Bill

Thanks for posting this user friendly approach to the request for images for 
the MD/DC breeding bird atlas publication.   Bill saved me all the time and 
effort to put a useful approach down in plan English that I felt needed to 
me considered.   As one who spent hundreds of hours collecting data, 
coordinating work, etc., I do care about the total quality of the 
publication, and share the same feeling of alienation and frustration 
expressed.  I don't want to walk away from the project because of the 
intractable and unnecessary position of the atlas photo committee.

Much smaller files will work nicely as a viewing approach to the "photo 
contest".  If the judges can not select the best image from a 200 to 400 kb 
jpg, file they should not be judging the images.  Most website images are in 
that range, and the overall quality does not suffer.  Besides the published 
images are suppose to be something like 2" by 2" inches.  One could argue 
that 300 dpi resolution for images that small is over kill for the final 
publication.

The current MD/DC atlas "photo contest" requirements are more restrictive 
then the Birds of the World photo requirements, Houghton Mifflin, etc. and 
they all pay for the images.  What photographers have been told is the 
committee wants the highest quality image, for free, and if you don't like 
it, take a hike.

Bill has presented a much better approach which I support so I can spend 
more time trying to save the Mattawoman watershed instead of conforming to 
the current atlas "photo contest" rules.

One could argue why not an on-line publication instead of a paper copy, but 
that is another issue.

I also want to publicly thank Bill Ellis for trying to make this process 
work.  We will get there and it will be because of folks like Mr. Ellis who 
went above and beyond to make it work.

George

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Hubick" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: [MDOSPREY] Atlas Photo Rules


> Hi Everyone,
>
> Clearly the Atlas photo thread has become a very contentious debate. I 
> would like to say a few words on how I think it could be fixed. As Ed and 
> others have pointed out, the difference between this effort and a standard 
> "photo contest" is that it's not quite fair to say, "If you don't like the 
> rules, don't participate." As volunteers who have put in hundreds of hours 
> of field work, as members of MOS, and as naturalists who are passionate 
> about bird conservation in Maryland, there are a lot of stakeholders in 
> this effort. What really matters is the quality of the publication.
>
> My concerns with the effort can be filed into two areas: 1) a surprisingly 
> disdainful, dismissive attitude toward serious photographers' potential 
> contributions, and 2) an overly cumbersome process. I'll say my peace on 
> both:
>
> 1) Suboptimal attitude: From the start of this thread, official messages 
> on the rules have been marked with disdain for serious photographers. The 
> language has implied that we are unfair and want to dominate the book. It 
> has been said directly that if we don't like the rules, we shouldn't 
> compete. I won't dwell on example, but it actually HAS left many of us 
> feeling frustrated and alienated. Although this effort is being called a 
> contest, it is really a call for contributions--for donations of 
> intellectual property. Language should reflect that this is a call for 
> participation in a worthy cause. It should read as an invitation to be a 
> part of something great that our state's birding community can all be 
> proud of. That has not been the case. I am fighting an inclination to walk 
> away from this effort because I know my images will help a good cause. We 
> all care about the success of this effort, and the more active among us 
> shouldn't be unduly burdened
> because we have more to contribute. More importantly, we shouldn't be 
> immediately characterized as glory-hunters bent on dominating the book's 
> images. It's counterproductive and unwarranted.
>
> 2) Overly cumbersome process:  The goals of the committee should be 
> efficiency, fairness to participants, and maximum quality. I disagree with 
> the premise that the images will require a massive amount of storage 
> space, and I don't think that such elaborate measures need to be taken to 
> mask identities and capture every bit of data for each image during 
> submission. I think all images should be accepted in JPEG format 
> regardless of size, signature presence, or location, sorted into folders 
> by species, and then viewed by the team of judges. Multiple images of a 
> species by any photographer should be encouraged--just caveat the request 
> with "Please don't send 200 bluebird photos. Be reasonable." The only 
> thing necessary would be the photographer's name or code in the filename, 
> and this only so that the owner could be contacted later. I really don't 
> think that knowing who took an image would sway anyone, and I find that 
> when reviewing even large numbers of
> photos, there's nearly always a clear best. Once a "winner" is selected, 
> you e-mail the photographer saying "please send us the high-res image." I 
> really have a hard time seeing why such an elaborate process - as 
> currently described - needs to exist. If the best product is the goal - 
> and it really should be - everyone will pick the best image. If there's a 
> close call, then please feel free to lean toward the photographer with 
> less representation in the book. Many of my favorite images of species in 
> Maryland were taken by individuals that are not die-hard photographers.
>
> Here's a basic process that would work well. Request that everyone send 
> images to a point of contact. People with just a few photos can e-mail 
> them. Large collections should be sent on CDs. The POC creates a 
> photo-sharing site (e.g., Flickr, Picasa, Smugmug, PBase) and creates the 
> 200 or so galleries, one for each species. You don't need to enter any 
> extra data like location or photographer name, but if there happens to be 
> a "George Jett" signature block, it doesn't really matter. Once all the 
> images are uploaded, then the voters submit their votes for the best photo 
> of each species. The votes are tallied by another party and you have your 
> "winners." Voters can then contest any winner if it's sitting on a Saguaro 
> or next to a Green Jay. If so, then you go with the runner-up. The only 
> risk here is that you'll have a lot of photos of the common species. The 
> competition for Northern Cardinal might be fierce, but that means that 
> we'll have GREAT photos of
> the common species. We should. These photo sharing web sites are easy to 
> use and offer plenty of space. The work of uploading photos, which isn't 
> as massive as some people make it sound, can be shared by more than one 
> volunteer using the same photo-sharing account.
>
> I think the process can easily be simplified and improved. My apologies to 
> everyone who would rather just talk about birds. I'm with you!
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Bill Hubick
> Pasadena, Maryland
> 
> http://www.billhubick.com
>
>