RE: ULF photography

Does anyone on this list use ULF for VDs, CTs, PPs or DTs? Just wondering
because I'm thinking about going to a smaller size BWN so I can use my KK,
SLR or my MFC to start doing VDs CTs PPs and DTs but am worried about how
they will come across.

This topic and the back and forth is getting stupid IMO. But I am ROLF.

BTW I've done ULF for over 8Y of my life and never known or heard it called
that.

-C

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:09 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Cc: alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: ULF photography

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Pam Niedermayer wrote:

> When did you turn into such a pompous ass? I haven't seen a hint of this
> until the last week. Oh, well, maybe you've always beens this way when
among
> friends. Or is this simply a bad week? Don't answer.

Pam, I was wondering the same thing... As it happens, two people e-mailed
me offlist to say they'd done "ultra large format," but hadn't heard the
acronym. So I daresay there are others who didn't know it either and
simply kept their head down. Equally interesting is that I interviewed
Sandy for an article titled "Sandy King and the 20x24-inch Experience" in
Post-Factory #7. He did use the term "ultra large format" but never the
acronym !

But that's beside the point.

The point is that the mandate, goal and joy of this list has always been
sharing information. Now it would seem that by Sandy's (new?) rules, you
can't ask a question about a discussion you're not up to speed in without
the risk of getting smacked down. Of course there's always the tendency
for discussions to become a jam session among experts (like the difference
between gouache and watercolor, which is also one of the joys of this
list-- tho I digress to mention that that is an extremely loose line, only
slightly more precise than say, the color "red"). Still, within the last
couple of days several quite newby questions were ventured and gladly
answered in fine detail.

Now any folks, even relative experts, could fear asking questions lest
they be snubbed or mocked. I'm pretty tough, but I felt it. What about
those less tempered by list storms? That used to be the kind of rudeness
the listminders would scold. (Now it's coming from a "listminder"?!)

Judy

> And my reference to certification was made because that seems how new
> acronyms are developed and proliferated, at least in the computer world.
Then
> the newly certified can go out into the world thinking they know more than
> everyone who's been working in the field for years.
>
> Pam
>
> Sandy King wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Where did I write that one need to be a certified ULF photographer to
know
>> anything useful? I simply stated that photographers who are involved with
>> ULF work know what the term means, and that is is those persons who could
>> be expected to know enough about it to contribute useful information to a
>> web site that features this type of work.
>>
>> Granted there may be a lone soul or two out there working with cameras
>> lager than 8X10" who has never heard of the term ULF but based on my own
>> interaction with photographers that situation is quite uncommon.
>>
>> Of course, a lack of knowledge about a given subject is not enough to
keep
>> some people from commenting about it, as this thread shows.
>>
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ah, so you need to be a certified ULF photographer to know anything
>>> useful? This is ridiculous. Suppose someone has been doing very large
>>> format photography for 20 years, but has never seen it referred to by
your
>>> acronym?
>>>
>>> Pam
>>>
>>> Sandy King wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know what you may have thought the first time, but there was
>>>> nothing personal about my response. I just think it would be much
better
>>>> for folks on the list to not waste the time of others by responding to
>>>> things they know nothing about.
>>>>
>>>> It seems very clear to me. Patrick asked for contributions about ULF
>>>> photography, and I don't think persons who don't even know what the
>>>> letters mean stand to make much of a contribution, so why waste time
with
>>>> an answer that contributes nothing. I don't see that as a rude comment,
>>>> just an honest opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Sandy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No reason to screw 'em. Just ignore 'em since they don't have
anything
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> contribute but BS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Sandy, I'd been about to post a semi-apology to you, but you seem
>>>>> to make that superfluous -- not to mention that if everything non-ULF
>>>>> photographers contribute is BS, you probably aren't even reading this.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, being the fair-minded, sweet-natured, good person that I
am,
>>>>> I note the following: Due to a REAL screw-up on the Internet (see NY
>>>>> Times business section today, Tuesday) my service provider, Panix, was
>>>>> hijacked to Australia by way of Canada, which may account for the fact
>>>>> that Patrick's explanation of the term and apology for not explaining
>>>>> appeared in my queue long after your comment that non-ULF users had
>>>>> nothing to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> That comment had seemed a strangely rude reply to a good-natured
query.
>>>>> Then, reflecting on the sequence, I figured you probably meant
something
>>>>> else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it looks like I was right the first time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judy
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... People who do not know that
>>>>>>>> ULF means ultra large format are likely to have little or nothing
to
>>>>>>>> contribute to your site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case, screw 'em?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wed Jan 19 23:29:40 2005