Whither the CMC Forum?

[John Seaman]

Now that the new site is up and running, and some of the glitches (access to galleries etc) have been at least addressed, I wondered how members felt about the situation with the Classic Manual Cameras forum. It seems to me that the forum has become somewhat moribund, with fewer new posts, and many of these have involved the re-animation of ancient threads. There's also the “What Cameras Are You Using” which I don't contribute tom basically because its over a year now since I last used film, partly due to being less active generally, partly due to the difficulty of getting good processing. I've started a few threads about old lenses, adapted to digital, but that's about it.

When doing a write up on a camera I've always tried to show the results from it, which seems so be what members always want. I'm still collecting and have a number of things I think will be of interest – but with no results from them at least currently. Do we really need to include results?

So, what do you think? How can we get the old scene going again?

Edited October 30, 2022 by John Seaman

[Niels - NHSN]

Although the comprehensive write ups we sometimes see are very nice and generous of the authors, I think it is perfectly fine to make a thread a "work-in-progress" and crowd source comments and examples. The original poster can always return to the thread with updates.

When it comes to this type of knowledge sharing threads, I don't think it is bad to add on to existing threads, however old they may be.
They jump to the top of the forum view and can get a new life and attention, maybe well deserved.

Photo.net is 25+ years old and there are undoubtedly few film cameras that haven't been discussed here, but I see no harm in revisiting subjects, be that in a new or in a revived old thread. The history of this site stems from the film age and some film cameras may have a different relevance in the digital age.

And who cares if we repeat an old discussion - if we do, it is probably because it is worth repeating 😉 

[AJG]

Results are certainly interesting but won't always be practical with obsolete roll film cameras, for example, where the film isn't made in that size any more and adapting 120 may not be feasible. As Niels mentioned, there have been many write ups over the 25 years of Photonet and sometimes a new write up really isn't necessary since someone with a question can find that older information pretty easily. I really only got into collecting/using antique cameras about ten years ago and I have chosen to go for depth with one line (Zeiss Contax from the 1930's-1950's) rather than broadly collecting lots of different cameras.  Since this equipment is pretty well known and frequently written about I haven't felt the urge to write extensively about Contaxes and their lenses since others have done this competently already. I own Rollei TLRs and 4x5 Toyos that I used for professional work when I shot film for that.  But they also have been covered thoroughly in the past and I doubt that I have much to add. I do enjoy the the contributions from other members, especially about cameras that I'm not that familiar with. So far, they haven't caused a major GAS attack...

[John Seaman]

Niels, I'm not saying that it's wrong to revive old threads, Ive done it myself, many times. Yes it's a good way of seeing content which might otherwise be missed.

AJG I agree that pretty much everything has been covered in the CMC and other fora over the years and will have been seen by many established members. The problem is finding  it, and particularly for newer members - and there do seem to be a fair few of these. So if I do a post on, say, the Minolta XM I recently acquired, it will be seen. I expect the XM has been covered, no doubt very well in the past, but where?

[rick_drawbridge]

As John Seaman said: "It seems to me that the forum has become somewhat moribund, with fewer new posts, and many of these have involved the re-animation of ancient threads".

I have no argument with the revival of "ancient" threads, in that it expands their content and re-introduces them to newer forum members. Sadly, I suspect the active membership  has declined by dint of natural attrition and the ravages of old age; many of the knowledgeable contributors from even a decade ago may well have passed away or become unable to participate as the years begin to take their toll and their photographic activity decreases. Obviously, the increases in the cost of shooting film and the disappearance of local processing facilities has forced a decline in the amount of colour photography featured on CMC, and while there has been an upsurge among younger film users they do not, as yet, have the knowledge or experience to contribute new material to the forum.

There's one factor I'm convinced has contributed to the decline in forum activity, and that's the introduction of the "like" facility. In the forum's heyday, members like John or myself would regularly select a camera, shoot some film with it, photograph it, research its history and then write up a little article that included sample photographs. Upon posting in CMC, such a post would elicit twenty or thirty written responses or comments, in which personal accounts of experiences with the camera and further technical information would be contributed. While there was considerable time and effort involved in creating these threads, it was gratifying to see them come alive with contributions from other members. Today, such a post elicits half a dozen responses and a handful of "likes".

I find this a little disconcerting. By its very nature, a forum is supposed to be a place of discussion and debate. A "like" or "fave" is just such a lazy response, appropriate on a mindless social media site or on a gallery site like Flickr, but such a response adds nothing meaningful to the thread. Moreover, it establishes a ridiculous "tit-for-tat" attitude among members, a sort of "he likes my pictures so I'd better like his" regime. Some members automatically "like" every contribution, which renders the whole system absurd. Personally, I'd prefer to see the system done away with, in the hope that members might revert to actually considering carefully the content of a thread or the quality of an image, and typing out a short comment in response. But then, perhaps my age betrays me in a world where any activity seems to require a tick in a box...

Edited October 30, 2022 by rick_drawbridge

[gary green]

I tend to agree with Rick's @rick_drawbridge assessment of the current situation.  So much so that I almost hit the "like" button on his post ;).

Perhaps we could create a "No Likes" thread (or threads), similar in a way to the "No Words" thread, where the rules are that you cannot use the icon responses but must instead provide feedback in prose if you are so inclined.

Just a thought.

[Sandy Vongries]

Anyone who cares to do the work can set up a recurring  thread that is "between the white lines" can do so.  Example, samstevens efforts with POTOW.  In regard to old threads, if it seems logical, particularly if the OP is long gone, they can be severed from the old thread and a new one started.  That will happen when it seems to make sense.

[bruce_z._li2]

In my observations, many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms such as 35mmc, emulsive, shootitwithfilm, casualphotophile and etc. Also for content authors, it might gets much more readership over on those platforms. dpreview.com, for example, also features "Film Friday" syndicated articles from those sites.

The existing platforms, such as flickr, photo.net, photrio/apug, rangefinderforum, and largeformatforum, tend to have the similar group of core members without much growth. They are smaller and more intimate, catering to their niche.

I guess this is probably just fine, as things evolve over time anyway.

[stuart_pratt]

I come here almost every day, but confess I don’t post much. For one, I’m busy and I always feel that any post should be well researched, considered and polite, which I struggle to find the time for. This isn’t the case here very often, and might be true of other sites, and the forum phenomenon in general, but if you post something that isn’t considered, or inadvertently pointed or controversial, you need to be prepared to get flamed for it. Some of us like a fight, others, me included, don’t. That is one reason I don’t comment on things I don’t know much about. Whilst I don’t comment much, I have learned a huge amount and very much enjoy a ‘thread from the dead’ and believe it helpful to have the definitive article one one camera or lens in one place. Doing an internet search on a related topic will often find pnet threads close to the top of the list and I’ll normally search including ‘photo.net’ in the search terms as John suggested some while ago just to filter out the pnet threads. Perhaps traffic here has slowed but it’s still a great resource. 

Do we need to include results from a camera write up? I’m not sure posting 1000 pixel wide images that have been through who-knows-what software really helps determine if that camera/lens combo is any good or not but a review without them seems a bit like a soap powder advert without the white tee shirt at the end to me. Some of us perhaps are collectors, but most of us here I think are users, so we want to see what you got and your thoughts on ergonomics etc. 
 

I agree with Bruce and suspect younger film users are attracted to slightly less dry sites than this one here, but we do see quite a number of ‘what do I do’ threads from new film users asking questions we all know the answer to. This tells you that they come here for an answer to a question, rather than to contribute to lively debate. It might take some confidence to get involved in a forum where the technical knowledge is so high and perhaps that might be daunting for some? I read a thread recently (not here) where someone was asking how they got that ‘cool’ bright orange light leak look down one side of the frame! Most of us here are of a certain age, and all shuffling forward in the queue, and would have rolled our eyes just as I did, but the correct response in my view is to tell that person how they do it, then perhaps politely ask what they are trying to achieve. Personally, I’ve got some very cool photos.

Anyway I look forward to your XM review John, (one which I owned and one which was a PIA) with or without pictures, or stuck on the end of a thread from the dead. Oh, and where’s your pint of Guinness gone?

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by stuart_pratt

[Rick_van_Nooij]

It's true that my attention is spread over several (film) photography forums (RFF, Photrio, Cameraderie and such)  and my contribution here is usually limited to Photo of the Week sort of threads.
And I agree with Rick's observation concerning the 'like' button having greatly reduced reader-writer interaction.
I think that is what mostly puts the brakes on my enthusiasm of starting any new topics concerning found film, repairing cameras or photo series on events I've visited.

 

[za33photo]

I read and enjoy this forum very much.

I am not an expert as you all are , but I will post if , and when , I have anything to contribute.

Due to the present cost of film and processing , I have to ration my use of film , but I still do use my manual film camera (I only have one at the present time).

I enjoy  seeing the images that can still be made by these "old" manual camera's , provided that the are not "doctored" very much in post processing.

 

 

 

[gary green]

@za33photo I'm curious.  Have you seen much "doctoring" of photos in the CMC forum?

Edited October 31, 2022 by gary green

[Gus Lazzari]

Quote

"many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms" - Bruce

That's an understatement ! - In fact, even with *mediocre at best, error filled, needless repetition and very low production value YouTube camera reviews,

these 'Analog' content-creator film fans, are exploding in popularity with the youth ! (Dozens to hundreds to thousands of responses/subscribers ! ).

And yes as a technician, I typically contribute by gently correcting something technical that I feel may be important to point-out / correct.  

* Still, I always give their effort & enthusiasm a big thumbs UP

Plus, this YouTube venue rewards the effort, time & popularity of the above average quality content-creators, with among other things,

monetary compensation 👀

 

So film shooting, despite the escalating prices, is currently experiencing a true renaissance. 

Check out the film sales sites, regularly & quickly, the 'stuff' goes Out-Of-Stock !

[chuck_foreman1]

Well as a long time  contributor or  beneficiary ..however you wnat to see it.. I wanted to join the discussion. I see the world has been reduced to this inane judging  "Like" and this definitey detracts from  conversation  and real participation.  On resurecting old threads.. .they are there for a reason ie saved.. so people can garner some insight or learning. a few years ago I was looking for some info on Contaflex and when I googled it I found some content that I thought sounded like just the right info. Well lo and behold was it not only bringing me to our forum.. it was my own goddamn reply that I hit on.  So creating a new thread can be the right way, but often plenty of info here to mine. Like many contributors.. age and energy and I must admit interest is waning. But this is nothing that a good post from Rick on sone some japanese rangefinder from the 60/70s or a very unique cool TLR from John, a color contribution from M42 , a post of DDR advertising on comparisions of different DDR cameras,  .and on and on .. I do get a good vibe and welcome every new post. 
My Dad once said .. you want a letter ..send a letter . You want a good post .. Make a good post-
I have been AWOL, but I havern't been idle.. essentially I am boring my self..I suspect you will be bored with my post tooo..but I there's still a fire in my belly when I look at camera porn and while I've mentally said "No more cameras" ....there two hot deals on the auction site...that havent gone away.  

I think we know what our Forum needs.. are we up to it?  

 

[glen_h]

On 10/30/2022 at 5:21 AM, John Seaman said:

Now that the new site is up and running, and some of the glitches (access to galleries etc) have been at least addressed, I wondered how members felt about the situation with the Classic Manual Cameras forum. It seems to me that the forum has become somewhat moribund, with fewer new posts, and many of these have involved the re-animation of ancient threads.

(snip)

I haven't tried to keep track, but it seems to me that all forums are less active than before.

CMC is one of my favorite to read, though I don't post so much in it.

 

It might be that there is a delay while people get used to the new system.

 

 

[john_shriver]

Glad that the second iteration of "try again" actually works. The first generation of "try again" always had the "blinking sickness" for me, was just unusable. 

 

[doug grosjean]

I'd be more likely to participate in this forum, if I was shooting more film.
Nowadays, my wife & I mostly shoot it on family vacations.
Her film camera of choice is a Holga, mine a Widelux.
Processing & scanning are getting to be a challenge for us.
We have plenty of film in the fridge.

[Sandy Vongries]

Ladies and Gents, in many ways this transition is Liberty Hall or a blank page ready to be written.  Anything positive is good.  No Porn, no personal attacks, post only your own photos and no spam or excess self promotion.  Make it what you want it to be.  Don't know how long current state will last , so enjoy.

[doug grosjean]

On 10/31/2022 at 5:15 PM, glen_h said:

I haven't tried to keep track, but it seems to me that all forums are less active than before.

CMC is one of my favorite to read, though I don't post so much in it.

 

It might be that there is a delay while people get used to the new system.

 

 

Facebook format has sort of steamrolled right over most forums.
It's not just here; it's forums on every subject.
I suspect Facebook domination more than the update is the cause of lower volumes.

[don_essedi]

On 10/30/2022 at 7:47 PM, bruce_z._li2 said:

In my observations, many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms such as 35mmc, emulsive, shootitwithfilm, casualphotophile and etc. Also for content authors, it might gets much more readership over on those platforms. dpreview.com, for example, also features "Film Friday" syndicated articles from those sites.

The existing platforms, such as flickr, photo.net, photrio/apug, rangefinderforum, and largeformatforum, tend to have the similar group of core members without much growth. They are smaller and more intimate, catering to their niche.

I guess this is probably just fine, as things evolve over time anyway.

"In my observations, many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms such as 35mmc, emulsive, shootitwithfilm, casualphotophile and etc."

Those are blogs not forums. They are owned by those who have an immediate personal or financial interest in their continued existence, something that is rather difficult to achieve in the scattershot of a one size fits all forum design and by a committee or corporation.  Blogs have their own discontents as they tend to mature into sites full of 'yes men'.

The only real value either have is the quality of the content -- I do not mean the photos. I mean the texts of the discussions which encourage developing relationships and recognition  of each other over time. Everything else is secondary, including the steenkin' bodges ( what child wanted those to return?).

 

 

 

[Kent T]

I hope I am bringing some new life, and enthusiasm to this forum. This forum has inspired me, to return to film photography. And has given me inspiration to do what I enjoy, to find my niche (and my adaptive nature around physical and other challenges). You have revitalized my creativity, and have encouraged me on so very much.