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

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?

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.

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.

keep this site right here it has more of a serious involvement then

photonet large format is a relgion or a way of life

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.

Yes, elitism is stupid. THe more people that know about LF the better.

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!!!

<b>Editor</b>: 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

<a href =

"http://tools.arsdigita.com/voxpopuli/ViewPoll?poll_id=1966">

http://tools.arsdigita.com/voxpopuli/ViewPoll?poll_id=1966</a>.

<p>

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.

<p>

The sure thing is that the integrity of the LF contents will be

preserved in any future option.

 

<p>

In the while, thanks to everybody for contributing to the forum.

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.

There is a search function! At least, it shows up on my browser.

Search engine??? Where is it?

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

I can only agree with Bill Mitchell above.

Trevor.

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

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.

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.

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

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

No. The dilution of subject matter from the 35mm side would

eventually render what would be left of LF content useless.

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!)

NO. And the (new and wonderful) search engine is at the main entry

http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/index.html

It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

No. Love it as it is

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.

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.