View Full Version : Gallery requirements.

MP Guy
08-26-2004, 21:17
Since this is a Rangefinder site, its obvious that the work displayed in the gallery should be mainly from rangefinder cameras. However, the qaddition of a non rf gallery has sparked the following question which could be best answered by the poll.

Rich Silfver
08-26-2004, 21:25
Personally I think the occasional Olympus Stylus Epic photo, SLR photo, etc is quite alright and it seems to be pretty well self-controlled. What I personally is objecting to is establishing a dedicated non-RF gallery.

back alley
08-26-2004, 21:29
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.


what i found attractive about this place from the beginning was that it was about rangefinders only. i only use rangefinders and that's by choice so this was a natural fit for me.
there are a ton of other photo sites out there for the slr people to enjoy.
my fear? it's like all the photo mags now, there is always an article on digital in there, no matter that the mag has a sister publication dedicated to digital.

will this forum eventually become just another site dedicated to 'photography' and not just rangefinder photography?

and please believe me, this is not directed to anyone in particular or their camera.

MP Guy
08-26-2004, 21:32
Never, unless someone offers me 100 meeeelion dollars to do so. This will stay a RF camera site only.

back alley
08-26-2004, 21:34
very cool!

08-26-2004, 21:34
I agree with the above. We are different from others in our choice of tools (RF) for making images. An addition of SLR gallery may dilute the unique character of this website. Furthermore, there might more SLR photos in the future as I suspect there are more SLR photos being made than RF's nowadays.

Rich Silfver
08-26-2004, 21:35
..now if we could just rename this place the Leicumpus RF Forum the way God intended all would be well.

Great post by the way Joe and I fully agree with what your Canon P lusting fingers wrote ;)

08-26-2004, 21:38
it's true that the strength--the attraction--of this forum is it's RF orientation. it attracts RF enthusiasts, and it's the *people* that make it unique, not necessarily the images.

and since there is wide agreement that while we all love RF's, they are not the right tool for every situation, it seems like a great idea to have a separate gallery for non-RF images.

my $.02

08-26-2004, 23:46
I guess as a newbie to RF and as someone who has only posted non-RF photos I should contribute my views.

I agree that there are many other forums to participate in for non-rf matters and that this forum is special precisely for its specialisation (heh oxymoron). I think a separate non-RF gallery will eventually lead to more discussions on non-RF issues which would eventually lead to dilution of the forum's main aim.

I suggest either trying it out for a while as a trial to see what happens, or better yet, do away with the non-RF gallery BUT don't disallow non-RF photos. I think it should be left to each member's discretion and also self discipline to not swamp the board with non-RF photos. sometimes we may have lots of RF photos but happen to catch a nice non-RF photo or two that we wish to share, and this should be allowed. or sometimes newbies like me would like to share but have no RF photos yet to share.

08-27-2004, 02:15
So far, I only have 2 - 3 rf photos I consider worthy of "sharing" but I do understand the idea of this site and I will never initiate a non-rf discussion; moreover, if that's the idea, i will delete the tlr and slr -made photos I uploaded, with no hard feelings:). After all, this site is a great "service" offered to me/us for free, and i enjoy it more and more.

Even if i agree with "the resulting picture is what matters" idea, this is a site dedicated to rangefinder cameras first of all, and not to sharing favourite images. The latter is only a successful side-effect;)

So, i think the one(s) with more authority (than myself) should decide on this...

Have a great light today!

08-27-2004, 02:28
I'd like it to stay just RF stuff, thats why I'm here.

08-27-2004, 03:05
I actually voted with my first thought, yes. That being said, I agree 100% with Joe's and the other's, I am here, well because it is a nice place, but, to discuss RFF photography. I like that focus, and it now makes up 98% of my photography. Like Richard mentioned, there is no rules against members posting some non RF images, and there shouldn't be. A gallery for them would just be a place for them to be "hung," nothing more.

08-27-2004, 03:30
I agree with several of the posts that the reason we're here is for RF photography. I certainly don't mind seeing a few RF-style images created with other kinds of cameras but I'm uncomfortable with a dedicated non-RF gallery.

Members have been discreet in the number of non-RF images they've posted but a dedicated gallery may give the impression that 'anything goes'.

I vote we remove the gallery and rely on members to continue to use discretion in posting a few non-RF images.

BTW, I have lots of sympathy for TLR shooters. TLR's are a lot like rangefinders in some ways, especially when used for street photography. I personally have no objection to seeing TLR street images. I think RF's and TLR's are close cousins.


08-27-2004, 04:38
Gene...you should have sympathy for TLR shooters indeed... you have a rolleiflex! ;)

08-27-2004, 05:20
Originally posted by Pherdinand
Gene...you should have sympathy for TLR shooters indeed... you have a rolleiflex! ;)
Quite true ... and I never know where to post Rollei shots ...


08-27-2004, 05:27
As I said yesterday, I posted an image in the "Non-RF" gallery yesterday (and it was from a DSLR, yes "DIGITAL" :eek: ), didn't feel right. I don't want to get into the efficacy of what camera type or format to post int the gallery but I'm gonna continue to post my images with my RF's and leave the other types for other sites.
Maybe the solution would be to start a sister site or reformat the gallery in such a way that you have a choice of RF or Non-RF upon loging in, of course I speak from the level of neophite when it comes to website construction and maintenance.


08-27-2004, 06:17
No, there are tons of other forums to post SLR and digicam photos. If it ain't shot with a RF, post it elsewhere - unless there is a picture of a RF in the photo :D

The last thing I want to see on _this_ forum is another macro shot of a bee or 900mm telephoto shot of the freaking moon.

BTW, should I remove my Olympus Trip 35 photo? It is not technically a rangefinder - you "focus" by setting the focus ring to "person", "people", "trees" or "mountains".


Nikon Bob
08-27-2004, 08:51
I voted no because this is a rangefinder site and not a general photography site but I could turn a blind eye to TLR shots. I am here because I am beginning to be interested in Rangefinders not SLRs or DSLRs.

MP Guy
08-27-2004, 09:26
Well ,

At this rate the non rf gallery will be history by the end of the week. The poll speaks for itself.

08-27-2004, 09:28
hey that's a very interesting pt raised. are TLRs considered RFs? cuz they focus in pretty much the same manner. plus they are pretty much the same in terms of niche appeal and loyal followers.

08-27-2004, 12:08
Originally posted by Jorge Torralba
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
08-27-2004, 12:16

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.

08-27-2004, 12:20
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.

08-27-2004, 13:24
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?

08-27-2004, 13:55
"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.


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

08-27-2004, 20:35
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
08-27-2004, 20:48
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.


08-27-2004, 20:52
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.

08-28-2004, 15:12
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...

Brian Sweeney
08-29-2004, 14:43
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
08-29-2004, 14:53
are you saying i'm a fanatic because i only use rangefinder cameras?


Brian Sweeney
08-30-2004, 02:08
"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."


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.

09-04-2004, 05:16
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
09-04-2004, 10:10

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
09-04-2004, 10:17
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.


09-05-2004, 19:22
The folks over at contaxg.com have a unique solution.

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

I smile when I post.


09-27-2004, 18:09
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

09-27-2004, 18:23
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?


09-27-2004, 18:27
Originally posted by Brian Sweeney

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.

:D that's hilarious! ooh dry wit!! ;)

09-27-2004, 20:13
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. :-)

09-27-2004, 20:52
I guess I lean toward keeping the SLR shots in a separate gallery. That keeps everyone who just wants rangefinder shots here happy, and the those who want to share their SLR/digital shots here too.

09-28-2004, 04:24
Thanks Doug, for the reassurance. Its kind of what I had assumed all along, but wasn't sure after I ran across this poll.

09-28-2004, 05:07
I enjoy the technical concentration on RF cameras and the collective expertise. Excellent! I like the cameraderie....... and the general style of photography you guys produce. But that makes me think I want to see whatever you guys are taking pictures of, even though it be with an SLR. Or a pinhole. Or whatever. I don't want to see amazing close-ups of a tiny bird, but I suppose the mutual indulgence should extend to your odd hummingbird or whatever. I doubt anyone's going to be lining up to put their powerful telephoto shots on here. I feel safe.


09-28-2004, 06:34
Being relatively new to RFF, I have to say that I gravitated here because it was a rangefinder website and found it easier to view and navigate than the contaxg site. I also use a Nikon F5 and have used MF, but feel that there are plenty of other places on the web to discuss, display, and feature that kind of gear.

I display images on a few other sites, but the G2 and M6 are relatively ignored in those mostly-digital places. It's always a pleasure to come back here, knowing the images I view have had lots of thought put into them, unlike many of the digital and SLR machine-gun techniques obvious in some of the other places.

So, I don't know if a final decision has been made, but my vote would be to keep this totally rangefinder.