Gallery requirements.

[Doug]

This will stay a RF camera site only.

If it's to be an RF-only site, then it shouldn't be "diluted" with a non-RF gallery. One psychological effect of staying RF-only is to encourage the use of RF cameras; in order to share and participate, we need to be using those RF cameras!

Broadening it so that we can share non-RF pics in the same way might seem attractive, but it could well be bad for the site.

 

[MP Guy]

well,

Its now gone! YOu should not be able to see the category non rf anymore. But the pictures should show up in your albums and randoms.

 

[rover]

The poll was quite decisive. I think from reading all the comments it is good to hear that we are all here for the same thing, RF photography, so not having a non RF gallery makes sense.

 

[Doug]

We still have the Northwest Gallery, "not limited to rangefinders only." And it also says, "Typically members from groups such as WTA should post their photos in this section." What is WTA?

 

[BillG]

"should still be visible in your gallery"

hmm, I dont think so. I deleted one of my TLR shots before the non-rf gallery "closed"..... I left one TLR shot, and it is gone. No sweat. Oh, I posted it directly in that nonRF gallery, rather than transferring it over from my gallery. Perhaps that explains its disappearance.

Although I voted yes to a nonRF I can appreciate the arguments for keeping things RF only and I have no complaint about that.

I am posting this just as information, if any other photos got ..... lost.

regards
Bill

the point about using the RF gear sure resonates with me.... I use a digicam too much.

 

[jauregui]

I agree with the new decision. I posted two Non RF pictures, and, I need to say: I don't feel good with that. I was think: This is the end of the Rangefinderforum site.
I like the rangefinders cameras. People who use this kind of cameras are diferent kind of photographers. After this historic
situation, the forum has become stronger than it was.
Sorry by my bad english. Beginning from next week I want to take english classes precisely to participate in this forum.

 

[back alley]

jauregui, welcome to the forum.

"After this historic situation, the forum has become stronger than it was" - very interesting idea, i need to think about that one.

joe

 

[Doug]

Thanks for airing your views, jauregui! I will guess that participating in these discussions here can help your English study. 🙂 Already your English is far far better than my very poor Spanish.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Funny... I kinda liked the idea of a non-RF gallery because I wanted to see how others see the world when it's not through a RF viewfinder.

Oh, well. Come to think about it, with an additional SLR gallery I'd post my macro shots (which are the only reason for me to keep my Nikon gear).

How about making it a policy that RF and non-SLR shots are strongly encouraged, leaving SLR photos for other websites? That way we can see Gene's Rollei shots.

My humble, albeit late contribution...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I like the idea of the Gallery being "geared" toward pictures shot with RF's. RF's have strong points, as do SLR's and other cameras. A guest viewing the gallery may think about picking up a Canonet or Leica and experiencing what these cameras are capable of. They excel at existing light photography, street photography, and portrait work.

The fact that most of us use SLR's and other equipment proves that we are not "fanatics" about just using a type of camera from yesteryear, and will use the correct tool for the job at hand. If others want to add this "glow" to their photography, the RF gallery showcases examples from "true profesionals" to "Dad's with cameras".

BTW, just to prove that I am not a fanatic who only uses cameras from yesteryear, I even have two D1x's at work and an N70 at home. The N70 works with the 500 f4... I use it to make macro shots of bees with the moon in the background.

 

[back alley]

are you saying i'm a fanatic because i only use rangefinder cameras?

joe

 

[Sonnar Brian]

"i try to be as open a person as i can.
i realize that most here shoot with various types of cameras and systems.
i enjoy the work of others and veiwing it in the galleries."

No.

I believe that your Position Description requires you to use only rangefinders. Much like the PD of the forum aims it at RF cameras in general. They are simply better at some types of photography, and if that is your style then it makes sense to use only RF cameras.



Now a Fanatic would... Who says SLR's are more flexible! I will use my SP with the Auto-Up for posted macro pictures of bees. I also have the ground-glass close-up adapter for the Contax. Does that count? Are people allowed to post close-ups of the moon made using Viso-Flex systems on their RF's? If I use RF lenses on my F2 (LTM-to-F mount and S-to-F BR1) is that like a Viso-flex? We'll call that one crossing the line. Try to put a coupled beamsplitter-type rangefinder on an SLR. I have only used one, and that was a Super-8 movie camera with a split-image RF spot integrated in with the through-the-lens beamsplitter.

 

[Roger]

Well, my perspective is a little different. I shoot mainly RF (Cosina-Voigtlander), and don't use SLRs at all. But I have a panorama habit that needs frequent fixes. My TX-! (Xpan) is fine, it has a rangefinder. But my Widelux is fixed focus, and my Voyageur rotary doesn't even have a viewfinder, let alone a rangefinder patch. I really, really appreciate the ability to post 1,200 pixel width pictures. You need that when you're shooting 360-degree panoramas. I thought I was in photosite heaven when I discovered Rangefinderforum, but if people think my panoramas are out of place here, I'll take them down and quietly go away.

 

[Rich Silfver]

Roger,

I think the "inofficial consensus" seems to be that the occasional non-RF photo is acceptable and that it's simply applying some self-control sometimes 🙂 Personally I love seeing your panoramic shots and would miss seeing them here.

I think we're all able to a degree of self-governing. 🙂

 

[back alley]

roger, please don't take them off the site.

we have a section for panos and i doubt there would be an uproar as to what camera was used.

this whole slr thing was a good exercise for us to see what direction we are mostly looking toward and rf is that direction. but as rich has already stated, a little self control and we will all be fine.

you're a welcome addition to our band.

joe

 

[jdos2]

The folks over at contaxg.com have a unique solution.

"not.contaxg.com," (little sub-domain) for EVERYTHING else.

I smile when I post.

"http://not.rangefinderforum.com?"

 

[sfaust]

Still being a newbie, I have a question regarding 'gallery' images, and 'non-gallery' images.

From the start, I assumed anything I deposited in the galleries should be shot with a RF. It just made sense to me based on the forums focus.

I've shot with RF years ago, and don't have any current images shot with RFs, which is why my gallery is empty. "Feverishly working to deposit some in there, and for the RF book though."

My question surrounds casual photos posted in the forums. For example, with only one RF, the only way I could get a photo for the 'coffee and a camera' thread was to use a point and shoot digital. I never thought about it not being appropriate since it was disassociated from the gallery in my mind. I looked at those type of photos as 'friendly conversation shots' rather than a display of work based on RF. So my assumption was that if the photo content was general photography (landscapes, portraits, street, etc), it should be shot with a RF. Casual stuff like 'hey, check out my new camera', or similar type 'conversational' photos could be done with whatever is convenient at the time (usually digital for immediacy and ease of posting).

Was I incorrect in that assumption? Just looking for a sanity check, or a harsh re-alignment
😀

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Is the Nikonos Considered a RF?

Is the Nikonos Considered a RF?

I am new here, as well. Everything that I post is shot with a RF but that's easy because for the most part that's all I'm using these days. However, I'm not sure about the Nikonos shots I posted; would these be considered "rangefinder" without an actual rangefinder focusing system? If not, should the images remain in my gallery?

D2

 

[fraley]

BTW, just to prove that I am not a fanatic who only uses cameras from yesteryear, I even have two D1x's at work and an N70 at home. The N70 works with the 500 f4... I use it to make macro shots of bees with the moon in the background.

😀 that's hilarious! ooh dry wit!! 😉

 

[Doug]

Shots that illustrate RF topics, like closeup views of the camera insides, or the coffee shots, etc, are I think usually shot with whatever you have on hand to do that. 🙂

I have uploaded some SLR pics to the Northwest Scenery Gallery which invites all kinds of cameras, but was dismayed to find these appeared among all other uploads in the main Gallery view, and the random view too.

I think in general the intent is to encourage traditional pro and amateur RF cameras such as Contax, Super Ikonta, Canon, Leica, Voigtlander (old and new), etc. Even press cameras like Crown Graphic. I think also we wish to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So include as well as those that resemble RF cameras but happen not to have any actual rangefinder mechanism, relying on scale focus.

These can all be termed "direct view" cameras, as the viewfinder gives a direct view of the scene without intervention of a ground glass or LCD. And in a somewhat imprecise way, direct view cameras are sometimes called rangefinder cameras too, just to distinguish them from reflexes. Anyway, that's what I think RF Forum is about, but then I could be off base. 🙂