Why do so few people take part in the member organized functions?

[MattKing]

What do you mean?

The photograph has to start out on film.
So you either have a lab make an optical enlargement from the film - not Walgrens.
Or you scan the film, and have a print made from the resulting digital file - could very well be Walgrens.

 

[BrianShaw]

So much for the “trio”…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The photograph has to start out on film.
So you either have a lab make an optical enlargement from the film - not Walgrens.
Or you scan the film, and have a print made from the resulting digital file - could very well be Walgrens.

Right. That's what I'd do. Scan the film and have them print it digitally with an inkjet printer.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, even back in APUG times the postcard exchange was the only exchange that allowed for digital prints. In addition, all sorts of different hybrid prints have always been allowed.
The single exception is no digital "capture". So almost all of the "trio".
Here is the FAQ thread - now 10 years old.
The Exchange is a fair bit older.

 

[BrianShaw]

So much for the “trio”…

As I wrote…

 

[MattKing]

If anyone would like to organize other member organized functions, with different parameters, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. And I'm sure those of us involved in the existing ones would be happy to pass on advice and assistance if asked.

 

[Don_ih]

The requirement that it is from film is just one of the rules of that exchange. The fact that the prints can be inkjet allows for people with no darkroom access (or maybe no desire to do darkroom work) to participate. A differently specified exchange could easily allow digital photos. But, as is pretty well-established, a number of people here outright reject the claim of anything digital being photography. Whatever you allow and disallow will entice and repulse different people. (Although, I find the majority of that ideological posture is mostly based on "what-I-do" and is likely to change as a matter of convenience.)

 

[BrianShaw]

Don… I’d say that 12 people is an exceptionally good participation!

 

[removed account4]

Don… I’d say that 12 people is an exceptionally good participation!

especially since
20 people are the only people who post in 99% of the threads, that's 1/2 the entire site!
LOL HAHAHA

 

[Don_ih]

Don… I’d say that 12 people is an exceptionally good participation!

20 people are the only people who post in 99% of the threads, that's 1/2 the entire site!

Oddly true....

 

[MattKing]

Don… I’d say that 12 people is an exceptionally good participation!

The last two pre-Covid rounds had 20. I expect that is where we would be without a pandemic.
Go back a couple of years before then, when postage was a fair bit cheaper, and rounds of 30 or more were not uncommon.

 

[BrianShaw]

20, or more, is ginormous participation. No matter, this is an interesting discussion but there seems no need to fear the demise of the activity!

In a totally different online endeavor I participate in a monthly challenge. Participation seems to vary between 8 and 12. This month I fear that I’m the only participant so far. The difference is that in this challenge a “winner” is selected, who hosts the next months challenge. A booby-prize, really, but it’s fun for the few who choose to participate.

 

[Don_ih]

I participate in a monthly challenge. Participation seems to vary between 8 and 12. This month I fear that I’m the only participant so far. The difference is that in this challenge a “winner” is selected, who hosts the next months challenge. A booby-prize, really, but it’s fun for the few who choose to participate.

Sounds like the Monthly Shooting Assignment here.

 

[Petrochemist]

The requirement that it is from film is just one of the rules of that exchange. The fact that the prints can be inkjet allows for people with no darkroom access (or maybe no desire to do darkroom work) to participate. A differently specified exchange could easily allow digital photos. But, as is pretty well-established, a number of people here outright reject the claim of anything digital being photography. Whatever you allow and disallow will entice and repulse different people. (Although, I find the majority of that ideological posture is mostly based on "what-I-do" and is likely to change as a matter of convenience.)

Those people are severely misguided, its as bad as claiming if it's not done on a wet plate it's not photography.
Photography has many forms, the only common factor is images are formed by the action of light. This can be without a lens (typically using a pinhole), or even without a camera (sunprints) the medium used to turn a image inside the camera to a reasonably permanent print is irrelevant for whether it's photography or not.
The digital option was clearly not even a distant possibility when Herschel coined the term photography, but it's derivation (drawing with light) is just as valid for all forms currently carried out. The descriptors analogue & digital are well known when a distinction is required. Even though film photography is at heart also a binary transaction where individual molecules are either reacted by light or not

 

[Don_ih]

Those people are severely misguided, its as bad as claiming if it's not done on a wet plate it's not photography.
Photography has many forms, the only common factor is images are formed by the action of light. This can be without a lens (typically using a pinhole), or even without a camera (sunprints) the medium used to turn a image inside the camera to a reasonably permanent print is irrelevant for whether it's photography or not.
The digital option was clearly not even a distant possibility when Herschel coined the term photography, but it's derivation (drawing with light) is just as valid for all forms currently carried out. The descriptors analogue & digital are well known when a distinction is required. Even though film photography is at heart also a binary transaction where individual molecules are either reacted by light or not

Whether or not they are misguided is irrelevant when faced with the fact that they believe what they believe and act upon it (or don't act). Whether they are right or wrong just doesn't matter - all that matters from the perspective of someone wanting people to do things is that they are not likely (or are likely) to do something you want to do.

 

[faberryman]

Those people are severely misguided, its as bad as claiming if it's not done on a wet plate it's not photography.
Photography has many forms, the only common factor is images are formed by the action of light. This can be without a lens (typically using a pinhole), or even without a camera (sunprints) the medium used to turn a image inside the camera to a reasonably permanent print is irrelevant for whether it's photography or not.
The digital option was clearly not even a distant possibility when Herschel coined the term photography, but it's derivation (drawing with light) is just as valid for all forms currently carried out. The descriptors analogue & digital are well known when a distinction is required. Even though film photography is at heart also a binary transaction where individual molecules are either reacted by light or not

Just a heads up to one of our newer members. None of those arguments will carry any weight with many of the die hard film enthusiasts around here, even though they scan their negatives with a digital scanner and post the resulting images on the internet as a series of ones and zeros after having given them the treatment in Photoshop.

 

[BrianShaw]

Both of you are correct. And both of you know that already!

 

[MattKing]

Just as I enjoy it when I see someone out in the world using film, I enjoy seeing a print and knowing that it started out with film.
That doesn't mean that I consider digital camera images invalid or less worthy - just not as enjoyable or interesting to me in the context of a print exchange.
The film-centric part of APUG/Photrio is why I am as active as a long standing member here. It isn't the same for other members, and that is absolutely fine, as long as no-one tries to impose (rather than advocate) their preferences.
We do have specific areas of the site that are reserved for those with particular interests. We ask that people keep within those boundaries when posting in those areas, but that is a site organization issue, not a validity vs. invalidity issue.
This thread is about member organized functions. There is ample room to organize more, and to involve other members with different preferences. Thus arose the Alternate Print Exchange and Toy Camera Print Exchange, to pick two examples.

 

[Petrochemist]

Just as I enjoy it when I see someone out in the world using film, I enjoy seeing a print and knowing that it started out with film.
That doesn't mean that I consider digital camera images invalid or less worthy - just not as enjoyable or interesting to me in the context of a print exchange.
The film-centric part of APUG/Photrio is why I am as active as a long standing member here. It isn't the same for other members, and that is absolutely fine, as long as no-one tries to impose (rather than advocate) their preferences.
We do have specific areas of the site that are reserved for those with particular interests. We ask that people keep within those boundaries when posting in those areas, but that is a site organization issue, not a validity vs. invalidity issue.
This thread is about member organized functions. There is ample room to organize more, and to involve other members with different preferences. Thus arose the Alternate Print Exchange and Toy Camera Print Exchange, to pick two examples.

Despite being mainly a digital photographer these days I can certainly see the extra interest from older print processes, to me I find the extra interest tends to come with what are now considered alternate processes - I have a small number of old family photographs that are daguerreotypes, ambrose types, tin types, or glass plates. They have an added fascination over the newer silver halide film shots.

As a chemist I keep promising myself that I'll do my own alternate processing, but so far the nearest I've come is Cyanotypes where someone else prepared the paper. It seems it's just another project awaiting those elusive round tuits.

 

[BrianShaw]

We do have specific areas of the site that are reserved for those with particular interests. We ask that people keep within those boundaries when posting in those areas, but that is a site organization issue, not a validity vs. invalidity issue.
This thread is about member organized functions.

Ah... I'm a bit slow this morning it seems. I just noticed that your parochialism (as it seemed to me) is based in the fact that this thread is tagged "mixed workflow forums", which excludes digital capture portion of Photrio. The Photduo portion, so to speak. Sorry to have broached digital capture in an earlier question/comment. Carry on...

 

[Don_ih]

Sorry to have broached digital capture in an earlier question/comment.

I didn't think there was a problem bringing it up. I didn't notice that this was under "mixed workflow" (which, frankly, means nothing to me - as in, I would've assumed that included digital photography).

 

[MattKing]

I don't think bringing up digital capture is a problem at all. The forum categories were created when all the member organized functions required film capture, as did most posts on the site. If people want to organize a member function where digital capture is part of the function, then we will need an appropriate place to put the threads, but there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Maybe this is appealing only to people who would have wanted pen pals when they were a kid.

I had my fair share of penpals when I was young, so I guess it's no surprise that I love the postcard exchange as an adult.

 

[KenS]

Being well and truly 'retired' (and 'somewhat short of the 'readies' to participate in print exchanges due to the fact that I no longer make prints with 'commercial 'B/W paper (which has become somewhat difficult to find in the 'only one remaining source in town that does not carry much in the way of B?W paper (But.... they can 'get it in'... if you can wait a few days).. so 99.5% of my print output is withe the (so-called) "archaic print process' that take up to 30 minuted to expose under my home built UV light source after scanning and printing the digital output onto Pictorico OH film

As such I am somewhat 'less than willing' to spend the required 'time' (and 'my' material $$) for any any print exchange

Ken

 

[Don_ih]

As such I am somewhat 'less than willing' to spend the required 'time' (and 'my' material $$) for any any print exchange

Does that assume you believe the print you get in return will not be worth that time and money required by the other person, or that person won't dedicate time and money? There is, of course, always the possibility that you will get a print you don't like. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of someone else's effort.

By way of example, the last blind print exchange, I got two prints from @gijsbert that were both very nice - great shots, nicely printed, quite different from both what I'm likely to take photos of and anything I'm likely to see. I can appreciate them as what they are (the product of his vision and effort) and not equate them in any way with what I did to take part in the exchange. What I got had nothing to do with my effort or money but only with his.