Too Many Posts On SLRs?? Have Things Changed?

perhaps there should be a separate sub-forum for the for the purists, the Real RFF or the Provisional RFF, they could get some RFF balaclavas made, like the baseball caps, to raise funds for the struggle

:angel:
 
Ruben,

I couldn't care less about the color of yours, mine, or anyone else's underwear, or how anyone uses specific photographic equipment. I am not trying to hide any secret intention of my original post. I am just curious as how people feel here with all the recent threads and posts on SLRs. As i said, a lot of us own and use cameras that are not rangefinders. This site, as the titled says is " Rangefinder Forum ", and we all came here due to our interest, love, dicussion, and use of these specific cameras. I am not trying to prevent change of any kind. As far as I am concerned change is a wonderful thing. I am just wondering if this site is moving into a different direction, and if it is, so be it. This site is a reflection of its users and a place for open honest discussion. If you want to get angry and make a joke of my post by changing the arrangement of my RFF ID, knock yourself out. My real name is in full view under my post. In case you can't read, it's Keith.

Oh yes, I never suggested anyone be banned.

Shalom,

Keith
 
Last edited:
ok now that I have read all of this and had a good laugh at a lot of it. All i have to say is..... "WHAT"

A camera is a tool. If i choose to use the right tool for the job then my job is easier. SLR, RF, TLR, what have you, so be it. If a person or persons wants to try and impose a restriction on the type of "TOOL" i use well that is just absurd and ignorant on their part. I use all of my cameras to achieve one goal...... to make beautiful photos.

If a photo can't or won't be appreciated because it was not created by a certain type of "TOOL" then the person judeing it is too arrogant and ignorant to be of concern.

Yes, this may very well be the RFF, and it is by all means more RF orientated, what harm is a little sub form going to have. It could be very helpfull in my mind. I just may learn something too, ANd that in my book is a good thing to be able to do.
 
Finder said:
No, they don't. No wonder there is confusion.
Click to expand...

Oh my! How dare I post such a nonsense! No wonder I am not a genius! :eek:

wedgekf5.jpg
 
Finder said:
Well, everyone knows that it is the equipment that defines photography. That is why talent is marginal if you have great gear. And I completely agree with purging non-rangefinder images. All images taken with the following equipment should be deleted:

Holgas
Viewfinder folding cameras
Lomos and other plastic cameras
Widelux, Noblex, Horseman, Linholf panoramic cameras
Brooks Veriwide
Alpa
Viewcameras without rangefinders
Bessa L
Zeiss Icon super-wide body
Rollei, Yashica, and Mamiya TLRs

In short, if it does not have a focusing mechanism that works by determining object distance by triangulation, the results from those cameras must be deleted. We should have simply two catagories - mechanical rangefinders and electronic rangefinders...
Click to expand...

& anything taken with a Visoflex

David
 
I shoot both Rangefinder and SLR but I post only photos from my leica M3, Contax IIIa, Canonet and Kiev III here. If people want to see my SLR output I have a massive account over at Flickr.

Bill
 
Don't care about the SLR threads as they can be easily ignored, but the gallery should mainly be for RF photos...isn't that RFF's raison d'etre? When I view the gallery I want to see and learn about what I can attain with an RF, afterall, that's why I'm here. Otherwise I'd be on a general photo forum.....
Perhaps non-RF photos could be identified as such so one doesn't have to wait for it to load before finding out it's not an RF shot.
I am guilty of a few visoflex shots myself, but they're so damn hard to use I assumed an exemption was in order.....
 
mikeh said:
............When I view the gallery I want to see and learn about what I can attain with an RF..............
Click to expand...

if this is what you see at RFF gallery, or whenever looking at photographic images, well amigo... Vaya con Dios.


Cheers
Ruben

Although i seriously doubt even him can be of help in your quest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Ruben, sorry I didn't see this post addressed to me until today.

I too regard you as a friend (funny forum this RFF is in this regard :)). Moreover, you and I both loves OMs and Kievs. So I don't want you to read me wrong.

Please take a moment to see my previous posts to at least get the pattern of my thinking. I am one of the staunchest supporter to get the now called Evil SLR sub-forum going. I am so glad that Steven decided it's a good idea and implemented it. And I've been active in that forum since with my OM rants (what else? :rolleyes:)

However, as someone put so aptly in a prior post, this is the RangefinderForum. Not a sect or religion, but a forum with an identity.

And in my mind, a Gallery that showcases the member's work/master-pieces is closely tied to what the forum stands for. Well, this forum is not called "All Photography" or "Nice Photogs" is it? it's again called RangefinderForum.

So, the gallery should be mainly populated by shots by Rangefinder cameras.

As I stated in my previous post, shots from an RF camera will be different than those from an SLR because of the different style, techniques, and limitations.

It's not "weak" or "purist" to put a boundary that will challenge our creativity and spur a more focused learning experience. Don't you agree?

I will give that a separate sub-gallery that is specifically designated for non-RF camera shots may be OK, even useful, but not required. Why? because I can go look at 100 other galleries on the internet and see SLR shots. But not all of them have the sizeable RF shots like we have here (or maybe on the Leica forum where I don't feel worthy to tie some of their shoelaces of the people over there ... yeah, right :rolleyes:)

Forgive my usage of the word "pollute", I don't mean that the SLR shots are "pollutant", rather, out of context. I am as proud of my SLR shots (as lame as they are) as my RF shots (even lamer).

As for giving my all to embrace new comers, I think I've done that, at least I tried, I used to be a newcomer myself not too long ago.

Finally, thanks for the heartfelt "letter" to me, if we must disagree, at least it shouldn't be based on misunderstanding.

Cheers,
Will



ruben said:
Will, I feel you as a friend, so I will speak to you more from my heart, than from my brains.

I simply don't get what is really annoying you so much, leading you and other members to propose measures of force, restriction, "discipline" or plain censorship. You have went so far as to use the word "pollution", refering to images, photographic images Will, PICTURES !

The feeling you transmit to me is that you have in front of your eyes a kind of coup de etat or conspiracy to take over RFF, and I frankly don't get it. So there has been lately an Olympus OM festival, but it was just that. What is causing such feelings leading you and other members to go so extreme ?

And from the depht of both my heart and mind, I cannot get why do you and supporters of the same views, feel so weak ? Who is preventing you and your alike thinkers in this case, from taking wise initiatives of opening threads attracting high broad attention ? you are not a man lacking ideas nor opinions.

Therefore if you feel RFF is sliding out of its healthy path, why not competing for the interest of the audience, instead of calling for measures of force ? I simply don't get it, believe me.

I happen to love my OMs, I am ready to sing them prize, but from a certain point in my life i couldn't stand anymore that mirror flap in my face and ears, and that's the end of the story. One day, if i travel overseas and go for postcard type of images, instead of street type, i will take my oms with their teles and will be happy to post the images here, in a separate sub-galllery if you want. But where is the desperation.?

If you read my previous post at this thread, you will hear me quite harsh, but from a totally different angle. If RFF starts to adopt measures of force to remain "pure" then we are becoming a religious sect, maintaining its identity by forcefull isolation.

What about maintaining our identity by open competition ? By example ? by gathering interest where interest is ? Why do you feel debacled in a struggle that hasn't even taken place ?

Since I joined RFF I have been shooting rf exclusively, i am your ally, not your enemy. And what if for some weeks some folks me included went to jocke and exaggerate our adulations for the oms ? Is this an earthquake ?

There are a lot of newcomers asking questions about RFs every day. Give them your heart, your attention, answer them with utmost patience, and you will be achieving our common goal in the most effective way. There is nothing more refreshing and live that being in contact with young people. And these young people flocking RFF are expecting it from you.

So what are we going to show them ? the police stick, or the years of photographic experience we have gathered and they want us to tell ?

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
 
@ Ruben/Ruben Bitterman, Philipp/RXMD/may contain traces of nut, Finder/genius etc... I think it's a sign of the times that my "complete comments" are taken out of context. My points were
• this is a rangefinder website
• Keith had noted a surge in SLR posts and images
• I have other cameras however I discuss rangefinder based ideas here not SLR, ideas ie: I have a TLR and folder etc but my focus is rangefinders at this forum simply because that is its intended purpose and I try and abide by that.
• Like I noted in my earlier post, I can't tell a RF image from an SLR image on the net.

My points weren't
• ban people
• ban threads
• SLRS are evil
• delete all references to other cameras, scanners, film etc..
I don't appreciate juxtaposing my words with your personal editorials. Do it to some other member of RFF not me please. I’ve never said a thing to date at RFF about SLR posts and still won’t. Yes I can decide not to read the posts and yes I do make my own decisions. How hard is it for you to figure that out when you have to spell it out for others?

End of my involvement with this topic. Sheesh!

Best regards, Jan
 
Last edited:
mikeh said:
.............. I am guilty of a few visoflex shots myself, but they're so damn hard to use I assumed an exemption was in order.....
Click to expand...

if you are "guilty", then don't get away so easy by Public Confession. Perhaps if you digg for some middle ages punnishemnts you could bring us more trendy ideas.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
But what about the youngers gravitating towards film, but still unsure of what is what, and the differences between rf and slr ?
Click to expand...

How, may I ask, could they ever understand the difference between SLR and RFs without that difference being underlined? This place had the unique virtue of being about Range Finders. Not about film or homespun philosophy. If this is simply a general photography forum or a social club for those delighted with the sound of their own voice, fair enough - but that was certainly not the reason I came here.

This is not some sort of Luddite nonsense - the Royal Institute of Oil Painters doesn't show watercolours. The Royal Watercolour Society doesn't show oils. Artists may practice both, but they recognise and celibrate a profound difference between the forms. And no-one is the poorer - rather the opposite.

I completely agree with Jan and think Keith raised entirely valid concerns.


Cheers, Ian
 
Hi Will and Jan,

Showing the other side of your thoughts, makes a great difference for me in appreciating your previous posts.

Both of you have been right in feeling that you and others were leaving me the impression of supporting measures of force. And this impression, false as you remmark, quite pushed some red button in my head.

So as in so far of what really concerns me, we can all raise together a glass of beer again. I feel now a real desire to.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom