Interesting thought, but the mount isn‘t the end all be all either, don‘t you think? What about the many EF lenses adapted to RF (I don‘t own a single RF lens even though that‘s the mount of my camera… I‘m sure it‘s the same with Nikon mounts for some. What about different formats which share the same mount? What about Medium Format?
What about third party lenses available in different mounts?
I don‘t think this would clear everything up either…
I lately got hold of Fuji x100v - what was that about a mount again?
We have more in common than you think. My direct family and relations suffered greatly during WW2 and many died to protect the freedoms we have today. Remembrance day is 365 24/7 in my books, but that is another story. Thank you for sharing part of yours. As you may have realized, you fought for those very freedoms during your tours in Vietnam, so it surprises me that you are willing to compromise on others ability to engage in disagreements and freedom of expression, regardless how despondent it can get.
Comparing those discussions as war battles is a bit over the top. The very fact that we can discuss freely on this site/thread without being heavily moderated is fantastic.
Remember, anything you don't like can be ignored and overlooked. But it seems that many that complain about the moderation are purposely going to the dumpster and reading the threads and conversations. Ironic that they would all get their knickers in a twist about it, when in fact, they could simply ignore and walk away from it. The beauty of it all, is that this site brings that uniqueness of inclusivity.
Don't think of it as a war zone. Re-think it as a form of expression outside the narrow mindedness that others want to impose here. I think some members take it all too seriously and get incensed at the drop of a hat. Thicker skin is needed, along with more objectivity.
There are many of us who can discuss our own direct family involvement and injuries from WW2 and our personal service in Vietnam. Your bringing in such issues into this discussion cheapens those issues and is very inappropriate. What many of us learned, and it seems that you did not, is that along with the freedoms we fought for was an equal sense of respect for others and their rights and a sense of reserve. Freedom of speech does not mean that anyone can say anything they want, at any time, under any circumstance and with malice and anger, wrapping themselves in disclaimers such as “you are free to ignore and to walk away.”
Ed has been advocating an atmosphere here of mutual respect and regard, the only way that ideas can be shared. Such an atmosphere does, and has always required limits, guidelines and some means of oversight. Free-running “anything goes, anyone can say and do anything at all that they want any time they want” is destructive chaos. It’s not free speech at all. Its being a thug, It’s uncaring, it’s malicious, it’s childish and it’s completely unwanted.
Rich
Nice try Richard. You taking it to the extreme doesn't surprise me. The fact that you can write that drivel proves my point.
I have absolutely no intention of defending Stig here or justify the earlier comments directed at EdShapiro, which were completely uncalled for and unnecessary in my opinion, but "saying anything you want" and "doing anything you want" are clearly VERY distinct things in my understanding* and I don't think they should be conflated with one another. And I haven't seen any indication Stig is advocating for the latter.
*if I'm just missing some context or meaning, because I don't understand some nuance of the English language here, I apologize in advance.
Can we get back on topic please?
Sorry!
I feel like Try 3 is so far the best compromise, given the different preferences. And I appreciate your fast responses to new ideas and suggestions by the way - excellent work!
Yeah, move it to someone else's.
Without reading all the replies, I think you're too hasty in hacking and chopping. Also, I'd certain pay attention to the big names Jim, Iliah and the like and if Jim wants an MF forum, give him one. They are the ones that help legitimize the site.
On Danno and Donald and the like, I'd subsidize their camera gear, pay their premium subscriptions to some other site, and wish them good luck elsewhere.
On the couple or so fellows that get their personal jollies berating Bob, I'd ban them. Soon as I recognized them again, I'd ban them again. There's no corrélation between someone getting banned for calling Canon, Sony or Nikon gear crap, someone in a bit of a heated argument they don't see eye to eye on, and what those fellows do.
I have plans!!!
Love it!!!!! 😀😀
There should be a prize for POTW (Post Of The Week) and that one would be a shoe-in to win this week's 😎
That should be very easily doable and would be much better than the current situation because the original BS and the BS that sometimes continues in the Dumpster is still too easily viewable as just another thread on the Threads List page.
Just create a sub-domain for dprevived and put the Dumpster there with a link to it in the thread posts came from on the main dprevived domain.
Thanks for the thought.
The MF Forum over at DPR is currently doing just fine, and as long as that’s the case, I no longer see any need to replicate it here.
This site should have its own identity.
Jim
I posted the following in another part of the site, then I noticed this discussion. It seems more relevant here although I don't discuss Alan's document specifically. I'll get to Alan's doc in due course but after a quick look, I think we are on similar paths.
@bobn2 has written:
@Rich42 has written:
So let me ask again. What is that difference.? What is your Vision for the site?
Read the OP.
Yes, that's what we need to discuss.
However, my vision for the site and some practical considerations are not quite the same.
A site has to be able to survive, whether or not it achieves the vision. So first some considerations on what I think is needed to survive.
1. A site has to be able to make $ for long term survival. The work behind the scenes is huge. We ask a lot of these people if they are getting no return. Enthusiasm is much appreciated but eventually that has to run down. Conclusion 1. This site needs to have a long term plan that generates at least some $ for the managers. Advertising? Subscription? Sponsorship?
2. Photography sites are doing it tough. I think the hero days of photography are behind us. Cameras are universally getting too good and too automatic. Cameraphones ditto. We are drowning in images and it is now easy to access the work of the greats. Photobooks and quality photo prints are a declining market.
"Gear" remains a major interest. DPR had this sewn up. It wasn't just the current forums, the search facility gave the ability to go back years when you wanted info. It was a great place to discuss how to do things, or work around or other operational questions relating to particular gear. Their database of cameras and their reviews stretched back a long long way. This covered hardware, software, processing, auxiliary equipment, news. It has been an invaluable resource. It still is. I can't see any way it can be competed with so let's not try. Gear reviews require deep pockets and they have to be up to date with the latest. It is noticeable that DPR is already falling off the pace here. If they can't do better they are doomed. PetaPixel is picking this up. PetaPixel also has a comprehensive collection of tutorials. They are organized to be accessible for beginners to advanced. It's a resource that is valuable for photographers at many levels. PetPixel doesn't run forums.
DPRevived has been wonderful but I can't see it being able to compete in these areas either. It relies on participants notifying about news they have spotted and I don't think this is comprehensive enough for the need.
There remain a couple of areas where the door is wide open.
The image itself. It always looks nuts to me that so many people want to talk about the gear but have so little interest in the images themselves. That is, beyond the "Wow, that's sharp" and "Fantastic colors" level. If you are going to spend all that money and time and things that make images, it would seem to make sense to spend time on developing your critical skills. Critiquing is complex. There are many different ways to look at images and many different ways to create them. There are several benefits from a regular habit of critiquing. You improve your own photography from the feedback you receive. You sharpen up your own photography by really thinking about what others are doing. Best of all, you increase the pleasure you get from images.
It's hard work, you need to really look and it takes time. You will regularly find you need to reassess your thinking.
For these reasons I find the Weekly C&C thread on DPRevived to be invaluable. There is nothing I know of like it elsewhere. I also appreciate that the admin has put critiquing prominently on the home page so that more users of this site are likely to find and explore it. The flat forum view makes discussions difficult but I know the admin are working on threading. Fingers crossed.
The other doors that look to me to be open are genres. Street photography is huge with twenty somethings. Landscape. Travel, portrait, abstract. concert. The list goes on and on. News of exhibitions and books in the different genres. Unlike gear reviews, this doesn't have to be up to date. A reference section can be incorporated and added to by participants. I've been building up a list of references re critiquing that may eventually be attached to the C&C forum.
My conclusion. Carve out a niche that is based on images. This in itself wont be enough. Some kind of coverage of new developments will still be needed and I am unsure as to how this might best be managed. I have some thoughts on it but it is too early to discuss them.
Mike,
Good thoughts and, in broad terms, they do match what we want to do.
Alan
One thing I've been missing for many years,
after I lost my tutors.
-The Idea in the Back- [IitB]
-- > What was your idea /your expected results when you raised the camera and started shooting
Posts of images ... with a written account about:
why you shot them,
how you wanted the result to be
what did you do trying to obtain it
if you reached that result or not
or
what brought you to unexpected results, like low image/beautiful image.
like my tutors when they were showing me their fantastic films pics or their horrible errors )
Too many astounding e-pictures get boring very soon
( and you never know what the author did, if it was shooting or editing )
PS: I want to see more unedited pictures
Unsurprisingly, I see this differently. 'Reasonable' is a tricky word. My problem was particularly with people who insisted that they impose their own preferred moderation policies, and when they received pushback decided to leave in a performative manner. Whether you think that's 'reasonable' or not is up to you. We have never operated without moderation, and the basis for it was published and agreed early on in the ToS and guidelines. I think that your characterisation of their being 'no moderation' is misleading. The 'sense that DPReview' does makes it clearer, but we had that discussion at length also. We aren't going there.
That's complex. It opens the "previsualization" discussion that has also been running in different places. How far do you subscribe to the Ansel Adams Zone system philosophy?
By and large, I do. When I take shots I'm generally thinking about what I'm going to do with processing and especially cropping. I can change my mind on these as I see them on a large screen and think about them more. The image I presently have on the latest Critiques forum's Weekly C&C thread for this week is an example. I always intended cropping the shot. When I looked at it on a screen, I decided to make it a considerably tighter crop to make the reflection more prominent. Saturation was increased to bring out the golden colour of the horn. None of that would have surprised me when I took the image however.
ie., I regard the editing as part of the process to the final shot and I'll shoot with this in mind.
