately answer anything.

Sometimes newbies do not know the proper nomenclature. They might wonder "does this lens work on 4x5?" but don't realize what they are asking about is the "image circle," or know what that even is. Then there are the innumerable number of similarly-named lenses from large companies which may vary greatly in specifications. And even if you do grasp everything and know exactly what you are looking for, a Google search of a specific lens and a question about using it on 8x10 will often discover one person saying it has almost enough IC for 11x14 and another poster saying the corners are so poor you shouldn't go past 5x7. Oh and of course no example images or possibly dead links.

I've also even recently read posts saying to go to "XYZ website" and search for this or that tidbit of information, but then that specific site had been gone for years. Such is the nature of the web.

If I was not already quite familiar with LF gear and various terms, that would not hold true. Just search for example "fuji 300mm lens for 8x10" and you will find nearly 200,000 results. This does nothing to help our supposed noob who has no idea what the A, C, CM, CM-W, W, S, etc. nomenclature means or implies, what IC is needed for 8x10 or indeed what "image circle" even is. Then his head starts to spin when finding info stating "this lens covers 42 degrees" as if that means anything to most. Let's also not forget that terms and understanding can vary greatly between generations. Many young newbies entering LF did not learn the same vocabulary in photography having grown up in the digital age or are simply not well versed in it. I am reminded of questions about "telephoto lenses" for LF which as we all know means one thing but most young folks simply mean "longer than normal" lenses when they say that. It is complete folly to think that all questions have been answered and you can just Google anything and find your answer.

Some questions though, yes. If you want to know about a lens that you have in your hand, and are already well-versed in terminology, just Google the exact name of the lens and you'll find tons of info. A thread asking for opinions on a "Symmar-S 210mm f/5.6" lens for example might be responded to with "Google it." If they are a brand-new poster perhaps a helpful reply asking what they'd like to know would be better.

What Corran said. We should certainly try to build on existing threads, encourage searching before posting and help new members understand how to do both. But newbies often don't know how to formulate their questions and not everybody is facile with search engines. It's unfortunate that it requires saying, but snark and knuckle-rapping over supposed breaches of posting or search etiquette are never appropriate responses to a newcomer who joins in good faith looking for help.

[BrianShaw]

If this is not a community first the database is irrelevant nor would it even exist.

... and who, exactly, is chartered/authorized to maintain the orthodoxy of the forums intent and style? Communities don't often work well under dictatorship. I prefer the "ebb and flow" of communal environments, and while I have respect for "stodgy, old-fashioned, boat anchors with out-dated visions" I always wonder why they tend to feel personally affected by change when they are just members themselves. It happens here and it happens elsewhere as well. I doubt that Tuan needs a nanny.

[Sal Santamaura]

...snark and knuckle-rapping over supposed breaches of posting or search etiquette are never appropriate responses to a newcomer who joins in good faith looking for help.

Agreed. If one is sufficiently patient, performing the search oneself, then replying in a polite post that explains how it was done and including links to the relevant resulting thread(s) seems a good approach to me.

I'm usually too frustrated, don't expend that effort and remain silent instead.

[Sal Santamaura]

... and who, exactly, is chartered/authorized to maintain the orthodoxy of the forums intent and style? Communities don't often work well under dictatorship. I prefer the "ebb and flow" of communal environments, and while I have respect for "stodgy, old-fashioned, boat anchors with out-dated visions" I always wonder why they tend to feel personally affected by change when they are just members themselves. It happens here and it happens elsewhere as well. I doubt that Tuan needs a nanny.

Now, now Brian, there are no members here who dictate. This is the "Feedback" category and everyone is equally entitled to express opinions/preferences.

With respect to "stodgy, old-fashioned boat anchors with out-dated visions," what could that description be more applicable to than large format photography itself?

[pdh]

Sal, I really admired the way you put the anti-digital bigots away a few months ago, in a now-closed thread.

So it saddens me to see you use your powers for evil rather than good in threads like this ...

Moaning that things aren't how they started out being, or that people don't do things the way they used to (or, better, perhaps, "ought to") is an an old man's game. And not worthy of someone who in other circumstances thinks rather clearly and flexibly.

Lighten up, go smoke some meth or something ...

[adds smiley to indicate lighthearted tone despite serious intent]