After the poll

I think that would be a bad move if you want people to come back here. If other brands get their own, why not MFT brands? It's not only the atmosphere the differs (at DPR), the cameras are quite different too. That they share the same mount doesn't make them the same. But hear what other MFT shooters think. This is just my personal view.

Forgot to say that otherwise I think it looks good. Can't judge all of it, I mostly looked for the sub forums I'm interested in.👍

Some people seem to have trouble understanding the simplification process 😱

I’m fine with simplification…but if forums vanish and are amalgamated with unrelated topics, then I can find another place in which to participate. To amalgamate Street Photography with Architecture shows a total lack of understanding for either genre.

Photography 101

Digital photography would not exist without film. Film photography served as the foundation for the development of digital cameras and provided the necessary knowledge and understanding of light capture and image composition.

While digital photography has become the dominant form of image capture in today's world, film photography continues to coexist as a distinct art form.

Olympus 35 LC
Produced from 1967 to 1969

And digital sensors couldn’t exist without photographic emulsions, albeit ones that are designed for ultraviolet wavelengths.

How many people have posted on the “Film Photography Talk” forum in the last 30 days?

LMAO

Digital photography sucks.

Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C. 1962
Diane Arbus (1923 - 1971)

About as many as have posted in about 1/4 of the forums here. Odd you aren’t singling those out as well.

Hence the goal of simplifying the number of unnecessary threads as much as possible.
I find it very unpleasant to visit threads empty of any activity. And I'm not the only one.

No. I think this would be a step too far. If we are going to have that we might as well have a forum on monitors, one on printers and one on loupes. The DPR forums on PC Talk. etc, are usually full of questions and opinions such as "What computer should I buy to replace my Windows XP laptop?", "Why does it take so long to save files in Photoshop?", etc.

I would go for technique, Shooting fiilm is different compaired to any digital shooting, and how a analog image is made can also be different in the way how it's processed (developer options etc etc)

Of course it is... I don't think anybody is questioning that.

The relevant question (in my opinion) is: Should there be two sections on it, one under Photographic Techniques and one under Photographic Equipment? And if so, can you think of some topics you would possibly like to contribute to both?

I feel like it works okay as it is in the new test-layout under Photographic Techniques. I don't think it's really a genre, as you can take all kinds of images on film. But perhaps I'm missing something. Of course it wouldn't be unreasonable to add it under Photographic Equipment as well, but because @Maoby and others with interesting historic stuff to show seem to have a unified place to (I assume it will be under "The History of Photography"?) I'm not sure there's much the Film based techniques sub won't be able to cover.

Yeah, I think I agree!

IMO it should either be done by lens mount (would be my preference) or by brand name , not a mix

I think it has been pretty clear that there's no solution which everyone agrees on... I think a distinction per lens mount isn't working at all. You'd have multiple per manufacturer in some cases which would be separated and there are many mounts and what about all the medium format mounts, large format, the different M39/LTM variants, M42, RMS, C-Mount etc.? You'd always have exceptions for certain types of lenses. It's the same with brand name - just not possible in my opinion.

I'm concerned about the heading for the Photo Discussions. The most active threads on this forum (besides these discussions OF the forum) are the weekly critique thread and the "share" threads of various sorts. Right now, there is no reference to either kind of activity in the heading of Photo Discussions.

I don't really have a specific suggestion but I do think this needs a little tweaking - not necessarily new subsections but a revision of the heading perhaps? If one of the future goals is to be more image-centric, we need some clarity of labeling for these most active image-centric threads. They have gained more traction than anything else and we want to be sure not to lose anything there in the compression.