Two photo sites to be rebuilt and merged

"We are migrating APUG.ORG, DPUG.ORG & what used to be Hybridphoto.com to a single new website named Photrio.com. This will take place around Aug. 11-12th. You will not need to do anything with your APUG account and your existing login will continue to work. Any previous APUG traffic will be redirected to [the new] Photrio.com .

 

Uses will have the option of restricting what they see to either analog or digital streams or to see everything.

 

It is interesting to read the user comments in the following announcement thread. Even before users have seen or used the new site, some are already complaining, reminding us of our recent photo.net makeover.

 

APUG.ORG to PHOTRIO.COM Migration, Final Details.

No one likes change to a system that one is used to and happy with, regardless of how well-intended or practical the change may be. And, the older we get, the more resistant we are to change. The mantra: If it ain't broke, don't fix it....

William, getting older has its advantages. I don't have the faintest memory of what our old site used to look like.

Overall, this could be a very good thing. People who were put off by the "analog only" can choose to see the digital only or hybrid and digital and still benefit from all the collected wisdom. Many people don't like change (frequently me included), but this isn't a situation of changing just to change. Fewer and fewer people have been subscribing to APUG and there was a very good chance that keeping the site running would no longer be possible at some point. This could attract enough more eyeballs that it can become more self-sustaining. It's been a labor of love for Sean (and doesn't make as much money as it costs). I'd suggest giving it a good chance and not putting it down before it even happens. There are some extremely knowledgeable people there and subscribing gets you access to the galleries which have some incredibly good images.

I am sure many have found the site to be more then friendly.

Yeah, lots of us have found it to be quite friendly. After this redo, it might be much friendlier feeling to those who aren't strictly analog, too.

Could someone explain to me just what this "analog" photography that people talk about is?

This is indeed curious. Sean must be seeing a serious decline in participation--as in years past there was a very rabid stance against anything digital in APUG. Mentioning something of that sort was similar to discussing drugs in an AA meeting. I remember when DPUG was launched, it began pretty much as John Callow's baby. Hybrid whatever just did not float well--far too much fragmentation and personalities.

 

And yes, it could get quite cliquish there. This place has had some issue with that as well... :p

 

I note that the phrase "and more" in reference to simple discussion fora appears in several places. It will be interesting to see what direction this takes--as there is a real vacuum emerging with the current path PN has chosen to take. What happens will be executed fairly flawlessly. When Sean converted the old vBulletin site to Xenforo some years back, it was smooth. We also run on Xenforo here. Perhaps the owners should have called him to handle this mess.

 

In any event, I re-upped my subscription there--and threw a comment into the thread.

Could someone explain to me just what this "analog" photography that people talk about is?

 

Yes, it's a conflation of the words anal & hog. A condition that afflicts certain photographers when they become elitists and drag out their bully pulpits to batter anyone who does not see the world the same way that they do... :eek:

APUG alienated me in early 2012 when its resident cranks, fabulists and flat earth zealots denied the decade-long decline film in consumption that put Kodak into bankruptcy. Tired quickly of the prolonged fact-free rants and Sean's willingness to stifle discussion that upset his "base."

Yes, it's a conflation of the words anal & hog. A condition that afflicts certain photographers when they become elitists and drag out their bully pulpits to batter anyone who does not see the world the same way that they do... :eek:

 

Ahh, so that's it.

 

I've been wondering for a while how a medium that relies on binary bits of information(grains are either there or not-the number is proportional to the amount of light hitting the emulsion, but there again the individual grains don't have an in-between state) is considered "analog" but that's the current trend.

 

In any case, there's a lot of good information there but I too have thought that the complete suppression of anything even remotely resembling hybrid(i.e. scanning) is not allowed. Like it or not, if you shoot slide film-as I do-you're probably going to have scan at some point unless you have a big stash of Cibachrome chemistry and paper.

 

BTW, not too long ago I was trying to find information on Nikon Photo Secretary, which is a software package that(with the correct cables) allows you to retrieve shooting data from a few high end Nikon film SLRs(N90, F5, F100, F6) as well as set custom functions not available through the menus. I stumbled on a thread there where someone asked about it and was promptly drawn and quartered for daring to ask about anything that related to interfacing a camera to a computer. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and there was some decent information, but the knee-jerk responses reminded me as to why I hadn't visited the site in a number of years.

In French, we call "analog" photography "photographie argentique" (silver-based photography).

 

"Analog photography" has come to mean anything that is "not digital" despite some of controversy over the question of whether the use of film is a true analog process.

 

In "digital photography", light is captured with a video camera tube or charge-coupled device sensor, an analog device (!) which sends the picture to be digitized and otherwise processed by the camera's electronics. So even the term "digital photography" is a stretch. In fact, "digital photography" begins as a non-digital process and the captured information is digitized for storage or in-camera processing.

 

As Lewis Carroll writes in Through the Looking Glass:

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

In "digital photography", light is captured with a video camera tube or charge-coupled device sensor, an analog device (!) which sends the picture to be digitized and otherwise processed by the camera's electronics

 

I have said this all along. The signal from a CCD or CMOS pixel(or whatever other imaging device you use) is proportional to the number of photons hitting it and then is converted via an ADC to eventual end up at the file we view.

 

I like silver based photography since that's an accurate description. I often refer to to darkroom prints as "wet prints" even though there are several areas where folks could take issue with that description. Art galleries around almost universally use "Silver gelatin" as the medium descriptor for B&W prints, something that I also think is accurate.

In any case, there's a lot of good information there but I too have thought that the complete suppression of anything even remotely resembling hybrid(i.e. scanning) is not allowed.

 

It was off limits because APUG was intended as a refuge from the digital-is-better rants. It was a place people could get answers to problems with film without enduring posts from people saying they should just give up film and switch (yes, I've seen those posts here within the last few weeks - please don't try to tell me it doesn't happen). Sean found a way within Xenforum to have sections be user-selected so they could stay just film-based or add hybrid or everything. Many of us there (I'm a very regular user there, btw) do shoot everything. I use PS, On1, and others. But I love having someplace where I can ask about a problem with developing film and not get "fix it in post" or "just switch already" comments. I'm looking forward to the hybrid section because I'd like to be able to make some alt method prints with things shot on my dslr.

Sean is integrating DPUG and hybrid-photo in a way that should get more traffic. Without more traffic and more subscribers, Sean was facing the possibility of the site not surviving. It is such a great resource that I personally would be extremely sad to lose it.

For those who had problems with the "only film talk" people there, just remember that the digital answers could be found in many places. That was the one best place to find most of the film answers.

It was off limits because APUG was intended as a refuge from the digital-is-better rants. It was a place people could get answers to problems with film without enduring posts from people saying they should just give up film and switch (yes, I've seen those posts here within the last few weeks - please don't try to tell me it doesn't happen). Sean found a way within Xenforum to have sections be user-selected so they could stay just film-based or add hybrid or everything. Many of us there (I'm a very regular user there, btw) do shoot everything. I use PS, On1, and others. But I love having someplace where I can ask about a problem with developing film and not get "fix it in post" or "just switch already" comments. I'm looking forward to the hybrid section because I'd like to be able to make some alt method prints with things shot on my dslr.

Sean is integrating DPUG and hybrid-photo in a way that should get more traffic. Without more traffic and more subscribers, Sean was facing the possibility of the site not surviving. It is such a great resource that I personally would be extremely sad to lose it.

For those who had problems with the "only film talk" people there, just remember that the digital answers could be found in many places. That was the one best place to find most of the film answers.

 

All this is a bit too sanguine. DPUG was meant to exile anyone who dabbled in "hybrid" photography from APUG. I'll leave you to explain how that happened. Sean's endorsement of film-only clannishness back-fired badly. With the film ecosystem so different than it was 5-7 years ago, anyone shooting film now with no involvement in digital technology is part of an even smaller minority than before. That's not an exactly a robust base for his plans to generate increased traffic. "Digital" as a trigger for the delicate souls at APUG? Really.

It seems to me we/they have progressed, or is it regressed beyond "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" to "What size army boots do angels wear, as that may influence the head count"?

To be honest, I've never been admonished for not "going digital" when I asked developing and printing questions here or on the Large Format Photography forum, the two photo fora where I spend my time.

 

The difference is that I can also get scanning help on here and LFP in addition to help with darkroom problems...and there are plenty of people at both locations who are well versed and happy to help with dark room printing.

 

As I said, if you shoot transparencies(I do) you're dealing with a hybrid workflow unless you're one of the dozen people who still have the consumable stash and know-how to do Cibachrome. I guess the difference is that when I print a transparency, I choose to generate the Jpeg myself and hand it to the lab(to be printed on RA-4 on a Frontier or on an inkjet) rather than handing them the transparency.

 

Of course, the folks in charge at APUG can make any decision they wish and exclude any discussions they wish-it is their site after all and I won't fault them for that.

 

With that said, like it or not scanning is integral to most folks shooting film these days, and who knows scanning better than film photographers? Being able to get good scans isn't exactly an easy task. I'm not exactly a great dark room printer, but it usually takes me less time to knock out a decent print there than it does to get a JPEG ready to print. That's not to mention the fact that I find it a LOT easier to print a less than perfectly exposed negative than I find it to get a decent scan of that negative.

DPUG was meant to exile anyone who dabbled in "hybrid" photography from APUG. I'll leave you to explain how that happened

 

there was the grey area but unfortunately flame wars made it diffiuclt for the whole site.

there was the grey area but unfortunately flame wars made it diffiuclt for the whole site.

 

Hello John, fancy seeing you here! :)

 

I don't recall any "grey areas" just a lot of ugliness... I had hoped that hybridphoto would hold promise, but during my stay after its inception, JC did not seem able to drum up the sort of 'culture' that made it interesting. As my workflow drifted away from wet chemistry, the distance grew from a once very active presence on APUG. I was seeing far too many of the same old discussions regurgitated over and over--and conversations often coalescing around the same small crew of active adherents.

 

There is a need for a site that concentrates on the 'traditional' methods of film & wet chemistry; illuminating alternate process; and now at this late date of things reiterating and sharing knowledge of the mundane manual considerations of the camera and darkroom technique. But we must admit that this sort of "closed door AA meeting" environment is shrinking in potential members--and is not even remotely a viable business model that pays expenses--no less provides Sean some reasonable income. I closed down a very popular pipe smoking forum last year for that very reason. Furthermore, "Experts" that have little patience with newbies that want a solution instead of a learning opportunity complicated things in the past--and will continue as things sort themselves out.

 

Any website is either a hobby or business. Here at PN changes have happened to increase revenue--and executed in a very bad way. As a subscriber, I have some hopes for the APUB/DPUP/HP mashup--but I am beginning to see signs that there are going to be issue. I had just read the call for input on the digital/hybrid side, and already see too many boards emerging, with far too much of an emphasis on the "traditional" processes and overall outlook. Bob Carnie's comments really threw me--as the vast majority of practicing digital workers these days (full digital or some flavor of hybrid) do not go anywhere near alternatives in the print end.

 

Yet again, "super specializations" concerning the care and feeding of calico spotted kittens is not going to float financially either... o_O

Edited August 14, 2017 by PapaTango

hi pt ! :)

i know what you mean / where you are coming from. ...

that said, i have great hopes for the new site, i think it will be inclusive, not exclusive. and something for everyone

and the back-end stuff/ stuff goes on behind the scenes i think have improved so everything can be integrated. im guessing

( maybe wrongly of course cause admittedly i am clueless ! ) that if the same types of moderation tools that are available today

were available 10-12 years ago ... there would have never been a split .. but who knows, as i said im clueless and

just arm chair experting :)

 

a lot of people don't remember the grey area, it was extremely active

but unfortunately, there was a small group of people that made things really difficult for others ...

it is the internet after all ...

....i have great hopes for the new site, i think it will be inclusive, not exclusive. and something for everyone

and the back-end stuff/ stuff goes on behind the scenes i think have improved so everything can be integrated.

 

When all of the integration goes live, I intend on taking the "all" option. This is going to give the opportunity to see all fora branches--and will necessarily contain a required selector to determine which branch a new post will appear in. This is also where I believe that the most of the 'mooderator' :cool: work will lie--getting miscategorized posts where they belong to keep peace in the village. There is also the potential to breathe new life and interest for those that choose such an option--as broad exposure to many concepts and ideas certainly expands our interest, understanding, and practice of our craft.

 

im guessing ( maybe wrongly of course cause admittedly i am clueless ! ) that if the same types of moderation tools that are available today were available 10-12 years ago ... there would have never been a split .. but who knows, as i said im clueless and

just arm chair experting :)

 

Back then John, we were using vBulletin 3.x/4.x as a forum platform. vB was the most robust of all fora in terms of admin tools and configuration options--but third-party tools were few, and custom coding difficult due to the reality of having to redo much of it each time a security update changed a version--and certain legal restrictions on changing core code. I think that it was 2015 when Sean finally dropped vB and migrated to Xenforo. XF is very much a "branch" of vB--but with much improved customization abilities. Almost all of what is happening now may have been technically possible--but my personal feeling is that cognitive resistance on all sides (developer/member/subscriber) would never have allowed the consideration--no less the execution. Now, it is a matter of survival... :oops:

 

As a professional developer for both platforms I have a bit deeper insight of the pragmatics (this was one reason for my APUG screen name 'Pragmatist') of these things. It does not matter whether ones site is 500 members or 500K (having been management of both) I can tell you with certainty that one cannot really predict what will happen with major change or even new venues until it actually goes live and interaction occurs.

 

a lot of people don't remember the grey area, it was extremely active

but unfortunately, there was a small group of people that made things really difficult for others ...

it is the internet after all ...

 

Trolls do not simply live under digital bridges--they elaborately furnish their lairs and are very protective of any perceived changes to the feng shui of the environment... :eek: Our avocation, even in a gestalt sense--is a relatively small slice of focused interest and reality (pun intended, and heavy scratching of the metaphor). Traditional forum based discussion boards are increasingly on the decline in favor of other innernutz 'information' systems--and by extension are populated by those that are looking to communicate in a certain fashion. There are those who now expect solutions to photographic "questions" in 140 characters or less. Social media and so-called information aggregators cater to very narrow interest and attitude groups--filtering and creating a bubble of protection against things outside of that particular interest bubble. It will be an adventure seeing how Sean's experiment works--and I certainly hope that it does.

 

I am still debating on setting back up my darkroom. I have some projects in mind that involve HABS/HAER level documentation of historic resources here in Western NYS, and on the fine arts photography side--the exploration of Pt/Pd prints. I already know that "Photrio" will be a much more technically rewarding venue for the latter. Overall, the concept promises to be rewarding. But as you succinctly stated, "it is the internet after all..." :p

I hope the merge goes well, I know it has been a long time coming. I think it will be good to be able to toggle between mediums, I would hate to lose the ability to take a full break from anything having to do with digital, It has really been a great refuge in that regard on the days I just don't want to hear about the stuff at all.