4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. On 09 Sep 2004 11:50:15 +0800, Bruce Murphy <> wrote:

    >
    >Absolutely, did I tell you about my idea of moving Israel to Idaho. Do
    >they have guns in Idaho?


    a LOT, so you are just trolling. ok, thanks
    chas
    --
    chas
    The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

    ....
     
    schuetzen - RKBA!, Sep 9, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> stated
    that:

    >Not fixing 2 pertinent charters along the way
    >Then having the gall to call it a reorg


    Seeing as you're the only person in the universe who thinks that those
    charters need to be rewritten, you better get off your lazy arse &
    rewrite them, instead of trying to bully people who think your ideas are
    useless into doing the work for you. Besides, it'd give you something
    constructive to do with the time you currently waste on running your
    Dizum & Google sock-puppets.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 9, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    "Lionel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> stated
    > that:


    >>Not fixing 2 pertinent charters along the way
    >>Then having the gall to call it a reorg


    > Seeing as you're the only person in the universe who thinks that those
    > charters need to be rewritten, you better get off your lazy arse &
    > rewrite them, instead of trying to bully people who think your ideas are
    > useless into doing the work for you. Besides, it'd give you something
    > constructive to do with the time you currently waste on running your
    > Dizum & Google sock-puppets.


    hahaha, Full Metal Jacket, very clever Lionel
    How long did it take you to do it??

    So what's your preference for a new group name to replace
    rec.photo.digital? do you like one or 2 misc.
    Mayhaps 3 for good measure?
    That's it, rec.photo.digital.misc.misc.misc. perdy spiffy stuff, huh?

    Then we'd be able to do a rmgroup to get rid of that nasty old charter,
    with holes like swiss cheese.

    Wow! Think we can muster the gumption to do the same for 35mm?

    I know Alan is on record saying he'd like a new charter :)
     
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #23
  4. Thad

    Charles Guest

    In article <>, ECM
    <> wrote:

    > So, I humbly propose (something like):
    > rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder
    > categories)
    > rec.photo.digital.hobby (combining the ZLR and Point+Shoot categories)
    > rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so
    > forth)


    Those names make no sense. Owning a SLR or Rangefinder does not make
    one professional.

    --
    Charles
     
    Charles, Sep 9, 2004
    #24
  5. Steve Young wrote:

    > Well me and the family perdy well know how we're voting.


    The Stromboli family?

    --
    This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
    I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
    and it bounces, a second try might work.
    However, please reply in newsgroup.
     
    Arthur L. Rubin, Sep 9, 2004
    #25
  6. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    "Arthur L. Rubin" <> wrote

    > Steve Young wrote:


    >> Well me and the family perdy well know how we're voting.


    > The Stromboli family?


    No, I believe the Stromboli family is from Italy
    I have no idea what they may be thinking, much less how they may vote.
     
    Steve Young, Sep 9, 2004
    #26
  7. Thad

    ECM Guest

    Thad <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Thanks for the feedback, ECM.
    >
    > ECM wrote:

    ***SNIP***

    > > So, I humbly propose (something like):
    > > rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder
    > > categories)

    >
    > There are consumer, prosumer and professional models of DSLRs.
    > Rangefinders are used by photographers with a wide degree of different
    > backgrounds too.


    I think that's one of the things I'm objecting to - the categories are
    too artificial. Perhaps a division along the lines of use rather than
    equipment type....?

    ***SNIP***
    >
    > > rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so
    > > forth)

    >
    > Post processing will be discussed in the same group as all of the
    > cameras anyway, so why ban them from the charters?


    I was a bit hazy on this one as well - I was trying to come up with
    something too fast.... feel free to ignore it.

    > > Now, I picked these names "out of a hat" so to speak; really I just
    > > think that no-one will really understand the groups you've suggested,
    > > and the proposed names presuppose a level of knowledge of photography
    > > that few beginners (or even moderately sophisticated dabblers) are
    > > going to have. Perhaps a division along the lines of the professionals
    > > vs. the hobbyists would be more useful. Or perhaps hardware and
    > > software? I don't know.

    ***SNIP***
    > Thanks, but that would open even more basis for "elitist" accusations
    > than the current proposals.


    Yeah, you're probably right about that. >>sigh<<.

    > This way, cameras are classified by ability,
    > not class or experience level.


    I disagree that the type of equipment one owns is a measure of
    photographic ability - it's more a measure of enthusiasm and excess
    wealth.

    My experience with newbie groups has been generally positive - a few
    experienced users lurking around, who actually WANT to be helpful,
    rather than a bunch of old hats who just want to talk to each other.
    It makes a big difference to the tone of the discussion.

    > There will be beginners, intermediate,
    > and advanced users in all four of the proposed groups, if passed, and
    > they will all learn from each other.


    It would be nice if that learning/teaching would occur. However, often
    the welcome for newbies is overtly hostile, "take your kiddie stuff
    elsewhere".

    I still think that different names should be considered (not that I'm
    doing any better picking names....), something that a newbie or tyro
    could recognize and say "oh yeah, I belong THERE". There's going to be
    a lot of confused cross-posting and off-topic stuff if people don't
    understand the names of the groups. Or, they'll just ignore the new
    groups and continue to post to the parent group.

    Well, I've had my say. Good luck to you!
    ECM
     
    ECM, Sep 9, 2004
    #27
  8. Thad

    Thad Guest

    ECM wrote:

    > I disagree that the type of equipment one owns is a measure of
    > photographic ability - it's more a measure of enthusiasm and excess
    > wealth.


    Me too. I was referring to the features and abilities of each camera
    category - not the ability of the photographer. This will vary from
    person to person. I do not think beginners should all be herded together
    - the same goes for intermediate users and advanced users. The beginners
    should learn from those with more experience in the same group. That is
    what makes Usenet a success.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 9, 2004
    #28
  9. Thad

    Thad Guest

    ECM wrote:

    >
    > I still think that different names should be considered (not that I'm
    > doing any better picking names....), something that a newbie or tyro
    > could recognize and say "oh yeah, I belong THERE". There's going to be
    > a lot of confused cross-posting and off-topic stuff if people don't
    > understand the names of the groups. Or, they'll just ignore the new
    > groups and continue to post to the parent group.


    Rec.photo.digital will continue to remain very popular. It is not the
    intentions of any of the proponents to kill the parent group. It will,
    however, give users the option of participating in a forum that focuses
    on issues more common to their camera - with beginners, intermediate,
    and advanced users of that camera type in each group. Newbies will
    probably find RPD first. Perhaps owners of digital SLR systems, digital
    rangefinders, or any of the other categories might immediately recognize
    which group is appropriate. If not, they will figure it out.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 9, 2004
    #29
  10. Charles <> wrote in
    news:090920040530394599%:

    > In article <>, ECM
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> So, I humbly propose (something like):
    >> rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder
    >> categories)
    >> rec.photo.digital.hobby (combining the ZLR and Point+Shoot categories)
    >> rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so
    >> forth)

    >
    > Those names make no sense. Owning a SLR or Rangefinder does not make
    > one professional.
    >


    I agree with that. Those names stink.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 9, 2004
    #30
  11. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    > Charles <> wrote in
    > news:090920040530394599%:
    >
    > > In article <>, ECM
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> So, I humbly propose (something like):
    > >> rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder
    > >> categories)
    > >> rec.photo.digital.hobby (combining the ZLR and Point+Shoot categories)
    > >> rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so
    > >> forth)

    > >
    > > Those names make no sense. Owning a SLR or Rangefinder does not make
    > > one professional.
    > >

    >
    > I agree with that. Those names stink.


    Its not so much that they stink - they do, but so do some of the names
    on the current proposal. The problem is that the names above do not
    divide the traffic in a logical way. Separating beginners, intermediate
    users, and advance users will do no good. Who will help the beginners if
    the more experienced users are kept away from them? It makes more sense
    to offer specialty groups where beginners, intermediate users, and
    advance users alike can discuss issues that are common to their type of
    camera. How would point-and-shoot owners benefit by endless discussions
    about DSLR lenses?

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 9, 2004
    #31
  12. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    ECM wrote:

    >>There are consumer, prosumer and professional models of DSLRs.
    >>Rangefinders are used by photographers with a wide degree of different

    >
    > I disagree that the type of equipment one owns is a measure of
    > photographic ability - it's more a measure of enthusiasm and excess
    > wealth.


    Like anything, if somebody is of limited abilty or initiative,
    then having equipment beyond that level is of no use; if one has
    the ability and the initiative then the equipment is neccesary to
    achieve results. Are there people who have more camera gear than
    their ability? Sure.

    In the rpe35mm group, for example, there is a fair range of
    ability and a fair range of equipment types represented. That
    the ability and the eqt. types do not correlate 100% is just
    human nature at work...

    >
    > My experience with newbie groups has been generally positive - a few
    > experienced users lurking around, who actually WANT to be helpful,
    > rather than a bunch of old hats who just want to talk to each other.
    > It makes a big difference to the tone of the discussion.


    rpe35mm has always been both. A place where people come to
    learn, share and help. rpd has much of that, but given the high
    volume of traffic, it is difficult to follow, never mind even
    read all of the headers.

    > It would be nice if that learning/teaching would occur. However, often
    > the welcome for newbies is overtly hostile, "take your kiddie stuff
    > elsewhere".


    There is none of that in rpe35mm, in rpd I'm sure it is minimal
    if at all present.

    > I still think that different names should be considered (not that I'm
    > doing any better picking names....), something that a newbie or tyro
    > could recognize and say "oh yeah, I belong THERE". There's going to be
    > a lot of confused cross-posting and off-topic stuff if people don't
    > understand the names of the groups. Or, they'll just ignore the new
    > groups and continue to post to the parent group.


    Simplicity is always best. IAC I have little concern that the
    proposed groups won't settle down into their roles, appropriately.

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 9, 2004
    #32
  13. Thad

    Nick C Guest

    "ECM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thad <> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    >> Thanks for the feedback, ECM.
    >>
    >> ECM wrote:

    > ***SNIP***
    >
    >> > So, I humbly propose (something like):
    >> > rec.photo.digital.professional (combining the SLR and Rangefinder
    >> > categories)

    >>
    >> There are consumer, prosumer and professional models of DSLRs.
    >> Rangefinders are used by photographers with a wide degree of different
    >> backgrounds too.

    >
    > I think that's one of the things I'm objecting to - the categories are
    > too artificial. Perhaps a division along the lines of use rather than
    > equipment type....?
    >
    > ***SNIP***
    >>
    >> > rec.photo.digital.software (to discuss digital post-processing and so
    >> > forth)

    >>
    >> Post processing will be discussed in the same group as all of the
    >> cameras anyway, so why ban them from the charters?

    >
    > I was a bit hazy on this one as well - I was trying to come up with
    > something too fast.... feel free to ignore it.
    >
    >> > Now, I picked these names "out of a hat" so to speak; really I just
    >> > think that no-one will really understand the groups you've suggested,
    >> > and the proposed names presuppose a level of knowledge of photography
    >> > that few beginners (or even moderately sophisticated dabblers) are
    >> > going to have. Perhaps a division along the lines of the professionals
    >> > vs. the hobbyists would be more useful. Or perhaps hardware and
    >> > software? I don't know.

    > ***SNIP***
    >> Thanks, but that would open even more basis for "elitist" accusations
    >> than the current proposals.

    >
    > Yeah, you're probably right about that. >>sigh<<.
    >
    >> This way, cameras are classified by ability,
    >> not class or experience level.

    >
    > I disagree that the type of equipment one owns is a measure of
    > photographic ability - it's more a measure of enthusiasm and excess
    > wealth.


    IMO, it's more the measure of photographic ability and enthusiasm; not so
    much as having an excess of wealth. If I were to create a disending list of
    what is most important, I would list:

    1- Enthusiasm as being most important. Without that nothing else really
    matters.

    2- Photographic ability. Being enthusiastic drives one to continually find
    ways to improve upon ability. The ability being developed is not related to
    being exclusive to equipment type being used, but to the development of
    one's mind in having understood and applying lessons learned. Great pictures
    (as in pictures of opportunity) are not always taken with the best of
    cameras and are often the results of darkroom talent.

    3- Wealth is what I would list last. Don't misunderstand me. It's great to
    be able to afford obtaining better equipment as learning curves improve. I
    also recognized that being able to afford only Brownie type cameras is not
    very helpful if one is very enthusiastic. But great cameras are also
    available in the used equipment market.

    A long time ago I heeded the advice of studio pros when they recommended
    this philosophical advice. Buy equipment that is better than what you need
    at the time. As experience is gained, the advantages of the better equipment
    will be readily available and in the end, it will prove to be cost
    effective. Naturally, one shouldn't buy way over ones capability to pay for
    good equipment, but when there is a difference of say $500 between mediocre
    and good equipment, hold out and save for the good equipment. Trade-ins
    incur large losses and private sales often lead to price haggling, sometimes
    good and some times bad.

    Just offering my opinion along with my abridged rational.

    nick


    >Snip
     
    Nick C, Sep 10, 2004
    #33
  14. Thad

    bob Guest

    Bruce Murphy <> wrote in
    news::

    > Yes, but moderation by maniacs like that is hardly the same as the
    > sane moderation found anywhere else.
    >
    >


    What about misc.taxes.moderated ?

    Bob

    --
    Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
     
    bob, Sep 10, 2004
    #34
  15. Thad

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    bob <> writes:

    > Bruce Murphy <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Yes, but moderation by maniacs like that is hardly the same as the
    > > sane moderation found anywhere else.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > What about misc.taxes.moderated ?


    I'll reserve judgement until I see evidence of rallies by rabid tax nuts.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Sep 10, 2004
    #35
  16. Thad

    Dave Guest

    (ittsy) wrote in message news:<>...
    > "WebKatz" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > "Thad" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > > Now that's just plain silly.

    >
    > It is the result of lots of discussion and hard work.


    That's unfortunate. One would like to think that hard work pays off in the end.

    >Please feel free
    > to share your suggested alternatives with us at news.groups.
    >


    I have:
    "Dave" <> wrote in message news:<chkgnu$>...

    > But when you come down to it, this whole slr/pns distinction is pretty
    > much elitist crap to begin with, so I don't really see this group
    > taking off even if it does get created. You can't tell me that there
    > are enough significant differences between say an Oly 8008 and a dRebel
    > that you can fuel a whole new group. And since you can't retroactively
    > make discussion of dslr's OT in r.p.d most of the traffic is still
    > going to go there.
    >
    > I predict r.p.d.s will just add to an already "overstructured"
    > hierarchy and will die a slow death from disuse.
    >
    > BUT - maybe if you get the Canon/Nikon/Sigma flame wars and the
    > snuh-sockpuppets to follow you over there then you can have a grand ol'
    > time while helping to clean up r.p.d. Now *there's* a worthy goal of a
    > group. Better put that in the charter.



    Thanks,

    Dave
     
    Dave, Sep 10, 2004
    #36

  17. > > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    > > > >
    > > >


    I'm afraid that this sounds a rather pompous announcement, but I think
    I have made up my mind about the proposals. I'm not sure that all the
    groups will be viable especially rpd.point+shoot which, as I have
    said, seems a rather disparaging name and I am not completely
    convinced by a need for the separation of ~systems and ~zlr. However,
    my current inclination would be to vote yes on rpd.slr-systems, ~zlr
    and ~rangefinder and no on ~point+shoot.

    Judging by the reduction in the number of contentious posts, I think
    the time is approaching for a vote.


    --
    James V. Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland, USA
     
    James Silverton, Sep 10, 2004
    #37
  18. "James Silverton" <> wrote in
    news:4141beb4$0$6926$:

    > However,
    > my current inclination would be to vote yes on rpd.slr-systems, ~zlr
    > and ~rangefinder and no on ~point+shoot.


    That's fair, but you might want to at least consider voting "abstain" on
    any groups you do not plan to use. If they do not receive enough "yes"
    votes on their own merit, then they are not justified in being created.

    > Judging by the reduction in the number of contentious posts, I think
    > the time is approaching for a vote.


    I did notice that the discussion went from "highly spirited" to "lively".
    That is a good thing.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 10, 2004
    #38
  19. Thad

    Thad Guest

    James Silverton wrote:

    > Judging by the reduction in the number of contentious posts, I think
    > the time is approaching for a vote.


    Agreed, but we must wait until the end of the 21-day minimum discussion
    period. Thanks for your feedback, James. Your suggestions have been very
    helpful throughout the process.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 11, 2004
    #39
  20. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Andy Blanchard wrote:

    > Wow, you guys (and gals) have been busy while I've been away! The new
    > structure looks great too, but I do have a very slight concern about
    > cross posting. As the charters stand with RFD4 it would be acceptable
    > to make a cross post a query about something generic like memory cards
    > to all groups in the RPD hierarchy. Is that what we want, or do we
    > want a clause like "should be restricted to the RPD group and the
    > subgroup(s) frequented by the poster"?


    Thanks for the feedback, Andy. The original proposal had a much tougher
    policy against crossposting (see the first and 2nd RFDs). Unfortunately,
    it met significant objections and we needed to make the crossposting
    requirements more liberal.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 11, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel

    RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganisation

    Lionel, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    309
    Lionel
    Jun 18, 2004
  2. Thad
    Replies:
    217
    Views:
    2,710
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 8, 2004
  3. Thad

    3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Thad, Sep 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    670
    Mark M
    Sep 8, 2004
  4. Steve Young

    Re: 3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Steve Young, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    292
    Steve Young
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    759
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page