On Jun 23, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Norman Baugher wrote:
> Feel free to add more...
Kittens
:))
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
ED] On
> Behalf Of Tom C
> Sent: 22 June 2006 23:05
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
> Yes editing is far harder than taking the photograph originally. I
> typically take a look my results and let it rest for a week
> or so and look
&g
s Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:33:47 -0700
>
>I think we're on exactly the same wavelength today, Tom.
>
>Edit. Build critical objectivity. Recognize that which is a good
>photograph vs that
Oh - I forgot one: Figurines
Norm
From: "Cotty"
> On 22/6/06, Norman Baugher, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Dirty Socks
>>Space Aliens
>>Hangovers
>>Cotty
>>Spare Ribs
>>Baby Pigeons
>>
>>Feel free to add more...
>>Norm
>
> Norm with a consignment of cell phone covers stuffed up his nostrils
On 6/22/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norm with a consignment of cell phone covers stuffed up his nostrils.
Thanks, Cotty.
I just spewed my coffee across my desk.
cheers,
frank
Ni! Ni! Ni!!
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Ma
On 22/6/06, Norman Baugher, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Dirty Socks
>Space Aliens
>Hangovers
>Cotty
>Spare Ribs
>Baby Pigeons
>
>Feel free to add more...
>Norm
Norm with a consignment of cell phone covers stuffed up his nostrils.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:11:00 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No wait, prople think i'm crap any way.
>
Yeah, right, Dave, Mr. Second Place Winner at GFM in the Scenic Category.
We all know you're a wonderful photographer. You just can't spell is
all...
cheers,
farnk
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> I think we're on exactly the same wavelength today, Tom.
>
> Edit. Build critical objectivity. Recognize that which is a good
> photograph vs that which you're simply happy with because your puppy
> looks cute. Etc. Editing is FAR harder than snapping a sharply
> focus
I think we're on exactly the same wavelength today, Tom.
Edit. Build critical objectivity. Recognize that which is a good
photograph vs that which you're simply happy with because your puppy
looks cute. Etc. Editing is FAR harder than snapping a sharply
focused, well exposed picture. It's th
I think the word you were looking for was "unsettling" rather than
interesting, especially number 4...
Norman Baugher wrote:
>From: "Bob W"
>
>
>>Another important reason for this is that frankly I find the themes
>>rather unchallenging and unimaginative. Themes like "What is it?"
>>"Askew" "
ny photographer learns to do that, the sooner they
will see their quality improve.
Tom C.
>From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:23:19 -0500
>
>T
ply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:56:55 -0500
>
>I have requested, and suggested, more PUG comments on a number of
>occasions over the last few years, but comments, and parti
On 6/22/06, Norman Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bob, I couldn't agree more! I'll suggest a few interesting ones:
>
> Dirty Socks
> Space Aliens
> Hangovers
> Cotty
> Spare Ribs
> Baby Pigeons
>
> Feel free to add more...
> Norm
How about "sluts of the mountain"?
cheers,
frank
--
"Sha
From: "Bob W"
> Another important reason for this is that frankly I find the themes
> rather unchallenging and unimaginative. Themes like "What is it?"
> "Askew" "Geometrical" and "Patterns" strike me as utterly trite and
> unlikely to encourage good photography
Bob, I couldn't agree more! I'll
Aren't "Space Aliens" & "Cotty" redundant?
Dave
At 09:14 PM 22/06/2006, Norman Baugher wrote:
>From: "Bob W"
> > Another important reason for this is that frankly I find the themes
> > rather unchallenging and unimaginative. Themes like "What is it?"
> > "Askew" "Geometrical" and "Patterns" str
I like hubris too, it's really good with flat bread...
Norm
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" .
> What gives you, or anyone else, the hubris to judge me?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I have requested, and suggested, more PUG comments on a number of
occasions over the last few years, but comments, and participation,
has continued to decline.
On 6/22/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >And what about subsequent year
I second that, Henk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Waller
Sent: 22 June, 2006 6:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
FWIW, I submit to the PUG whenever I remember & have an image worth
On 21/6/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>And what about subsequent years? I only recall one request for suggestions.
Maybe you should read more posts ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
orst
critic of your own work.
I like the current way the PUG is run and wouldn't change a thing.
YMMV
Kenneth Waller
PS - thanks Adelaid for all the time/efforts you put into the PUG.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
No, but your photo may be. :-)
Tom C.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:11:00 US/Eastern
>
> > I would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I would like everyone to submit.
> Some have previously opined that
> > they neither submit not comment because the PUG attracts low-quality
> > work.
>
> But if i submit what i think is a great photo, and no one else does,
> I would like everyone to submit.
Some have previously opined that
> they neither submit not comment because the PUG attracts low-quality
> work.
But if i submit what i think is a great photo, and no one else does, am i crap,
Noone has
addressed that
N
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Tom C
> Sent: 21 June 2006 23:59
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: July PUG deadline today
>
> They were used! Most of the trite ones were mine, I'm proud to say.
>
ax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: RE: July PUG deadline today
>
> And what about subsequent years? I only recall one request
> for suggestions.
>
> Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
In a message dated 6/21/2006 11:58:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To begin with, I'm not a pompous, self important faggot.
WW
===
True, you're not a faggot.
Marnie aka Doe ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml
In a message dated 6/21/2006 4:17:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They were used! Most of the trite ones were mine, I'm proud to say.
Tom C.
===
Yeah, I think at least one of mine was used. Although I don't remember if I
was the first one to suggest it.
I think qu
And what about subsequent years? I only recall one request for suggestions.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C
> They were used! Most of the trite ones were mine, I'm proud to say.
> >I'd agree about the themes to some extent, but what I'd like to know is
who
> >determines the themes
They were used! Most of the trite ones were mine, I'm proud to say.
Tom C.
>From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: RE: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Wed, 21
On Jun 21, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
>>> But if you want to look at ALL the photos in the gallery you do
>>> have to download ALL the full resolution files...
>>
>> That's at your option. If the work is compelling enough to be worth
>> the time, you do it. If not, you don't. I'd mu
On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:49 AM, William Robb wrote:
>> If you don't want to listen to what I have to say, put me in your
>> kill file, filter my posts to the garbage. I don't care and I'm not
>> offended by that. If you do want to listen, don't complain about "how
>> I come across" ... obviously, i
On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:46 AM, William Robb wrote:
>> odfrey, no one is ever going to confuse you with Wheatfield Willie.
>
> To begin with, I'm not a pompous, self important faggot.
That's true. You're much worse than that.
At least I have the redeeming qualities of being a faggot.
Godfrey
June
Tom C wrote:
> Actually those were some of my favorites...
>
> Tom Trite
Mine too.
Can't say more; have to go or I will be late for kindy and have
to stand in the corner until recess.
Keith McG
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I would like everyone to submit. Some have previously opined that
they neither submit not comment because the PUG attracts low-quality
work. If they feel that way, there is nothing I can say to change
their minds. I would, however, prefer if the better photographers
would submit good work, to se
Actually those were some of my favorites...
Tom Trite
>From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>Subject: RE: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:25:54 +0100
I'd agree about the themes to some extent, but what I'd like to know is who
determines the themes? A few years ago there was a call for theme
suggestions, but I don't recall any of the suggestions having been used.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W
> Another important reason for this
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
>
>> But if you want to look at ALL the photos in the gallery you do
>> have to download ALL the full resolution files...
>
> That's at your option. If the work is compelling enough to be worth
> the time, you do it.
>
> Since you seem to have missed my post to Godfrey on the
> subject, allow me to
> clarify this for you.
> The 75K file size was determined from several needed criteria.
> The biggest deciding factor was the desire to keep the
> gallery as small on
> the Komkon server as possible, and to kee
>If the work is compelling enough to be worth
>the time, you do it. If not, you don't. I'd much rather look at five
>high quality photographs than a hundred poor quality ones.
>
>Is that "elitist"? If so, folks will have to get used to it, or
>not ... I really don't care. I have no intention of say
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
> If you don't want to listen to what I have to say, put me in your
> kill file, filter my posts to the garbage. I don't care and I'm not
> offended by
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds"
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>> That's me, and I doubt I'm going to change me to suit some
>> asinine notion of being "judg
On Jun 21, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> That's me, and I doubt I'm going to change me to suit some
> asinine notion of being "judged" as 'that wonderful guy who is always
> so nice'.
Godfrey, no one is ever going to confuse you with Wheatfield Willie.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Disc
On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:34 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:14:29PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>> Annsan,
>>
>> I don't know you at all. I've never had anything nasty to say about
>> or to you. When you've asked a question that I could help with, I've
>> always tried to
On Jun 21, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
> But if you want to look at ALL the photos in the gallery you do
> have to download ALL the full resolution files...
That's at your option. If the work is compelling enough to be worth
the time, you do it. If not, you don't. I'd much rather
I agree. Although all my PESO shots are dimensionally generous, the file size
is always relatively low. I just took a look at the folder where I keep all the
shots I've linked for the past couple of years. Only one, the recent IR "Pond"
photo exceeds 200K. Most are well below 150K. Some are less
There's no reason for a pic posted here to be so large unless for a
specific reason. For example, Rob Studdert has presented huge pics to show
certain technical details about lenses, but he's also posted the size of
the images. Not to pat myself on the back, but I try to keep my pics to a
maximum
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
> Sorry Ann, didn't mean to offend. But even a change to the 100K number
> you cite would be helpful. 75K is an artifact of the days of 300 baud
> modems. It's not even in k
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Sorry Ann, didn't mean to offend. But even a change to the 100K number
> you cite would be helpful. 75K is an artifact of the days of 300 baud
> modems. It's not even in keeping with the capability of current dial-up
> modems.
> Paul
Thanks, Paul apology most certainly a
Shel - I won't retract my feeling about some folk being
elitist judging from what
I've read here -- but I will explain my computer system and
its problems
System includes my ISP in my lingo... and the web in NY is
often slow no matter what
your set up is. I have a 7 year old computer Dell PEntium
Godfrey -
Sorry - but you frequently post acid and sarcastic stuff and
I very seldome do, frankly
I might have been more gentle if it wasnt so hot here and I
was not so exhausted -
Yeah, I hit the send button quickly and I probably should
have written you off line and more gently.
I said ODD beca
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
>> It is, however, I think important to remember that it is not
>> really the size of a single file that is important: it is the
>> size of ALL the files in the gallery.
>>
>> Say 10 files of 200K each is going to take
Sorry Ann, didn't mean to offend. But even a change to the 100K number
you cite would be helpful. 75K is an artifact of the days of 300 baud
modems. It's not even in keeping with the capability of current dial-up
modems.
Paul
On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Paul Stenquist w
>
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/06/21 Wed AM 05:52:56 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
> I don't want to start a flame war here, and before this escalates further,
&
Yes, you have a point, although I was commenting on Ann's specific remark
that she "can't see half the stuff you guys post to the
list to look at because it takes so long to load and it slows down the
system trying," not pics specifically posted to the PUG.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Kei
On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>> I don't want to start a flame war here, and before this escalates
>> further,
>> perhaps you can define what constitutes a long time, Ann. How
>> long does it
>> take for you to DL an image of about 150K? What
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I don't want to start a flame war here, and before this escalates further,
> perhaps you can define what constitutes a long time, Ann. How long does it
> take for you to DL an image of about 150K? What do you mean when you say
> it slows your system down?
I appreciate the
I don't want to start a flame war here, and before this escalates further,
perhaps you can define what constitutes a long time, Ann. How long does it
take for you to DL an image of about 150K? What do you mean when you say
it slows your system down?
What speed is your modem and connection? How
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:14:29PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> Annsan,
>
> I don't know you at all. I've never had anything nasty to say about
> or to you. When you've asked a question that I could help with, I've
> always tried to answer with correct, solid information when I could.
On Jun 20, 2006, at 9:39 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>> The standard of 75K per image maximum is arbitrary and out of date.
>
> The 75K per image limitation was put in place because of the PUG's
> need to
> have a relatively small footprint on it's host.
> I don't know if this limitation still exi
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>
> > The standard of 75K per image maximum is arbitrary and out of date.
The 75K per image limitation was put in place because of the PUG's need to
have a relatively small f
On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>> Well, I wasn't going to respond unless I at least attempted to submit
>> something to the PUG. So I tried. Nevertheless, I'm not offended. ;-)
>>
>> Even a *small* rendering of a photo, 500x400 pixels, compressed at
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> viewers can actually see. These limits are an historic artifact from
>> the early days of the list and PUG. It's really time to change them.
>> But every time that has been suggested, it seems there was an outcry of
>> unfair to dialup users. Perhaps
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> Aaron, I wasn't criticizing anyone, and I wasn't referring to people
> who don't have time to submit to the PUG or simply choose not to. My
> comments were in reference to those who recently said that they do not
> submit to or comment on the PUG because it is full of in
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> I was going to comment on the size restriction as well, but decided not
> to stir the pot. But since you bring it up: yes it is a problem. It's
> very difficult to prepare an acceptable image at less than 75K. I find
> that I have to strip the metadata, so I do a save for
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> Well, I wasn't going to respond unless I at least attempted to submit
> something to the PUG. So I tried. Nevertheless, I'm not offended. ;-)
>
> Even a *small* rendering of a photo, 500x400 pixels, compressed at
> median JPEG settings, is difficult to upload with a 75
"Daniel J. Matyola" wrote:
>
> Aaron, I wasn't criticizing anyone, and I wasn't referring to people
> who don't have time to submit to the PUG or simply choose not to. My
> comments were in reference to those who recently said that they do not
> submit to or comment on the PUG because it is full
On Jun 20, 2006, at 9:57 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> However, after viewing many PAWs and PESOs it's clear that images with
> larger dimensions can be put with sizes in the 100kb - 150kb range.
>
It depends on how much detail and how many different colors are
represented in the image. I've seen
Hey,
I'm on dialup, and often with a poor or slow connection. I've got no
problem with file sizes around 200K. But, with that said, I'm not going to
sit through an afternoon of waiting for files to load, but I'm content up
to the limits of my patience.
However, after viewing many PAWs and PESOs
I was going to comment on the size restriction as well, but decided not
to stir the pot. But since you bring it up: yes it is a problem. It's
very difficult to prepare an acceptable image at less than 75K. I find
that I have to strip the metadata, so I do a save for web. But at 600
pixels or le
Dan,
Thanks for the reminder. Like Paul, I picked something to send in.
Regards, Bob S.
On 6/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hammered something together and sent it in as well. Thanks for the
> reminder, Dan. I usually just forget.
> Paul
>
>
> -- Original m
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:13:28PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Well, I wasn't going to respond unless I at least attempted to submit
> something to the PUG. So I tried. Nevertheless, I'm not offended. ;-)
>
> Even a *small* rendering of a photo, 500x400 pixels, compressed at
> median JPEG
Well, I wasn't going to respond unless I at least attempted to submit
something to the PUG. So I tried. Nevertheless, I'm not offended. ;-)
Even a *small* rendering of a photo, 500x400 pixels, compressed at
median JPEG settings, is difficult to upload with a 75K limitation.
Virtually impossi
>From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>My comments were in reference to those who recently said that they do not
>submit to or comment on the PUG because it is full of inferior work.
>Mostly, however, I was trying to use a little humor, and a little
>sarcasm, to try to persuade a few more
It was wonderful to get a reminder. Thanks to Dan, I actualy managed to
submit the picture I meant to submit last month.
John
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:44:11 +0100, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dan, how wonderful to read your very enlightening post regarding the PUG
> and
> who
Dan, how wonderful to read your very enlightening post regarding the PUG and
who should submit.
Regards
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
mediocrity happens
Tom C.
>From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: July PUG deadline today
>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:52:07 -0500
>
>Aaron, I wasn&
Thanks for the reminder, Dan.
Are you now involved with making PUG happen?
Thanks,
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I hammered something together and sent it in as well. Thanks for the reminder,
Dan. I usually just forget.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 20/6/06, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan. I dusted off
On 20/6/06, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed:
Thanks Dan. I dusted off the camera and went outside and made a pic.
Just uploaded it.
I needed that ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
Aaron, I wasn't criticizing anyone, and I wasn't referring to people
who don't have time to submit to the PUG or simply choose not to. My
comments were in reference to those who recently said that they do not
submit to or comment on the PUG because it is full of inferior work.
Mostly, however, I w
-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: July PUG deadline today
I don't mind a little heat. . . . . . .
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:03:26 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, would not want to offend anyone on the lsit now would we,specially
those pesky
> Pro's.
>
I don't mind a little heat. . . . . . .
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:03:26 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, would not want to offend anyone on the lsit now would we,specially
> those pesky
> Pro's.
>
> I would post more often if i could remind my self of the due dates. F
As someone who does not submit to the PUG purely because I do not have time
(nor do I post photographs to the list except very rarely to illustrate
something like hand-holding the 67), I resent being lumped in with a couple of
people who felt the need to denigrate the efforts of those who do con
Nope, would not want to offend anyone on the lsit now would we,specially those
pesky
Pro's.
I would post more often if i could remind my self of the due dates. For this i
thank you.
For the rest of the email, uncalled
for, but i';ll sit back and watch the flame.
Chainsaw
84 matches
Mail list logo
