The "slant" may tend to reflect the ratio of submissions. The acceptance, as a percentage of offerings, is an unknown.
Jack --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here are the current counts for the categories: > Abstract - 283 > B&W - 292 > Cityscape/Urban - 466 > Documentary - 295 > Food - 67 > Glamour/Fashion - 38 > Landscapes - 907 > Lifestyle - 189 > Macro - 464 > Nature - 1077 > Portraiture - 327 > Sports/Action - 123 > Travel - 474 > Wildlife - 446 > > Yeah, when you look at the actual numbers, I agree with Paul, there > is > a very definite slant. > > -- > Bruce > > > Friday, December 14, 2007, 7:25:14 PM, you wrote: > > pcn> I don't know why it would be the case either, but > pcn> observation suggests that only landscapes have a fair chance of > pcn> acceptance. I'm okay with that. Perhaps the judges feel they > need > pcn> more of that genre. But I do believe it's very difficult to > score > pcn> in some categories. > pcn> Paul > pcn> -------------- Original message ---------------------- > pcn> From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I don't know why that would be the case, but there is no question > that > >> you're in a position to realistically assess the work you're > offering > >> and have the experience and detachment needed to objectively judge > its > >> merits. > >> Naive it may be, but while there is no question the bar has been > >> raised, I feel it remains level. > >> > >> Jack > >> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> > I was better than a quick rejection, but I doubt that you could > get > >> > it accepted. I don't think it's what they're looking for. Fair? > Maybe > >> > not, but that seems to be the way things are. > >> > Paul > >> > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > >> > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > I may do that - my reason to ask here is to see if most people > also > >> > > feel it should have been rejected or not. If most do, then it > >> > isn't > >> > > worth resubmitting and I learn something more about my photos. > For > >> > > this one, I felt it was better than a quick rejection - but > maybe > >> > I'm > >> > > wrong. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Bruce > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Friday, December 14, 2007, 4:28:48 PM, you wrote: > >> > > > >> > > JD> Remember my speedy rejection whine awhile back? > >> > > JD> I contacted Carolyn who said that she had, also, had a one > day > >> > > JD> rejection, was going to re-submit her image and suggested > I do > >> > the > >> > > JD> same. She stated that there had been some voting "issues" > >> > during that > >> > > JD> particular time. I did re-submit my image and it was > ultimately > >> > > JD> accepted for the gallery in about a week. > >> > > JD> You might re-submit your image.(?) > >> > > > >> > > JD> Jack > >> > > JD> --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> Hello Jack, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> speed of rejection - about 1 day. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> Best regards, > >> > > >> Bruce > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Friday, December 14, 2007, 3:31:13 PM, you wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> JD> Bruce, why do not think it was not seen by the judges? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> JD> Jack > >> > > >> JD> --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> I need to see if my perceptions are off base or not. I > was > >> > rather > >> > > >> >> surprised that the photo I recently showed of the kid > with > >> > > >> lollipop > >> > > >> >> was declined without even making it to the judges. I > would > >> > have > >> > > >> >> thought it would have made it through the peer judging. > Let > >> > me > >> > > >> know > >> > > >> >> if I am perceiving wrong...thanks. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Here is the photo: > >> > > >> >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/rivercats_0004a.htm > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> -- > >> > > >> >> Best regards, > >> > > >> >> Bruce > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> -- > >> > > >> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > > >> >> PDML@pdml.net > >> > > >> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > >> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly > >> > above > >> > > >> >> and follow the directions. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> JD> > >> > > >> JD> > >> > > >> > >> > > JD> > >> > > > >> > > >> > ________________________________________________________________________________ > >> > > ____ > >> > > >> JD> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > >> > > >> JD> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> > > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly > >> > above > >> > > >> and follow the directions. > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > JD> > >> > > JD> > >> > > > >> > > >> > ________________________________________________________________________________ > >> > > ____ > >> > > JD> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > >> > > JD> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > > PDML@pdml.net > >> > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above > >> > and follow > >> > > the directions. > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > PDML@pdml.net > >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above > >> > and follow the directions. > >> > > >> > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
