[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Number of APML members?
Hi Jim -
I guess I'm pissing against the tide but again I find it interesting that
there are ~543 members and the list only gets maybe 5-20 postings a day on
film astrophotography (and as I mentioned before) sometimes under 5 posts.
Something seems whacked here. I read it that most people are not shooting
film anymore and have nothing to show or talk about. If people are still
crazy about shooting film and it is alive and well, then why aren't there
any posts?.... (please don't take offense... but single digit postings a day
don't make for an active lively group).
Again, I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I just find something askew with
the membership numbers vs actual posts and information being
exchanged.........
Respectfully,
Chris
-----------------------------
Chris Cook Photography
www.cookphoto.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Vineyard" <deepskyphotos@hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Number of APML members?
> (Awe crud, I wrote most all of this right after Chris's original post, but
> I'm home today and got distracted into bleeding the brakes on the Honda.
> Now Gene hath spoken with his usual wisdom. BTW, "Three cheers for Gene
> everyone" the man DOES deserve it, and we all know it. So the thread is
> dead, but since I already composed all this, I just may hit send, I guess
> you'll find out if I do!)
>
>
> Gee Chris,
> I sort of relish the low traffic rate. Why don't we all just post our
> film images on the [CCD] list. Alan had the guts to. (BTW, Yes Alan,
> you're an APML success story now.) But if we all posted film on the [CCD]
> list then they'll just complain about us!
> Suppose they did accept film posts the way we've relaxed on CCD/DSLR
what
> then would be the difference between the two lists? Why would two lists
> even be needed?
> The old days were light-years better I agree though. All the absolutely
> esoteric stuff which used to be hashed out by the greats (yourself not
> excepted, BTW Chris) and in a civil, yet respectfully disagreeable manner
> until the goals of the discussion were reached.
> I know I came in late around here, but some of you newer guys (who have
> clearly and demonstrably made some amazing strides) just would not believe
> how excellent the APML used to be when the guys who REALLY know this stuff
> down to amazing levels of technique were here in abundance and were really
> active.
> Heck, later on I used to post things just to try to get those still here
> to come on out and simply correct me. But I think they're too bored to go
> over all of it again and there may not even be enough of them left to
> operate at the higher levels through active discussion between themselves.
> It's already in the archives.
> On the other hand, though we may sometimes be somewhat bored, I think
the
> newer guys I spoke of above are, never the less, deriving benefits from
the
> list the same as always. In other words, the list still fulfills its
> function: It works.
> One thing of great benefit though, would be if the advanced level would
> correct where they obviously know better. I tend to think they don't feel
> like sticking their necks out though, as I've seen them disrespected on
> occasions. So why bother?
> Well, I think they (and we all) should bother because the APML functions
> at its BEST if it is an active learning environment. One knows when
they've
> "Been there, done that."
> The only question is are they going to share their understanding just
for
> the reward of seeing progress made by those who happen to have come along
> after them.
> I hate to say this, I really do, but somehow I find the [CCD] list and
CCD
> in general to be uninteresting, EXCEPT for the results. I just have not
> caught the bug for "imaging" like I did for "photography".
> I know there are a lot of electronics guys, and computing experts like
> yourself Chris who really find CCD interesting, and superior. But it just
> doesn't hook me and frankly a really good personally acceptable level CCD
> camera costs more than I want to devote to the hobby, at least at this
time.
> I've more pressing priorities.
> The fact that there are over 500 people STILL RIGHT HERE on a film list
> speaks to me quite well that I'm STILL not alone, and yep once yet again,
> FILM IS NOT DEAD!!!!! THERE'S JUST NO LOGICAL PREMISE TO BASE THE NUMBERS
> ON TO DEMONSTRATE A CONVERSE. Dang, what's with CCD that they are, well,
> hell bent on total "sky's the limit" domination in all nooks and crannies.
>
> Humm... haven't we been here before and pretty much solved all this.
> Everyone knows ONLY Robert could have pulled it off, because everyone
knows
> he's about the best in the world. How ya gonna say no to that.
>
> Them be's my thoughts..., respectfully borne by the still current strength
> of the numbers.
>
>
> Jim Vineyard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Cook" <ccook@cape.com>
> To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [APML] Number of APML members?
>
>
> > That's why I asked. The daily traffic on the list is just a shadow of
> > what
> > it use to be. Its very interesting that there are still about the same
> > amount of members though, yet the posts are down to 1-5 per day
sometimes.
> > Compare that to the SBIG and digital_astro group that look to average
> > about
> > 100-200 per day...and the APML years ago.
> >
> > I know this is a sore subject, but I will bring it up again. Since we
> > hardly have any traffic on this list and rarely does anyone post a film
> > image (compared to several years ago). Why don't we make the list truly
> > open to CCD and DSLR posts/questions/images? It seems a bit silly to me
> > to
> > have over 500 members on a list yet there is hardly any traffic. I'm
sort
> > of wondering at this point, what's the real purpose of the list anymore?
> > It
> > looks like there just aren't that many folks shooting film to make the
> > list
> > an lively/active place to post.
> >
> > One finally thought...and I'm not meaning to step on any toes. ...
> > But...why
> > don't we put changing the APML guidelines to an actual vote? Not like
the
> > past where emails flew back and forth debating the subject until we were
> > all
> > blue in the face.
> >
> > If the list truly does end up accepting CCD/DSLR posts, it might liven
the
> > group up to the way it use to be... or... it may do nothing and folks
will
> > still stay on the other lists. Either way, at least I feel the group
put
> > some effort into saving the list from rotting in the corner.
> >
> > If everyone thinks I'm way OT with this and should just shut up, that's
ok
> > too. <BG>
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > Chris Cook Photography
> > www.cookphoto.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Like Chris, I've been wondering about our numbers too. Are we dying
> > out,
> > > or holding steady at 4 to 5 hundred? More???
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
>
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo