I've been an Apug member for several years, and while that site has progressively evolved over the years I don't see a fraction of the development attention being given to HybridPhoto.

We're missing quite a bit of functionality, not to mention interface enhancements.

Anyone else get this feeling? What can we do about this?


-Daniel

What's missing?

Also look at the user base of each site

24,000 at APUG, 1,000 here

APUG has a larger (broader) worldwide appeal, Hybrid photo is kind of specific to alternative types that mix digital and analog. If someone is looking for an all digital site, there are plenty of those on the web.

And again I have to ask, what's missing? You make a post and either someone replies, or not... Just like any other forum. Chat? Why, normally not enough people around to bother. Gallery? Yup got a gallery. The only thing that might be missing is a for sale section, and that should really combine with APUG since we all need the same types of things for both areas. Cameras, lenses, tripods are common to both. Selling things like printers, scanners, colormanagement equipment may or may not be needed at APUG, but chances are good that it would not be completely out of place there as well as here. Seeing that both sites are hosted on the same servers, or at least operated by the same "company", this shouldn't be too hard.

Never mind, I see that here is a classifieds section here, but I would still probably suggest mixing it with APUG and linking to the combined classifieds from both sites.

i agree with gregg, what is it you want?

i agree with gregg, what is it you want?

More conversations covering the whole of photography.

More conversations covering the whole of photography.


Get more members and you'll have it. You need to achieve a certain critical mass before things really start moving along. And from what I see when I come here most everyday, we just do not have that critical mass yet.

Get more members and you'll have it. You need to achieve a certain critical mass before things really start moving along. And from what I see when I come here most everyday, we just do not have that critical mass yet.

Perhaps we could have a conversation about what is the cart and what is the horse.

Well for one thing, the interface is pretty archaic, not to mention (again) that I don't see any *development* being invested into HybridPhoto.

As for "us" being a "niche" - I strongly disagree. Apug represents the remnants of a dying breed - "Traditional Photographers"; a species that is, at best, endangered. The hybrid workflow combines the best of both worlds and in that sense, stands poised for maximum growth (compared to Apug).

As for attracting membership well.. that goes along with content. Lets see a section dedicated to specific workflows (tutorials and the like), or better yet, something detailing the possibilities that present themselves when combining digital/analog technique?

To captivate an audience one must start by getting their attention.

So, I am of two minds on this, and I think I see valid points on both sides.

On the one hand, I look at the behemoth that is APUG and wonder, why can't we have community that doesn't have a histamine reaction to every creative technique developed in the last ten years?! And what of all the various new ways people are trying to keep traditional processes alive?

On the other hand, truly experienced printers generally don't feel like they have anything to prove, so to speak, and thus don't feel obligated to evangelize. Experienced professionals are not likely to bring in new folks with friendly critiques and rehashed technique and equipment discussions. Quite often, a newcomer is referred to the latest recipe book on the subject and that's that. (N.b, I'm not knocking anyone's book)

To those who seek improvement, I hear you, and let me suggest simply listing the possible steps that could be taken, in order to improve activity.

I think one major impediment to progress is that the mission of the site is not actually defined. If you look around you will see that there is actually some disagreement about what constitutes "hybrid." Everyone seems to know what it isn't, but do we really know what it is?

Hybrid photography is any photography that has as constituent elements traditional photography and digital imagery.

What this site is or will be is something within that broad definition. What and who each individual is and what they do within the scope of their photography and that photography that is discussed here is what should be the focus. Does that make enough sense? It isn't about the site but the members.

I'm hopeful people won't be as enamored by rules as they will be by the opportunities of a relatively free site.

I'm hopeful people won't be as enamored by rules as they will be by the opportunities of a relatively free site.

I like the site, I'm a subscriber to APUG, but it is nice to have Hybrid where it is possible "to come out of the digital closet" ;)

As with anything it takes time to grow, there is not a lot of competition for APUG but there is probably more for the "market" that Hybrid addresses.

One small suggestion, how about removing the "We are under construction but taking new registration", when I first visited that nearly put me off (A) cause I mis-read it as not taking registration :o and (B) I wondered how active a site that is being constructed would be. I wonder if the banner was gone if it would make the site look more permanent/established. There is a lot of functionality on the site and the banner belies that fact.

I think that getting things moving is down to us to be more active in posting. The fact the the forum is quieter than APUG is an advantage in ways in that it's easier to keep up to date with what is being posted.

I have a suggestion for adding an area, how about a "Networking" (geez I hate that word) where people involved in a photography related business could post details of their business, kinda like a Yellow Pages section. I guess that the problem with that would be if the site wants to get advertising revenue. Anyhow just an idea.

David

As for attracting membership well.. that goes along with content. Lets see a section dedicated to specific workflows (tutorials and the like), or better yet, something detailing the possibilities that present themselves when combining digital/analog technique?

You are free to post any tutorials that you would like. If you require information on a subject, you might want to ask a question. Your last few questions have had some extremely detailed answers, so I don't think there is a lack of knowledge around here.







I think that getting things moving is down to us to be more active in posting.

Yup.

It should be noted that so far digital-digital workflows have been tolerated, and really should be encouraged. I don't really see this place being taken over by digital only people. And believe it on not, a lot of people still shoot film because they like it (gasp :eek: ). In the long run it can also be much cheaper than a comparable high pixel count digital solution (if only I had $30,000+ for that 39MP back). It would take me about 5 years worth of film, paper, ink, and film processing to hit that much. And when I get back to printing, I'll use a lot of paper and ink while I work out the newest workflow for me. Even when you factor in things like scanners and color management equipment and software, I'm still far below what it would take to justify that kind of single expense.

Hybrid photography is any photography that has as constituent elements traditional photography and digital imagery.

What this site is or will be is something within that broad definition. What and who each individual is and what they do within the scope of their photography and that photography that is discussed here is what should be the focus. Does that make enough sense? It isn't about the site but the members.

I'm hopeful people won't be as enamored by rules as they will be by the opportunities of a relatively free site.


'Constituent elements of both traditional and digital photography/imagery' is not actually a very broad topic within the enormous tent of photography - contemporary and historical. It could seen as a broad definition only in the sense that it is so fuzzy, at least as to how it might appear to would-be members of this forum. And, requiring (either explicitly or implicitly) that questions, comments, and gallery submissions meet poorly understood requirements almost guarantees a low participation.

Here's the problem for me, and I'm sure for many, many others: I am not a 'hybrid photographer'. My work contains hybrid elements. I started out in the pre-digital age. I love film and darkrooms and always will. I also love the new digital options. It's a great time to be a photographer. The problem: My work is on a continuum from straight analog to digital, with about half my work "qualifying" for the definition of this site. How do I, as an artist, split up my work and by default, myself? Yesterday, I made a print I'd love to share here, but it is pure analog. Do I post it over on APUG? And, then, what would I do with a purely digital print that was a meaningful addition to my body of work? I've seen one or two 'histamime reactions' here to even the hint that someone might have posted a digital-only image. Photography has moved way past the point where one isolated photograph, no matter how well executed, defines the photographer.

When hybridphoto was getting started, it was my hope that this would finally be a place that encompassed the whole of photography. Only in such a forum of like souls can we truly move forward with our chosen art form.

I have come to accept that the majority of hybrid members just want a place to ask questions about digital tools, and not be bothered with keeping up with topics of no interest to them. My post today is to those who need more, but may think they are alone. If you look back and realize how many wonderful photographers posted here when we were getting started and who now show up infrequently, if at all, you will know that you are not alone.

d

I agree with much, if not all, of what has been said above.

Here is the problem as I see it, I will try to be more clear this time!

The mission of hybrid photo is perhaps being implied in exclusive terms rather than inclusive. When a newcomer arrives here, which impression do we honestly think they will have:

(a) You are welcome here as long as you don't post a straight dslr image

(b) You are welcome to post any film or digital or hybrid image and we will actively encourage crossover techniques

I think we should consider the possibility that if somebody posts a dslr image in the gallery, that person might well be encouraged to consider a traditional output method.

My take is, if we want to keep alt processes alive, we damn well need to reach right into the dslr community and help them to realize that hybrid printing is for them. Conversely, I think we need to simply not be so over-reactive whenever somebody asks a sincere question about the financial or technical advantages of one workflow versus another.

Now, I realize that some of us feel like simply posting dslr images in the gallery is unacceptable. I see the point but I would counter: if somebody really is 100% digital and not interested in hybrid techniques, then why would they come to this site, which is way, way down on the google list for digital image critique?! Why wouldn't they just go to flickr?! People come here to hang out and learn techniques which are not limited by the kinds of boundaries that one finds on a pure film or pure digital forum.

My gut feeling is that if filmies and digies are equally welcome here, and open discussions are fostered, then cross-fertilization will occur. Yes there will always be things that aren't attractive to one person or another, c'est la vie. I just don't like what recently happened with the print exchange suggestion: somehow the thing fractured into what kinds of prints are acceptable to particular people. I was thinking of doing a hybrid blend of a 5x7 velvia image with a dslr image printed by lightjet on RA4 paper. It involves drum scanning and LAB layering and colour processing and blending in PS. Now, pray tell, where I am supposed to go with that nutty idea?!!!

Really, I think we should think about ways to restate the mission of the site in the most inclusive way possible. APUG minus the histamine reactions.

'Constituent elements of both traditional and digital photography/imagery' is not actually a very broad topic within the enormous tent of photography - contemporary and historical. It could seen as a broad definition only in the sense that it is so fuzzy, at least as to how it might appear to would-be members of this forum. And, requiring (either explicitly or implicitly) that questions, comments, and gallery submissions meet poorly understood requirements almost guarantees a low participation.

Here's the problem for me, and I'm sure for many, many others: I am not a 'hybrid photographer'. My work contains hybrid elements. I started out in the pre-digital age. I love film and darkrooms and always will. I also love the new digital options. It's a great time to be a photographer. The problem: My work is on a continuum from straight analog to digital, with about half my work "qualifying" for the definition of this site. How do I, as an artist, split up my work and by default, myself? Yesterday, I made a print I'd love to share here, but it is pure analog. Do I post it over on APUG? And, then, what would I do with a purely digital print that was a meaningful addition to my body of work? I've seen one or two 'histamime reactions' here to even the hint that someone might have posted a digital-only image. Photography has moved way past the point where one isolated photograph, no matter how well executed, defines the photographer.

When hybridphoto was getting started, it was my hope that this would finally be a place that encompassed the whole of photography. Only in such a forum of like souls can we truly move forward with our chosen art form.

I have come to accept that the majority of hybrid members just want a place to ask questions about digital tools, and not be bothered with keeping up with topics of no interest to them. My post today is to those who need more, but may think they are alone. If you look back and realize how many wonderful photographers posted here when we were getting started and who now show up infrequently, if at all, you will know that you are not alone.

d

Some people love rules I am not one of those people and nor on the face of it do you seem to be a lover of rules. Yet, you've built your own constraints regarding this site. I do not care nor does the majority of users seem to care if you or anyone else posts comment that are purely digital, purely analog or completely separate. There has been some comment regarding the gallery submissions not being 'pure' enough or that descriptions not being explicit. For reasons of my own, which may be apparent or become apparent I have kept some distance from the discussion.

The truth about Hybrid is that you decide what gets discussed. I have said this many times and I have never deleted a post or thread because it was too digital, too analogue or ot hybrid enough. If the discussion isn't what you like or want then post on subjects that have value to you, invite kindred souls, build a coalition and start to mold the site. I will facilitate what ever you want to discuss regarding photography (until it begins to become something that is all digital*) and I will keep the forum safe from impolite people, trolls, spam and other attacks.


With almost no exception the members decide.

The site is not about digital tools any more than it is about digital negs, pt/pd or gum overs.




*At the end of the day the one thing this site will not relinquish is that it is about photography not digital imagery.

Hybrid photography is any photography that has as constituent elements traditional photography and digital imagery.



:confused:

The truth about Hybrid is that you decide what gets discussed.

Use this if you wish to try and understand what hybridphoto.com is or can be -- it is what I've been saying since day one. If you need to understand what a hybrid photo is refer to the other quote.

The fact of the matter is, and should be apparent to any who come here, that no given post or subject can be purely hybrid. As one of many examples you can talk about coating paper with out feeling obliged to discuss digital negs. If someone wishes to discuss a photographic motif they shouldn't need to bring up film or digital.

Think about...

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

I
My take is, if we want to keep alt processes alive, we damn well need to reach right into the dslr community and help them to realize that hybrid printing is for them.


Keith,

I'm with you on that, but I still feel there should be some basic parameters to HybridPhoto's mission statement - even if those parameters are loosely enforced.

As for the posting of pure-dslr images, I'd support an open-posting policy in order to encourage interest in hybrid/alt process - a means to an end. In this light, I would insist that any non-hybrid image (pure analog or pure digital) be confined to specific galleries intended for just such images, in order to spare Hybrid-folk the bother of sifting through galleries in search of interesting hybrid content.

- Daniel

Parameters.

Whether we’re using ‘parameter’ to discuss a limit boundary, or consider a characteristic element, or set of values, I don’t see how parameters have a place in Hybrid Photography.

Now, I’m speaking merely as a practical craftsperson using various elements of photography to make images. I’m not concerned with a descriptive understanding of work which as been done. I don’t have the need to define my work by what somebody else has done, or thinks ought to be done.

Traditional photography has been hamstrung many times in the past 160 years by those who would try to control what images were correct, which techniques were proper, and whose materials were acceptable.

Since the Internet, there have been far too many who have taken pitifully limited and parochial appreciation of Photography and set themselves up as experts, taste makers, and gatekeepers. Well, fine.

I don’t see how we can draw a circle about the process and activity of making images by various photographic means, without first establishing what is and is not acceptable. As long as there is an emphasis on image-making, parametric circumscription is neither desirable nor possible. I don’t see the merit of collecting another butterfly in order to pin it to somebody's specimen box.

For those who are more interested in observing the fundamental nature of hybrid-photographic reality, I suppose that parameters would be essential. For image makers, parameters are undesirable.

But I would hold -instead- out for a generous and amiable anarchy over a concise meta- or theoretical comprehension of Hybrid Photography.

Parameters.

Whether we’re using ‘parameter’ to discuss a limit boundary, or consider a characteristic element, or set of values, I don’t see how parameters have a place in Hybrid Photography.

Well then let me shed some light on the matter:

This isn't an open philosophical plenum on elemental "Hybrid Photography"; whatever that might mean in those terms. Rather, it's is by my understanding a specialized forum for discussion of all matters pertaining to the marriage of modern digital & traditional photo process, courted by participants and lovers of the craft.

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.


. I’m not concerned with a descriptive understanding of work which as been done. I don’t have the need to define my work by what somebody else has done, or thinks ought to be done.

That's rather subjective, personal and questionably relevant to the discussion.



As long as there is an emphasis on image-making, parametric circumscription is neither desirable nor possible. I don’t see the merit of collecting another butterfly in order to pin it to somebody's specimen box.

For those who are more interested in observing the fundamental nature of hybrid-photographic reality, I suppose that parameters would be essential. For image makers, parameters are undesirable.


That seems to be inline with Photo.net - An undefined plenum for all things photographic. I believe there is/was an inherent intent behind the naming of this forum - "Hybrid Photo", which should be adhered to lest we fall pray to some flavor of "photo globalization" and lose any exclusivity or distinction within our intended segment.