Why Does Flickr Show Digital Images In Their Film Groups?
-
A
- Thread starter DF
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Its totally up to the administrators of the group to remove the pictures! It's not Flickrs fault.
most of the group administrators don't pay attention to what is going on. I think a lot of them are long gone from Flickr.
Someone posted two DSLR pics to the APUG gallery here this morning, but they got removed fairly promptly.
It is also quite possible people digitize their photos by photographing them with the technology that shall not be named. There is currently an effort by the admin of an Argus Flickr site to ride herd on some of the purported misrepresentation, but comments from others suggest the EXIF data may not quite mean what it says. I sometimes use ExifTool to put actual data in files that I upload, although it's an extra step. Scanning prints here with my system can claim the "camera" was an Epson 3200 scanner according to the EXIF data.
(I get a cheap thrill from seeing automagically extracted EXIF data in a web gallery proclaiming "Voigtländer Perkeo II; Color Skopar 80mm f/3.5" -- but then, I'm a little weird that way!
)
(I get a cheap thrill from seeing automagically extracted EXIF data in a web gallery proclaiming "Voigtländer Perkeo II; Color Skopar 80mm f/3.5" -- but then, I'm a little weird that way!
)
People don't know how to read. I administer a number of groups on Flickr. It's amazing what people think is appropriate to post in the group.
Karl, you said a mouthful there. You'd be amazed at the people I encounter who are educators, who don't read! Or at least they aren't paying attention to what they supposedly read.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
this is kind funny ...similarly, i was invited to post some of my images in a film based religious icon group
and after looking in the group most of the images had nothing to do with the group nor were they on film.
karl you are right, people just post stuff, don't care, and often times moderators / administrators
have bigger fish to fry than policing every post to the group.. so they leave it to the individuals,
who ( see above ) ... its like a row row row your boat round ...
and after looking in the group most of the images had nothing to do with the group nor were they on film.
karl you are right, people just post stuff, don't care, and often times moderators / administrators
have bigger fish to fry than policing every post to the group.. so they leave it to the individuals,
who ( see above ) ... its like a row row row your boat round ...
because flickr, like soylent green, is made of people.
People f**k up and/or don't follow instructions, and sometimes the group mods don't notice and/or care and/or are not even actively paying any attention whatsoever to "their" group.
People f**k up and/or don't follow instructions, and sometimes the group mods don't notice and/or care and/or are not even actively paying any attention whatsoever to "their" group.
DF
If you are using Ilford or Kentmere films, chemicals and/or paper, you are welcome to post to my Flickr group "Harman Film Technology": https://www.flickr.com/groups/harman
We inserted "film" on the company name explicitly to alert users we are talking about a film commpany.
Or you can post to the Ilford group that I'm a moderator: https://www.flickr.com/groups/ilford
Some people use their digis to "scan" film. I don't agree fully with that practice, but provided they state the original camera and film used, I'm ok with that. Normally I will alert that would be better a proper scan.
Ricardo:
I do find it odd that you consider digitisation from a scanner to be preferable to digitisation from a camera.
It is simply the same sort of technology implemented in different ways.
It's hardly "more analogue" one way than another, and not everyone has a suitable scanner - perhaps especially if they are shooting LF or MF.
How bizarrely arbitrary!
OP:
The Flickr Group "I Shoot Film", by the way, has a very strict and well-policed policy on what goes into the pool, so that's definitely one place to look for "film only" shots.
I do find it odd that you consider digitisation from a scanner to be preferable to digitisation from a camera.
It is simply the same sort of technology implemented in different ways.
It's hardly "more analogue" one way than another, and not everyone has a suitable scanner - perhaps especially if they are shooting LF or MF.
How bizarrely arbitrary!
OP:
The Flickr Group "I Shoot Film", by the way, has a very strict and well-policed policy on what goes into the pool, so that's definitely one place to look for "film only" shots.
Yes, it is. The result is the same. It is just a personal feeling.
Can the OP point out an example for us? I suspect what he might see is the EXIF data of a scanner.
I know - my scanned images (negs or prints) always have "Epson V700" in the EXIF. I always forget to fix it up.
I just had a look at Flickr Richard, and I think you are right.
As it is mentioned above it could be EXIF for camera, which was in use to digitize negs, wet prints instead of scanner. It is popular method.
Or are you saying you could clearly see the difference between digital b/w and film? I can most of the times.
Or are you saying you could clearly see the difference between digital b/w and film? I can most of the times.
"Oh, this group has the word "Fuji" in the title. Then I must post all my shots from my Fuji Digital Camera in it. Even though the group is actually called "Fuji Medium Format Cameras or something similar." People tend to be fairly indiscriminate with what they post to groups and with tagging their photos. I spend a lot of time weeding these images out. I can usually pick out the suspect images pretty easily. Scanned film looks different from a digital original.
There seems to have been a fair few photos I have spotted where the poster has used some form of digital film pack filter to emulate the look of a certain film, still a bit naughty as there must be some dedicated flickr groups for those who wish to practice such perverseness.
Some Flickr users are dumpers. One person was recently exposed for contributing their photograph to most single make groups, so Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Fuji, etc, etc, all had the shot It ended up in over a hundred groups.
I moderate a group and have to delete work on a daily basis despite the theme being clearly spelt out in the heading. Some people like to throw garbage from their moving car, some like to dump on Flickr - same mindset.
I moderate a group and have to delete work on a daily basis despite the theme being clearly spelt out in the heading. Some people like to throw garbage from their moving car, some like to dump on Flickr - same mindset.
Unfortunately, that does happen.
Some make mistakes that are understandable, like posting on the Olympus OM group thinking that is is the modern OM-D version. They just don't know there was an OM line before digi came along.
Some make mistakes that are understandable, like posting on the Olympus OM group thinking that is is the modern OM-D version. They just don't know there was an OM line before digi came along.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |