Treena Harp wrote:
>
> I have to say I agree. When I was in college studying journalism, my
> instructors were nothing short of brutal, whether the class involving
> writing, editing or photography.
I'm not sure what a course designed to train professional photographers
has to do with the PUG.
If we decide the PUG is a vehicle for critique, then fine, I think we'll
end up with a super high quality gallery of images that will be a credit
to the list.
However, I think that's a sea change from what the PUG has been - a way
to allow people to share an image for whatever reason they wanted. Often
we've heard comments to the effect "I know this image doesn't meet the
high standards of some of the other images, but I wanted to share."
How do the motives of these submitters fit into a Gallery with a serious
formal criticism process? These people won't submit if they think their
image is going to be subjected to such a process.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, but I think we should make our
motives a bit more explicit so people know what they're getting into
before they submit.
I think this is where a 'best of' PUG might make sense.
tv
-
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 .
