Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I think so, but first of all I read what you wrote. Involved can mean a lot of things to a lot of people in surprisingly different ways. Keep the rules simple, and weird thinking (as I tried to show) can't happen. That's what I meant, I hope you know (now). Cheers, Pancho Dario Bonazza schrieb: You know what I meant. Dario - Original Message - From: Pancho Hasselbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 PM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Well, but up to which limit? Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Zenitar lens to my Ricoh body, even if they are connected by a K mount? Or: Taken with a Canikolta, with a Pentax Filter attached? Lighting measured with Pentax digital spot meter, picture taken with an Olyflex? Lens cover detached for taking picture is branded Pentax??? I see some wisdom in the rule that at least a Pentax camera or lens must be used, period. And yes, I do take pictures with my Minolta Autocord, Olympus C-5050, or whatever comes to hand or seems right at the moment, but I don't feel a need to contribute these pictures to PUG. And I do agree on what Bob Sullivan said about commitment created by restrictions. I'm not yet at the level that I go and take pictures related to the monthly theme, but this is something I want to get close to, because it is part of a collective effort. Pancho Dario Bonazza schrieb: I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Dario
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
E.R.N. Reed wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month - Non-Pentax gear. Tom C. Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors. Hehehehe. Although I am not sure if that covers Leica. I am also fine keeping it the way it is. But I must I am say I am intrigued by an open, open section. Look at it this way, it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better, when one compares the shots side by side. Marnie aka Doe ;-) I think it's more likely to show that the equipment doesn't matter; the photographer does. Some of the better PUGgers have a dark side or two, and depending what they show at the time, that might give the wrong impression of which gear is better. (Frank, for instance, has a Leica he's not afraid to use; César and Godfrey are apparently quite ecumenical in their equipment choices, etc.) I don't feel *very* strongly about this, but since Darkside Defectors can, and do, post PESOs, I'm content to keep the PUG for Pentax gear. (Of which, as you reassured me, you also own some ... ) ERN Eleanor, I have to agree with you about the photographer being the difference. And I also agree about keeping the PUG for Pentax gear. As a note, I took a shot of some equipment at work for a presentation. I had a new co-worker ask if I had taken the shot. I cannot recall if I used the *ist D, Nikon D1X, or the squadron's ps for that shot. But he was in awe of it. It was my knowing the equipment and its limitations and my vision that delivered that shot. I must admit that you stopped me by using the word ecumenical. I figured it could not be that bad if I were being grouped with Godfrey :-P Should I mention that I may be looking for a Leica on my next trip north? Never straying far from Pentax, César Panama City, Florida
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
So? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:49 AM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. Well I do there are plenty of other sites to view images. I said exactly that in my second paragraph. We don't need no stinkin larger photos. And that in my third :) - Dave
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
This is exactly as I see it. It is a challenge -and a lot of fun - to select a picture meeting the monthly subject. It is almost like a real photo club where you come together each month and discuss each others pictures. I do support upgrading of image size to 800 max (if this can be accomodated on the server) but I don't see this being crucial to the improvement of the gallery. Henk -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 January, 2006 9:00 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) I'm perfectly happy with PUG as it is. Other people do the work and provide the resources, I am wholly grateful to them for doing so. I support it to the best of my extremely limited ability. It is called Pentax User's Gallery and the aim is to display the possibilities of using Pentax equipment. It would completely lose that point if submissions were allowed using any equipment. What contributes to the decreasing significance of the gallery is many people's inability to have the discipline to submit. I adminre and am grateful to those who can and do. The change needs to be in the mentality of the contributors, not the gallery. mike
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
John Francis wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. I'm perfectly happy with PUG as it is. Other people do the work and provide the resources, I am wholly grateful to them for doing so. I support it to the best of my extremely limited ability. It is called Pentax User's Gallery and the aim is to display the possibilities of using Pentax equipment. It would completely lose that point if submissions were allowed using any equipment. What contributes to the decreasing significance of the gallery is many people's inability to have the discipline to submit. I adminre and am grateful to those who can and do. The change needs to be in the mentality of the contributors, not the gallery. mike
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
File size/dimension restrictions make me reticent to post images to the PUG, by most current web image presentation standards it's pretty limiting. I would like to see a bit larger image size. Powell
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can the PUG get further promotion? Remind the notoriously forgetful like me that (a) the deadline is approaching and (b) what the month's subject is. And please do keep it somewhat Pentax eclusive. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
mmm... I would have subscribed this for film but, in the digital era, the body (sensor, processor, ...) has acquired a great relevance, quite close to the lens IMHO. To me the current restriction is fine (Pentax body or lens) and I would even admit rebadgeds like the new Samsungs, although this may make rules too complicated (which is just rebadged and which is not). --- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I could agree if we still used film, but now much of the limitations also relate to the sensor and electronics in the camera. So if brand has any interest at all the camera is part of it. DagT fra: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
That won't work. I'll bet half the group have more than one Sigma, Tokina, Zenitar, Vivitar and others in K mount or even M42. Not only that, but this rule would exclude images taken though microscopes and telescopes. Some part of the equipment needs to be Pentax and the body is the obvious choice. Don John Forbes wrote: Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 --Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ --No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- Dr E D F Williams __ http://www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/index.htm http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature: The Cement Company from Hell Updated: Added Print Gallery - 16 11 2005
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Dario - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) I could agree if we still used film, but now much of the limitations also relate to the sensor and electronics in the camera. So if brand has any interest at all the camera is part of it. DagT fra: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
John Forbes wrote: Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? John I was just going to comment on that thought, John. There are basically two elements involved in a PUG image, the photographer and what lens he used. After all, it's the lens that makes the image, not the body. Like Cotty, if the photog uses a Canon body because it fits his hands better, or for whatever other reason, it's the lens that makes the image. He tends to go to great length to assure he uses the lens he likes! A Pentax lens! If Im going out on a photographic foray, I first choose a body (K-mount, M42, whatever) and then the final choice ~ the lens! A dozen reasons for lens choice, but what you put on film or on the CCD, is a result of the lens you've selected, not the body... The body merely holds the lens and the image recorder (film, CCD) in the proper position so you can record the image being formed by the lens. If it comes to a vote, keep it with Pentax lenses, and allow a body of the photographer's choice. When you say Look at how this image turned out! you're not bragging about the fact it was shot with your MX, or your K-1000, you're saying Look at the special way this lens makes images! Yeah, stay with Pentax lenses as the prime criteria for acceptance. Just a few of my thoughts about it. keith whaley On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that, here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I have read their posts for many years), and I know that I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for details in the PDML. --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Don Williams wrote: That won't work. I'll bet half the group have more than one Sigma, Tokina, Zenitar, Vivitar and others in K mount or even M42. Not only that, but this rule would exclude images taken though microscopes and telescopes. Some part of the equipment needs to be Pentax and the body is the obvious choice. Don Okay, your point is noted, but...what about an image shot with a lovely LX body, but a decidedly inferior lens? Assuming you'd even want to submit it, that is! We may end up stipulating either/or. Either the body OR the lens must be Pentax. After all, the final image is a result of all the photographer has done to get it, whatever that may be... A really good photogapher could have used a Brownie! But, he'd have to submit it on a Kodak list! smile keith whaley
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
- Original Message - From: keith_w Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) We may end up stipulating either/or. Either the body OR the lens must be Pentax. You haven't read the rules. Thats the way it has been for several years. William Robb
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Hi! If it comes to a vote, keep it with Pentax lenses, and allow a body of the photographer's choice. When you say Look at how this image turned out! you're not bragging about the fact it was shot with your MX, or your K-1000, you're saying Look at the special way this lens makes images! Yeah, stay with Pentax lenses as the prime criteria for acceptance. Keith, I humbly disagree... I mean, you're quite right in logics of your reasoning... However, many people, like it's been pointed out already, use non-pentax lenses on Pentax bodies... Say, the month's topic would be Macro... I have Tamron macro lens, and very fine macro lens at that... Your suggestion would disqualify me on the spot... Or, say I wanted to submit a wide angle view... My wide angle lens is Sigma 18/3.5 - very fine optic for its price. Again - I am out...I am sure I am not the only one with this kind of problem. I honestly and humbly think that the way PUG is now is fine, except that perhaps we could allow for slightly bigger files, say no more than 150 kb in size and no more than 800 pixels on the long side... And I do admit of being guilty of not posting to recent PUGs *sigh*. -- Boris
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
John Forbes wrote: Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? In a digital camera, doesn't what's behind the lens count for quite a bit, too? So maybe the stipulation should stay the way it is? ERNR
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:44 +0100, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken using a Pentax lens? In a digital camera, doesn't what's behind the lens count for quite a bit, too? Even with film camera's the statement that 'the camera is just a light-tight box' is a bit too sweeping. There are shots possible with some camera's that are virtually impossible with some others. High shutter speeds, high synch speeds and motor drive speeds come to mind... If it were just a matter of 'fitting your hand', why did all the manufacurers have a whole line-up of bodies? So maybe the stipulation should stay the way it is? Maybe it should. I agree on lager pictures, though. If that's o.k. with the gallery maintainers and the host, of course! -- Regards, Lucas
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
We can argue forever about how restrictive the rules for the PUGshould be. The bottom line is that, if no one pays any attention towhat is posted, very few will bother posting anything -- Pentax onnon-Pentax.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can argue forever about how restrictive the rules for the PUGshould be. The bottom line is that, if no one pays any attention towhat is posted, very few will bother posting anything -- Pentax onnon-Pentax. I agree, Dan. Most of the people whining about PUG have never posted, and don't comment. Changing the rules won't change that. I used to post regularly (I don't think I missed in about 5 years), and commented regularly, too. The excitement on the first of each month on the list was palpable. That stopped at least a couple of years ago (I think the ebb in the excitement predated PAWs and PESOs). If everyone who's posted on this thread to bemoan the demise of PUG was a regular poster, we wouldn't be having this discussion. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought. I now feel that the PUG should stay as it is wrt equipment, although I'm still in support of an agreed upon increase in file dimensions and size. Shel
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought. I now feel that the PUG should stay as it is wrt equipment, although I'm still in support of an agreed upon increase in file dimensions and size. Exactly how I feel about it. I have submitted dozens of images to the PUG over the last years, and apart from the image-size I have no problems with 'the rules' ... Regards, JvW Looking forward to the Januari PUG :-) -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
My $.02, as if they matter... The PUG should continue requiring that either the body or lens be Pentax. A size change is desirable. I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month - Non-Pentax gear. Tom C. From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:58:43 +0100 (CET) Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought. I now feel that the PUG should stay as it is wrt equipment, although I'm still in support of an agreed upon increase in file dimensions and size. Exactly how I feel about it. I have submitted dozens of images to the PUG over the last years, and apart from the image-size I have no problems with 'the rules' ... Regards, JvW Looking forward to the Januari PUG :-) -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month - Non-Pentax gear. Tom C. Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors. Hehehehe. Although I am not sure if that covers Leica. I am also fine keeping it the way it is. But I must I am say I am intrigued by an open, open section. Look at it this way, it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better, when one compares the shots side by side. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I'm sure you accidentally left off the smiley from that statement Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better, when one compares the shots side by side.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month - Non-Pentax gear. Tom C. Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors. Hehehehe. Although I am not sure if that covers Leica. I am also fine keeping it the way it is. But I must I am say I am intrigued by an open, open section. Look at it this way, it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better, when one compares the shots side by side. Marnie aka Doe ;-) I think it's more likely to show that the equipment doesn't matter; the photographer does. Some of the better PUGgers have a dark side or two, and depending what they show at the time, that might give the wrong impression of which gear is better. (Frank, for instance, has a Leica he's not afraid to use; César and Godfrey are apparently quite ecumenical in their equipment choices, etc.) I don't feel *very* strongly about this, but since Darkside Defectors can, and do, post PESOs, I'm content to keep the PUG for Pentax gear. (Of which, as you reassured me, you also own some ... ) ERN
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
In a message dated 1/30/2006 10:58:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sure you accidentally left off the smiley from that statement Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better, when one compares the shots side by side. Funny, I would have bet you'd pick this part out to have a smiley attached. Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors. Although I am not sure if that covers Leica. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. -- Original message -- From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Why? Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson Some folks might become rather bitter about that. Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Better hop to it then. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. -- Original message -- From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Like: No wasps? http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=217314 DagT Den 30. jan. 2006 kl. 21.54 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. -- Original message -- From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? I would expect stout opposition from you, Shel. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
There's a storm brewing up. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500 On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:45:14 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that. Why? asked the stout porter, mildly. This is just small beer. We want nothing heavy; just a good healthy brew to keep us 'ale and 'earty. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a storm brewing up. So I see. I'm quite sure a few of us will end up at lager-heads over this one. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
It's going to come to a head soon. -- Original message -- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a storm brewing up. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500 On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
At yeast it'll be over then. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:30:35 + It's going to come to a head soon. -- Original message -- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a storm brewing up. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500 On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At yeast it'll be over then. Yes, but not 'til you're foaming at the mouth. -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 1/30/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At yeast it'll be over then. Yes, but not 'til you're foaming at the mouth. -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off. D
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off. What's ale-ing him? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
You know, sometimes I can barley understand these threads! Don -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:25 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off. What's ale-ing him? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Well, but up to which limit? Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Zenitar lens to my Ricoh body, even if they are connected by a K mount? Or: Taken with a Canikolta, with a Pentax Filter attached? Lighting measured with Pentax digital spot meter, picture taken with an Olyflex? Lens cover detached for taking picture is branded Pentax??? I see some wisdom in the rule that at least a Pentax camera or lens must be used, period. And yes, I do take pictures with my Minolta Autocord, Olympus C-5050, or whatever comes to hand or seems right at the moment, but I don't feel a need to contribute these pictures to PUG. And I do agree on what Bob Sullivan said about commitment created by restrictions. I'm not yet at the level that I go and take pictures related to the monthly theme, but this is something I want to get close to, because it is part of a collective effort. Pancho Dario Bonazza schrieb: I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Dario
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, sometimes I can barley understand these threads! I'm sure that if you draught a list of your concerns some of us will be able to tap into some information and pitcher in with some answers. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
That's a very good sign! Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson You know, sometimes I can barley understand these threads! Don -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:25 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off. What's ale-ing him?
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
You know what I meant. Dario - Original Message - From: Pancho Hasselbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 PM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Well, but up to which limit? Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Zenitar lens to my Ricoh body, even if they are connected by a K mount? Or: Taken with a Canikolta, with a Pentax Filter attached? Lighting measured with Pentax digital spot meter, picture taken with an Olyflex? Lens cover detached for taking picture is branded Pentax??? I see some wisdom in the rule that at least a Pentax camera or lens must be used, period. And yes, I do take pictures with my Minolta Autocord, Olympus C-5050, or whatever comes to hand or seems right at the moment, but I don't feel a need to contribute these pictures to PUG. And I do agree on what Bob Sullivan said about commitment created by restrictions. I'm not yet at the level that I go and take pictures related to the monthly theme, but this is something I want to get close to, because it is part of a collective effort. Pancho Dario Bonazza schrieb: I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Dario
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I agree on lager pictures, though I'll drink to that (hick) Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. Watch it knarF, that's a stout comment. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
There's a storm brewing up. Better keep your head up. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) There's a storm brewing up. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500 On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps its time to draft some new rules. If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Why? asked the stout porter, mildly. This is just small beer. We want nothing heavy; just a good healthy brew to keep us 'ale and 'earty. Well, that pretty much bottles up that line of puns. Caps it you might say. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:45:14 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lucas Rijnders wrote: I agree on lager pictures, though. Some folks might become rather bitter about that. Why? asked the stout porter, mildly. This is just small beer. We want nothing heavy; just a good healthy brew to keep us 'ale and 'earty. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
What's ale-ing him? Its his throat... he's barley able to talk. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off. What's ale-ing him? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. On the other hand I see the whole point of the PUG being advocacy of Pentax gear. We have plenty of places available to show photos taken with other gear via paws, pesos or just random links every now and then. So I'd agree with the rule above, which is basically maintaining the status quo. Now that I'm scanning a lot more, I might be able to submit more photos if reminders are posted to the list. I do feel a little guilty throwing my opinion into the pile when I haven't submitted a pic since 2003 :( I'm happy with the current rules regarding dimensions, mainly because it's identical to what I use in my own website. Allowing slightly larger files would be nice though. Cheers, - Dave http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/ http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. Well I do there are plenty of other sites to view images. We don't need no stinkin larger photos. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: I keep suggesting the most obvious rule: There must be some Pentax equipment involved (IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung clones) Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. On the other hand I see the whole point of the PUG being advocacy of Pentax gear. We have plenty of places available to show photos taken with other gear via paws, pesos or just random links every now and then. So I'd agree with the rule above, which is basically maintaining the status quo. Now that I'm scanning a lot more, I might be able to submit more photos if reminders are posted to the list. I do feel a little guilty throwing my opinion into the pile when I haven't submitted a pic since 2003 :( I'm happy with the current rules regarding dimensions, mainly because it's identical to what I use in my own website. Allowing slightly larger files would be nice though. Cheers, - Dave http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/ http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos. Well I do there are plenty of other sites to view images. I said exactly that in my second paragraph. We don't need no stinkin larger photos. And that in my third :) - Dave
PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. Totally with you, John. Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
A good suggestion. I'm for it. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Jostein wrote: Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. Totally with you, John. Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Since I only submitted to the very first PUG, back in 1997, I think I don't have good reasons for contradicting anyone here. Regular submitters (and woud-be submitters as well) should better speak loud now. Dario - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 29 Jan 2006 at 15:34, John Francis wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. File size/dimension restrictions make me reticent to post images to the PUG, by most current web image presentation standards it's pretty limiting. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
That's true. My PESO pics are twice the size of PUG submissions. Perhaps it's time to update the size requirements?? On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 29 Jan 2006 at 15:34, John Francis wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. File size/dimension restrictions make me reticent to post images to the PUG, by most current web image presentation standards it's pretty limiting. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. From my own experience, a short reminder on this list by the time the deadline for submissions approaches might be a good idea. I for one would have uploaded a few more shots I only wouldn't keep forgetting to do so in a life reasonably filled out with work, taxes, rent and all that stuff. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [messed-up nonsense] Odd. Looked OK when I sent it, first time. Here's the corrected version: From my own experience, a short reminder on this list by the time the deadline for submissions approaches might be a good idea. I for one would have uploaded a few more shots if only I wouldn't keep forgetting to do so in a life reasonably filled out with work, taxes, rent and all that stuff. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years ago), the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Good points all. I would suggest that we just specify a dimension for the long side, so as not to discourage the submission of square pics. I would also think that we could easily go all the way to 900 points without placing undue stress on either the web connections or the server space. The size restriction could be upgraded to 140 K. This would allow for reasonable quality with a highly detailed shot, and most pics at that 900 point long-side dimension would fall well under this. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years ago), the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 29 Jan 2006 at 14:07, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. The file size constraints that we have for pug images were mostly a function of server space/bandwidth, unless file space and bandwidth limits changed for the better for our page hosts then we can't expect more unfortunately. Remember it's a service provided for free without the benefit of advertising revenue or subscriptions like most other photo hosting sites. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Though I have forgotten the PUG submission every time so far, I'll throw my 2 pennies in anyway. ;-) I do agree with relaxing the size restriction, there are many times I've wished a shot was larger so I could see more detail. I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear. There are dozens of other places to present those pics. Don -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:19 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Good points all. I would suggest that we just specify a dimension for the long side, so as not to discourage the submission of square pics. I would also think that we could easily go all the way to 900 points without placing undue stress on either the web connections or the server space. The size restriction could be upgraded to 140 K. This would allow for reasonable quality with a highly detailed shot, and most pics at that 900 point long-side dimension would fall well under this. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years ago), the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
When I started using Pentax gear and I discovered the PDML, I liked to look at the PUG because there I could see what other's did with an equipment similar to mine (so, it was my fault, not the equiment's fault ;-) ). This way I could resist better the temptation of the Dark Side. One of my main motivations for submitting was to be mentioned in the monthly PUG comments. It was great the first time I got one (I think it was J.Buhler in 2001). Now, there is a lot of people showing their pictures in PESOs and PAWs so the PUG is not the great monthly 'event' it used to be. But this is just an interpretaion of the gallery utility. The second one (to be commented ant critizised) can be achieved in many other places, but the first one (to discover what can be done with Pentax equipment) is not that easy to find. Regards, Jaume Regards, Jaume --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) When and where was this ever stipulated, and by whom? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 30 Jan 2006 at 0:00, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: But this is just an interpretaion of the gallery utility. The second one (to be commented ant critizised) can be achieved in many other places, but the first one (to discover what can be done with Pentax equipment) is not that easy to find. I don't know about the last point, it may have been valid in the past but if you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can produce there are almost 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Looks like I'm the only dissenting voice, and I haven't contribute to the PUG for quite a while. However... This is a Pentax list, yes? Why would anyone want to display pics, in the PUG or as a link from an email posted to the list, that were shot using equipment other than Pentax? If I post a link to a web page of mine containing an all-Canon image, then I label it as OT because it is off topic, because it seems the sensible thing to do, not because anyone has ever told me that this is how it must be done. I remember a few years ago there being some discussion about what equipment qualifies a shot for the PUG. Someone asked about a Ricoh body with a Pentax lens, and the general consensus was that it was to be allowed. This list, although owned, is effectively unmoderated, and as such develops as a community with general agreement by contributors on the way it is run. I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED. .02 Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Then should we stop discussing Canon, Sony, Nikon, and other cameras? What about Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and other lenses? I agreed with John because the door for using off-brand equipment had already been opened. If a Ricoh could be used with a Pentax lens, and a Pentax with a Sigma lens, then why not a Ricoh with a Sigma lens? When the change was made to allow other cameras or lenses to be used for the PUG, I was a bit disappointed. But I was also relatively new to the list. My preference is to see the PUG as an all Pentax venue, but since that concept's already been well diluted, I see no reason not to allow any gear in. IOW, all Pentax or completely open. The PAW and PESO system does allow for any equipment, so it's not that anyone would suffer a more restrictive PUG ... or would they? Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I agree with Cotters. But larger file sizes would be good. Bandwidth costs very little these days, and I for one would be willing to contribute to the cost. Also a reminder for the incompetent and disorganised - like me - would be helpful. John On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:16:45 -, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like I'm the only dissenting voice, and I haven't contribute to the PUG for quite a while. However... This is a Pentax list, yes? Why would anyone want to display pics, in the PUG or as a link from an email posted to the list, that were shot using equipment other than Pentax? If I post a link to a web page of mine containing an all-Canon image, then I label it as OT because it is off topic, because it seems the sensible thing to do, not because anyone has ever told me that this is how it must be done. I remember a few years ago there being some discussion about what equipment qualifies a shot for the PUG. Someone asked about a Ricoh body with a Pentax lens, and the general consensus was that it was to be allowed. This list, although owned, is effectively unmoderated, and as such develops as a community with general agreement by contributors on the way it is run. I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED. .02 Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Then should we stop discussing Canon, Sony, Nikon, and other cameras? What about Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and other lenses? This is the PDML, not the PUG. I agreed with John because the door for using off-brand equipment had already been opened. If a Ricoh could be used with a Pentax lens, and a Pentax with a Sigma lens, then why not a Ricoh with a Sigma lens? At some point we will also have to come up with a new name. I propose Use any bloody camera or lens you want (formerly the Pentax Users Gallery) We coule even have a motto. I suggest Just Another Dime a Dozen Internet gallery When the change was made to allow other cameras or lenses to be used for the PUG, I was a bit disappointed. But I was also relatively new to the list. My preference is to see the PUG as an all Pentax venue, but since that concept's already been well diluted, I see no reason not to allow any gear in. IOW, all Pentax or completely open. The PAW and PESO system does allow for any equipment, so it's not that anyone would suffer a more restrictive PUG ... or would they? I don't think the PUG concept is well diluted. I am sure that 3/4 or more of the pictures are shot with Pentax cameras and lenses. Personally, I would prefer it to be a Pentax camera and lens gallery. One of the reasons why I made the change in wording when I was looking after the thing was because some official Pentax distributors (CR Kennedy in Australia is one iirc) don't distribute Pentax lenses, the result being that some Pentax shooters on list were excluded through no fault of their own. I do recall the debate over it was kinda mind numbing, and I remember rewording it a half dozen times until some sort of concensus was reached and the complaints stopped. William Robb
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 29 Jan 2006 at 18:13, William Robb wrote: One of the reasons why I made the change in wording when I was looking after the thing was because some official Pentax distributors (CR Kennedy in Australia is one iirc) don't distribute Pentax lenses, the result being that some Pentax shooters on list were excluded through no fault of their own. CR Kennedy do import Pentax lenses, unfortunately for Aussies they just prefer to sell Sigmas, I think it's known as maximizing profit. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Hi, although I didn't yet contribute much to PUG, I agree with Cotty that Pentax in PUG stand for the use of Pentax gear. I think the range from Optios to 67s is broad enough, isn't it? As for the size, I think pictures should not be allowed too large. Not everybody owns a large screen, and I do not want anybody need to scroll for viewing a picture. 700p in height should be enough. Maybe 800 in width. Larger is always better, but I feel discomforted when I watch larger pictures on my work screen, and cannot see the whole of it. As to size regarding compression, it hurts me compressing pictures. But of course, we should not abuse bandwidth that's offered to us for free. Size is not everything that matters. Pancho Cotty, profundly, told us: Looks like I'm the only dissenting voice, and I haven't contribute to the PUG for quite a while. However... This is a Pentax list, yes? Why would anyone want to display pics, in the PUG or as a link from an email posted to the list, that were shot using equipment other than Pentax? If I post a link to a web page of mine containing an all-Canon image, then I label it as OT because it is off topic, because it seems the sensible thing to do, not because anyone has ever told me that this is how it must be done. I remember a few years ago there being some discussion about what equipment qualifies a shot for the PUG. Someone asked about a Ricoh body with a Pentax lens, and the general consensus was that it was to be allowed. This list, although owned, is effectively unmoderated, and as such develops as a community with general agreement by contributors on the way it is run. I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED. .02 Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I'm with you here on that last point Don. I'm not afraid the PUG being overrun, that would be a good thing. I just like the feeling of looking at a gallery and knowing that they were all taken with some form of Pentax gear. rg Don Sanderson wrote: Though I have forgotten the PUG submission every time so far, I'll throw my 2 pennies in anyway. ;-) I do agree with relaxing the size restriction, there are many times I've wished a shot was larger so I could see more detail. I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear. There are dozens of other places to present those pics. Don -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:19 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Good points all. I would suggest that we just specify a dimension for the long side, so as not to discourage the submission of square pics. I would also think that we could easily go all the way to 900 points without placing undue stress on either the web connections or the server space. The size restriction could be upgraded to 140 K. This would allow for reasonable quality with a highly detailed shot, and most pics at that 900 point long-side dimension would fall well under this. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years ago), the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear. There are dozens of other places to present those pics. I agree. Allowing non-Pentax photos might garner more submissions to the PUG, but IMO it would generate *fewer* visitors to view them. I certainly wouldn't bother looking at it. The reason I go to look at the PUG is to see what can be accomplished with Pentax gear. I can see other stuff in PESO's, PAW's, etc. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG Pentax exclusive. Perhaps we don't even need to admit Samsung entrees. After all, it's not meant to be democratic, it's meant to be Pentax. Paul devil's advocate and curmudgeon On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: When I started using Pentax gear and I discovered the PDML, I liked to look at the PUG because there I could see what other's did with an equipment similar to mine (so, it was my fault, not the equiment's fault ;-) ). This way I could resist better the temptation of the Dark Side. One of my main motivations for submitting was to be mentioned in the monthly PUG comments. It was great the first time I got one (I think it was J.Buhler in 2001). Now, there is a lot of people showing their pictures in PESOs and PAWs so the PUG is not the great monthly 'event' it used to be. But this is just an interpretaion of the gallery utility. The second one (to be commented ant critizised) can be achieved in many other places, but the first one (to discover what can be done with Pentax equipment) is not that easy to find. Regards, Jaume Regards, Jaume --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:04:32PM +, Cotty wrote: On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) When and where was this ever stipulated, and by whom? I believe that was the generally-accepted position (inasmuch as anything is ever agreed on here) the last time this was discussed. We've certainly seen PAWs or PESOs with absolutely no Pentax gear being used in the capture. I'm amused to see that the list memory only goes back to the time when PUG rules were 'relaxed' to the current formulation. Isn't there anyone else who remember the old days before *any* rules? Even then the vast majority of shots were taken using Pentax bodies (and, most of the time, Pentax lenses too) - it's in the nature of the list for people to show off what they can do with the equipment.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Hardly anyone pays any attention to the PUG or bothers to comment onthe entries. Why should people bother? On 1/29/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
For a short time a few years back, we had a half dozen volunteers who each commented on a number of photos for each PUG. It was a discussion starter and led to more comments. I thought it was a pretty nice way of developing some dialogue, but it was canceled after just a few months. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to that and would again volunteer to comment. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Hardly anyone pays any attention to the PUG or bothers to comment onthe entries. Why should people bother? On 1/29/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
In a message dated 1/29/2006 3:17:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED. .02 Cheers, Cotty == As another Canon owner, I'll throw in my .02. PAWS and PESOs already allow me to show pictures on list. It was Shel's idea and that is the way it was originally proposed, no restriction on equipment, and that's the way we've all been doing it. They are plenty of others who have showed Lieca, Canon or Nikon pictures on list as well (even those that also have Pentaxes). So I'd vote for keeping the PUG the PUG, Pentax User's gallery. Just broaden the definition. It's already been broadened for lenses, so some could do a Cotty (use a Canon with a Pentax lens), if so inclined. Broadened it to include Samsung users, since it appears Samsung cameras will basically be rebadged Pentaxes. Increase the picture size, if the server space allows, if it will encourage more to submit. Sure, I'd probably submit to the PUG (four pictures total 3 K-1000 ZX-5n, I think, one Optio shot). But somehow that doesn't feel right. There are plenty of places for Canon users to show their pics now. I don't really feel deprived. Well, maybe a little, but not a lot. ;-) Basically I agree with Cotty, except for the PAW/PESO thing. I chose my own path in switching to Canon. I will probably not switch back. But I am very happy to be able to remain on list and very happy to be able to show PAWS/PESOS. And, yes, ERN, I still have the Optio s4i too. Actually, I think not too far off this may all become a moot point. But that's my opinion. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Me three! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:08 PM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear. There are dozens of other places to present those pics. I agree. Allowing non-Pentax photos might garner more submissions to the PUG, but IMO it would generate *fewer* visitors to view them. I certainly wouldn't bother looking at it. The reason I go to look at the PUG is to see what can be accomplished with Pentax gear. I can see other stuff in PESO's, PAW's, etc. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
True! If we can help promoting Pentax equipment, it's fine with me. I am interested in keeping Pentax in the photographic business. I would be very disappointed if I had to buy into a different system, when the day I need a *ist D replacement. How can the PUG get further promotion? Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 30. januar 2006 01:04 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG Pentax exclusive. Perhaps we don't even need to admit Samsung entrees. After all, it's not meant to be democratic, it's meant to be Pentax. Paul devil's advocate and curmudgeon On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: When I started using Pentax gear and I discovered the PDML, I liked to look at the PUG because there I could see what other's did with an equipment similar to mine (so, it was my fault, not the equiment's fault ;-) ). This way I could resist better the temptation of the Dark Side. One of my main motivations for submitting was to be mentioned in the monthly PUG comments. It was great the first time I got one (I think it was J.Buhler in 2001). Now, there is a lot of people showing their pictures in PESOs and PAWs so the PUG is not the great monthly 'event' it used to be. But this is just an interpretaion of the gallery utility. The second one (to be commented ant critizised) can be achieved in many other places, but the first one (to discover what can be done with Pentax equipment) is not that easy to find. Regards, Jaume Regards, Jaume --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day. __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Shel, When did we ever say the Pentax Users Gallery was open to shots produced entirely by non-Pentax branded equipment? I don't remember anything like this! I could see slightly bigger pictures in the PUG, but as mentioned, bandwith used will surely jump. But from my point of view, we need three things. First, we need some better subjects for monthly PUG challenges. Second, we need some reminders to submit to the PUG. And third, we need some more commentary on the PUG galleries. I really like the PUG galleries and comments much better than the PAW's and PESO's. Although I like seeing the pictures from the PAW's and PESO's, they are often too much and they are surely too disorganized. I think we spend a lot of time saying - 'Oh that's good!' and sorting thru the pictures. And I think the gallery has an organizing effect. It puts all the pictures in one place and suggests we provide our best efforts. It's not just something good we shot this week, but a common theme we are all trying to interpret. There is a different level of committment required to publish a picture and a different level of enjoyment in seeing and commenting on them. Regards, Bob S. On 1/29/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then should we stop discussing Canon, Sony, Nikon, and other cameras? What about Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and other lenses? I agreed with John because the door for using off-brand equipment had already been opened. If a Ricoh could be used with a Pentax lens, and a Pentax with a Sigma lens, then why not a Ricoh with a Sigma lens? When the change was made to allow other cameras or lenses to be used for the PUG, I was a bit disappointed. But I was also relatively new to the list. My preference is to see the PUG as an all Pentax venue, but since that concept's already been well diluted, I see no reason not to allow any gear in. IOW, all Pentax or completely open. The PAW and PESO system does allow for any equipment, so it's not that anyone would suffer a more restrictive PUG ... or would they? Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about Pentax gear. QED.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
When I first started reading the list ('97), the PUG was dormant.
Another reader made a stab at publishing a gallery and embarassed the
then list mavens into reviving the PUG. It started slowly and
eventually got to be VERY big. It became so big that commentary was
difficult. Then PAW PESO came along and submissions declined.
I think Paul's suggestion was right on target. We need to arrange
commentary on the PUG. Maybe we could even make a beauty contest out
of it and nominate 5 as most memorable photos of the month.
Regards, Bob S.
On 1/29/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:04:32PM +, Cotty wrote:
On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear
for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW)
When and where was this ever stipulated, and by whom?
I believe that was the generally-accepted position (inasmuch as
anything is ever agreed on here) the last time this was discussed.
We've certainly seen PAWs or PESOs with absolutely no Pentax gear
being used in the capture.
I'm amused to see that the list memory only goes back to the time
when PUG rules were 'relaxed' to the current formulation. Isn't
there anyone else who remember the old days before *any* rules?
Even then the vast majority of shots were taken using Pentax
bodies (and, most of the time, Pentax lenses too) - it's in the
nature of the list for people to show off what they can do with
the equipment.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Paul Stenquist wrote: Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG Pentax exclusive. Perhaps we don't even need to admit Samsung entrees. After all, it's not meant to be democratic, it's meant to be Pentax. In which case, the Samsung folks can join PDML and post PESOs, like our darkside defectors :D
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I tend to disagree with allowing non-Pentax shots, feeling that the requirement that at least one of the lens or body should be made by Pentax is appropriate to a Pentax Users Group gallery, otherwise you might as well abandon the whole project and set up another community altogether. I do agree that the size might be changed, though, and perhaps a limit of 1000 pixels/ 150k would be acceptable? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:07 AM Subject: RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years ago), the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say 17) without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than what we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled without causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection a 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater than 800x600 would be acceptable. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I remember those days, John, and I remember the furore that erupted when someone submitted a shot that was not taken with any Pentax gear. That's when the consensus was established that either lens or body must be Pentax - even a flash would not qualify on it's own. John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:04:32PM +, Cotty wrote: On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: SNIP I'm amused to see that the list memory only goes back to the time when PUG rules were 'relaxed' to the current formulation. Isn't there anyone else who remember the old days before *any* rules? Even then the vast majority of shots were taken using Pentax bodies (and, most of the time, Pentax lenses too) - it's in the nature of the list for people to show off what they can do with the equipment.
Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Paul, I think one problem may be lack of time: I have commented on every picture on one occasion, but it took forever to do. In addition, a couple of quite nasty comments were made in response to comments (not mine) which were not fulsome in praise of some persons' 'masterpiece', so people tended to become circumspect in making any unfavourable comment at all. I also am very slack at remembering to submit! John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:04 PM Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) For a short time a few years back, we had a half dozen volunteers who each commented on a number of photos for each PUG. It was a discussion starter and led to more comments. I thought it was a pretty nice way of developing some dialogue, but it was canceled after just a few months. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to that and would again volunteer to comment. Paul On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Hardly anyone pays any attention to the PUG or bothers to comment onthe entries. Why should people bother? On 1/29/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to submit to the PUG. It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using that day.
