On Sun, 6 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My disagreement with the PUG comment process isn't based on the controversy
> over Shel's critique. Let me summarize again.
I would also like to point out publically that Shel's comments had
*nothing* to do with the decision to stop commenting on every photo.
> 1a) If you want a serious critique on your photos, there are plenty of other
> galleries available. Why not take your stuff there. Do it on the net, do it
> face to face at a local club. You'll find plenty of folks to critique you.
I think talking about the photos that we shoot is a lot more on-topic than
a lot of posts to the list. If we can talk about film, tripods and
equipment, why not our photos as well?
> 2) The PUG critiques are too much like a homework assignment. The PUG is a
> large collection of pictures. I struggle every month to take a serious look
> at the photos and make some comments on those I like, public or private
> comments.
This is the alternate method I'm considering, which is to have nothing
organized and to let everyone comment on the shots (if any) that strike
them. Or whatever. If not enough people ask to have their photos
commented on, then we should just go back to this way.
> Right now, I have 40+ emails critiquing photos to read on this month's
> PUG. I don't want to read them until I view the pictures and form my
> own opinions. Why are we creating all this public traffic? To make
> sure that EACH contributor gets at least ONE critique?
That was the idea. People were putting in a lot of time to take and scan
images; the PUGmeisters were taking time out of their lives to put up the
page each month, and it seemed like all we did on the list was talk about
equipment, not our photos and the wonderful PUG. Some months the PUG
would be lucky to get one or two mentions on the list, and that didn't
seem right. You might as well ask, why create all the public traffic
about film, tripods, camera stores, etc? Some people find photos more
interesting. Me, I like both.
> Isn't there a better way to do this privately, or as Boz suggested on
> another list?
Someone else can set up a list if they want to. <g> Sure, we could do it
privately, but then we're missing the chance for other people to jump in
on the thread and comment on the comments, often resulting in a more
balanced perspective on a photo.
> (And who says these critiques are any good?)
No one; who says your photos are any good? <g> The point is *not* to
provide a professional critique. It's just to say what you like or didn't
like about a photo. It's simple, and you don't have to know anything
about art to do it.
> 2a) Do you really think all 90 pictures in the gallery need a public
> critique? I liked the old method better. 8 or 10 of the best or most
> noteworthy pictures got called to our attention and a critique (albeit
> a weak critique in public). The remaining pictures may or may not
> have gotten private feedback. So what's wrong with this? Can't we
> learn to give each other feedback in private?
When someone asks a question about equipment (especially non-Pentax stuff
like film, bags, etc.), why don't you urge everyone to answer off-list
then? Are you saying that that is more on-topic than our photos? I would
disagree. The initial feedback is only part of the process; the responses
and discussions that can follow are the real gems. If you don't think
that the benefits of comments on our photos are worth the bandwidth used,
then at least realize that some people feel the same about equipment. Why
shouldn't we give opinions in public?
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
