A while back I mentioned that one of my submitted images had been "on hold" for a week or ten days. Just after submitting it I realized I'd forgotten to do a tiny PS thing that is normally handled when the print is matted. I emailed Carolyn and asked if I could delete/fix and re-submit it. She, of course, said "sure", apologized for the review delay and explained that she was bringing someone else in to help her decide the fate of the image. I deleted the original and submitted a revised version. Next day it was declined.
Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A while back I noticed some errors in the data I had included with > photos I'd had accepted into the Pentax Gallery. I edited the data to > > correct it and the photos went into the "awaiting approval" queue > again. > > And as has happened to others, one of my previously approved images > was > rejected. So, just for the heck of it, I sent an email to ask why the > > images needed to be reviewed again if only the text associated with > them was changed. It seems to me to be actively discouraging people > from correcting mistakes (or just misspellings, in my case), as well > as > making unnecessary work for the judges. > > Anyway, I got a reply which did discuss some of the qualities they > are > looking for and how they look, not only at the overall contents of > the > Pentax Gallery, but at the individual submitter's body of work. (I > hadn't considered that and it seems like a very sensible idea.) As > far > as why an photo would need to be reviewed again when the image data > hasn't changed, I got only: > > >If you change any data on an image, it will need to be > >re-accepted. Unlike the artist approval, even though an image was > >accepted before, it may not be accepted again. > > Which of course we already knew. > > So I wrote back saying I was interested in knowing why this was the > case, since it didn't seem to make sense to discourage photographers > from correcting errors. > > Perhaps it's my imagination, but the reply seemed slightly peeved and > > commented that the question had been answered in the first email.. > which it quoted exactly as above. I didn't write back to point out > that > the above most certainly not answer the question of *why* this is the > > case. I didn't want to be rude and heck, it's their gallery; they're > entitled to run it any way they like. I was just curious. I like to > know how things work! > > The first email mentioned that the Gallery has been *far* more > successful (interms of interest and submissions) than they expected > and > is generating a large volume of submissions. So personally, I think > the > "re-review upon data change" is something that started out as a > database bug and is now being used to thin the herd, so to speak :) > > Needless to say, any further errors I find in my submissions will > remain uncorrected! > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
