On Jun 23, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Tom C wrote: > I actually like John Forbe's idea of having a panel of judges that > votes on > which submissions are included. Sure it has the possibility of > appearing > arbitrary, but no less so than submitting a photo to a contest or > periodical > for publication.
PUG isn't a contest, and it doesn't have the space-limitation of a periodical. I like the PUG as it is - an all-inclusive place where people can collectively show their work and have it identified as part of PDML. Just like the list, there's a wide variety of people with different skills, different tastes, and different viewpoints. I don't see the PUG as a "gallery" in a strict artistic sense, as the photos really can't be expected to fit together in any cohesive way. The themes are pretty loose so we see many different interpretations, and that's part of what makes it so interesting. If people are worried about declining quality, then get off your collective ass and make an example: submit something, and comment on how you think others could improve their photos. If the file size limit is too small, feel free to sponsor some web hosting space. Or just make a compromise and look for a pic that will compress to the required size while maintaining acceptable quality. And I fail to see how excluding photos is going to increase participation. If someone wants to show a fine collection of inspired photographs, they can put it on their own website (in my case, a disorganised work-in-progress collection of varying quality). I often enjoy photos which experienced photographers don't care for (maybe my eye isn't trained right), and I really don't want a panel of judges telling me what they think I should like. Above all, else the thing that worries me most about this suggestion is that it will inevitably bring politics into the list. If you think our petty squabbles are bad now, just wait until this goes ahead! - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
