Though I have forgotten the PUG submission every time so far, I'll throw my 2 pennies in anyway. ;-) I do agree with relaxing the size restriction, there are many times I've wished a shot was larger so I could see more detail. I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear. There are dozens of other places to present those pics.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) > > > Good points all. I would suggest that we just specify a dimension for > the long side, so as not to discourage the submission of square pics. I > would also think that we could easily go all the way to 900 points > without placing undue stress on either the web connections or the > server space. The size restriction could be upgraded to 140 K. This > would allow for reasonable quality with a highly detailed shot, and > most pics at that 900 point long-side dimension would fall well under > this. > Paul > On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time > > ago > > the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point > > where > > we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic > > qualifies > > for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these > > days (I'm guessing that there are more non-Pentax cameras that are > > frequently used by list subscribers than there were just two years > > ago), > > the requirement to use only Pentax gear may as well be dropped. > > > > Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the > > submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing > > that > > the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor > > (say > > 17") without having to scroll around to see the entire photo. I'm sure > > such a dimension can be agreed upon, as anything will be larger than > > what > > we now have. The size of the image could, IMO, easily be doubled > > without > > causing hardship on the viewers - even with a slow, dial-up connection > > a > > 150kb - 200kb file can be handled without undue stress or delay. > > > > To start the ball rolling, perhaps a file with dimensions no greater > > than > > 800x600 would be acceptable. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: 1/29/2006 12:38:48 PM > >> Subject: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) > >> > >> > >> As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly > >> down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that > >> a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/..., > >> I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to > >> submit to the PUG. > >> > >> It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear > >> for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no > >> small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if > >> any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule. > >> It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions > >> from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from > >> any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using > >> that day. > > > > >
