Upon further thought, (OK, I'm mindlessly yabbering), the thought of
"exclusion" is bothersome. I dislike having any form of competition which
is exclusionary in any way. For example, there are list-members who have no
practical access to film or development. Others who have no OM-3Ti or even
OM-1. While people like Bill Barber have trolled the world over for every
last working OM-2S. I grew up being excluded by others because I grew up on
the wrong side of the tracks, couldn't play sports well, etc. (ie, Napolian
Dynamite). I didn't like exclusion then, and I don't like it now.
However, I also really like the idea of promoting the use of "classic
cameras" and having specific competitions using specific tools. How do we
make this "inclusionary" without watering down the terms of the events.
Also, I know that some people are going to really bark at the thought that
they are "competing". Well, tough. ;)
First of all, I propose an "incentive". When a prize is on the line people
tend to set aside their excuses and find solutions to their problems. This
topic will be noodled a bit and I'll see if I can scare up some "sponsors".
It might be a brick of film, it might be something else. Who knows.
Contrary to popular believe, it will NOT be the OM-3Ti. :)
Secondly, how to prevent exclusion? This might be a case were we can
compete in "categories". OM-1 series category, OM-2 series category, OM-3
series category, OM-4 series category, E-System Category, Zuiko Lens with
some Third-Party Digital-Back. Then place limits on entries. You can
compete in any and all categories, but only one image per category. There
would be a winner per category as well as an overall winner. Obviously, the
more categories you enter, the greater your chance of winning the full
enchilada platter.
The image judging criteria will be published ahead of time and the judging
will be peer review, however per very very specific rules. Just because one
person's photograph of a sunset might be drop-dead beautiful, a crooked
horizon might affect the ranking on technical terms.
Thirdly, technology vs technique. I further propose that the image be
"weighted" by focal length. In lens selection, the closer you are to using
a "normal" focal length, the better. For example, in the non-digital
categories, 50mm is the normal focal length with an angle of view of 47
degrees and will have a weighting of "1". We will subtract the "Standard
Deviation" of the actual lens used. See table at bottom of post. The
weighting would apply to the "lens selection" judging.
More to follow and open to suggestion...
Focal Length Angle of View Weighting 8 66.5 -93.0452019 18 26.5
-36.4766594 21 22.5 -30.81980515 24 18.5 -25.1629509 28 14 -18.79898987
35 8 -10.3137085 40 4.5 -5.363961031 50 0 1 85 9 -11.72792206 100 11.5
-15.26345597 135 14.5 -19.50609665 180 16.5 -22.33452378 200 17.5
-23.74873734 250 18.5 -25.1629509 300 19.5 -26.57716447 350 20
-27.28427125 400 20.5 -27.99137803 500 21 -28.69848481 6500 21.5
-29.40559159
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|