Hi, Bob,
Sounds just a tad cumbersome, don't you think?
Certainly, randomly assigning a number of photos to those who wish to critique is
the easiest way to do this. Now it seems that you're asking Chris (or whoever
co-ordinates this at any given time) to choose the best or most interesting
pictures. To wit:
> Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of
> the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique.
>
The more complex and "value laden" (for lack of a better term) this is the better
the chance for failure. ("hey, why wasn't my image chosen for reveiw?").
Nope, I like Chris' idea as it is now. Everyone who wants to comment can,
everyone who wants a comment on their image will get at least one. What's fairer
or easier than that?
regards,
frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I like your new idea and hope you can work it out.
>
> You deserve our thanks for taking on the initial task of coordinating the
> critiques. Although trying to figure out what everybody was saying is a pain
> in the a__, I do appreciate your effort to try to make us all better
> photographers. And I am trying to read all the comments/critiques! <g>
>
> I still don't think every photo deserves a public comment, or every
> contributor who requests a critique deserves a public critique. Maybe only
> the best should get a public critique. If 8 or 10 good comment threads
> started this way, it could be very informative.
>
> To build on your idea, I would be very happy if something like this
> happened...
>
> The gallery is opened and we all get a chance to review it.
>
> For the first 4-5 days, the pdml gets the rush of 'great photo John', or
> 'have you seen this one', or 'here are my 15 favorites', or 'these are the
> cave academe awards'.
>
> After the initial rush, the critiques start happening, public and private.
>
> At this point, you, Chris, could post a list to the pdml of the folks who
> want more criticism or feedback. Your pdml critiquers could then volunteer
> for specific photos where they felt comfortable giving feedback.
>
> You could then coordinate assignments. Specifically, you could pick 7-10 of
> the photos that were interesting or instructive for public critique. You
> might assign 3 or 2 people who are interested in a photo to give comments.
> But best of all, you might start 5 or 6 interesting discussion threads about
> the photos that we can all follow in detail and might want to add to.
>
> If you and the critiquer team were willing, you could also make assignments
> for private critiques. That way, you could assure each member submitting to
> the gallery who want comments received some feedback.
>
> I guess I'm bothered that the current critiques are so fragmented and
> unfocused. I can't follow and keep mental threads going on 90 PUG photos. I
> could be much happier following along on 8 or 10 good
> discussions...especially when the photographer was a willing participant.
>
> Hope this helps, Bob S.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Well, this certainly seems to be one of the more controversial topics
> lately. I decided to stop the assigned comments for every PUG entry for
> one reason, and this is it: the PUG is apparently a forum for displaying
> photos, not for critiquing them, and so commenting on every photo turns
> the PUG into a critiqued gallery. Although the critique was taking place
> on the PDML (which is a separate entity from the PUG, as Bill pointed
> out), it was still making some people uncomfortable. They were bothered
> by the fact that shots which they just wanted to share with people were
> being judged or criticized openly in the group, and I can understand their
> annoyance. The PUG isn't necessarily about posting your best photo with
> the intent of having it analyzed publicly; it can be more about just
> sharing a photo that means something to you. Anyway, since the PUG is not
> meant to be a critiqued gallery, I agree with the idea of not commenting
> on every photo.
>
> I originally suggested the idea of going back to the way it was before,
> where we commented on a photo or two if it caught our eye, and if we
> wanted comments on our photo we could just ask the PDML. However, since
> so many people have said that they find the comments useful and don't want
> them to stop, the list might get bogged down in comment requests. It
> would be nice if we could find a compromise. Here's one that's a mixture
> of my ideas and other people's suggestions; let me know what you think:
>
> We'll still have commentators to talk about photos, but only for the
> photographers each month who specifically request comments. I don't mind
> coordinating this, so we could give it a try and see how it goes. Since
> the PUG is not intended to be a critiqued gallery, send your request for
> comments to me, not Bill or the PUG. If you ask for comments in the
> letter you send to the PUGmeisters, it ain't gonna happen. All you have
> to do is send a letter to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "My name is _____ and I want to have my
> photo commented on for the June PUG" or something like that, and it'll be
> done. You'll have to do this each month when you submit your photo, as
> there could be some months when you're showing an image that, for whatever
> reason, you don't want comments on. This method works best if there is a
> relatively large number of people who want their photos commented on. If
> only a handful of people each month request comments, then there's no
> point in my coordinating it and they might as well post their requests
> directly to the PDML. But at least for the next couple of months try
> mailing me directly if you want, and we'll see how it works and what kind
> of response we get.
>
> For the commentators: are you still interested in doing this? Since
> you're commenting on assigned photos, you're likely having to talk about
> photos that you may not be interested in, and it may feel like school work
> or like something that you do because you have to, not because you want
> to. If you feel like this (and it's a perfectly understandable way to
> feel), just drop me a note off-list and I'll take you off the commentators
> list. That way you can choose to talk about the photos which interest you
> and about which you feel you have something meaningful to say, at your
> discretion. If it feels more like homework than fun, why do it? <g>
>
> This should hopefully address most of the objections that were
> raised. The default for photos submitted to the PUG will be "no
> comments", and you'll have to mail me directly *each month* if you want
> the commentators to talk about your shot. (Or you could wait and see if
> anyone on the list comments individually, of course.) I hope this is
> satisfactory to those people who are hesitant to submit photos because of
> the comments, or who don't see the PUG as a critiqued site. As for the
> tone of the comments, use your own discretion. Try to point out what you
> like along with what you don't, and feel confident that if you do say
> something that pisses people off you'll never hear the end of it, right
> Shel? *L* Remember to have fun. Because I'm trying to just coordinate
> this thing and not dominate it, I want to keep it as simple as possible,
> which means no panels to review comments before they're posted to the list
> or any similar idea. I trust the commentators to write in a style that
> they feel comfortable with, and like I said if it's too far off I'm sure
> they'll hear about it. <g>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> 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 .
-
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 .
