Interesting observation regarding Large Format on Facebook

[Mike in NY]

Let's hope the interest in LF continues to grow across diverse channels, whether it's here, FB, high schools, colleges, or other venues where the magic can be (re)discovered.

Edited because I realized I didn't fully understand a previous poster's point.

[Lachlan 717]

I read it the first time.

The fact of how they do business helps with deciding whether to get involved. Dedicated to Large Format is nice but if you can lose rights to your images or information - that is a consideration before getting involved.

On this site those in charge do not claim ownership to sell or whatnot. Worth being on here.

*Yawn.

[Mike in NY]

Mr. Owl, how many posts does it take for friendly optimism to disappear... a one... a two... a three...?

[paulbarden]

I read it the first time.

The fact of how they do business helps with deciding whether to get involved. Dedicated to Large Format is nice but if you can lose rights to your images or information - that is a consideration before getting involved.

On this site those in charge do not claim ownership to sell or whatnot. Worth being on here.

I am pleased that there is a growing interest in large format photography, no matter who is promoting it or how. However....

Facebook's business model is - first and foremost - to capitalize on users data. That's bad enough, but as far as collating and disseminating useful information about ANY hobby, Facebook is the worst because nothing is truly archived, and therefore very little of it retrievable. All social media is a stream, but forums like this are useful archives. You wanna engage Facebook that's your prerogative, but bear in mind that everything you put there is headed downstream, never to be seen again.

[Mike in NY]

To Lachlan's point, as the OP he wasn't interested in debating the pros and cons of FB; he was merely referencing the FB LF page as a positive indicator of interest in film. I'm pretty sure he was hoping his thread would not go down the path of debating FB, so I'll choose to respect that. Maybe a different thread could be created by those interested in discussing opinions about FB per se.

[Lachlan 717]

To Lachlan's point, as the OP he wasn't interested in debating the pros and cons of FB; he was merely referencing the FB LF page as a positive indicator of interest in film. I'm pretty sure he was hoping his thread would not go down the path of debating FB, so I'll choose to respect that. Maybe a different thread could be created by those interested in discussing opinions about FB per se.

Thanks, Mike. You’re spot on.

I really didn’t think it was a difficult concept to follow...

[pepeguitarra]

Well, having been in film for several years, and in digital for the last 30 of the last 34 years, I can tell you WHY I came back to film, and to LF later:
1) I have shot over 18,000 images, most of them in my computer, other disappeared when my computer crashed.
2) No body looks at them because they are in my computer.
3) I took several shots of the same subject, just in case and to make sure I got one right. I shot really quick. AF and fast lenses.
4) I upgraded camera regularly every two years, one time, less than a year.
5) I realized I was buying a computer that became obsolete rather quickly.
6) I used to be in photography for the artistic part of it, but I stayed because of the gadgets.
7) One day, after traveling for a month in England with a Canon 5D and three humongous lenses, I developed back pains. In the meantime, I saw one man inside a cathedral with a small camera and what I now know was a Sumilux 35/1.4 lens and a Leica M4.
8) Then I moved to Leica digital (the first ones M8 and M9 later). When I realized that M3 was the cool one. Then 35mm film was my thing.
9) Developing 35mm and looking at the grain that I obtained, I started moving to 6x7, until I found the 4x5.
10) I am glad to report that after spending one afternoon hiking and shooting, I come home with only 4 shots (two film holders) and usually, 3 of them are OK.
11) That is why I am in LF. I support LF. That is why I am buying the Intrepid, they are inexpensive compared to Leicas.
12) I do expect to buy an 8x10 Deardorff Tennessee one day.
13) I am also in every group in FB, Instagram, etc. I do want film to stay. I hate to see companies like Kodak, Tetenal, go bankrupt. That is why I support Ilford (not Fuji), who has stayed in the game for a long time and now seems to be growing up.

[John Kasaian]

Any positive news about LF photography is, well, positive.
This, like Freestyle's new analog catalog, should be encouraging.
Good stuff!

[Kirk Gittings]

While I can't speak specifically to LF, I can make an observation on shooting film in general. I teach high school photography. 10 years ago many high schools closed their darkrooms (fortunately we did not). I know of one high school that closed their darkroom a decade ago that has re-opened it. There are more students interested in shooting film today than in previous years. They think of it like vinyl records — analog is cool and in style.

I have taught film and LF film at the college level for a few decades. I've seen a lot of trends and been able to follow students long term interests as I make it a point to keep in touch. Yes there is an upsurge in interest in film and LF amongst students, but unfortunately I have not seen that interest last long outside of school except for a couple of isolated cases.

[Corran]

To Lachlan's point, AND the issues with Facebook "groups":

The issue I see with the groups (many of which I am a part of, but do not participate in that much) is that much of the "basics" of LF is unavailable directly (hence referencing on occasion the largeformatphotography.info page). Since these pages basically offer nothing to newbies, except constantly asking the same basic questions and receiving everything from decent to downright terrible advice, I also think there may also be a trend of quickly quitting LF if turning to such groups for primary sources of information.

So in other words, long-term, they may actually be harmful to LF use overall, but it's just my opinion. A couple weeks ago, someone was asking about images "missing" from film, where it was actually completely black including the edges, indicating obvious exposure to light outside of the camera. Yet, arguments ensued for over 100 posts with everything from "bad film from the manufacturer" to "it was never developed." This kind of thing is common.