I want to preface my comments by saying that I think the PDML Annual idea, with the proceeds going to charity is one of the REALLY great things about this list. I had a photo in last year's, but haven't seen the book. And I haven't seen previous year's books either, so I really have nothing to compare it to. I'd love to purchase those back volumes, at some point, but for whatever reason - mostly financial - I haven't made it a top priority yet.
The eBook offering, I thought, was a GREAT idea. Particularly if it actually raises more money for the charity than a book purchase. My original plan was to buy the eBook - because I'm impatient and it allows me to see it in screen form now and then purchase the hard cover version (resulting in even more moola for the charity, for each person who plans on doing the same). It also "lowers the bar" (total price) to being able to donate in the first place, which should result in more people becoming buyers. Terrific idea! We get to see it now, to satisfy our curiosity, and still have the book version in our hands at some point in the future. I can also appreciate how much work it probably is to put this all together and I think we are all very grateful to those that had a part in it, particularly Mark, for the hours and hours that go into the production, proof-reading, etc. along with (this year) the work of selecting a new charity to work with. It is with that in mind that I offer the following comments, in the interests of (perhaps) making next year's annual better than ever. I hope my comments are taken in the proper spirit, similar to the way we often ask for critique on our photographs without taking undue offense. True, Mark did not ask for such critique, which gives me pause. I first thought about sending them to Mark off-list, but I decided that putting it out there could allow for a bit of discussion on the various points below. Everyone can chime in on whether they think my thoughts are "off base" or might indeed make for a better annual next time around. I realize that, given this group's dynamic, there may be some (many?) that may take offense FOR Mark - but I hope we can keep the comments constructive and discuss them somewhat dispassionately. Discussion point No. 1: The page format and how it effects the size of the photos. Since the page layout was done in landscape mode, the way the book was designed made horizonal photographs appear much larger than vertical photographs, which I find unfortunate for the vertical photos and the photographers that submitted them. I would much rather see the photographs on "equal footing" with one another and presented in the same size. This is easily, and attractively done by using either a square page format, or selecting/creating a square portion of a portrait or landscape formatted page in which to present the photograph. (The square being, in effect, the mat for the photo.) If you must use a rectangular page format (either vert. or horiz.) then you could use some of the extra space beside the square image area for the title or a colored box with a few of the funny quotes on each page - rather than saving them for multiple pages at the end. Discussion point No. 2: The "mats" around the photographs and how they effect the size of the photos. I found the majority of the mats HUGELY distracting from the photograph itself. I understand that most, if not all, were taken from an element of the photograph itself which was blown up to create a color/texture, but I would argue that first and foremost the photographs themselves should be the "stars" of the page but it seemed more like it was "look at the neat mats". They competed for attention with the photograph itself, in most cases and did not compliment them. The best mats (IMHO) were the most minimalistic mats such as those on: Christine's "My Nephew, Akira" Frank's "Long Trip Home" and César's "Freeport Church" In any event, I would rather see the photographs presented as physically large as possible on the page, and the mat provided another element to downsize them, which I found disappointing. Discussion point No. 3: The edge treatments around the photographs themselves. I don't know if this was added in the book design or if they were in the photographs submitted by the photographers, but I found the edge treatments again terribly distracting from the photograph itself. An attempt to "gild the lily", as they say. ( http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/gild-the-lily.html ) Less distracting, but still unwelcome (IMHO) are the use of drop shadow or use of the cutout treatment to make the photograph look as if it was off the page or sunk behind the mat. You can see that I am all about the image itself. The book standards should be no different than a museum's display standards, for example. Mats are usually white. Or black. But usually white. With no texture. Discussion point No. 4: Everybody gets an image in. This year's book is apparently the largest yet. I expect this to be a problem (if not a nice problem) as the PDML membership grows - which it will with the truly great cameras for the money like the K-x, K-r and K-5 that we have to choose from now. More PDML members will result in more submissions and if one image is automatically accepted from each photographer then the book will continue to grow larger (also meaning more work from all concerned). I also think that it would mean more to be included if you didn't automatically get one image included, just by virtue of submitting one. I think a side benefit would be a stronger book by virtue of the elimination of weaker images. Feel free to argue/discuss one or all of the points above. The above represents just one man's opinion (mine) which is worth every penny you paid for it. : ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
