Should the LF page be part of photo.net? Comments

I'm pretty content with the site as is. It really has taught me a

ton about LF. If it gets moved I'll participate anyway unless it gets

bgged down with a ton on blinking advertisements or becomes somehow

diluted with non-LF information. I say keep it where it is. I say

thanks to the people who make it possible and to all who participate.

 

<p>

 

rr

I recently found this form and the format as it is now. People

generally are informative and polite. This is often not the case in

some other forms.

jeez, people. I think all Tuan is thinking about tis having the link on photo.net Q&A page under "community." It will help people who have an interest in LF

find this amazing site faster and more directly.

This is my favorite site I like my own search engine its more fun

this way!

If it aint broke way fix it!

I've noticed that since they upgraded Photo.net that the speed has

slowed considerably. I just got into LF and the first thing I

noticed, when visiting this forum, it is much faster than Photo.net

I like photo.net and actually found this forum from searching the

large format area on photo.net. If the community of this database

can be retained then what does it matter who hosts it? I use

photo.net as much as this forum and would not mind if the large

format section of photo.net would be improved by all of the

contributors of this forum.

People, people, get on the ball, the greenspun sites are shutting

down and David wants to know if photo.net is the best option!

 

<p>

 

the responders who voted to keep it as it is are not getting it, the

site WILL HAVE TO MOVE, the question is where and how are the

monitors going to go about it?

 

<p>

 

I also belong to photo.net and I went and looked at their forums,

the LF forum is similar to this one, with a few exceptions:

 

<p>

 

1 no "new answers" etc. search capability. you have to look at all

the post over and over.

 

<p>

 

2 no post by date, I found myself looking at posts from 1997....one

guy was asking: why use LF in this modern era ?(1997)..lol.

 

<p>

 

if some of you have found other differences I would aprreciate if you

post them.

 

<p>

 

OTH if you go to a comercial place...say View Camera magazine. WOuld

we keep the same freedom to express ourselves? what happens if we

trash a product and the manufactures calls VC mag and complains?

I know some of my post have been deleted because I critizised the

photography of a well know editor, since I am posting here and it is

free I did not mind abiding by the monitors judgement, but happens if

we have to pay? would the fact that I am paying a fee entitle me to

complain about my post being deleted? Like I said I did not mind, but

I did see one instance where a persons post was deleted and he kept

whining about, BTW it was on one of the boards monitored by E.

Buffaloe.

 

<p>

 

After thinking about this for a while I think that although having

this forum as part of the VC magazine would have been nice, I think I

would rather see it free from any comercial ties or pressures that

may arise in the future. As such I think we have very few choices and

photo.net appears to be the best.

Jorge, Jorge, Jorge, get on the ball, every post except the one right

before yours is from a year and a half ago. David asked an academic

question back then, and the responses were appropriate to it.

 

<p>

 

Note that photo.net does not currently have a LF forum. The LF

archive you saw there is simply one category of questions in the

regular moderated general photography forum.

ah....so how do I get to the "real" forums?

Well...I don't know --really--but just what is so bad about

photonet?...I'll admit that at times it is irritating in a way, but

when I read these posts alog the lines of LF as a way of life, or some

sort of higher ethic as opposed to a smaller format?...geez, what's

that all about??...it's all photography in the end....if you all want

to perpetuate LF and sheet films, you're going to need to open up the

club....and how is arguing about sinars and linhofs, or Caltars and

Sinarons any different than the photonet type brand arguments, when

you get down to it? My question is, if anyone is a newcomer to using

view cameras, where'd they come from?? Small or medium format? So,

what's so terrible about being on a site associated with those "sorts

of people"?

Ahhh...you all tricked me....stuck in the time-warp again...well, I

stand by my post regardless...must have been the chemistry down here.

LOL....DK we both fell for the same trick....uf! I am so glad I was

not the only one.....

I have no problem with photo.net as this would most likely get a

separate section like nature & medium format.

I do think Steve Simmons and View Camera should be given a good look

though. If he is willing to put up a site to host this page it might

be worth it. I think he is a big enough guy to let people say what

they say and not censor folks, as long as it is not libelous. We

already get rid of that stuff when it happens.

View Camera would be a natural for it and I doubt Steve would be

personally doing all the work so his being slow to answer at times

wouldn't come into play.

I don't know if the people on the LF page are 'better' or not, just

that a lot of them sure know their stuff & even when we get some

really dumb questions (and yes, there is such a thing as a dumb or

stupid question), most realize that we were there at some time in the

past.

Photo.net of View Camera, either is fine with me. I hope the basics

of this forum stay constant no matter what happens.

Speaking of nature photography, please visit my new gallery of

ansel adams landscape photographs at

http://www.atara.net/ansel/

Huh?? Is this some kind of time warp or something(or did I just log on to the original stage production of The Matrix?)