Am I getting grumpy in middle age?

[lushd]

Very likely I am!

I've noticed more pictures than usual not taken on rangefinder cameras appearing in the gallery lately. I love looking at people's pictures but I would plead with all members to stick to the brief here. There are loads of places to post photos on the internet but only one RFF.

[Jocko]

I totally agree Donald. It seems to me that - conservatively - around 30% of recently posted pictures are non-RF. There are some galleries that don't contain a single RF image. It undermines the whole purpose of the forum.

Of the 64 most recently posted pictures, 21 were apparently taken with rangefinders.

Cheers, Ian

[DMG]

not middle aged but grumpy just the same I think the odd no RF here and there is OK but I do agree when the non RF outweighs the RF

[Robert Price]

I would not say that the non-RF photos "undermine" this great forum, More likely they add to the "flavor and aroma" of these forums. I could see where some one may be grumpy about purely captured digital photos being posted on the RFF.

But just look at it as putting seasoning on a steak. Sometimes it just tastes better that way.

[Jocko]

Originally Posted by Robert Price

But just look at it as putting seasoning on a steak. Sometimes it just tastes better that way.

Absolutely, but I'd rather not eat a plate of salt

Cheers, Ian

[schaubild]

I have posted some non rf images too, but normally only on request.

That's what I do with other non rf imaes: I look at them, but you'll never see any comment from me.

[lushd]

I have had a couple non-RF pictures in here at times. The attraction of RFF for me is the uniqueness of the means of picture making we all enjoy. I have frequently found the gallery inspiring and I am grateful for what I have learnt about how I can get the best out of my gear. If it's a place where the USP means nothing we might as well all be on Flickr. Actually quite a lot of us are.

[Keith]

I use digital images in posts ... usually a pic of a rangefinder though! I wouldn't feel right having them in my RFF gallery ... that's what flickr is for!

[aad]

I had 1 SLR and 1 digicam photo in my gallery, but I removed them. Many of my favorites are SLR, but hey-I figured this is RFF.

These days I've neglected gallery posts anyway unless someone requests an example.

[stesm]

I doubt that anyone here is posting exclusively non-rangefinder images, but many are posting only photos taken with a rangefinder. So be it. In the long run it is the images that matter most. I use SLRs, TLRs and a slew of rangefinders. When I had a gallery here I seperated the photos by method of capture. A member's gallery space is theirs to use as they see fit and as viewers we can choose to disregard those pictures as we see fit.
We gather here because of a common interest in a particular tool of photography, but it is all photography still.

[Robert Price]

Originally Posted by stesm

We gather here because of a common interest in a particular tool of photography, but it is all photography still.

WELL SAID!!

[Nebulon]

I enjoy browsing the gallery section here on RFF as much as I enjoy reading the stimulating discussions. The gallery is first, for me, a place of inspiration where I get new composition ideas. Occasionally, I love the "how did they do that?" reaction I feel. But mostly, I want to see the results of using a rangefinder camera with film. It is extremely informative to compare those images with other types of cameras, digital or otherwise. Considering the amount of GAS floating around here, I think that many, if not most members of this forum shoot with several different cameras. I'm no different. But I am here to get as deep into the world of RF as possible. All I ask of those posting in the gallery is full disclosure on the equipment used to make their images.

[Jocko]

Originally Posted by Nebulon

I am here to get as deep into the world of RF as possible. .

I agree absolutely, which is why this is not allphotographyforum.com

Rangefinder photography has a distinct ethos, heritage, aesthetic traditions and technical characteristics. The gallery has been an inspirational source - but its purpose - and the purpose of this forum - is surely as a showcase and nexus for the rangefinder camera and what we do with it. There have always been a sprinkling of non-RF pictures, which was all to the good, when done with restraint, but what function is served if, for example, people download a slew of digital SLR images, when we already have a sister DSLR forum? I am no rangefinder purist, but it seems to me that if one visits an Italian restaurant one does so in the knowledge that there will usually not be Chinese food. Protesting "it's all cooking" won't change the menu. If the gallery became a general posting ground for any image, the value of RFF as a global focus for rangefinder photography would inevitably be reduced and everyone ultimately lose out.

Cheers, Ian

[rpsawin]

Originally Posted by Robert Price

But just look at it as putting seasoning on a steak. Sometimes it just tastes better that way.

Sure, but it's just not the same if you ordered a nice fish dinner lol...I think that as long as te images are identified as rf, slr or tlr it should be fine.

Bob

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by endustry

Similar issues have occured with nearly every website I have followed over the years. The site starts out with a spefic focus that appeals to a particular branch of a hobby or art. A community forms. Over time, the site becomes more and more popular and the focus widens. People who liked it better when it provided unique perspective and focus complain that it is no longer as useful. Others embrace the broadening of focus. Ultimately it's a stalemate with traditonalists on one side, accomodating types on the other, and various shades of gray in between.

I personally don't see the *need* for non RF images here. As others have mentioned there are numerous outlets on the web for exposing one's work to the masses no matter what format one uses. RFF is unique and I don't see why that should be compromised for the sake of being accomodating.

I was a member of a really fun and interesting group on Flickr dedicated to urban photography. As membership grew, more and more flower macros began showing up in the pool. When challenged, posters said, "Well, I live in a city and this flower is in my front yard so therefor it is an urban photo." While semantically correct, the images added nothing aestheticlly to what was previously a great expose on a variety of urban landscapes suchs as industrial wastelands, traffic jams, skyscrapers, alleys, street people, street life, human density, concrete, steel, smog and the like. Once it was decided that the flowers could stay, a precendent was created that then led to people including photos of their bathrooms, coffee cups sitting on their dining room tables, etc. As with the flowers, it was argued that these objects were within the boundary of a city and so they counted, too. Long story short, the group began to fall apart and last time I checked, seems to have lost its focus entirely.

People want to be liked. People want to be friendly. People want to be accomodating. People prefer not to mix many rules in with their hobbies and escapes. While generalizations, these concepts are more true than not. While I value consorting with people who agree with these generalizations, I do feel there is *sometimes* a need for rules in some situations and that *sometimes* it is better to be narrowminded than free and easy. Nonetheless, here is a possible solution to appease all sides:

If RFF had a gallery for images taken with RF cameras and one for "other" then there would be clear bounds for policing. Individual users could individually choose to view ALL galleries mixed together, ONLY the RF gallery or ONLY other. This way, folks who feel that the final result is all that matters can bask in the diversity of contributions. Likewise, those who feel that an RF dramatically contributes to the specific look and feel of images and only wish to see those, can simply ignore everything else. In other words, introduce optional technological filters into the site so that individual preferences can surcumvent a needless global compromise.

Well said.

[back alley]

there is a section for 'other' photos in the gallery now.
one needs to be a 'premium' member to access it, so maybe for those who want to to post more than rf pics, they need to join the ranks of the premium membership.

joe

[DavidH]

Originally Posted by Jocko

Rangefinder photography has a distinct ethos, heritage, aesthetic traditions and technical characteristics. The gallery has been an inspirational source - but its purpose - and the purpose of this forum - is surely as a showcase and nexus for the rangefinder camera and what we do with it.

Well said. Being careful to pick my words here because I'm fairly new and don't want to cause offence...but I visit primarily to be inspired by rangefinder shots - the gallery is easily the best source of inspirational rangefinder photography I've found on the net - or in any book come to that. The gallery here is so good because the photographers are so good...and it shows what CAN be done with a rf camera. I particularly like it when details of lens and film are posted so I can see what ingredients went in to create the shot...

There are plenty of active forums around for those with slr/dslr cameras - especially the Nikon range - go see nikonians.com, with its array of forums for every type of shooting - as long as it's Nikon based. (Just don't criticise Nikon in any way ) I've heard that fredmiranda.com has a bunch of forums for Canon and others as well...

I shoot wildllife, science and extreme macro with my SLR rigs - and have a very satisfying collection...but they're of no use here because they weren't shot on a rf and so can't really add to the conversation.

"Being grumpy?" No, I don't think so - Jocko summed it up above...

Rangefinders are a niche market...we don't need to actively help in burying rf even further into the general photography noise level.

David

[stesm]

To me, the difference between a photo taken with a rangefinder and one taken with an SLR is no greater than that difference between one taken with a highly automated digital M8 and one taken with an old Zorki. Maybe we can get a gallery view option to eliminate all digital images, too.

[schaubild]

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but: why do some people drown the gallery with their images? Actual count of a poster:19 images. How can you expect a serious feedback when posting this quantity? Wouldn't it be better to think about quality first?

Sorry for the rant, but it had to come out

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by endustry

<snip> (...) As membership grew, more and more flower macros began showing up in the pool. When challenged, posters said, "Well, I live in a city and this flower is in my front yard so therefor it is an urban photo."

<snip>

I do feel there is *sometimes* a need for rules in some situations and that *sometimes* it is better to be narrowminded than free and easy.

(...)

Hear, hear! You know, this is the Internet, so why not start posting PHP code in the gallery? As long as it makes images, right?

I hate... ::cough:: ... I detest ... no, damn it, I hate broad short-circuits in logic like that which impose on the others and dilute a community. You can't argue with those people. I think they're people, haven't quite figured out if they're some virus let loose by The Illuminati.

[Gabriel M.A.]

To clarify (because I can now predict a flaming bag of poop in my PM inbox): I'm talking about endustry's experience and, and being grumpy about it. Breathe into the bag before you think of filling it up. Tx

[raid]

Many of my posted images, maybe most, are from RF cameras.I have a few images posted that were taken with a TLR and some older photos taken with an SLR. To me, photography is most important and not the camera used. Still, I try to concentrate on RF images.

Raid

[Nick R.]

But I wouldn't want to exclude pics taken with cameras that are not rf's but get talked about and used by a lot of RF'ers. Ones such as the Hexar AF and Petri color35, or the truly unique Soviet FT-2, and those wonderful brownie 120 conversions; even some digi P&S's like the Ricoh GRD belong. Anyone eccentric enough to be using a film RF in this day and age has to love those cameras.

[FrankS]

And Rollei 35's and TLR's.

[raid]

Frank: No camera type should be excluded. Rangefinder cameras are cameras after all and not some magical photo making machines that must be exclusive. I take as good/bad photos with either type of cameras (RF and SLR).

Raid