Maybe the judges' eyes were just blurry...
Norm
frank theriault wrote:
To those who've complained that not all of your photos have been
accepted in the Pentax Gallery, quit yer bitchin'!
Not one of mine has been accepted so far.
Not a single one.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML
pretty pictures...
Tom C.
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:39:41 -0400
You need to study the compositional aspects of many of those pictures
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
;-)
:o) that, and does a good subject make a good picture?
rg2
On 9/13/07, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/07, Godfrey
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
;-)
cheers,
frank
Let me be the first to weigh in on this then...
What I say is art,
Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's the compositon that
makes a shot memorable. But a fascinating subject can achieve that as well. And
of course sheer beauty is always worth a second look. In truth, there is no
single, narrow definition.
Paul
-- Original
Nice and concise. I like it.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:43:09 +
Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's the compositon
On 9/13/07, Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the judges' eyes were just blurry...
...which would have made them look sharp?
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
works for me too :)
rg2
On 9/13/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice and concise. I like it.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:43:09 +
Thanks, Tom!!
Jack ;)
--- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a
sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
;-)
cheers,
frank
What is sheer beauty?
G
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's the
compositon that makes a shot memorable. But a fascinating subject
can achieve that as well. And of course sheer beauty is always
worth a second
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
Nikkala Stott.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is sheer beauty?
G
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's
The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of art, or
beauty, that is not entirely subjective.
Is that qualitative judgment, in the eye of the beholder, a product
of nature or nurture?
G
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is, of course, in the eye of
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
Perhaps the real question is what's beauty got to do with it?
Lord knows, I take more than my share ugly photos that I think are
none-the-less good. As to whether they're art, I'll leave to someone
else to decide...
Scott Loveless wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
Nikkala Stott.
click - firefox - N-I-K-K-A-L-A S-T-O-T-T - enter
click - images - scroll scroll... scroll...
Ok, yes I can agree to that. :-)
try Monica Bellucci
--
Christian
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
Australian outback? I thought it was South Wales. ;-)
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
Nikkala Stott.
Too bad. In another twenty years, sheer beauty will be somebody's
mother-in-law.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Tom C wrote:
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
Like a well-written soap opera, the story
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
Australian outback? I thought it was South Wales. ;-)
And I hope the context is to other sheep.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Scott Loveless wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
Australian outback? I thought it was South Wales. ;-)
There too. Lots of places, in fact.
Q: Why do
Let me be the first to weigh in on this then...
What I say is art, IS art.
LOL No ego there, eh? :-)
G
If we each use it, I bet it's the only one we all can agree on. :-)
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Mark Roberts wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
Australian outback? I thought it was South
A picture that pleases because it's attractive can be a good picture.
As I said, it's certainly not the only path to solid and rewarding
visual communication, but it's one path. One of many. In any artistic
endeavor there should be no limits on the paths one may take to reach
the goal.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of art, or
beauty, that is not entirely subjective.
There are many definitions of art, and all of them are in some way
subjective. But there can be a consensus.
Is that
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of art, or
beauty, that is not entirely subjective.
There are many definitions of art, and all of them are in some way
subjective. But there can be a consensus.
Consensus does not
:o) that, and does a good subject make a good picture?
No. It takes a photographer with a camera ;+]
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture
What I say is art, IS art.
If it has a frame around it.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I say is art, IS art.
If it has a frame around it.
I say a dog shit with a frame around it is still a dog shit.
But is it art?
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 14/09/2007, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I say is art, IS art.
If it has a frame around it.
I say a dog shit with a frame around it is still a dog shit.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But is it art?
I seem to remember someone calling a bottle of urine art.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 14/09/2007
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I say is art, IS art.
If it has a frame around it.
I say a dog shit with a frame around it is still a dog shit.
People keep confusing the question of is it art? with is it any
good?. They're separate
Much modern art is a scam, just so much crap, (oh after my last post
that's poignant). Drivel that's passed off as Art is simply a method
of separating people with more money than brains, and that includes
museum boards, from that excess of money
Mark Roberts wrote:
Digital Image Studio
:
But is it art?
I seem to remember someone calling a bottle of urine art.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote
On 14/09/2007, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People keep confusing the question of is it art? with is it any
good?. They're separate issues.
Of course it can concurrently be art and a dog shit but practically
I'd tend towards labeling it the latter if that's what it is.
--
Rob
I guess at that point it'd be shitty art.
rg2
On 9/13/07, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People keep confusing the question of is it art? with is it any
good?. They're separate issues.
Of course it can concurrently be
At 05:24 AM 14/09/2007, Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
No, that's shear beauty.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Strange I thought that would be sheared beauty...
(Punch line from a very bad joke... Sheep Lie.)
David Savage wrote:
At 05:24 AM 14/09/2007, Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
From:
Tom C
On 9/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture? a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
;-)
cheers,
frank
Let me be the first to weigh in on this then...
At 05:30 AM 14/09/2007, Scott Loveless wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
What is sheer beauty?
In the Australian outback, I believe it refers to an unusually
attractive sheep. ;-)
Australian outback? I thought it was South Wales. ;-)
We have a New South
From:
Godfrey DiGiorgi
What is sheer beauty?
The dance of the seven veils ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Your statement presumes that pleasing equals beautiful, that things
considered beautiful are art, and that a consensus of opinion on the
beauty of something defines it as art. By your definition, everything
can be art, because nearly
That's why the test of time is critical. Works that are appreciated
and applauded over the centuries earn the right to be called art.
Nothing current can rightfully claim that title until generations
have arrived at a consensus opinion. Almost all serious art critics
would agree. One can
From:
P. J. Alling
Much modern art is a scam, just so much crap, (oh after my last post
that's poignant). Drivel that's passed off as Art is simply a method
of separating people with more money than brains, and that includes
museum boards, from that excess of money
Hey! Works for me.
Unfortunately, being a Con artist is a talent I don't have, my character
flaw of being honest, gets in the way,not all the time, just enough that
crime wouldn't pay.
Doug Franklin wrote:
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
P. J. Alling
Drivel that's passed off as Art is simply a method
On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The question you posed is indeed What is a good picture?
a sibling
to What is art? ...
We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time...
:o) that, and does a good subject make a good picture?
Good pictures come in all
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
P. J. Alling
Drivel that's passed off as Art is simply a method
of separating people with more money than brains, and that includes
museum boards, from that excess of money
Hey! Works for me.
Anyway, ... I'd like to make it work for me.;-D
I'm
I got a succinct Yes from Pentax to the question of the
acceptability of third party lens use for Gallery images. Also, I just
read the submission FAQ's which state; either Pentax or third party
lenses may be used.
Jack
I have not submitted anything since the first batch.
Phe.:-)
Dave
On 9/1/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what the hell is going on.
One of the shots I mentioned the other day that had been declined (the
sunset shot), I resubmitted, and it has now been accepted.
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges will have the
final say on accepted images.
Kenneth Waller
Yeah, peer voters can vote it in and the judges can vote it out.
But can the judges vote it in if the peer voters vote it out?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
I don't know what the hell is going on.
One of the shots I mentioned the other day that had been declined (the
sunset shot), I resubmitted, and it has now been accepted.
???
Cheers,
Dave
On 9/1/07, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere
maybe this discussion has prompted more voters among the
photographers, or maybe more positive voting? who knows. Glad to
hear your photo got in though.
rg2
On 9/1/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what the hell is going on.
One of the shots I mentioned the other day
Yes!
J
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges will have the
final say on accepted images.
Kenneth Waller
Yeah, peer voters can vote it in and the judges can vote it out.
But can the judges vote it in if
The question should be; Will the judges even see the photo, if the peers
vote it out?
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges will have the
final say on accepted images.
Kenneth Waller
Yeah, peer voters can vote it in and
The question should be; Will the judges even see the photo, if the peers
vote it out?
I think not:
Your votes are used to sort the images so that the best are presented
to the acceptance committee. PENTAX makes the final determination of
which images will appear in the Gallery.
I'd guess
Yes!
I would certainly hope so.
Is you answer based on any communications with the gallery?
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
Yes!
J
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
maybe this discussion has prompted more voters among the
photographers, or maybe more positive voting? who knows. Glad to
hear your photo got in though.
rg2
On 9/1/07
?
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
Yes!
J
--- John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges
P. J. Alling wrote:
The question should be; Will the judges even see the photo, if the
peers vote it out?
My understanding is that the peers can't actually vote it out. In
other words, the peer voting is used to give some rough prioritizing
before the judges do their thing.
--
PDML
Indeed, that's it exactly.
From:
P. J. Alling
The question should be; Will the judges even see the photo, if the
peers vote it out?
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
Kenneth Waller
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges will have the
final say on accepted images.
Kenneth Waller
Now you are starting to see my complaint. I truly believe that a
certain number of no votes will reject it and the judges will not see
it. Basically, because the number of artists voting is much larger
than the judges, you will always get a subset of them who will vote -
luck of the draw on
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:07:44PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
The question should be; Will the judges even see the photo, if the
peers vote it out?
My understanding is that the peers can't actually vote it out. In
other words, the peer voting is used to give some
If a certain number of votes rejects an image before it gets to the
judges, I think it would be good if there were some requirements to be
met before one could vote. I signed up, and suddenly have the power
to vote, so this suggests that anyone could simply sign up and start
negatively voting
I had a conversation with John Carlson a while back regards the
Pentax Photo Gallery submission voting process because I had/have
misgivings about it and am very uncomfortable. This is an excerpt
from his reply:
---
We are using the voting process to help limit the number of images
we
There may be a bit of..if mine can't make it in, this sure as hell
can't. Call it resentment, but I imagine there is a lot of sincerity,
also, involved.
It becomes a comparison of subjects and styles rather than a wholly
artistic/technical evaluation.
Jack
--- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Savage wrote:
One of the shots I mentioned the other day that had been declined (the
sunset shot), I resubmitted, and it has now been accepted.
???
This has happened to others as well. It happened to Doug Brewer, for
one. And I might note that it happened long before the peer voting
Well stated, Godfrey. That' how I feel about the process as well.
If someone feels strongly about the rejection of a particular image there's
nothing to stop a resubmission. As a few of us have found out, it may be
accepted the second time around.
Cheers
Brian
Too much work for me. I will submit one image now and then -- perhaps
one every two weeks or so. But I don't have time to submit a large
quantity of work. And I feel more comfortable editing my submissions
down to a very few.
Paul
On Sep 1, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I had a
Thanks for passing this on.
I'm happy with the opportunity to have some of my work presented on their
web gallery.
Me too.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
I had
my involuntary reaction.
Jack
--- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I don't pay much attention to the titles.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
Something
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I don't pay much attention to the titles.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
Something that surprises me a bit is my dismay
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
Something that surprises me a bit is my dismay at many of the
titles.
I don't find myself reviewing the equipment as much as I would
have
expected.
It seems the oblique nature of many titles portend the lack
On 8/31/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the judges decide things with respect to those images that
survive our voting. I don't imagine it takes very many yes votes to
get it before the 'judges' for a final decision.(?)
Since you seem to know so much, Jack...
(anyone else can
On 8/31/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It took about six days for a recent update to my profile to be
approved and posted.
So it appears to be nothing personal then. I was worried that it was
yet more anti-Canadianism...
;-)
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
On Aug 31, 2007, at 9:51 AM, frank theriault wrote:
I only signed up this week - I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday
that I submitted my Artist's Profile (har) and a few photos.
By what others on this list have said, a few of my photos have been up
for rating, so that's good.
However, my
Maybe it's personal, but not anti-Canadian?
frank theriault wrote:
On 8/31/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It took about six days for a recent update to my profile to be
approved and posted.
So it appears to be nothing personal then. I was worried that it was
On 8/31/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's personal, but not anti-Canadian?
I've never considered that option...
;-)
-f
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 8/31/07, Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we have to vote you in...
I'm in big trouble then
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
frank theriault wrote:
However, my Artist's Profile has yet to be approved. What's the usual
turn-around time for acceptance and me being seen as An Official
Pentax Photographer g. Anyone have any thoughts/experience in
this?
thanks,
frank
we have to vote you in...
--
PDML
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens in one was a Sigma
180/3.5 Macro and the other a Voigtlander 125/2.5.
So I looked at the rules again and they only
This seems bizarre since I would think that Pentax would want to
highlight it's lenses...
Bruce Dayton wrote:
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens in one was a Sigma
180/3.5 Macro and the other a Voigtlander 125/2.5.
So I looked at the rules again and they only
Not necessarily - I have rarely had anyone ask me about lenses I am
using - but very often which camera. Wouldn't it make some sense that
someone could create a great image with a Pentax SLR and a third party
lens? When I bought my Sigma 100-300/4 EX lens I was looking for high
optical quality
genre.
Since numerous Pentax lenses have been made by 3rd parties any way, it
wouldn't seem to matter that much, IMO.
Tom C.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery rules
Date
You don't use exclusively Pentax lenses? ;-)
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Pentax Gallery rules
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:18:46 -0700
In running through some of the photos today
@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Pentax Gallery rules
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:18:46 -0700
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens
Whenever I see a watermark, creative framing, etc., I give it a 'no'.
Haven't checked lately, but seems the rules so instructed.
Jack
--- Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Pentax Gallery rules
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:18:46 -0700
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens in one
I just checked - when you press the 'Upload button, the page where you select
the images for uploading still clearly states ...must be taken by a PENTAX SLR
with a PENTAX lens
It will be interesting to see if Bruce's non-Pentax lens images are accepted.
I've got a few in that category I'd
What do you mean by creative framing, Jack?
Personally, I don't vote on other people's submitted photographs. I
feel it is unwise for submitters to be voting on other submitters'
work, I'm very uncomfortable doing it.
G
On Aug 31, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
Whenever I see a
On 01/09/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean by creative framing, Jack?
I assume he means boarders/virtual frames.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO
Extra wide or bright obtrusive framing.
Voting on other peoples submissions does take some self control. I'm
kidding myself that I can be objective. I even surprise myself at times
with some of my yes choices.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean by creative
Right, Rob. :)
Jack
--- Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/09/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean by creative framing, Jack?
I assume he means boarders/virtual frames.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10
So the hypothetical question is - can enough no votes keep an image from
being seen by the judges.?
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
sounds logical to me, thanks :o)
rg2
On 8/31/07
, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the hypothetical question is - can enough no votes keep an image from
being seen by the judges.?
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
sounds
-
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax Gallery rules
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two photos that were not shot with Pentax lenses. The person(s) who
uploaded had clearly indicated that the lens in one was a Sigma
180/3.5 Macro and the other
On 31/8/07, Brian Walters, discombobulated, unleashed:
It will be interesting to see if Bruce's non-Pentax lens images are
accepted. I've got a few in that category I'd like to submit.
Okay, while we're at this, I wonder what reaction *I* would get.
(shut it Alling!)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
originally only listed Pentax lenses. I
haven't
noted if that has changed.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax Gallery rules
In running through some of the photos today (voting), I came across
two
I seem to remember somewhere seeing that the judges will have the final say
on accepted images.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Rebekah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Gallery voting
So the hypothetical question is - can enough no votes
401 - 500 of 903 matches
Mail list logo
