Hi Olaf:
Nice sumation. Yes, yes and yes. I don't think that TOPE should be
changed either, but added to shouldn/t ruffle too many feathers.
Thanks for all your consideration.
Gord
On 29-Feb-08, at 1:07 PM, Olaf Greve wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> Just to rectify something regarding TOPE: it never was intended to be
> exclusively for OM cameras, and even in the first TOPEs other
> Olympuses were already used (like the Stylus XA). Also, when the
> progression was made to digital, it wasn't limited to the E-bodies; as
> e.g. the Camedias are perfectly welcome too (in fact, many of my own
> contributions have been made with a C2020Z). Likewise, it's not
> limited to OM list members. Anyone who used Oly gear for the shot, can
> enter their contribution (like e.g. my father participating in some of
> the later TOPE events), so Siddiq's friends are perfectly welcome to
> participate if they use Oly gear.
>
> Then, regarding the guidelines: it's always going to be difficult for
> me to check if people took the pictures within the proper timeframe
> and with Oly gear. This, in combination with some contributions that
> push the definition of the theme a bit too far perhaps, makes that I
> normally apply a pretty flexible attitude towards the entries that are
> sent in (pretty much everything gets accepted). IOW, it's o.k. with me
> if at times some entries push the definitions somewhat, and the
> timelines are mostly indicative (within reasonable limits, of course),
> rather than being strict deadlines. Also, I've been allowing the
> entries made with Canon bodies equipped with OM lenses.
>
> So, as the gallery is at present, it seems the only pretty strict
> requirement is the usage of Oly gear somehow. C.H.'s definition suits
> me fine: either the body, or the lens, or both. :)
>
> Then, what Gordon writes also makes sense: though the list is not
> officially limited to OM list members, it most definitely was born in
> those surroundings, and indeed several photographers have written that
> they regretted not being able to participate anymore, as they went to
> different digital brands...
>
> I don't like the idea of cross-host splitting the events so much, so
> personally I see two good solutions:
> 1) Leave TOPE 100% as is, and enforce the "C.H. Oly usage rule"
> strictly, hence sticking completely with the current TOPE definition.
> 2) Do the above, but also add a special section for the non-Oly
> contributions, hence straying a bit from the official TOPE definition.
>
> I can personally live with both, and I don't mind making something to
> realise scenario nr.2, e.g. by creating a division on the index page
> of the events, where everything above the line wlll be Oly entries,
> and the ones below it will be the non-Oly ones (having a special
> subheader, to indicate that it is the non-Oly section).
>
> Would this work for everyone, or are there strong objections against
> it, or are there perhaps other good alternatives I'm overlooking?
>
> If accepted, the only thing I can't promise is when it'll be done
> exactly, as my spare time is a bit tough to manage properly at
> present... :P
>
> Cheers!
> Olafo
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|