Moderators exist so that they can mark off-topic or delete remarks of the "it's easier in Photoshop" kind, whether in APUG or in APUG - Gray zone. I don't think I was in APUG at the time of the Gray Area. For what I gather the problem was the moderation, not as energetic as necessary to keep off-topic topics really off.
"It's easier in Photoshop" threads could be "legitimately" moved to DPUG and APUG be kept free from digital topics, as it should.
I suggest a second attempt with clear rules, strict moderation, and where appropriate blunt deleting of posts by moderators, with an effective "holy inquisition" attitude . Throwing the dirty water and keeping the baby.
So you volunteer to pay for the moderators' time?
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
People think moderators are people who spend 24 hours a day reading every post that flows through a forum,
with no life and nothing better to do with their time.
Moderators are people with many demands on their time, the forum not being #1 for the vast majority of them.
I'm a moderator on another board, with about the same level of activity. I spend a couple of hours a day there,
along with several other mods, just to keep the thing running smoothly.
I feel quite strongly that your suggestion is a selfish intrusion on other peoples' lives. You owe us an apology.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato
From the tone of your answer, I only own you an insult.
Originally Posted by Leigh B
And I do offer my moderator time, if and until I can. I've been moderator in the past in my life and, after all, I often read APUG.
This has nothing to do with what I said in any case. Energetic moderation doesn't need more time or less time than more tolerant moderation, which ended up screwing the Gray Area section.
And the conversations which were supposed to go from APUG - Gray Area to DPUG would have to be moderated in any case. For the same reason the entire DPUG (or the hybrid part) could be moved inside APUG without much change (probably some saving of time and money in dealing with only one site).
So stop this bullshit and try to contribute some thoughts instead of some personal attacks.
Indeed, anything that requires a ruthless moderation policy takes more time than the moderators have, which is why we've tried to make the site more and more self-moderating as its grown (e.g., by creating off-topic areas, so that political discussions don't erupt so often as they used to in the main forums), and by making the rules clearer as the limits have evolved. We used to do a lot of editing of individual posts, deleting of posts and such, and fortunately, we haven't had to do so much of that in recent years.
If we had the resources for stricter moderation, we could do it, but I'm not so sure we want the kind of forum where there is a constant, visible police presence. Part of the APUG ethos is that we don't have to have strong moderator interventions so often, and people don't feel like they might be subject to the arbitrary rule of the moderators at any moment. We've occasionally seen exoduses of users from other forums washing up on APUG for this reason, and then it becomes our task to keep the problems of the other forum from manifesting themselves here. Relatively few people have been banned from APUG (aside from spammers, who are banned constantly--a bigger moderation task than most people realize).
As to why a stricter moderation policy takes more time--
When people are testing the limits of the rules of a site, in many cases they aren't going to be content to have their off-topic posts deleted without question. So there are numerous PMs or e-mails that the general users don't see. They might start a new thread about the moderation policy, and that has to be moderated. Occasionally moderators have gotten phone calls at home about forum issues. Then if someone gets too aggressive, we have to think about what measures to take or whether the person should be banned, and that involves some discussion with the APUG Member Council and a consensus of the moderation team. And then if we ban someone particularly aggressive, we may spend weeks deleting their new fake accounts as they try to re-register to the forum under various aliases and through anonymizers, each one involving a certain amount of internet detective work on our parts to track their IP's and sometimes physical locations to figure out whether the accounts are legitimate or not, or whether the banned member is working in cahoots with someone else on the forum.
The more the moderators have to intervene in the forum, the more of this stuff we have to do behind the scenes.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
So easy to get off topic once the battle of APUG vs DPUG begins. I do not envy the job of ANY forum moderator, as internet communities are full of funny people with huge egos and sometimes way too much time on their hands.
Back to the thread's original topic...
Ken and Fabrizio have made good points. A silver gelatin print from an enlarged negative is not the same as one from an enlarged/scanned negative that is printed on an inkjet printer. The question is, aside from the artists, does anyone else care and does it matter? It really all comes down to a personal choice, as far as how we arrive to the end result, which is in this case, a fine wet print. First and foremost, without a good image, any argument is futile. The image itself holds the key, content, the ability or failure to arouse a viewer's interest over a long period of time. A beautiful print of a mediocre image is still mediocre, but we all already know that. As a buyer, if I am presented with a beautiful image that is perfectly printed by analogue means, with any process, I could care less whether it was enlarged negative, digital negative, positive, or mega-plus-ultra large format contact print. No gallery I have ever dealt with has asked those questions either. We are at a point where it doesn't really matter, from a quality standpoint or means to an end. It is simply a matter of personal choices and what makes us feel good. In the case of alternative processes, once again, digital negatives are now more of a necessity than a choice, so any practitioner should (and does, I'm sure) feel extremely lucky that there is some technology that allows these processes to continue which would have otherwise faced certain death without people like Jon Cone, Roy Harrington, Ron Reeder, Dan Burkholder, Mark Nelson, Paul Taylor, Sandy King and few others. This is the reality of it, whether one likes it or not or doesn't want to hear it here on APUG.
Now, some topics, which bridge analogue and digital (hybrid) should be discussed here, within reason (just like we are doing now, in a civilized manner), because I think there is a long term benefit. We are at a juncture where film, paper, chemicals, etc, can survive if more people see this bridge from a constructive and positive standpoint, which can lead one to make good art. Film, scanning, making digital negatives, promoting the craft of wet printing, especially through alternative processes, brings more people to nourish the art and support suppliers and practitioners at every end of the business. Youngsters that want to get their feet wet but don't want a full blown darkroom can still make beautiful platinum prints, from film, and the sun. Or again, making copper plate photogravure, which would otherwise be impossible to achieve today without a sprinkle of digital. For teachers, this is an incredible opportunity to keep film and the art of the print alive. Pushing this aside and not discuss it or promote it, doesn't even serve the hardcore purists well, as it will only speed up the demise of the little we have left today.
Last edited by MaximusM3; 07-21-2012 at 08:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I joined around the 11-13 thousand member period and as a long time member and contributer to this site I would like to see this happen.
Originally Posted by Sean
I'm all for linking the sites to make it easier for APUG users to access DPUG without having to register separately on both sites. I think that is one of the main obstacles currently.
It would also be good if we could easily move threads between the sites. Right now that can only be done manually by copying and pasting text, so we don't do it in general, since not all the participants of any given thread on APUG will be registered on DPUG, and it would be too complicated to move attachments and such. It's easier just to post a link in one thread to another, but that doesn't always get the conversation to migrate, because people don't want to register for a new site, if they're not already there.
I think I agree with Ken.
I do get hired to print on my enlargers images that would have historically been printed on silver paper.
this is not uncommon and those who get it ,, want it,,
Actually this is one of the main reasons I still have a fully functional silver lab with enlargers that can handle 35 mm to 11 x14 so that those who care can still get prints on silver via an enlarger.
For those younger printers here that are thinking of printing for others.. REMEMBER THIS... before digital capture there were 1000killionbillionmillion exposures on film that still have not been printed
THINK ABOUT IT... Lock and load a freezer of paper when it becomes necessary and for hundreds to thousands of miles around you will be sought out by people who care to have their old negatives,or the negatives their mother and fathers , grandparents, negatives printed in a style as originally done... Not enough money to become a millionare/billionare but certainly enough to live a nice life... We should thank the internet for this as the world has shrunk and the best printers will survive.
I think this is one of the most underrated aspects of the digital wave and how it has affected us passionate about photography.
In 1980 my friend John Bentley would say that there were too many lousy photographers out there, digital has not helped in this matter. Status Quo
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Back in the heyday of film and printing, I hated negatives from Cannon and Nikon, give me a Leica, Contex, Fuji 6x9 negative any day of the week.
I am not sure what optic improvements Cannon and Nikon have done in 2001- 2012?
Originally Posted by Leigh B