Bob Sulllivan wrote: > >Having high quality photos in the PUG is a good idea. >Perhaps quality has declined since we went digital. >It is easier to make a casual post to the PUG now, >just resize and upload versus the process before.
I think that can be part of it. > >Somehow this doesn't square with the declining submissions. >I think the PUG suffers from too many PESO's. >Folks use this outlet instead of the PUG. >I would rather that they use the PUG because >the PESO comments are very disorganized. >They trickle in over days and weeks causing me to reload photos. >I can keep the PUG comments in one place and review at one time. > You are likely correct again. >I think it's admirable to talk about raising quality levels, but I >remember the PUG discussions 3-5 years ago about rating photos (NO!) >and I can imagine the uproar the idea of setting 2 or 3 judges up as >gatekeepers for the Gallery. It would go something like "Who the hell >are these a**holes who are gonna tell me my picture is or isn't good >enough to be included." > Yeah, I know it would go that way, but if that were the rules... (I'll shutup on the subject now). >That's why I suggested a new gallery of The PDML's Best. Let folks >nominate photos to a best gallery. Those are my thoughts. I'd suggested the same thing several years back. Flew like a brick. :-) > >And by the way, shouldn't we give folks like you who can walk out >their door to spectacular scenery a handicap in any kind of gallery >like this. You can only use jpegs or medium quality or something... >:-) Maybe Bill Robb can help here. > Bill told me there would be haters. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
