Call for feedback

[nelsonfoto]

Am considering compressing forums a bit more.... would it aggravate you guys if I mashed SLRs & Rangefinders together, call it the Classics-To-Be?

Brainstormers welcomed.

[Julio1fer]

It would be all right with me. While you are at it, while not name it Equipment and include the Lenses forum also?

Good work with the Community Projects, great idea Mr Nelson!

[Conrad Hoffman]

Maybe call it 35mm Classics to Be? I don't have a strong feeling for some cutoff year for "classics", since anything that shoots film is or soon will be in that catagory. Also, lots of cameras had a long production run, putting some both pre and post, say, 1970. IMO, it's more in the mind of the owner as to whether he/she is shooting with a classic or modern camera.

[nelsonfoto]

Im with you. I want folks with niche interests to feel they have a roost, but I don't want the same sort of "you stay on your side of the tracks" stuff that I've encountered elsewhere - we're all goofy about photography, or well on our way to being goofed.

[Rockford]

Would a more natural division be Medium to Large then 35mm and Smaller regardless of camera type? Most never though an F100 autofocus whiz-bang would be a classics, but these cameras shoot film and that is classical these days.  I think autofocus/manual is a breakout equal to SLR vs. Rangefinders, though not many here shoot much autofocus (except for us Minolta AF2 owners.

Would it be in order to have a breakout forum on Flash including studio, on camera, built-in, fill, etc.  This forum could apply to any film or sensor size.

I agree with the idea that forums should not be too limiting.  It seems to me that the interest of the people on this forum flow in many different directions, but the headwaters is always the love of photography.  Sometimes that is tough to channel too precisely.

That said, I am easy to please, and the present forum is a model of efficiency when compared to many layouts.  Well done, Craig.

[Andre Reinders]

A few observations:
-I think it makes sense to classify cameras by type, like Rangefinder, SLR, large format, etc. I believe their unique operation is their most common factor.
-I suspect that many contributors here prefer 'older' cameras (in whatever way 'one' may define that).
-Does it matter if your camera was made in 1969 and has no automatic functions compared to a camera made in 1999 where you proceed to turn off all the automatic functions in order to take a photo?
- I don't think any forum can be all things to all people - it would be too big (look at PN and APUG). Craig, did you have a focus in mind when you started this? Have you developed one since?
- Another way to categorize is equipment discussion vs. photosharing.
- To say anything shooting film is a classic may not be far from the truth - but I am not sure I agree (I do participate on another forum where there are lots of D70 and Digtal Rebel owners - it is amazing the number who have never shot a film camera - you should see how often questions come up about 'what is ISO?' :shock: ). This definition is unique to each individual. I am in my early 30's - and I consider my Nikkormat FT-2 made in '75 ( a few years after I was born)  a classic. All manual except for the light meter. To some, the light meter may be the item that makes it 'not' a classic.

Thanks for asking for suggestions, but I think it should really stem from what you want from the site, Craig.

That being said, I have a modern SLR, an older SLR, and a early TLR. I also just started developing my own film at home. So, anything that reflect these subjects would interest me.

[Graham Serretta]

No problem to me if you combine SLR & Rangefinder - maybe (for now)  re-define Classics as anything that does not have an integral motorised film advance.

[Mike Kovacs]

I agree with Rockford.

I think a separate classics forum is critical to those of us that have migrated from the photo.net classics board.  Here we also tend to discuss a lot of repair-related issues, in which there is a big difference from modern electronic cameras which are generally relying on the throw-away approach or requiring specialized diagnostic equipment available only to the warranty shops.

[OleTj]

I started thinking about this, and merely found out that it's not quite that simple.

For instance the difference between MF and LF is big - bigger than between rangefinders and MF folders. It's not just the size, it's the extra movements and possibilities with LF as well as the "slowness" of shooting.

So I for one would be happier to have MF lumped with TF (Tiny Format = 35mm).

And what's a "classic" anyway? One possible definition could be "no batteries needed" - which would include LF, even the brand new ones. But to me part of the joy of using classics is the lack of battery-dependence! As long as you have film and light, you're set to go.

It looks like I'm in favour of "splitting", not "lumping".  :?

[sandeha]

I find myself in agreement with the logic of several posters (Ole, Rockford), yet at base I'm happy with the SLR/Rangefinder division with the Lenses excepted and separate.  However, looking at the numbers of posts, it seems to me that the Lens Forum is not really earning its mileage.

If you need to compress, I guess the numbers must come into it.  Currently, the Classics demand a stand-alone area (whatever the precision of the criteria - Kovacs' point about repairs stands way high).  Medium and Large formats have little in common bar the relatively small number of users.  The Digital Dharma is another low count, though what could it meld with?

I think you have it right just as is, but if something has to go I'd say the Lens area.

[Mike Kovacs]

LF is definitely special, though I think that Craig is on the right track doing some merging, whatever his final decision.  I think a forum needs a critical amount of participation each day to keep the momentum going.

My gripe is that quite often I find info I expect to see in the classic forum when I do the odd check in SLR/rangefinder/bigger is better forums, e.g. Dean Williams work with my old Kiev 4A.

[Tom Hildreth]

After being apprehended, handcuffed and subjected to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test not once, but a few times in my life I can tell you I like things in neat little cubby holes with few surprises.

So I like the direction in which you were going, with a growing, rather than shrinking list of forums. I used my 135mm lens recently and knew I was going to post the results in Lens Talk. To me, there is a huge gulf between a 1965 rangefinder and a 1995 autofocus SLR, though they both may be film cameras.

It's easy for me to think the Shurflash project will be right at home under Community projects forum. Do you agree?

My input so far, Dears.

[nelsonfoto]

Keep it coming guys.... busy with family, school, static brain firing, but I'm watching and reading.

[nelsonfoto]

Ok, I will be doing a little tweaking as time permits.

[Alan Gage]

I don't have a problem with how any of the forums are grouped/arranged; but the "sticky" posts can get a bit annoying when there's more then a couple. I see the "Shurflash project" has been moved into "Community projects" and all the Shurflash posts have been made sticky. So now when you go into the forum you have to scroll down through the entire screen to get to any new posts. It would be nice if there were only one or two per forum, they don't seem so intrusive that way.

I don't have any great ideas on somewhere else to put some of the excess sticky posts...just something to think about.

Alan