FDUG vs APUG

[ic-racer]

If I were setting up this site I might have named it "Film and Darkroom User's Group" to keep the discussion confined to those things that interest people that make negatives for the purposes of darkroom printing. As it stands, the use of ANALOG in the description is even better than what I would have come up with, because it clearly indicates this is a non-digital forum.

However, despite the very clever and clearly ANALOG descriptor in the site's name, the site is littered with useless (to me) discussion of digital cameras and digital image manipulation.

Google search in the corner of the menu bar yeilds 35,600 posts containing the word 'DIGITAL.'
.
Anyway, it would be nice to have a link on the menubar next to the "New Posts" that reads "New Analog-Only Posts" or something like that.

I did make a Google search that does that on my own so I'll share that here.

 

[AgX]

As your very own post shows:not every use of that word means a discussion of that technique.
One should thus take that figure with some grain of salt.

And what you describe as an issue totally slipped my attention. Interesting though to see how one internet forum can be seen totally differently by two persons.

 

[pcsaba1981]

This suggestion doesn't make any sense to me. Digital is not a swear-word. I'm interested in film-photography, but I'm also interested in photography in general.
For me it's more annoying that we cannot discuss scanning issues here.
The whole gallery - and I enjoy the gallery very much - is based on hybrid process, because all the images are scanned.

I'm very happy that annoying digital is worse/better threads are banned from this forum, anyway.

 

[Hatchetman]

There you go. Another digital thread!!

 

[selmslie]

If I were setting up this site I might have named it "Film and Darkroom User's Group" to ...

I have had this conversation with Admin and I am sure I was not the only one.

It would be almost impossible to please everyone.

There are several issues. Some of us use (or used) analog for both film and printing. Some of us use film for capture but digital for printing (hybrid) and sometimes we use digital only. And some have concerns about image capture that apply to both camps.

If you try to specialize by concentrating on a single combination of capture and display technology you would leave out some of the target audience. I can't imagine how it could be better handled without just starting over with a fresh set of rules.

I think what we need to do is to ignore the discussions in which we are not interested - live and let live - and not try to be territorial about it.

 

[railwayman3]

I don't have any problem with the present level of references to "digital".

It would be counterproductive to ban every references, as it would be impossible to effectively discuss film and darkroom methods in 2013 without needing some mention, if only for techniques which overlap....e.g. making enlarged negatives digitally for "alternative" methods of analogue printing, as I have done myself.

I think that we all understand the spirit of keeping discussion of "full" digital taking and printing to the other Forum.

 

[fotch]

so, we cannot discuss a digital timer for the darkroom? Crazy!

 

[Roger Cole]

This suggestion doesn't make any sense to me. Digital is not a swear-word. I'm interested in film-photography, but I'm also interested in photography in general.
For me it's more annoying that we cannot discuss scanning issues here.
The whole gallery - and I enjoy the gallery very much - is based on hybrid process, because all the images are scanned.

I'm very happy that annoying digital is worse/better threads are banned from this forum, anyway.

+ a lot

And as for the name, there is already a "Film And Darkroom Users Group" aka FADU. Nice bunch of folks. Sort of UK-centric but by no means limited to there. I hang out there when I have the time, which I haven't in some months, and have participated in several of their monthly print exchanges getting prints from and sending them back all over the world:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Google search in the corner of the menu bar yeilds 35,600 posts containing the word 'DIGITAL.'

If that were the number of posts with the word "digital" on APUG, it would represent 2.5% of posts, but that includes archived posts from the RSS feed, which are doubled as posts on the full site, probably deleted posts, and posts from the old "Grey Area" which was for hybrid discussion and legitimately included digital discussion, as well as permitted discussion of scanning for the purpose of gallery posting, references to digital timers and meters, and otherwise passim digital references that aren't really off topic. It probably also includes posts in Groups that have been established by APUG members and that are outside the moderation policy.

I tried to do an advanced search to get a more accurate count, out of curiosity, but that only returned 300 posts, including deleted posts, so I suspect that the results are capped at 300 for advanced searches. The moderation tools don't seem to offer anything better for this purpose.

My sense from the post reports is that the amount of actual off-topic digital discussion is fairly small--considerably less than 1% of everything on APUG--just because most of the active members know that there are better places for that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This topic was covered years ago and resolved to the present state. Use the search and you can read all the view points and all the past d-----l bitchin'.

 

[Maris]

How about POOLS; Pictures Out Of Light-sensitive Substances.
I've always felt uneasy about the qualification (weasel word?) Analog. It concedes that there may exist a form of photography that isn't analog. There isn't.

 

[MattKing]

Remember that every single post by Sirius increases that count by one (see his signature lines)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Remember that every single post by Sirius increases that count by one (see his signature lines)

You broke the code!

 

[ic-racer]

For me it's more annoying that we cannot discuss scanning issues here.

I'm interested in filtering the lists I view, not limiting other poster's discussions. If I can't see the post it doesn't mean there will be a lack of discussion. I think a means of personalization of the forum interface is actually a step toward leniency of those types of discussions. If the 'analog or die' purists don't see the post because they set a filter, they won't alert the moderators for removal of the thread

 

[zsas]

The word digital should be mentioned, and done so a lot, as we are a community and as such, need to make sure our community upholds its charter. Nothin wrong with tellin a newby that a hybrid technique or scanning a Kodachrome slide and converting to b/w digitally is not within the charter of apug...."why don't ya take it onv'a to DPUG....now carry on..." I say it all the time when the line in the sand is crossed....nothin with doing so, just be polite....

I tend to think ice that the analysis you did might have a ton'a noise in it....like folks saying "take yer digi-tread-somewhere-else"....

 

[lxdude]

Remember that every single post by Sirius increases that count by one (see his signature lines)

Oh damn! Me too!:eek:

 

[zsas]

Fix yer signatures Lx and Sirus...yer gonna cause a fracture in the space-time-continuum....

Sean might get billed or something for all those out'a scope-fer-apug-digi-mentions....you're taunting the enemy...or worse yet double agents?!

 

[lxdude]

:devil:You have found me out! Welcome to digit-hell!!! AHHH-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaa!!!!

 

[zsas]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Sean can we install, in everyone's house, punchcard readers?

Then we will bridge the analog/digi world!

 

[benjiboy]

It's hard to decide which acronym is uglier.