Is there a photography board similar to TubeNet?

[Sandlapper]

Digital camera is a bit of a challenge. When I started playing again three years ago after about forty years of not playing, TubeNet was a great help finding my way back. Anybody know of a photography equivalent?

Thanks

[The Big Ben]

Here's one to get you going:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/" target="_blank

[tbn.al]

Do they have a Camera Net Jury?

[The Big Ben]

I'm on a large format photography forum where Rick "I have a delete key and I know how to use it" Denney is one of the moderators. I'll let him answer if he wants to. Over here, it is "BBb vs. CC" and "Chinese horns suck, no they don't". Over there it's "Film rules, digital sucks" and characteristic response curves of various sensitized silver materials including those which are no longer available. Not as much subjective arguing over there as over here. No "LFPFJ" over there. (Large Format Photography Freak Jury)

[Chuck Jackson]

No "LFPFJ" over there. (Large Format Photography Freak Jury)

Thank your lucky stars.

Chuck

[Donn]

I'm on a large format photography forum where Rick "I have a delete key and I know how to use it" Denney is one of the moderators. I'll let him answer if he wants to. Over here, it is "BBb vs. CC" and "Chinese horns suck, no they don't". Over there it's "Film rules, digital sucks" and characteristic response curves of various sensitized silver materials including those which are no longer available. Not as much subjective arguing over there as over here. No "LFPFJ" over there. (Large Format Photography Freak Jury)

My impression from back in the day when it didn't particularly need to be monitored (r.p.e.l-f? Maybe I forget) was that the medium was pretty much B&W, and guys who were about color photography were over on the medium format etc. boards. Which tended to be more contentious. It has been a long time, maybe I'm wrong about that, but my theory anyway is that because B&W leans slightly away from representation, it's easier to see alternative perspectives as valid. Guys would be reveling in the tonality that comes from old Goerz air spaced uncoated lenses, for example, which would just be real hard to swallow over on the medium format board. Even where there was some interest in color photography, that carried over a bit, so at the time I think there was a bit of a myth developing about the subtle "creamy" color rendition of Tessar type lenses, and that was cheerfully accepted where it would have been more controversial among the MFs.

Plus, it was abundantly clear even then that large format photography made no sense in practical terms, which tends to make conversation a little more relaxed than if some parties are taking it seriously. I guess that could relate to the tuba, as a topic - you decide.

[Rick Denney]

Coming in late.

Okay, the large-format photography forum has never had a black/white-vs.-color divide. It does not officially have a digital-vs.-film divide, but it crops up anyway. (We generally prefer to let those battles be fought at the Analog Photography User Group frum (APUG). (Most of my work is in color.) The problem is that there are very few options for doing digital work in large format, and we do require the main discussion forum and all pictures (except in a special area) be made with a large-format camera. When they make an affordable 4x5" digital solution, I'll be all over it. I'm not holding my breath, though.

I do not own one air-spaced Goerz lens, heh.

The medium-format-centric forums of the best quality include Luminous Landscape. But the MF guys seem to really be into equipment, and I haven't read the forum there in a very long time. There is a handful of nuts still participating in the forum devoted to Soviet photography equipment, most of which was medium-format (and none of which was digital), and I'm still the moderator of that forum though my involvement is rarely needed.

As to large format not being relevant, well, it's true that it's a niche. But how else will a person with a thousand bucks of cameras, lenses, and tripods, a thousand dollar printer, and a thousand dollar scanner make state-of-the-art 16x20 prints that are the equivalent of about 90 megapixels of digital camera? The digital alternatives for quality at that level are significantly more expensive and limiting. For a production shop, it's worth it to buy a $20K digital back for a Hasselblad or Mamiya that can be adapted to a view camera. But for a guy who makes a few dozen photos a year, using film is still quite relevant if he wants a sense of endless detail in a large print.

Since becoming a moderator over there, my involvement as a frequent poster has dropped off quite a bit--about the same as it has here. But mostly that's because of life's impositions.

My favorite forum for digital photography used to be the Canon forum--Photography On The Net. But it is Canon-centric. It's also a very large forum, and that makes it hard to stay involved or keep up. I don't know if they kept it going successfully or not. I've been doing photography as long as I've been playing tuba, so babysitting beginners becomes tiresome after a while. The large-format format forum is mostly populated by middle-aged bearded fat guys like me.

Rick "missing in action" Denney

[Rick Denney]

RICK !!!

Wade has sent a Facebook entry in my direction, and since I look at Facebook once every year or so, I'm surprised I caught the email message saying he'd done so. I told him I'd stop into TubeNet for a visit.

Rick "who has made 23 trips so far this year" Denney