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

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by david_payumo|1, Jul 15, 2000.

  1. I thought people should tell us why they think the LF page should or should not be a part of Photo.net. Surveys are good but a discussion is important. I think it could be a good idea because we can get a search engine. However it is bad because we would be part of that 35mm group which has a very different view. Another question I have is how would it be a part of photo.net?
     
  2. NOT! Photographers who photograph with the kind of stuff that we put
    up with (and sometimes even bragg about) should definitely be
    segregated from people in the real world. Their laughter would be
    just too traumatic.
     
  3. The "MF Q&A" forum on photo.net doesn't seem to suffer much from being
    in such close proximity to the "General(ly 35mm) Photography" Q&A, so
    I wouldn't worry about that too much.

    <p>

    I would worry more about the potential commercialization of photo.net,
    the possibility of banner ads in the future, and such.
     
  4. keep this site right here it has more of a serious involvement then
    photonet large format is a relgion or a way of life
     
  5. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!

    <p>

    I'm sorry if this hurts some feelings or steps on someone's
    toes........but if you are to lazy to search for information and feel
    you need it handed to you at someone else's expense in time and
    effort then you aren't going to make it in large format anyway so
    stick with your minature cameras. Large format is a hard task master,
    it demands that you are faithful to it and work for your rewards.
    This site mirrors that need for dedication. If you really need
    archives, write things down, book mark, show a little sel reliance.
    Just don't ruin a good thing for the rest of us.

    <p>

    This forum, up until the last couple of weeks has been free of the
    whiners and flamers that abound else where. The quality and content
    is second to none in the forums that are available. I'll trade a site
    free of banners and ads any day for a little extra effort in locating
    information.
     
  6. Yes, elitism is stupid. THe more people that know about LF the better.
     
  7. NO!, NO!, NO! Please leave the LF Home page as it is. This has been my
    learning place. A way to talk to others and learn by what they are
    doing. Let's not be exclusive, but we do practice an art that has
    little to do with 35mm photography, thats why many of us got involved
    in it. Please stay as you are!!!
     
  8. Editor: the poll is just was meant as a quick and cheap way to test the waters. It requires only 5 seconds of anybody's time to answer, and if enough people do so, can give an idea of where to go. Again the URL of the poll is http://tools.arsdigita.com/voxpopuli/ViewPoll?poll_id=1966.
    In the future I will conduct a more detailed survey, and at that point we will discuss in depth what is desirable for the LF community, what are the possible options, and which changes should be done or avoided.
    The sure thing is that the integrity of the LF contents will be preserved in any future option.
    In the while, thanks to everybody for contributing to the forum.
     
  9. A search function would be welcome and I lurk in Photo Net almost as
    much as I do here, but I would hate to see this site intigrated just
    for that. Large Format has a unique character to it (because of
    subject, people, or moderators?) that I would hate to lose. I don't
    have anything against "that 35mm group" but why not keep what we
    have? Photo Net could add LF to it's MF and Nature forums.
     
  10. There is a search function! At least, it shows up on my browser.
     
  11. Search engine??? Where is it?
     
  12. I would vote to keep the site where and the way it is, you can
    call me any name you want but let's keep it seperate! If I want
    35mm or MF, I know where to go and find it, the thing I like about
    this forum it that most of the people who use it have a brain, and
    respect other's as having the same, and are willing to share what
    they have learned. Pat
     
  13. I can only agree with Bill Mitchell above.
    Trevor.
     
  14. I vote it stays the way it is. The quality of discussion here seems
    much higher than on photo.net and I would hate to see it be diluted
     
  15. I could only see moving it if there was some clear advantage to be
    gained and the integrity of this forum wasn't compromised. I spend a
    reasonable amount of time at photo.net as well (largely since I am
    just starting LF) but it just isn't the same. In spite of what I
    think are the real efforts of the moderators it's largely a place to
    ask insightful questions like "is the Tamron 28-200 zoom just as sharp
    as my Nikon 50mm prime?" (A: why do you care, you obviously aren't
    spending any time taking pictures ;-)) and to flame newcomers for not
    searching the archives or not having read a library of photography
    books before asking their question.

    <p>

    I found this site through photo.net. But if someone is concerned
    about its relative obscurity I would suggest asking Greenspun to put a
    prominent reference to this forum and the Large Format Page on
    photo.net as a way to encourage traffic here without losing the
    character of this place.
     
  16. This is still a nice place to visit, despite the late disruptions of some anonymous and my vote is for the
    forum to stay as it is.
     
  17. Leave it alone. This site is very consistant with good advice and
    loads of humor in equal amounts. I have never failed getting any info
    I needed.
    George Nedleman DDS
     
  18. I like this site. It's thankfully free from blinking ad-banners, and
    the lay-out is a clean and no-frills. For me who use a somewhat dated
    (stone-age, if you ask me) computer, the fast loading times of the
    pages are a gift from the heavens. It delivers the information that I
    need, and the general quality of the discussions are high.

    <p>

    I would not like this site to be a part of photo.net, however clever
    and nice the Greenspun site desig
     
  19. No. The dilution of subject matter from the 35mm side would
    eventually render what would be left of LF content useless.
     
  20. I'm not sure whether it would be good to move the LF page to
    photo.net. I don't think it would make as much difference as some
    other users think. For example, the Medium Format Digest on photo.net
    isn't polluted with 35 mm questions, nor with questions like "are
    Nikon zooms really better than Sigma zooms", as some fear would be the
    case if the LF pages moved there. Clearly the LF pages and the LF
    Question and Answers Forum would be separate pages rather than merged
    into the main questions section. For some reason the LF Questions
    Forum is much more active than the Medium Format Digest. Is the
    difference because LF photographers need more assistance since the
    format is more different from 35mm and because in-person contact with
    experience LF photographers is harder to come by? Because of the
    community that has developed? Because the Large Format Pages give the
    Questions Forum prominence? Would any of this change if the LF Pages
    moved?

    <p>

    Would moving ease the work that Q.-Tuan Luong does? (P.S. We
    appreciate it!)
     
  21. NO. And the (new and wonderful) search engine is at the main entry
    http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/index.html
     
  22. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.
     
  23. No. Love it as it is
     
  24. I ts hould be part ofphoto.net the same way that the Nature and Medium Format forums are: there and linked but seperate from the general photography forum.
    The purpose of these forums is educatiuon not clique-ism.
     
  25. Well, it would be good to have a search function, and also to be able
    to follow the history of individuals' posts (one of the best features
    of photo.net), but photo.net and this forum have rather different
    characters. So, please leave this site where it is, but please add a
    little more user-friendly functionality if possible.
     
  26. 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
     
  27. 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.
     
  28. 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.
     
  29. This is my favorite site I like my own search engine its more fun
    this way!
    If it aint broke way fix it!
     
  30. 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
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. 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.
     
  33. 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.
     
  34. ah....so how do I get to the "real" forums?
     
  35. 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"?
     
  36. 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.
     
  37. LOL....DK we both fell for the same trick....uf! I am so glad I was
    not the only one.....
     
  38. 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.
     
  39. Speaking of nature photography, please visit my new gallery of
    ansel adams landscape photographs at
    http://www.atara.net/ansel/
     
  40. Huh?? Is this some kind of time warp or something(or did I just log on to the original stage production of The Matrix?)
     

Share This Page