Discussing future Pentax POTW

[liam_jackson]

<p>I know it's early, but before people start posting their weekly photos, I'd like to make one request. And, if it's to everyone agreement, if the agreeing admins could then follow/enforce it, then great. Request being:</p>

<p>Could people ONLY post ONE photo each week!</p>

<p>I much prefer the idea of a 'best-of' thread rather than bunches of photos that everyone seems to be in the mood to like at the time.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, if people agree with and adhere to this.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'd vote for this too.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>This would give you two less chances to post a picture with correct exposure. Just saying. J.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Liam,<br>

I'd like to know why you only want to see one shot per person on this thread? You haven't articulated any reasoning besides your wanting a change. I may end up agreeing with you, but I'd like to know more.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jaophotography]

<p>Liam, I agree very much.<br /> Michael, posting one image per week would provide the viewers/posters with absolutely the <em>best</em> pictures, and limit the loading time of the page. Even with high speed internet it takes about a min. (I can't imagine dial-up)<br /> -Jon</p>

[shaloot]

<p>I say if you haven't got a good photo that week, then don't post in the thread. I feel it should become your one shot you feel is the best you have, and not a "this what I shot this week". Since our forumn enjoys the flexibilty from our Mods where we can start threads if we want to show what we shot, then we should do that. <br>

I think the POTW should transition into something like the POTM where we choose our 1 best photo for the month... I haven't been able to contribute mainly due to the fact by the time I get to the computer on Sunday, the thread has expanded to 50+ threads! Which is neat to think that our Pentax community is either growing (more sales, yay!) or we're becoming more active and shooting more often! I enjoy skimming the large threads but feel me contributing a c&c at thread mark sixty something gets lost and/or little labourious...<br>

But that's just me. Someone who doesn't post pics often and doesn't have photos uploaded to his account... so I'm preparing for the backlash!<br>

(though I do post to my flickr if you're interested...)</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I agree the POW does get unwieldy and can be excruciatingly slow to load. On the other hand, I've kind of gotten addicted to three shots. How about a compromise: everyone<em> but <strong>me</strong> </em> is limited to one? ;~)</p>

<p>Or, assuming that links eat up less bandwidth as well as thread space, how about a limit of one shot displayed in-line and up to three photos linked but not displayed ?</p>

 

[hinman]

<p>I will not participate on POW if any rule is enforced. I don't want to fall into the shoes of Javier who got banned by rule. I am boycotting the new rule. I don't like the RULE.<br>

Hin</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Further to the one shot rule, how about we limit our posts to <em>just</em> the photo? That is: No words.</p>

<p>[Runs away, ducking]</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>So we got this discussion again without knowing the real reason :-( As a photographer I love to take and watch photos, 3 on the POW is fine for me. Please don't create non existent problems for nothing, please! </p><div></div>

[bob-c]

<p>I vote for keeping it at three, otherwise I would be tempted to post more during the week and no one should be subjected to viewing any more of my photos than that.</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>robert - I LOVE your photos. And I think you should post them regularly. :)<br>

(you were looking for an ego-boost, weren't you?) :D</p>

[bob-c]

<p>Ahh! Yes, I feel much better now. Thanks, Rose.</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>I have an even better idea guys - for our picture of the week - rather than posting photos - lets just describe the photos using all words - 1000 words per picture - like the idiom "a picture = 1000 words, eh?" <br>

Imagine how quick the thread would load if there weren't any pictures attached!</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>The funny thing about the POTW is there are a lot of people who don't regularly post proposing rules to it, now and the last time we had this debate. This is odd.</p>

<p>I'd say if you don't post to at least 2 POTW's a month, you should not propose rules. If you don't have 2 decent photos every 4 weeks I'm wondering what you are doing with a camera over the course of a month. It's really not that hard to dedicate 1-2 days a month to shooting and processing to come up with 4 images! (that was my pet peeve)!</p>

<p>I think 3 photos is pretty reasonable. I think text is pretty reasonable as well. It's not a "No Words, Photo of the Week"</p>

<p>As far as too many photos it is why I started the POM (Photo Of The Month) where you post your absolute best or favorite photo to showcase. Those who don't shoot much or prefer 1 photo per photographer should definitely participate in that.</p>

<p>My guess is Liam has a slow internet connection and has some issues with the thread.</p>

<p>either at work or home, or even on public Wifi which I use regularly, I have no problem with the thread loading up. But I have heard complaints on other forums from people with slow connections that they can't get the page to load up when there are a lot of photos on it. The best thing to do is to have it load in the background if your connection is that slow. And also make sure your browser doesn't delete the cache everytime you close it.</p>

<p> </p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>Ah shucks, Justin! I felt that one... such a heavy slap across the face, both cheeks sting! <br>

I haven't turned my computer (with photoshop) on in over a month... yeah, and I've not posted any pictures since then ... I admit it - I've been too involved in my porch garden and not really thinking about post processing. <br>

I like the 3 picture rule - because it's usually the 2nd or 3rd pictures that I like more than the first ones... :) <br>

I still like my suggestion about writing more... it could be an interesting challenge for those who don't appreciate the beauty of language... ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't have 2 decent photos every 4 weeks I'm wondering what you are doing with a camera over the course of a month.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keeping the papers from flying off my desk, thank-you-very-much. A very noble use.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Rose,</p>

<p>Some times I get home at midnight, turn the computer on and bang out 10 images and a blog ASAP, it's posted and Monday morning people are reading it. Other times, I process weeks or months later. Actually I just reprocessed a shot from 2007 that I couldn't figure out what to do with, but a No Words thread got me inspired to get it done!!! I have about 10 completed blogs sitting on my server that have never been posted because I was missing photos. And then of course there are the half completed blogs that have photos. It's a mess! And to think I thought I'd have uploaded my archived trip reports that I have for prior to the blog by now! No one will ever say I'm not a dreamer...<br>

<br /> <br /> Of course I'm figuring most people have hundreds of photos they have never shared, and could participate weekly if they wanted. I have about 10,000 finished images on my HD and only 1,000 posted on the web, I'm thinking I'm not alone in this ratio. The POTW should be a good excuse to bring some of those images to life! (at least that is my take)</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Justin, I count myself among those who have stopped participating in POTW for the very reason that Sommana mentioned. By the time I even consider it the thread is too long. The longer, the more pictures, the harder it is to revisit the thread and comment on others' pictures as well. If my picture is near the bottom, a lot of people will likely never see it anyway because they too will be tired of looking a thread so unwieldy.</p>

<p>This forum has been pretty friendly towards photographers creating ad-hoc 'these are the five pictures I took recently' threads. So why can't there be a little order/restraint in the one, more established thread?</p>

<p>Anyway, I'll survive without POTW. And I'll bet that you really don't want to be in the business of policing these "rules". But consider that the <em>guidelines</em> as they exist now discourage at least some of us from participating. So do we want to encourage 20 photographers x 3 pics or 40 x 1 pic?</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>[Runs away, <em><strong>ducking</strong> </em> ]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mis, how appropriate. :-)</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Keeping the papers from flying off my desk, thank-you-very-much. A very noble use.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Classic reply...I'd consider booting Sommana's quote about f/1 DOF for this if we had signatures!</p>

<p>And Rose, good point, the thread would load faster if we didn't put any images.</p>

<p>Personally, I always like seeing images with the post. It's a photo site, so it never bothers me if someone tosses a few photos in. My thoughts have always been what is the point of a good image that no one sees!</p>

[bob-c]

<p>Is there some rule that says you have to post three? And there are some people who post 5 or 6. Maybe the rule should read,"a maximum of three." I think we could all be more judicious but I'm with Justin, three or less but no more.</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>goodness! someone could misread me, or is it misinterpret? <br>

Justin, I love pictures more than words, truthfully - pictures take a lot less effort to glance at then on to the next. A paragraph takes thought... and when the paragraphs become too long, I have to admit that I can be somewhat ADD - reading the first sentence and the last, and skipping out on the long text in the middle... I did that yesterday with Godfrey's long lesson... it seemed like it should have been interesting - but I just couldn't work up the energy to think technically. (Sorry Godfrey - you know I love you anyways. You can't help being a brainiac...) :D<br>

Mis - I have quite a few paperweights ... at least they would be paperweights except I'd be afraid of having to dust them... (My latest 'paperweight' is a Leica. It keeps company well with the Contax iiia, and my Vitessa T) ... Too many film cameras, and not enough time (or patience) to slow down and use them...</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>I think in the last photo of the week constitutional convention we ratified that 3 photos (maximum) was acceptable!</p>

<p>Personally, I don't care, if we agree on 1-2-3-4, I'll still participate, but as Andrew says whatever we agree on needs to stick. I don't want to have to choose which of the extra photos someone posted needed to be deleted.<br>

<br /> So maybe scaling it down to 2 photos for now would be good to split the difference?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Of course I have no say or vote because I stopped posting to those threads. :-D Anybody else enjoying how this POTW thread is so quickly growing in words but has only one solitary picture, nice as it may be? It loads at the speed of light!</p>

<p>Rose, I think Godfrey is just trying to get all of us to help proofread his book manuscript.</p>