I was never cut out in my younger years for the hardships of international photojournalism. Anyway I am humbled by the story of Rena Effendi.
The comforts of capitalism kept me confined to the cozy 48 contiguous states.
My kids are nearly grown, and while I don't feel the need to cover anything on another continent, there is plenty here and in this hemisphere that needs a light shown on.
Too many photo-turkeys here on APUG worried about what to photograph with, what film to use. Women like Rena Effendi took the nearest tool available in the budget they had, and got to work.
Enough talk... more work.
I think if you have 200 posts on APUG and no work posted you should go away... I don't really mean that but I am puzzled with people with 1000's of posts and not one photo to show for it.
Ok flame me now. <<< this originally a cheeky admonishment to myself that this post should not be taken too seriously, flame away if you need, but don't hate>>>
Cheers from my corner of the planet... (and I am now working on a self funded, and soliciting other social projects).
I guess I'd defend those of us without posted images by pointing out just because one doesn't post to the APUG gallery doesn't mean he has no photographs. That is the same sort of silly thing as when someone occasionally chimes in on a technical discussion to proclaim a finer grained film doesn't make a finer picture. Pearls of wisdom.
I've said many times an interest in technique, materials etc. in no way precludes the making of great photographs, nor does a lack of such interest necessarily lead to the making of great photographs.
I agree that it's wonderful to see the work here and I'd love to see more. But I'm sure that there are others like me who participate in discussions, but have a specific reason for not posting photos. You see, the analog process for me ends when the film comes out of the tank. I don't print, though I'd like to someday. When my film is dry I cut and scan, and while I do stay very close to what can be done in the darkroom, I still feel that I'm probably outside APUG's ideals for posting. So I don't post out of respect for the beginning-to-end analog workflow that is the purpose of this site. BUT - the discussions about film, camera work, theory, equipment, events, classifieds, etc.... that stuff can't be had anywhere else (including DPUG). In APUG's FAQ area it says that the site was founded because people were tired of searching through digital forums for relevant info, and I still feel their pain 10 years later. So there's one reason for being part of the discussion without posting images, I'm sure you'll hear more, and I doubt any of us believe we "should go away".
Harsh professor in me.... if you haven't printed but plan to you better start printing now! Making negatives to print with vs scan with are two different places. Printing is much less forgiving. Everyone who posts here has to go d-pug sort of unless we mail prints around.
Originally Posted by whowantstoast
I'm not buying that if someone has 1000+ things to say that they can't show a few examples of their work.
whowwantstoast... I'll give you a pass... only 24 posts.
Micheal R. I dunno what is the point of being here if you aren't fully immersed (my opinion). EVERY professor I studied under showed their work to the class at some point. I see APUG as a great place to exchange ideas... I like to poke around the gallery for 10 minutes in the morning while sipping coffee. And that is why I posted more prints last month, and will try to put up something new again by summer.
The main thing I am pointing out (which seems to be missed) is so many people sign up here as "passionate about photography and traditional workflow" but just talk and ask about which is better etc. I was/am pointing out that there are so many that have made huge contributions to the visual canon that have not or never will give much a care about what machines they use to create this work. I will argue that even HBC used his fist Leica's out of convenience that they were there and the best he could afford at the time... (late 30's early 40's) Japanese camera copies were a good 5-10 years out... this is the main reason Leica and Rollie are vaunted, but in reality they "legends" were made mostly because they were just about the only reliable tools around. Same goes for Hasselblad,.. they went to orbit... then to the moon (why switch what you know -- same goes for HBC in the 1950's and 1960's...), and the Japanese equivalents weren't on the table yet it was the early 1960's and 1970's... .... and that comes round to my OP ad folks like Vivian.
See, that's just it. I don't need a snarky "pass" from you, and neither does anyone else. And I don't actually care what you think of my process. You said yourself that "Women like Rena Effendi took the nearest tool available in the budget they had, and got to work." That's exactly what I'm doing. APUG says that "This site is mainly focused on community discussions and information regarding traditional photographic processes." Notice that it says discussions? Discussions are the main purpose of this site, and any member who calls for any other members' ouster for "discussing too much" isn't understanding that. Like I said, I'd love to see more images too, but saying we should kick people out for not posting images is just windy posturing. Why would you want people to shut up? That's counterproductive.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
The galleries here are a nice convenience, but far from the most important part of APUG.
And photography is a vocation, an avocation and a process with a product.
Some participate for other reasons then showing our photos on a shiny screen that does a lousy job revealing the qualities of a print.
I will agree, however, if you are talking about people who criticise the work of others, without showing their own.
Sorry if I came off too snarky...
I understand what you are saying DesrtRat and don't doubt you.
I put a watermark on my images on the gallery (and have been called out for it as some say it is distracting) just for the same reason you outline..... I also have photos that "I do not own".
I stand behind my opinion of more gallery posts... but no I don't want or actually advocate anyone kicked out.... I came right out and said "rant"...and I accept your (others) critique of me without malice.
I don't think anyone needs to take me too seriously... and this one is my thread.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
Didn't say throw anyone out... just advocating a discussion with IMAGES and words.
Thats all.... and yes I am happy and the world doesn't disappoint me.
I started this thread to get some of these 300-1000- post people to consider posting visually what they are about. Copyright watermarks are OK with me....
My thought process, after previously uploading images with plenty of flattering and thoughtful comments: What am I really gaining in my personal development by posting? Who is my audience on APUG? What can it lead to in terms of exposure? Is 'sharing' (regardless of the saccharine connotation of humanitarianism smiled at by people who use that word in relation to pictures) really the sole reason I make photographs? There has to be a point, a potential gain, for myself, deeper than gratification, before I commit to charity - which showing my pictures in any form would be, until I make a sale - but it's not the money, it's the influence. Let's not kid ourselves here, as noble as we think photography is. Sharing for the sake of sharing didn't get us to the 21st century. Peace, love and empathy alone is stasis. Example: Mother Teresa.
Enough watermarked APUG uploads, more work.
I find your request about members with many forum posts, who do not post photographs, to leave Apug utmost annoying!
Above reasons have been given for a photographer not to post his photographs.
But above that here at Apug are members who do not even call themselves photographers. The designation Analog Photography Users Group indicates a broad field of members.