Too Many Posts On SLRs?? Have Things Changed?

[kbg32]

Cheers Ruben.

 

[raid]

Ruling out extreme macro and long telephoto pictures, can anyone here tell from looking what kind of camera a post in the gallery was taken on? I doubt it. So, what's the difference between a photo taken on a RF or an SLR?

/T

There is none! Photos are useful here to illustrate composition, new ideas, film choices, developing styles, lens characteristics. It makes no difference whether that particular photo was taken with a RF or SLR.

 

[raid]

It seems to me we are missing the most important: the Range Finder camera identity, and our common denominator with SLRs: FILM.

In view of the increasing digital avalanche, it will not be too wise to break ranks with other film users. We are not any more the majority.

As for the range finder identity, or intrinsic personality, how are we supposed to deepen our understanding and feeling, if not by comparizon ?

And how can we possibly broaden our audience and attracting more people to our camp, by "La Migra" policies ?

Creating The Evil SLR subforum seems appropriate to me, in view of the abovementioned concerns. Creating a sub-gallery for non rf images seems to me appropriate too.

Don't force, convince !

Cheers,
Ruben

Ruben: This is a very important point that you have made.
Film based photography has become one entity again, whether people like it or not.

Let's unite and not separate. :bang:
.
Raid

 

[mikeh]

It's like posting a bunch of film shots on the DSLR forum, and explaining how you pushed your Tri-X, what developer you used, times and agitation techniques....
One could do that, but that would be......well, dumb.

 

[nikon_sam]

SLR Photos Removed

SLR Photos Removed

Ok, I'll bite. Remove your SLR photos. This is a rangefinderforum (check top-left corner if you don't believe me).

Also, it's kinda fun you would end with 'Remember...Say what you mean...just don't say it mean...' a couple of sentences after "please have the b*lls to "Name Names"

Matthew,

As per your request the SLR photos have been removed from "My Gallery"...
Sorry if I offended you and the RFF site...As that was not my intent when I posted them...Just wanted to share images...
Again, I apologize for the photos and for upsetting you...

 

[wlewisiii]

Far as I'm concerned this is getting mighty silly. I'm with Ruben - film use outwieghs camera type.

Sam, thank you for sharing your images. As long as they were on film that's enough for me and I hope you will reconsider and place them back in your gallery.

William

 

[raid]

I suggest that this thread be closed before additional RF members get insulted here.

Raid

 

[back alley]

this tread has migrated to a place that is not even close to the original post.
this is not a thread about film and/or digital.

this is not a thread that is about rf vs slr and who can tell the difference from looking at a web based photo.

it seems to me the o.p. was WONDERING if the flavour of rff is changing.

i will go one step further and WONDER aloud if the culture of rff is changing?

i have nothing against slrs or photography in general, be it film or digital.
but i came here in the first place because this is a place for folks who are into rangefinder photography and gear and i liked that it was a unique niche forum for like minded individuals.

 

[jlw]

"diluting its utility" for who ? What is out there beyond your own needs, your own interests, your own utility ?

People who had discovered (or rediscovered) rangefinder cameras, and who realized (or re-realized) that an RF camera's unique combination of strengths and weaknesses promotes a fairly specific worldview of photography, used to have a place to go where they could count on almost 100% of the content dealing with that specific worldview.

Some of the content was technical, some of it was philosophical, and some took the form of images. But they could be reasonably sure that ALL of it was applicable to opportunities and challenges similar to those that they were facing, or might face, in their own RF-camera photography.

Now they don't have that place and that certainty. In order to get that RF-specific content, they have to be prepared to expend time and energy going through general photography content, and SLR-specific content, and so forth.

That is specifically what I meant by "diluting its utility."

Whoever made the analogy to automobile-specific forums had a good point. Those of us who are driving enthusiasts all share some general interests -- e.g. cost of fuel, environmental issues, law enforcement, etc. -- which apply whether we're interested in plug-in hybrids or SUVs or custom monster trucks. There are many non-specific driving forums we can choose to share those general interests.

However, the driving enthusiast who is specifically interested in, say, British sports cars of the 1960s is also probably going to want to find a forum that caters specifically to that interest. If he wants to know, for example, whether the solid-axle or independent-suspension version of the Triumph TR-4A is better for vintage racing, he'll probably find better answers more easily on a Triumph forum than on a general-driving forum.

Same goes here. Back when this was a clubhouse for rangefinder-camera users, we could be reasonably certain that everything would be (no pun intended) focused on problems, solutions, and ideas that would help us. If I invited comments on one of my "problem" pictures, for example, nobody would tell me that it would have turned out better if I had used the DOF preview to evaluate sharpness, or switched to a different focusing screen, or used a touch of front tilt to take advantage of the Scheimpflug effect, or tried that spiffy new Sigmoid 18-600 zoom lens. We could be reasonably sure that people would "get it" that we were all talking about the application of rangefinder equipment.

And now we can't. That represents a loss of utility.

Note that since it would be rude to invite people in and then kick them out again, I am not proposing that we reverse course now. What I am saying is that in the future, RFF (maybe it's time to change those initials!) is going to be less efficient for its original audience that it used to be, because we'll need to spend more time and energy filtering out non-rangefinder content that isn't useful for us.

I also just want to warn y'all that as RFF gradually morphs into "Everybody's Photography Forum," you'll find that the definition of general photography content can be broad indeed. Watch for future threads on exciting subjects like these:

"I like to do landscape photography in rugged mountain areas, but my old Toyota Land Cruiser is no longer up to the task of hauling my 20x24 wet plate camera and dark-tent up into the Rockies. Which would be better, the new Land Cruiser or something fancier such as a Range Rover or a Hummer? Cost is no object, as my prints have been selling very well lately. Thanks... W.H. JACKSON"

"I capture the beauty of Nature in large-format photographs made painstakingly in our nation's most beautiful forests. But it seems there are always a few damn dead limbs in the shot! Who makes the best chain saw for photographers: Husqvarna? Stihl? Somebody else? Thanks for any info... SPAMSEL ADAMS

"I get a kick out of photographing steam trains at night, using about four thousand old-fashioned flash bulbs. The problem I'm running into now is that I miss a lot of shots because while I'm waiting for the train to come by, I have to go take a pee. Does anybody have any experience with this Avodart stuff I keep seeing advertised on TV? Advice appreciated! -- O. WINSTON LEAK

"Hello, I am wife of deceased former Nigerian oil official JOSEPH BIGCONOOSKI, who was avid foto enthusiast. To buy foto supplies in U.S.A. he established secret bank account containing THIRTEEN BAJILLION SQUILLION DOLLARS U.S. I need to find honest U.S.A. foto enthusiast to help retrieve these funds. You will receive SEVEN ZILLION SPILLION GAJILLION DOLLARS U.S. for your trouble. Please contact me direct for details. Thank you and God bless you -- MRS BIGCONEROOSKI"​

See, you're gonna love the new EPF -- there'll be something for everybody!

 

[jlw]

Far as I'm concerned this is getting mighty silly. I'm with Ruben - film use outwieghs camera type.

Then you'd better call the bouncer and have me kicked out, because I do most of my photography with a rangefinder camera (Epson R-D 1) but haven't shot a roll of film in almost two years!

I'm not saying that a "Film Photography Forum" or a "Traditional Photography Forum" or whatever you guys like to call yourselves wouldn't be a great idea. I'm just saying that this ain't the place to do it...

 

[CameraQuest]

Relax Folks

Relax Folks

you know people,

it's amazing to me how many complainers in this thread want to complain about imaginary things that have not happened. Worst case, IF dire consequences did result, changes would indeed be made to bring RF photography back into focus. RFF is not going to be renamed into something else, or be allowed to become like so many other "all everything photography" forums. I find some of these dire "warning" posts honestly ridiculous.

There were literally thousands of SLR posts at RFF before the Evil SLR forum was created as a place to dump them into, instead of having misplaced in just about any forum you can think of. Ignoring them did not make SLR posts go away, or make RFF any less focused on RF photography. Neither will a single SLR forum change the focus of the other forums.

The best thing about this thread may be we have a lot of people really caring about RFF -- something as esoteric as an internet forum which concretely exists only in cyberspace. Relax folks. RFF is going to stay the # 1 destination on the net for RF photography.

Stephen

 

[kbg32]

Thank you Joe and Stephen. The original intent of my post was for an open intelligent discussion based on observation of the last few weeks. If things are changing at RFF and moving in a different direction, so be it. Lets discuss where things are going. I never said or implied that people, images, or posts should be banned. Read my original post. Now I am curious why this post brought about so much ire?

 

[ruben]

Just in line with the reconciliation spirit that is appearing in this thread, I think it may be of help if like Will and Jan, I too reveal "the other side" of the coin.

I never intended that RFF become FILM users forum, uniting all types of cameras and delegating range finder cameras and phylosophy to second or equal place. There should be not doubt about this.

All what I was trying to avoid was just that "mixed users" (rf plus other types) and newcomers get slapped. To maintain RFF identity is not easy - I do acknowledge it upon the latest posts.

As well there is no reason to slap some of our loyal vet members, our friends, who started here to worry. I am sorry in so far I showed myself some lack of tolerance, instead of forwarding some rather humouristic posts. Well I am a human too, and RFF is close to my heart too.

Finally, I think that this thread shows a real issue: that to find the right balance among all concerns is a complex task, we all should be aware of its problematics, trust our Chief, and be ready to accept compromises. RFF is growing and this welcomed growth is to be managed.

Cheers to all,
Ruben

Ps
Thanks Keith.

 

[jlw]

I find some of these dire "warning" posts honestly ridiculous.

Well, at least in my warnings, I was being dishonestly ridiculous. "O. Winston Leak" asking about Avodart...?

 

[raid]

Calm down everybody. This place is and should be almost entirely about rangefinder photography. There is no need to get too exited. All I would suggest is to allow occasional SLR adventures being mentioned in the Evil SLR scetion. I don't see any SLR takeover happening here. The beautiful aspects of RF photography and equipment is what made me come over here.

Raid

 

[ChrisPlatt]

If the flavor (or flavour) of RFF is going to change,
I vote for chocolate! 😉

Chris

 

[Bike Tourist]

I brought this up when I felt a little guilty for posting a few DSLR images. My sense of the responses was that a little is OK, a lot is to be discouraged.

My gallery is about 90% RF but, in all honesty, my images (good or bad) can't be separated into RF and DSLR by looking, unless I were to post an obvious 400mm tele shot . . . which I wouldn't do.

I think RFF differentiates itself from the pack by the quality of its words and pictures, not by an arbitrary filter of what can or can't be seen.