On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> No one theme is going to be accessible for all list members,
> regardless of how universal we try to make them.
I disagree. Every past theme I can think of was wide open to
everyone. It might have involved a little creativity, but it was doable
with *the equipment that people had*, regardless of whether it was an LX
with twenty lenses or an S3 with one.
> If, for example there's a wide angle theme, perhaps those that don't
> have a wide will be excluded, but next month, if there's a telephoto
> theme, those with no tele lenses will be exclude.
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have a huge list fight
about this a while back and decide in the end that PUG themes were
supposed to be completely open?
> But, overall, there's something for everyone to participate in at
> least half the time. What could be more fair than that, other than to
> always have an open gallery in which anything goes?
Having themed galleries that don't exclude people purely on the basis of
equipment. And yes, I'm talking about the people who are able to have
their photos scanned. If you don't have the creativity or imagination to
submit to a "details" theme without owning a macro lens, fine, but at
least you're not being excluded just because of a lack of expensive
equipment. Am I the only one who feels this way? Note that I have no
objection to a "details" theme, but that a "macro lens" theme would be
exclusionary. If you want the PUG to be exclusionary on the basis of
equipment, fine. I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to
be, but I'm willing to change that impression if I hear otherwise from
Bill Robb or Doug.
On a similar note, I wouldn't have a problem with themes like, say,
"width" or "mid-telephoto perspective", since those can be achieved
without owning that specific piece of equipment. Do you see the
difference?
> It might be noted that some galleries, with specific themes, have
> had the greatest participation. If I recall, the Details gallery
> was pretty big, and that required some very specific equipment in
> order to participate. While it's true that there are many ways to
> achieve a close up, a poor student may not have the wherewithal to
> buy even an inexpensive close up lens, while others on the list have
> several macro lenses, extension tubes, bellows, and the like.
"Details" did not *require* special equipment, though it may have
helped. A lot of the shots from that gallery could have been taken with a
normal lens. I could take a "details" shot of a landscape with a 600mm
telephoto, or of something closer with a 24mm lens. Do you see the
difference between a "details" theme and a "macro lens" theme?
> No matter what we do, someone, at some time, will be excluded. But
> if we gravitate towards the lowest common denominator, creativity
> may suffer as might the enjoyment of both the participants and the
> viewers.
Creativity will only suffer if we make lens-specific themes that
completely prevent people who don't own a specific piece of equipment from
participating. If we rephrase the theme to cover a certain efect, rather
than a certain focal length, then creativity can only be encouraged,
especially for people who will have do some creative thinking to achieve
this effect.
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
