rec.photodigital.ils
Guy Macon
I propose rec.photo.digital.ils or maybe rec.photo.digital.i-l-s
(Interchangable Lens System) as being just as hard for the average
person reading a list of newsgroups to figure out and as matching
the proposed charter.
Alan Browne
It would have been more polite to post that in the active thread.
The weakness of "ils" is that it is not a accronym that the
mildly curious would know ... heck, it's not even an accronym the
saturated in elitism phtography *use*.
"slr" is a fairly well known accronym for the camera type.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Bard
Err been away for a while and barely know what you are talking about,
TLA in the past have been discouraged as then can cause confusion.
Yes the 14 letter component part at times can be a limit, But IDS
could include a company that is invested into didital Photographic
equipment
Other then that I do hope you are not proposing a second level at this
time, (though it did appear less of a problem then in the past).
*watches for Russ to comment and tell me I am in error one or more
ways.*
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
David J Taylor
ILS means Instrument Landing System for me!
Thad
> I propose rec.photo.digital.ils or maybe rec.photo.digital.i-l-s
Those are awful names. At least most photographers know what an SLR is.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Lionel
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> I propose rec.photo.digital.ils or maybe rec.photo.digital.i-l-s
>
>Those are awful names. At least most photographers know what an SLR is.
Hell, even many non-photographers. ;)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Thad
> Guy Macon wrote:
>
> > I propose rec.photo.digital.ils or maybe rec.photo.digital.i-l-s
>
> Those are awful names. At least most photographers know what an SLR is.
The statement above was not meant as an insult to you, Guy. You've made
some good contributions to this thread.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Guy Macon
Thad <black_box...@yahoo.com> says...
No insult taken. I purposely proposed a really bad name in order to
make a point about using TLAs, equiupement descriptions in a group
that isn't a subgroup of rec.photo.equipement, and the fact that
SLR decribes a system with a flipping mirror, not a system with
interchanagable lenses.
Alas, I don't have a better suggestion than the poor ones already
in play, but I hope that some ptoto expert out there will come up
with one. If not, we go with the best name available and move on.
Christian McArdle
> in play, but I hope that some ptoto expert out there will come up
> with one. If not, we go with the best name available and move on.
Like many acronyms, with SLR the original meaning is lost to many. The
flipping mirror bit wasn't as important as the changing lens part. Besides,
the SLR description is that the same lens is used for the viewfinder as for
the film (hence "S"ingle "L"ens). This still applies with a digital camera.
No-one really knew what "Reflex" meant anyway. Therefore, it is actually
pretty good a description still. It will also be an acronym known to
absolutely every digital photographer with such equipment and the preceding
part of the name makes it clear that it is about digital photography.
Finally, the cameras are known to all and sundry as Digital SLRs.
Christian.
Thad
> Like many acronyms, with SLR the original meaning is lost to many. The
> flipping mirror bit wasn't as important as the changing lens part. Besides,
> the SLR description is that the same lens is used for the viewfinder as for
> the film (hence "S"ingle "L"ens). This still applies with a digital camera.
> No-one really knew what "Reflex" meant anyway. Therefore, it is actually
> pretty good a description still. It will also be an acronym known to
> absolutely every digital photographer with such equipment and the preceding
> part of the name makes it clear that it is about digital photography.
> Finally, the cameras are known to all and sundry as Digital SLRs.
Bravo! That was brilliantly stated, Christian.
Of these three, which name do you prefer?
rec.photo.digital.slr
rec.photo.dslr
rec.photo.digital-slr
The question is directed at everyone - not only Christian.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Lionel
>Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
>rec.photo.digital.slr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still gets my vote.
Thad
> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
> rec.photo.digital-slr
I am beginning to like this one the most - using a hyphen instead of a
dot between "digital" and "SLR" spells out the fact that the group is
for digital SLRs more clearly than "rec.photo.digital.slr" does to me,
though I can live with any of the three names.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Guy Macon
Thad <black_box...@yahoo.com> says...
>
>Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
>rec.photo.digital.slr
>
>rec.photo.dslr
>
>rec.photo.digital-slr
>
>The question is directed at everyone
I prefer rec.photo.digital.slr
2nd choice: rec.photo.digital-slr
I haven't decided whetger I dislike rec.photo.dslr enough to
vote NO but I strongly dislike it on the grounds that users
who are not into photography won't recognize the term DLSR.
Helge Nareid
Please do consider the entire rec.photo.* namespace. It is not
unlikely that there may be other groups formed under the
rec.photo.digital.* subhierarchy. rec.photo.digital-slr would mess up
the namespace for ever.
I would vote against it because of namespace issues, even though I
support the creation of the group.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address
Thad
> Please do consider the entire rec.photo.* namespace. It is not
> unlikely that there may be other groups formed under the
> rec.photo.digital.* subhierarchy. rec.photo.digital-slr would mess up
> the namespace for ever.
>
> I would vote against it because of namespace issues, even though I
> support the creation of the group.
Noted. Which name do you like, Helge?
rec.photo.digital.slr ?
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Steve Young
>
> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
1.
> rec.photo.digital.slr
2. rec.photo.equipment.slr
3. rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
4. rec.photo.equipment.dslr
5.
> rec.photo.dslr
6.
> rec.photo.digital-slr
Steve Young
Steve Young
> who are not into photography won't recognize the term DLSR.
Even those plenty involed prolly wouldn't recognize that ;)
IMHO, it has to be SLR
Thad
> 1.
> > rec.photo.digital.slr
Noted.
> 2. rec.photo.equipment.slr
>
> 3. rec.photo.equipment.digital.slr
>
> 4. rec.photo.equipment.dslr
The proposed newsgroup is not only for equipment talk. Technique and
other aspects of digital SLRs will be on-topic. Another example - Alan
Browne suggested (maybe joking?) that we start a [D-SI] series of
photography challenges. This would be on-topic, as long as all photo
submissions were from digital SLR cameras.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Steve Young
> The proposed newsgroup is not only for equipment talk. Technique and
> other aspects of digital SLRs will be on-topic. Another example - Alan
> Browne suggested (maybe joking?) that we start a [D-SI] series of
> photography challenges. This would be on-topic,
> as long as all photo
> submissions were from digital SLR cameras.
*Hey!* :)))
:)x
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Thad wrote:
>> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>> rec.photo.digital-slr
>I am beginning to like this one the most - using a hyphen instead of a
>dot between "digital" and "SLR" spells out the fact that the group is
>for digital SLRs more clearly than "rec.photo.digital.slr" does to me,
Unfortunately, that breaks newsgroup naming morphology, that the slr
group is a subtopic of RPD.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Alan Browne
>
> The proposed newsgroup is not only for equipment talk. Technique and
> other aspects of digital SLRs will be on-topic. Another example - Alan
> Browne suggested (maybe joking?) that we start a [D-SI] series of
> photography challenges. This would be on-topic, as long as all photo
> submissions were from digital SLR cameras.
Yes I was joking. D-SI could be done, but the SI as is is not
heavilly subscribed, and at that many of the photos are
originally digital capture (P&S, bridge-cameras, SLR).
If a D-SI ever comes to be, I suggest that (like the SI) it not
be too rigid with respect to what cameras can and what cannot play.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr
Da winnah and still champeen!
> rec.photo.dslr
it blows, it sucks.
>
> rec.photo.digital-slr
Hurls. Chunky.
Wayne Brown
I prefer rec.photo.digital.slr.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Rob Kelk
wrote:
<snip>
>Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
>rec.photo.digital.slr
>
>rec.photo.dslr
>
>rec.photo.digital-slr
>
>
>The question is directed at everyone - not only Christian.
I prefer "rec.photo.digital.slr". The newsgroup name is the biggest
billboard you've got for the group, so it's to your advantage to make it
as easy to understand as possible. Since not everyone recognizes the
newer acronyms, it's best to avoid using them.
Besides, (as I've mentioned before) this puts the group "near" the other
digital photo groups. That helps make it obvious, even to the
hard-of-thinking, that you aren't talking about 35mm film SLR cameras.
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Bruce Murphy
Have you ever /read/ r.p.e.35mm? It gets along just fine and despite
being an equipment group, discussing various techniques which are
closely coupled with the equipment is common, much as you describe.
A relatively interesting point here is that why, after all these
years, has the film group r.p.e.35mm never split into an
idiot-pleb-using-ps group and a we-are-very-important-indeed slr group
the way you are proposing to split the digitals? Have you ever thought
about that?
B>
Lionel
>Thad <black_box...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The proposed newsgroup is not only for equipment talk. Technique and
>> other aspects of digital SLRs will be on-topic. Another example - Alan
>> Browne suggested (maybe joking?) that we start a [D-SI] series of
>> photography challenges. This would be on-topic, as long as all photo
>> submissions were from digital SLR cameras.
>
>Have you ever /read/ r.p.e.35mm?
Dunno about Thad, but I've been reading RPE3 regularly for nearly as
long (1.5 years or so), as I've been reading RPD, so I think I can claim
to know the group pretty well.
> It gets along just fine and despite
>being an equipment group, discussing various techniques which are
>closely coupled with the equipment is common, much as you describe.
The really big difference is that RPE3 gets less than half the traffic
than RPD[0], so it's a hell of a lot easier to keep up with. Even so,
RPE3 itself is actually so busy (at 230+ posts/day!) that it'd be pretty
easy to justify a group split there as well.
>A relatively interesting point here is that why, after all these
>years, has the film group r.p.e.35mm never split into an
>idiot-pleb-using-ps group and a we-are-very-important-indeed slr group
>the way you are proposing to split the digitals? Have you ever thought
>about that?
Good question. My bet is that if the traffic there ever gets to 500+
posts a day, like it has in RPD, the people in RPE3 would probably start
talking about writing up RFDs for a group split as well.
[0] Stat's from Google: RPE3 has been averaging (very approximately) 230
posts a day for the last couple of years, vs about 530 posts per day in
RPD over the same period, & steadily increasing.
Sources URLs:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/about>
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/about>
Helge Nareid
I don't have a particulalrly strong preference, rec.photo.digital.slr,
or even rec.photo.digital.digital-slr would suit me fine. As others
have pointed out, the name should be as obvious as possible, and the
group should be as clearly defined as possible.
Thad
> As others
> have pointed out, the name should be as obvious as possible, and the
> group should be as clearly defined as possible.
Agreed.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Christian McArdle
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr
Definitely.
> rec.photo.dslr
No way.
> rec.photo.digital-slr
Absolutely not.
Christian.
Guy Macon
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
>A relatively interesting point here is that why, after all these
>years, has the film group r.p.e.35mm never split into an
>idiot-pleb-using-ps group and a we-are-very-important-indeed slr group
>the way you are proposing to split the digitals? Have you ever thought
>about that?
I took a look at the digital group and found it to have such a high
amount of traffic as to be difficult to use. That seems like a good
treason for subgroups. I am unsure about the way the division is
being chosen, but I can only hope that some photo expert will come up
with a better kine upon which to split the traffic.
Bruce Murphy
I don't think there is anyone who wants a division on anything other
than the idiot/serious line, but we're wasting a great deal of time
faffing about trying to think about a politically correct way of
saying it.
B>
Arthur L. Rubin
> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr
OK, but see below.
>
> rec.photo.dslr
No.
>
> rec.photo.digital-slr
No -- but I might not vote against it.
I trust I've made my position clear in other posts,
but have you considered
rec.photo.digital.interchangable-lens (as an alternate
name) or rec.photo.equipment.slr as an alternate
proposal, taking traffic from both rpd and rpe3?
--
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.
Guy Macon
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
You are wrong.
I want a division along some line that makes sense, and so do many
others here.
Also, I just noticed that you changed the subject line while
discussing the same subject, thus fragmenting the thread.
Please don't do that.
Bruce Murphy
> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
> >
> >I don't think there is anyone who wants a division on anything other
> >than the idiot/serious line, but we're wasting a great deal of time
> >faffing about trying to think about a politically correct way of
> >saying it.
>
> You are wrong.
About?
> I want a division along some line that makes sense, and so do many
> others here.
And the division that most people seem to be accepting makes sense is
as I've described, but of course couched in quite different language.
> Also, I just noticed that you changed the subject line while
> discussing the same subject, thus fragmenting the thread.
> Please don't do that.
*boggle*
Actually, yours is the first post that changed the subject line. My
line has the original subject line (or at least the same as the person
to whom I am replying)
ps. *real* newsreaders (like GNUS) look at references, not subjects.
B>
Steve Young
> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
because slr makes a whole lot of sense, and it's somewhere to begin.
Simply put; it's 'doable'
If a project gets too big, it can become undoable
(specially in this 'free speach' Usenet ;)
:)x
--
One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never
have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug
about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them
there was no way to bring peace to this planet!"
- xanthian
Nick Zentena
> A relatively interesting point here is that why, after all these
> years, has the film group r.p.e.35mm never split into an
> idiot-pleb-using-ps group and a we-are-very-important-indeed slr group
> the way you are proposing to split the digitals? Have you ever thought
> about that?
35mm is already considered the "idiot group". There are two other "VIP"
groups. The MF and LF groups. The other thing is some people actively try to
discourage people asking about point and shoot cameras or even older SLRs.
You'll see people telling others they're stupid for not buying the latest
doo dad.
Nick
Bruce Murphy
In the interests of balance, you *also* see people telling others that
they are stupid *for* buying the latest doodad.
B>
Steve Young
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:
>> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
>> >I don't think there is anyone who wants a division on anything other
>> >than the idiot/serious line, but we're wasting a great deal of time
>> >faffing about trying to think about a politically correct way of
>> >saying it.
>> You are wrong.
> About?
>> I want a division along some line that makes sense, and so do many
>> others here.
> And the division that most people seem to be accepting makes sense is
> as I've described,
> but of course couched in quite different language.
(me, me, me?;)
>> Also, I just noticed that you changed the subject line while
>> discussing the same subject, thus fragmenting the thread.
>> Please don't do that.
> *boggle*
> Actually, yours is the first post that changed the subject line. My
> line has the original subject line (or at least the same as the person
> to whom I am replying)
*watch out!*
he'll play slippery with you and Google ;)
(don't get another group involved if you want it recorded right;)
> ps. *real* newsreaders (like GNUS) look at references, not subjects.
*for sure!* that's how LookOut! Express does it <grin>
Steve Young
> Thad wrote:
>> Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>> rec.photo.digital.slr
> OK, but see below.
>> rec.photo.dslr
> No.
>> rec.photo.digital-slr
>
> No -- but I might not vote against it.
I would
> I trust I've made my position clear in other posts,
> but have you considered
> rec.photo.digital.interchangable-lens (as an alternate
> name)
> or rec.photo.equipment.slr as an alternate
> proposal, taking traffic from both rpd and rpe3?
> However, please reply in newsgroup.
This idea has been given short change so far.
I think it has merit in that the only difference is the capture
medium, which shouldn't be invoved in equipment discussions.
Christian McArdle
> they are stupid *for* buying the latest doodad.
It would hardly be Usenet if someone didn't call you stupid for one reason
or other.
Christian.
Bruce Murphy
"
Go not unto the denizens of USENET for advice, for they shall tell you
yes, and no, and maybe, and fuck off.
"
B>
Guy Macon
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with
diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring,
entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of
excrement when you least expect it." -Gene Spafford,1992
Thad
> > rec.photo.digital.slr
>
> OK, but see below.
Noted.
> I trust I've made my position clear in other posts,
> but have you considered
> rec.photo.digital.interchangable-lens
That is an awful name. It suggests that the group is about a lens or
specific lens type.
> (as an alternate
> name) or rec.photo.equipment.slr as an alternate
> proposal, taking traffic from both rpd and rpe3?
That general SLR umbrella would also include 645, 6X6, & 6X7 (all
medium-format) film SLR systems, as well as APS, 110 and other film
format SLRs. I pointed this out several times already.
--
Thaddeus Lipshitz
Jeremy Nixon
> I don't think there is anyone who wants a division on anything other
> than the idiot/serious line, but we're wasting a great deal of time
> faffing about trying to think about a politically correct way of
> saying it.
I've been on Usenet long enough that if I wanted a split on the idiot/
serious line, I wouldn't worry about saying it any other way than
exactly that. :)
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Alan Browne
> 35mm is already considered the "idiot group". There are two other "VIP"
> groups. The MF and LF groups. The other thing is some people actively try to
> discourage people asking about point and shoot cameras or even older SLRs.
> You'll see people telling others they're stupid for not buying the latest
> doo dad.
Since you've posted in rpe35mm as recently as Sunday, and quite
regularly before that, then I guess you're considered an idiot
group member? ;-)
On the second charge there are often good things said about a
number of p&s 35mm cameras. Also what is said is that certain
results can't be expected with them that can be attained with an
SLR or more conventional rangefinder ... 'cause it's the truth.
Amongst the more common replies is along the lines of -making
sure the camera meets the needs/expectations -making sure the
camera controls and functions make sense to the user.
As to your third charge, what does happen is people with a 20
year old camera and who want up-to-date functions are told 'if
you want that, then you have to spend x.'. Given that it is an
equipment group, that is hardly surprising that some things only
come in new boxes.
And finally, people are often warned _against_ some new doo-dad
as being innapropriate or that doesn't do the job, or whatever
... and that is valauable too.
In any case, a dilligent search has shown no mention of the
phrase "idiot group" and "35mm" in r.p.e.m-f or l-f.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
True. I believe the questions others are hinting at is "Would that be a
good thing?" and "Would that serve your interests better than what
you've proposed?" (It would be nice if people didn't dance around the
implied questions...)
John McWilliams
> Helge Nareid wrote:
>
>
>>As others
>>have pointed out, the name should be as obvious as possible, and the
>>group should be as clearly defined as possible.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
rec.photo.digital.slr?
--
John McWilliams
Bruce Murphy
And provided the charter doesn't say 'crossposting is the deveil' and
as long as the charter doesn't seek to undercut the topics that are
discussed in r.p.e.35mm to no point other than to bulk out this group,
it'll probably work.
However it is my genuine belief that the organiser will continue to go
around accusing people of penile fixations because he doesn't
understand Usenet terminology. (rather than sort out the above)
B>
Rebecca Ore
Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:16:00 -0400, Thad <black_box...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
(snips)
> >That general SLR umbrella would also include 645, 6X6, & 6X7 (all
> >medium-format) film SLR systems, as well as APS, 110 and other film
> >format SLRs. I pointed this out several times already.
>
> True. I believe the questions others are hinting at is "Would that be a
> good thing?" and "Would that serve your interests better than what
> you've proposed?" (It would be nice if people didn't dance around the
> implied questions...)
Putting all the SLR formats into one group would suck in the worst of
all possible ways. Any such proposal would get my no vote immediately
as the owner operator of a medium format twin-lens reflex camera.
Woodchuck Bill
D33395.214...@news.verizon.net:
> Putting all the SLR formats into one group would suck in the worst of
> all possible ways. Any such proposal would get my no vote immediately
Mine too. I like rec.photo.digital.slr the best.
--
Bill
Guy Macon
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
>However it is my genuine belief that the organiser will continue to go
>around accusing people of penile fixations because he doesn't
>understand Usenet terminology. (rather than sort out the above)
It isn't the job of the proponent to understand Usenet terminology.
It is your job as a news.group participant to do your best to use
terminology that communicates with the proponent, explaining any
unfamiliar terminology as you go along.
Bruce Murphy
I would argue that someone tossing RFDs around who isn't familiar with
Usenet terminology is going to find themselves in a very unfortunate
position.
B>
Jeremy Nixon
> Putting all the SLR formats into one group would suck in the worst of
> all possible ways.
Absolutely. It would make no sense at all to group discussion based just
on the SLR-ness of a camera. That technical distinction has no relation
at all to anything having to do with discussion of any real topic within
photography, other than, perhaps, the design of SLR cameras, which isn't
really something that needs a newsgroup. I don't even think digital SLRs
should be mixed in with film ones, even if you limit it to 35mm format
and digitals using the same lens systems (which would still exclude some
digital SLR lines that most people think of as in the same class as the
35mm-based ones).
Really, the whole SLR/non-SLR distinction really only has a whole lot of
meaning (in the context of discussion) for the 35mm film cameras and the
35mm-based or 35mm-like digital ones. Medium format shooters wouldn't
care about the distinction, for example, even though there are SLR and
non-SLR cameras in medium format.
An SLR/non-SLR split makes sense for rec.photo.digital, but most certainly
not for photography in general.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Guy Macon
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
Are you telling me that being unfamiliar with the term "dick size
war" is in some way a detriment to their ability to be a proponent?
Please tell me that I have misunderstood what you are trying to convey.
Bruce Murphy
> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
> >
> >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> says...
> >>
> >> >However it is my genuine belief that the organiser will continue to go
> >> >around accusing people of penile fixations because he doesn't
> >> >understand Usenet terminology. (rather than sort out the above)
> >>
> >> It isn't the job of the proponent to understand Usenet terminology.
> >> It is your job as a news.group participant to do your best to use
> >> terminology that communicates with the proponent, explaining any
> >> unfamiliar terminology as you go along.
> >
> >I would argue that someone tossing RFDs around who isn't familiar
> >with Usenet terminology is going to find themselves in a very
> >unfortunate position.
>
> Are you telling me that being unfamiliar with the term "dick size
> war" is in some way a detriment to their ability to be a proponent?
If they're proposing a group within a heirarchy famous for them and
where their proposal goes out of its way to spark more of the same,
yes.
As a general rule, probably not. I'm sure that proponent of
rec.food.cooking.muffins could probably get by with no knowledge of
the term at all.
> Please tell me that I have misunderstood what you are trying to convey.
Overgeneralised to the point of meaninglessness, perhaps.
B>
Alan Browne
> However it is my genuine belief that the organiser will continue to go
> around accusing people of penile fixations because he doesn't
> understand Usenet terminology. (rather than sort out the above)
Crass.
Tim Skirvin
>rec.photo.digital.slr
I'd vote for, and use, this one.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/history/ Skirv's History
Lionel
>Thad <black_box...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>rec.photo.digital.slr
>
> I'd vote for, and use, this one.
So would I.
Hi Tim, I had no idea that you had the slightest interest in
photography. Great to have you aboard. :)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Skirvin
>>>rec.photo.digital.slr
>> I'd vote for, and use, this one.
>Hi Tim, I had no idea that you had the slightest interest in
>photography. Great to have you aboard. :)
It's a fairly recent addition to my life. I didn't feel much need
to talk about it until I bought my Digital Rebel a few months back, and
then I got chased off by the sheer volume of rec.photo.digital...
So yeah, I think I'm the target audience. It's a nice change.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/pics/ Skirv's Pictures
Joe Bernstein
<pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
Surely you aren't serious, given your immense knowledge of Usenet
terminology. Didn't you know about rec.food.cooking's pathologically
fierce defense of its namespace? I don't know if there's an
exception lying around somewhere, but in general, propose anything
structured "rec.food.cooking.x" and watch the fires burn.
There's a reason one group I voted for is called rec.food.baking.
Trust me, if there's ever a muffins group, it'll be either
rec.food.muffins or rec.food.baking.muffins. Because rec.food.cooking
people will vote by the hundreds to keep it from being under
rec.food.cooking.*.
Lighten up on the proponent. Trying to point out how clueless he
is just invites us on the sidelines to do the same to you.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>
David Dyer-Bennet
Of course, what we *really* need is a major reorg along the lines of:
rec.photo.snapshot
rec.photo.serious
rec.photo.idiots
This would make it much easier for most of us to find what we want.
But I doubt we could get the right people to post to the last group
:-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> Rebecca Ore <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Putting all the SLR formats into one group would suck in the worst of
>> all possible ways.
>
> Absolutely. It would make no sense at all to group discussion based just
> on the SLR-ness of a camera. That technical distinction has no relation
> at all to anything having to do with discussion of any real topic within
> photography, other than, perhaps, the design of SLR cameras, which isn't
> really something that needs a newsgroup. I don't even think digital SLRs
> should be mixed in with film ones, even if you limit it to 35mm format
> and digitals using the same lens systems (which would still exclude some
> digital SLR lines that most people think of as in the same class as the
> 35mm-based ones).
I think the 35mm-derived digital SLRs and the film SLRs mostly
*should* be discussed together. Many serious photographers currently
use both, sometimes even on the same project. The equipment details
are pretty closely related. Many areas of technique are the same --
most of exposure, use of flash, all of composition, for example. Many
photographers are in transition from one to the other.
> Really, the whole SLR/non-SLR distinction really only has a whole lot of
> meaning (in the context of discussion) for the 35mm film cameras and the
> 35mm-based or 35mm-like digital ones. Medium format shooters wouldn't
> care about the distinction, for example, even though there are SLR and
> non-SLR cameras in medium format.
And in practice a Leica M4 shooter fits best in the same place with
the 35mm SLR shooters.
> An SLR/non-SLR split makes sense for rec.photo.digital, but most certainly
> not for photography in general.
It's most important as code for how serious you are, I think.
Rebecca Ore
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I think the 35mm-derived digital SLRs and the film SLRs mostly
> *should* be discussed together. Many serious photographers currently
> use both, sometimes even on the same project.
Are you talking 35 mm film, or are you trying to extend and embrace the
medium format group? Digital concerns for medium and large format are
basically about scanners and the few who use digital backs.
A real professional is going to have large format, medium format, and
digital and/or 35 mm film cameras. Each of these has unique problems
and solutions (do you ever hear of anyone using a edge density filter on
wide angle 35 mm lenses?)
There are some large format slr cameras out there (and some twin lens
reflex ones), even if they're very rare now. There are even new range
finder 4x5 cameras.
The other thing is that groups develop social cultures that are
different. RPD is too large to develop a cohesive social culture, which
may be a contributing factor to its troll problem. Groups that are too
large or too small seem to have more problems with disruptions, though I
don't know if anyone has done a more official study of that.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2y8jqa...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> I think the 35mm-derived digital SLRs and the film SLRs mostly
>> *should* be discussed together. Many serious photographers currently
>> use both, sometimes even on the same project.
>
> Are you talking 35 mm film, or are you trying to extend and embrace the
> medium format group? Digital concerns for medium and large format are
> basically about scanners and the few who use digital backs.
I was thinking the current rpe3, hence 35mm film.
> A real professional is going to have large format, medium format, and
> digital and/or 35 mm film cameras. Each of these has unique problems
> and solutions (do you ever hear of anyone using a edge density filter on
> wide angle 35 mm lenses?)
I hear of them correcting it in Photoshop, anyway. I've resorted to
that myself, but I don't own one of the filters (and I've got a couple
of lenses that would benefit from one).
Some pros will, some won't. Not many wedding-and-portrait people use
4x5 (though some specialize in it). Photojournalists are pretty
solidly 35mm (and digital).
And a number of amateurs have all that, starting with me.
In fact, amateur vs. professional isn't really a very useful split in
the first place. Making money is a *very* rough filter, and people
who do it in the Proex Portrait Studio don't impress me nearly as much
as people *not* making much money from their 16x20 cibachrome prints.
> There are some large format slr cameras out there (and some twin
> lens reflex ones), even if they're very rare now. There are even
> new range finder 4x5 cameras.
I agree that specific tech details aren't the best way to sort out
actual interests and topics.
> The other thing is that groups develop social cultures that are
> different. RPD is too large to develop a cohesive social culture,
> which may be a contributing factor to its troll problem. Groups
> that are too large or too small seem to have more problems with
> disruptions, though I don't know if anyone has done a more official
> study of that.
This is definitely the *real* goal in newsgroup management; and often
comes into conflict with namespace / information hierarchy issues.
I agree that people wondering what digital snapshot camera to buy have
very different concerns from people wondering what medium-format film
scanner to buy, or wanting to discuss the 3 (or so) different
RAW-conversion software packages that support the Fuji S2 and find
their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't know of a real study either, but my experience agrees with
yours.
Kathy Morgan
> So yeah, I think I'm the target audience. It's a nice change.
Nice change from being the target?
--
Kathy - read reviews of other newsgroups in news:news.groups.reviews
help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
Mary Shafer
<ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote:
> There are some large format slr cameras out there (and some twin lens
> reflex ones), even if they're very rare now. There are even new range
> finder 4x5 cameras.
And then there's my 8x10" view camera. Single lens, not range finder,
of course.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Woodchuck Bill
news:v2fpj0hbdqq5oah7o...@4ax.com:
> And then there's my 8x10" view camera. Single lens, not range finder,
> of course.
Is it digital?
--
Bill
Mary Shafer
Not yet. I'm not sure I'd convert to digital, even if it existed and
I could afford it. I'm fond of the contact prints I get right now.
Rebecca Ore
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:43:26 GMT, Rebecca Ore
> <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > There are some large format slr cameras out there (and some twin lens
> > reflex ones), even if they're very rare now. There are even new range
> > finder 4x5 cameras.
>
> And then there's my 8x10" view camera. Single lens, not range finder,
> of course.
>
Ya, but there's a good working group for large format which includes all
sorts of things important to large format people (my third camera used
to be a very old Calumet now in the hands of my next-door neighbor).
Robert Marshall
would be a subset of rec.photo.digital.
Robert
Thad wrote:
> ...Of these three, which name do you prefer?
>
> rec.photo.digital.slr
> rec.photo.dslr
> rec.photo.digital-slr
>
> The question is directed at everyone - not only Christian.