As such, it behooves us to define, whatever the scope, the fundamental objectives of the forum and the types of input deemed compliant with these objectives.

How can you define something while you're inventing it? This goes for both creative work and forum participation as I see it. New forum, new processes, new technologies...I don't know what sort of image making I'll be doing a year down the road and I'd be reluctant to close off any tangent by capping it with rules or definitions. It just seems like it would all but guarantee the forum's transience.

How can you define something while you're inventing it?

My point exactly and down the road we'll be reinventing.

I don't know what sort of image making I'll be doing a year down the road and I'd be reluctant to close off any tangent by capping it with rules or definitions. It just seems like it would all but guarantee the forum's transience.

Quite to the contrary. Making exclusions may alienate certain segments of the discipline but would also focus the content of the forum to that which is consistent with its mission - a Hybrid Workflow.

This in itself would set us apart from "department store" websites and add stature to the forum as recognized consortium of contributers on the subject matter which makes up the forum's "raison d'etre".

Realize at the door it isn't purely digital or analog, but come to Hybrid and discuss photography.

JD,

I think that is an excellent synopsis and it certainly appeals to me.

David

I hate to say but I don't see this thread going very far or finding a workable consensus! Why not just take the parts that interest you and involve yourself in them and ignore those that don't. This is clearly seen in the gallery section where certain people will involve themselves commenting on images that interest them and ignore those that do not. Those that are posting images or comment outwith what others want to participate in will soon find the boundaries without a need for them being spelt out!

JD, I like your approach. Don't change a thing (except maybe that under construction thing). I hate rules. The fewer rules, the better. It's much easier to ignore what doesn't interest me than to complain about it. If someone posts DSLR pix, so what? 99% of the time I can tell from the thumbnail weather clicking on the picture is worth my time or not.

The 2 most futile postings I've seen on forums and email lists are:

1. "Hey, stop talking about that, it's OT!"
2. "Hey, how come nobody ever posts anything interesting here??"

If you're unhappy with the content, add something interesting or move on.

We only need 1 rule: No Whining.:cool:

JD, I like your approach. Don't change a thing (except maybe that under construction thing). I hate rules. The fewer rules, the better. It's much easier to ignore what doesn't interest me than to complain about it. If someone posts DSLR pix, so what? 99% of the time I can tell from the thumbnail weather clicking on the picture is worth my time or not.

The 2 most futile postings I've seen on forums and email lists are:

1. "Hey, stop talking about that, it's OT!"
2. "Hey, how come nobody ever posts anything interesting here??"

If you're unhappy with the content, add something interesting or move on.

We only need 1 rule: No Whining.:cool:

AMEN!

Here's a 'Heads Up!' notice that the traffic on hybridphoto could be getting even leaner and spottier. There has been a Social Groups thread relating to 'hybrid photography' formed on APUG and jd callow is one of the mods. The 'under construction' sign we all hate will probably be here for awhile and spyders will rule the earth.

This is meant only as a f.y.i. I don't have any suggestions about how to make this place more than a digital tools Q&A forum and gallery. I think I was the only one ever really interested in that (and even I could hear myself start to whine about it :o )

d

JD Callow, like all the moderators on APUG is by default a moderator on all APUG social groups. That doesn't mean that he's taking an active role in organizing or promoting the Hybrid Photo Social Group or any other group except for the Cross Processing Group, which he created himself. In general the social groups are moderated mainly by their founders, and the founder in this case is gr82bart.

In my case, I think there is more organized discussion here about hybrid techniques, so I think that when I need that information or have something to contribute, I'll continue to look here.

The group function on APUG is far less usable than the full forum. I do think the APUG group is more of a way to stop the constant requests of one very small group. FWIW activity has picked up on Hybrid.

Hybrid Photo does indeed (slightly) rock :P

I'll stick with the best of both worlds and subscribe to both.

Pity there has to be this separation, but not for me to criticize earlier choices.

According to the description in the announcement thread on APUG, the purpose of the group is to cover everything that this site is supposed to cover, in other words all hybrid processes.

After being scolded for being too enthusiastic about one kind of hybrid process (handcoated wet prints) and somehow thereby being personally responsible for making people using other hybrid processes (such as film to digital output) feel unwelcome here, I stopped posting almost completely so as to make sure not to be crowding anyone out; I've posted here five times in nine months, so the fact that that group of people have never chosen to come here and make this their home cannot possibly be my fault. In fact, their complaints about hybridphoto, at least back in the days when I was still reading APUG, seemed always to be about the lack of traffic on hybridphoto and that they wanted it to have the banter and chitchat of APUG, otherwise they weren't interested in participating. Apparently they seem to have got what they've always wanted, to have a "hybrid" discussion forum on APUG rather than being relegated to hybridphoto with the outcasts.

And no, Denise was certainly not the only one who was interested in this being more than a digital site; there was a lot of interest in hybrid photography a year or two ago. I kept telling Denise then, that the way to make the site what you want is to "build it and they will come," and I would have said that then for anyone who wanted the site to be more (whatever). At any rate, since the increased traffic now seems to be more digital stuff rather than hybrid stuff, I'm not sure it says anything other than that the site has become essentially a digital site. I stick around because even though there's not much hybrid discussion here any more, there are still some great hybrid prints posted on the gallery, and I would hate to miss those, but otherwise the site has pretty much lost its interest for me.

Katharine Thayer

I think that much of the discussion pertains to the digital aspects of hybrid work here, because most people who are interested in working with hybrid digital/traditional processes already understand the traditional part fairly well and are trying to see how incorporating digital methods will make it possible or easier to do things they couldn't do easily with an all-analogue process.

After being scolded for being too enthusiastic about one kind of hybrid process (handcoated wet prints) and somehow thereby being personally responsible for making people using other hybrid processes (such as film to digital output) feel unwelcome here,
Katharine Thayer

I'm sorry I missed that. Feel free to send me the link or report the post. I do not want anyone to suffer intimidation on this site.