RFD: rec.photo.stylists
zeitgeist
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.photo.stylists
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.stylists. This is
> not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
> details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> rec.photo.stylists techniques and interests of photo stylists.
>
> RATIONALE: rec.photo.stylists
>
> The rationale for this proposed group is to create an open discussion
> forum for professional photo stylists and for the photographers that
> hire them. The career in question, photo styling, is a highly
> competitive one with very few sources of written information or formal
> training programs. Rec.photo.stylists would provide the individuals
> involved in this profession the opportunity to share experiences and
> network within their field, something not found in the other
> photography news groups.
There does not seem to be any posts specific to this subject in any of
the rec.photo groups much less a flood of them distracting conversation.
rec as I understand it refers to recreational uses, wouldn't a business
oriented heirarchy be a better location.
conversation about styling of food and products are germane to
rec.photo.technique.misc where there are photographers who do post
questions and responces in place already, and tips about styling
portraits are common in rec.photo.technique.people (well, whenever thre
is a break between the resident troll fights.)
just my two cents worth
Michael Gudzinowicz
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.photo.stylists
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.stylists. This is
>not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
>details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>rec.photo.stylists techniques and interests of photo stylists.
>
>RATIONALE: rec.photo.stylists
>
>The rationale for this proposed group is to create an open discussion
>forum for professional photo stylists and for the photographers that
>hire them. The career in question, photo styling, is a highly
>competitive one with very few sources of written information or formal
>training programs. Rec.photo.stylists would provide the individuals
>involved in this profession the opportunity to share experiences and
>network within their field, something not found in the other
>photography news groups.
>
>
>Rec.photo.stylists is intended to provide a forum for discussion of
>the services provided by photo stylists. Examples of the topics of
>these discussions would be sources for equipment and supplies, tricks
>and techniques used by stylists, and answers to questions posed by
>inexperienced stylists.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>PROCEDURE:
>
>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
>should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
>for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
>proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
>Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
>warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>
>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
>
>This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
>to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
>documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
>questions about the process.
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
>news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, rec.photo.misc, rec.photo.digital,
>alt.journalism.photo, rec.photo.technique.people, alt.binaries.models,
>alt.fashion, alt.binaries.fashion.magazines
>
>Proponent: Brian Preston-Campbell <br...@preston-campbell.com>
1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
newsgroup".
2) The RFD should have been posted to all rec.photo.* newsgroups. The
charters of rec.photo.technique.misc and rec.photo.technique.people
already include provisions for discussion of the topics proposed
by this RFD, though the volume is light to non-existant.
3) A dejanews search of rec.photo* newsgroups for "stylist" revealed
53 entries, and in almost all cases, the term was peripheral to the
subject and discussion.
Clearly there is no demonstrated need for a new newsgroup in the
rec.photo* heirarchy.
4) The a dejanews search for posts submitted to rec.photo newsgoups
by by Brian Preston-Campbell other than this RFD shows only one
post, which is a request for marketing information. It was posted to
rec.photo.equipment.large-format, and is off-topic for that newsgroup.
It would appear that the proponent of this RFD is simply using the RFD
as a marketing ploy rather than addressing any problems in the rec.photo.*
heirarchy.
The proposal would be better served by the creation of a web site or mailing
list, not a newsgroup, and certainly not one in the rec.photo.* heirarchy.
> Forum: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Thread: Advice needed, marketing to Ad Agencies
> Subject: Advice needed, marketing to Ad Agencies
> Date: 08/26/1999
> Author: Preston-Campbell <bri...@bellsouth.net>
> << previous in search 7 next >>
>
> I need some professional advice on how to more effectively market
> myself to the Advertising world. Direct mail is tough, emailing time
> consuming. When everyone you talk to is "extremely busy" what
> alternative is there to get their attention?
>
> I'm not really a photographer, but as a food stylist, I share the same
> market and the same dilemmas as described by the photographers I have
> worked with when they were starting out. Any advice or direction will
> be greatly appreciated.
Brian Preston-Campbell
"zeitgeist" <blkhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39CED8B7...@yahoo.com...
> Brian Preston-Campbell wrote:
> >
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.photo.stylists
> >
> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> > world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.stylists. This is
> > not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
> > details are below.
> >
> > Newsgroup line:
> > rec.photo.stylists techniques and interests of photo stylists.
> >
> > RATIONALE: rec.photo.stylists
> >
> > The rationale for this proposed group is to create an open discussion
> > forum for professional photo stylists and for the photographers that
> > hire them. The career in question, photo styling, is a highly
> > competitive one with very few sources of written information or formal
> > training programs. Rec.photo.stylists would provide the individuals
> > involved in this profession the opportunity to share experiences and
> > network within their field, something not found in the other
> > photography news groups.
>
>
> the rec.photo groups much less a flood of them distracting conversation.
>
> rec as I understand it refers to recreational uses, wouldn't a business
> oriented heirarchy be a better location.
>
> conversation about styling of food and products are germane to
> rec.photo.technique.misc where there are photographers who do post
> questions and responces in place already, and tips about styling
> portraits are common in rec.photo.technique.people (well, whenever thre
> is a break between the resident troll fights.)
>
> just my two cents worth
The main point of the proposed group, as stated above in the rationale, is
to create an open forum for stylists. I appreciate your point that
photographers do post items for discussion in the photography newsgroups,
but those newsgroups are for photographers and for specific photography
techniques. The techniques employed by photo stylists (and some
photographers that perform this function) are specific to the work performed
in front of the camera -- these are more about subject matter than technical
photography-type information. The charters of the groups you mentioned
state that the main focus of these groups is photographic technique, not
styling technique.
On several WWW sites, there are forums for discussion of styling techniques.
Webfoodpros.com has a food styling forum
(webfoodpros.com/wwwboard/style/index.html) and quite a few fashion and
modeling sites have bbs's to discuss wardrobe, makeup and hair styling, but
there is no one location that covers the realm of photo styling for those
that do it. Additionally, my motives are somewhat selfish. I receive more
than ten emails a week asking for advice about becoming a food stylist, how
to achieve specific results, or if I know of other stylists in other cities,
etc. I feel that if the people coming to me for these answers knew there
was a newsgroup where they could ask the same question to several stylist at
once, they would definitely go there and take advantage of the resource.
The hierarchy chosen, rec.photo, was for the purpose of retaining some kind
of continuity with the other photography-oriented newsgroups. The only "big
8" ng's that deal with photography are in the rec designation, despite the
fact that a lot of professional photographers post in those groups. I am
anticipating a Call For Votes on this proposal and hope that the users of
this newsgroup will not only support its creation, but will participate in
rec.photo.stylists when it is created.
Brian Preston-Campbell
bri...@my-deja.com
newsgroup in question (end of attached post), August 26, 1999, was over
one year ago. I reconize that this post was off-topic and acknowledge
this as the actions of a new user of usenet (at that time.) The reason
I have not made any other posts to the rec.photo* groups is becuase they
discuss photography and not the subjects outlined in the rationale.
Additionally, I admit that my motives are somewhat selfish but not for
the sake of self-promotion, as you assert. Since I made that post over a
year ago, I have substantially increased my business through other
means, including the creation of a web site for that purpose. I am
beyond the point of searching for new clients -- they find me now. My
motivation, I feel, is more noble. I personally receive more than ten
emails a week asking for advice about becoming a food stylist, how to
achieve specific results, or if I know of other stylists in other
cities, etc. Additionally, I have met and worked with other types of
stylists that have the same questions, concerns, and base clientele that
I have. I feel that if the people coming to me for these answers knew
there was a newsgroup where they could ask the same question to several
stylists (and different varieties of stylists) at once, they would
definitely go there and take advantage of the resource.
Several web sites do address the concerns of individual styling
disciplines. Webfoodpros.com maintains a BBS for food styling and
several fashion and makeup sites maintain forums as well. But as with
the other newsgroups, a photo styling newsgroup would serve a higher
purpose than a mere combination of all of those web sites.
Accessability is the key to the success of usenet over the WWW for open
discussion.
The hierarchy chosen, rec.photo, was for the purpose of retaining some
kind of continuity with the other photography-oriented newsgroups. The
only "big 8" ng's that deal with photography are in the rec designation,
despite the fact that a lot of professional photographers post in those
groups, and with clearly professional subject matter.
Brian Preston-Campbell
In article <8qnbma$g57$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz) wrote:
> Brian Preston-Campbell <br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group rec.photo.stylists
> >
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> >world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.stylists. This is
> >not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
> >details are below.
> >
> >Newsgroup line:
> >rec.photo.stylists techniques and interests of photo stylists.
> >
> >RATIONALE: rec.photo.stylists
> >
> >The rationale for this proposed group is to create an open discussion
> >forum for professional photo stylists and for the photographers that
> >hire them. The career in question, photo styling, is a highly
> >competitive one with very few sources of written information or
formal
> >training programs. Rec.photo.stylists would provide the individuals
> >involved in this profession the opportunity to share experiences and
> >network within their field, something not found in the other
> >photography news groups.
> >
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jay Denebeim
>The reason I have not made any other posts to the rec.photo* groups
>is becuase they discuss photography and not the subjects outlined in
>the rationale.
Since rec.photo is about photography your group doesn't belong there
if it's not about photography. If your topic isn't currently on topic
for rec.photo.misc then the topic doesn't belong in the rec.photo
hierarchy at all.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Brian Preston-Campbell
group does not involve photography in the exact manner that the others in
the hierarchy involve photography then it does not belong there? Did you
bother to read the entire proposal? They call it photo styling for a
reason.
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8qnvou$bnr$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <8qnt3l$pf7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <bri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >The reason I have not made any other posts to the rec.photo* groups
> >is becuase they discuss photography and not the subjects outlined in
> >the rationale.
>
piranha
[umm, brian, please cut back material which isn't directly rele-
vant to what you are discussing; we saw the RFD already. :-)]
bri...@my-deja.com writes:
> Please note the date of my post to the rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> newsgroup in question (end of attached post), August 26, 1999, was over
> one year ago. I reconize that this post was off-topic and acknowledge
> this as the actions of a new user of usenet (at that time.)
ok. usenet takes a bit to get used to for most people. i see
no reason to hold one small mistake against you.
> The reason
> I have not made any other posts to the rec.photo* groups is becuase they
> discuss photography and not the subjects outlined in the rationale.
this will lead to questions about whether the topic belongs into
that hierarchy then.
i am not sure it does. i realize that photo stylists are quite
definitely connected with photography in the sense that they
perform their service in aid of photography, but nothing in the
rec.photo.* charters even remotely refers to something under which
people who perform services like this could be grouped. i can see
why you don't post there; your posts would indeed not be on-topic.
i don't know where to put it instead either though. this is the
most concentrated spot, other areas where stylists might work in
are scattered all over, and none actually talk about the profes-
sion, it appears.
that usually points at misc.*.
[...]
> I feel that if the people coming to me for these answers knew
> there was a newsgroup where they could ask the same question to several
> stylists (and different varieties of stylists) at once, they would
> definitely go there and take advantage of the resource.
yes, they might do that. but 10 emails a week isn't very much,
and the next hurdle you'll face is that people will ask you about
existing usenet traffic, because there is a sense that whatever
happens on the web doesn't automatically translate to usenet. it
_can_ move, mind you, but so far i don't see much web traffic on
the subject either. or traffic on mailing lists -- are there any?
> Several web sites do address the concerns of individual styling
> disciplines. Webfoodpros.com maintains a BBS for food styling and
> several fashion and makeup sites maintain forums as well. But as with
> the other newsgroups, a photo styling newsgroup would serve a higher
> purpose than a mere combination of all of those web sites.
> Accessability is the key to the success of usenet over the WWW for open
> discussion.
ummm. well, i don't disagree with you. :-) i much prefer usenet
over a gazillion web fora any day.
but you will need about 120 votes, you know? i looked at that
site you mentioned, and it has incredibly low traffic, just about
120 messages since 1998. who is gonna vote for this group? do
be careful with campaigning among people who now do not partici-
pate in usenet. it isn't for everyone, especially not in an
unmoderated group these days. and to have a viable group you do
not just need voters, you need active participants.
this might be too small a target audience for usenet. i don't
know -- these are just thoughts, don't take it as "you can't do
this". you can. but it might be a lot of effort for nothing.
> The hierarchy chosen, rec.photo, was for the purpose of retaining some
> kind of continuity with the other photography-oriented newsgroups. The
> only "big 8" ng's that deal with photography are in the rec designation,
> despite the fact that a lot of professional photographers post in those
> groups, and with clearly professional subject matter.
yeah, that has always been a bit schizo about rec.* -- this would
not be a deterrent IMO. really, whether it has enough to do with
rec.photo.*, that's more of a concern.
--
piranha
Jay Denebeim
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> yeah, that has always been a bit schizo about rec.* -- this would
> not be a deterrent IMO. really, whether it has enough to do with
> rec.photo.*, that's more of a concern.
It seems to me to be more related to fashion. That sounds like it
should be somewhere in soc.*
Brian Preston-Campbell
finding the apropriate hierarchy for the group, seemed logical to me to put
it with rec.photo.
Brian
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8qo9vn$gb3$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
piranha
>
> It seems to me to be more related to fashion. That sounds like it
> should be somewhere in soc.*
well, it should most definitely not be in soc.* even if it had
specifically more to do with fashion than not. it's about a
profession, not a social/societal phenomenon.
it isn't limited to fashion either. (one the of the coolest
things about RFDs in news.groups is that i so often learn about
some area of human endeavour i had previously no idea about.)
there are a lot of food stylists, for example, people who make
food look appetizing and fresh and oh-so-delish in pictures (the
methods are amazing -- i found some cool recipes for fake ice-
cream). i could go on. but in any case, this covers a lot of
ground, which is why it doesn't fit anywhere neatly, and why
rec.photo.* doesn't seem like the worst possible place, because
at least it's got definitely always a photography aspect.
--
-piranha
Russ Allbery
> i am not sure it does. i realize that photo stylists are quite
> definitely connected with photography in the sense that they
> perform their service in aid of photography, but nothing in the
> rec.photo.* charters even remotely refers to something under which
> people who perform services like this could be grouped. i can see
> why you don't post there; your posts would indeed not be on-topic.
I'm completely naive about photography, so take this with a grain of salt,
but after looking at the proposal when it came in, I thought
rec.photo.technique.people had at least some overlap.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Jay Denebeim
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> it's about a profession, not a social/societal phenomenon.
<snip>
> why rec.photo.* doesn't seem like the worst possible place,
>because at least it's got definitely always a photography aspect.
Did you happen to miss the post in which someone showed where in the
charter for rec.photo.* that specifically excluded non-amateur topics?
If they're still serious about this rec.photo.* has more than enough
people to vote this proposal into oblivion.
(not that I think it'll be able to get voted in even unopposed)
Brian Mailman
>
> piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> writes:
>
> > i am not sure it does. i realize that photo stylists are quite
> I'm completely naive about photography, so take this with a grain of salt,
> but after looking at the proposal when it came in, I thought
> rec.photo.technique.people had at least some overlap.
rec.photo.technique.style-design?
B/
Jay Denebeim
David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>Is there a single charter for rec.photo.*, then?
Sorta, they were created in several large reorgs and they aparently
have (note I'm just repeating what I heard here, I didn't go look at
ISC) parts that are common between all the groups. Specifically
limiting the scope to amateur stuff.
>The post I saw (and we may be looking at different ones here)
>suggested to me that the charters for the existing rec.photo.* groups
>- not the hierarchy itself - specifically excluded such topics.
That's correct, including misc, which is what this group would be
split off of. (conceptually)... Basically IMO any group in a
hierarchy should be able to be folded into it's parent group. In this
case the hierarchy was clearly ment to be amateur.
>although *some* charters do, and obviously the groups' presence in the
>rec.* hierarchy goes some way towards implying this already.
Well sorta, there really isn't a professional hierarchy. (except comp
and sci, obviously) Hmmm. I never thought about that before.
Computer people and scientists have hierarchies for their profession,
but there isn't a hierarchy for other professions.
>> If they're still serious about this rec.photo.* has more than enough
>> people to vote this proposal into oblivion.
>Yes, but would they, though?
Hard to say, they seem rather militant when they come here for
new groups. Not in the same league as *comics*, but moreso than just
about any other hierarchy.
>at most the proposed group would be removing unwanted traffic from
>the existing one
There doesn't appear to be any traffic currently.
Hmm... now that I think of it, this thing seems like it would be most
welcome in the graphic arts area. Is there a graphic arts hierarchy?
David Matthewman
> In article <uya0gb...@aegis.gooroos.com>,
> piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>
> > it's about a profession, not a social/societal phenomenon.
> <snip>
> > why rec.photo.* doesn't seem like the worst possible place,
> >because at least it's got definitely always a photography aspect.
>
> Did you happen to miss the post in which someone showed where in the
> charter for rec.photo.* that specifically excluded non-amateur topics?
Is there a single charter for rec.photo.*, then?
The post I saw (and we may be looking at different ones here)
suggested to me that the charters for the existing rec.photo.* groups
- not the hierarchy itself - specifically excluded such topics.
This *may* be evidence that the proposed group is badly placed in the
hierarchy, but I don't see that it's conclusive.
I'm not even sure that the claim is correct. I quote from the CVF that
brought rec.photo.misc into existence:
> Professional photographers are very welcome to
> participate in any rec.photo newsgroup, but, as the
> charters make clear, should NOT post advertisments
> for their services.
Which doesn't quite mesh with what's being claimed. I can't find much
evidence that:
> 1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
> newsgroup".
although *some* charters do, and obviously the groups' presence in the
rec.* hierarchy goes some way towards implying this already.
> If they're still serious about this rec.photo.* has more than enough
> people to vote this proposal into oblivion.
Yes, but would they, though? I seems a little territorial to say 'the
subject of this proposed newsgroup would be off-topic in an existing
group I post to, so I'm going to vote NO to it' even if the proposed
newsgroup was in the same hierarchy. If the subject of the proposed
group would be off-topic in the existing one, then at most the
proposed group would be removing unwanted traffic from the existing
one, and it more than likely wouldn't affect the existing one at all.
In both cases, a block NO vote from the existing group would seem
unlikely to me (in the general, hypothetical case, anyway).
> (not that I think it'll be able to get voted in even unopposed)
Probably not.
--
David Matthewman
Michael Gudzinowicz
>Please note the date of my post to the rec.photo.equipment.large-format
>newsgroup in question (end of attached post), August 26, 1999, was over
>one year ago. I reconize that this post was off-topic and acknowledge
>I have not made any other posts to the rec.photo* groups is becuase they
>discuss photography and not the subjects outlined in the rationale.
relevant. When rec.photo* had undergone reorganizations in the past, the
volume of posts in subject areas selected for the creation of new groups ran
into many thousands of posts per year, with many individuals contributing a
well over a thousand replies. The subgroups were created after a clear
demonstration that the volume in a particular group made it nearly impossible
to keep up with messages, and after there was agreement that a rational
division would solve the volume problem.
Also, if you feel that your area of interest does not involved the discussion
of recreational photography, it does not belong in that heirarchy.
>Additionally, I admit that my motives are somewhat selfish but not for
>the sake of self-promotion, as you assert. Since I made that post over a
>year ago, I have substantially increased my business through other
>means, including the creation of a web site for that purpose. I am
>beyond the point of searching for new clients -- they find me now. My
>motivation, I feel, is more noble. I personally receive more than ten
>emails a week asking for advice about becoming a food stylist, how to
>achieve specific results, or if I know of other stylists in other
>cities, etc. Additionally, I have met and worked with other types of
>stylists that have the same questions, concerns, and base clientele that
>there was a newsgroup where they could ask the same question to several
>stylists (and different varieties of stylists) at once, they would
>definitely go there and take advantage of the resource.
traffic even for obscure alt groups. The probablility of sites picking up new
groups with near zero traffic is low, and access will be a real problem even
if the group were to be created in the biz or alt heirarchies, where it
probably belongs.
I'd suggest that you create a mailing list which easily handles low volume
contacts, keeps every subscriber up to date with posts, and does not require
them to go out of their way to find a website or to check a newsgroup for
"new" posts, which very often may be delayed by days.
>Several web sites do address the concerns of individual styling
>disciplines. Webfoodpros.com maintains a BBS for food styling and
>several fashion and makeup sites maintain forums as well. But as with
>the other newsgroups, a photo styling newsgroup would serve a higher
>purpose than a mere combination of all of those web sites.
>Accessability is the key to the success of usenet over the WWW for open
>discussion.
>The hierarchy chosen, rec.photo, was for the purpose of retaining some
>kind of continuity with the other photography-oriented newsgroups. The
>only "big 8" ng's that deal with photography are in the rec designation,
>despite the fact that a lot of professional photographers post in those
>groups, and with clearly professional subject matter.
are "off topic", though that is often the case.
One rec.photo group has been compromised by constant flame wars among
"professionals" who insist on posting replies to trolls rather than using
email, contacting ISPs to have access restricted or using a kill file.
The majority of professional photographers and art directors using rec.photo*
groups avoid those "professional" discussions.
David Matthewman
> In article <kpmvsssau8952hov1...@4ax.com>,
> David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>
> >Is there a single charter for rec.photo.*, then?
>
> Sorta, they were created in several large reorgs and they aparently
> have (note I'm just repeating what I heard here, I didn't go look at
> ISC) parts that are common between all the groups. Specifically
> limiting the scope to amateur stuff.
I *did* go and look at ISC, incidentally.
> That's correct, including misc, which is what this group would be
> split off of. (conceptually)... Basically IMO any group in a
> hierarchy should be able to be folded into it's parent group. In this
> case the hierarchy was clearly ment to be amateur.
Could you back this up by citing the charter please? It seems to
contradict the section I quoted before (which I assume you missed, so
here it is again:
> Professional photographers are very welcome to
> participate in any rec.photo newsgroup, but, as the
> charters make clear, should NOT post advertisments
> for their services.
...)
I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
upon, not professionals per se.
--
David Matthewman
Jay Denebeim
David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
>upon, not professionals per se.
'ya, I sorta agree with that. However have you listened to what the
people who've come here from rec.photo have been saying. They seem to
feel that the rec group is not for subjects only of interest to
professional photographers. (if them)
Jim Riley
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
> newsgroup".
The charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude postings of a
commercial or promotional nature. They do not exclude posting by
professional photographers, nor of discussion of particular interest
to professional photographers. To the contrary, some of the charters
suggest topics which might be of particular interest to professionals
(e.g. rec.photo.technique.people "releases, wedding photography";
rec.photo.technique.misc "aerial photography, architectural
photography, scientific photography, photomicroscopy, copy work")
Further, the charter of one group, even in the same hierarchy, can not
control the charter of additional groups in the hierarchy.
That said, the proponents of the current group should seriously
consider adding the following language from the charter of the other
groups:
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
postings) are prohibited.
They should, given the focus of the proposed group, consider language
similar in nature to that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs:
This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
*NOT* for advertising by such labs.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>rec as I understand it refers to recreational uses, wouldn't a business
>oriented heirarchy be a better location.
Considering:
rec.video.professional and rec.aviation.military
it would be safer to say that rec.photo.* is about photography
(period).
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <kpmvsssau8952hov1...@4ax.com>,
>David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>>The post I saw (and we may be looking at different ones here)
>>suggested to me that the charters for the existing rec.photo.* groups
>>- not the hierarchy itself - specifically excluded such topics.
>
>That's correct, including misc, which is what this group would be
>split off of. (conceptually)... Basically IMO any group in a
>hierarchy should be able to be folded into it's parent group. In this
>case the hierarchy was clearly ment to be amateur.
The RFD and CFV for the first reorganization include a Charter for the
entire hierarchy. The concern seems to be with advertising by
photographers, not discussion of professional activity.
Professional photographers are very welcome to participate in any
rec.photo newsgroup, but, as the charters make clear, should NOT
post advertisments for their services.
In the case of the rec.photo.* hierarchy, it does not appear that
rec.photo.misc is the parent so much as the step-child that gets any
discussion that no other groups want.
>Well sorta, there really isn't a professional hierarchy. (except comp
>and sci, obviously) Hmmm. I never thought about that before.
>Computer people and scientists have hierarchies for their profession,
>but there isn't a hierarchy for other professions.
comp: computers
sci: what we use the computers for if not using them for their own
sake.
rec: what we do for fun when not patching Unix kernels.
soc: we do too have a life.
misc: files that aren't source, libraries, or executables.
news: meta-discussion about newsgroups.
talk: yada yada.
David Matthewman
> In article <8vl0ts8n6pdta9luq...@4ax.com>,
> David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>
> >I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
> >upon, not professionals per se.
>
> 'ya, I sorta agree with that. However have you listened to what the
> people who've come here from rec.photo have been saying. They seem to
> feel that the rec group is not for subjects only of interest to
> professional photographers. (if them)
Yes, but I don't think the charters really support them on this as
much as they think - though the general philosophy behind the rec.*
hierarchy may.
Not that that would stop anyone voting NO if they wish, of course.
--
David Matthewman
Brian Preston-Campbell
"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8qqvv8$eig$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
I was anxiously awaiting for someone to bring up the subject of
rec.photo.equipment.film+labs . The charter for that group allows for the
discussion (but not advertisement) of commercial photo labs and commercial
film products. My purpose in proposing said group was not to create a forum
for commercial advertising and solicitation of business, I was looking
instead to create a group that, although discussing a commercial endeavor,
is not commercial in its content -- not unlike a lot of the other rec.photo*
groups. I would be curious to further understand why the posters in the
other rec.photo* groups are so adamantly opposed to the creation of a group
that involves a type of photography, but does not *necessarily discuss*
hard-core technical photo equipment and photographic technique.
Brian
piranha
>
> comp: computers
> sci: what we use the computers for if not using them for their own
> sake.
> rec: what we do for fun when not patching Unix kernels.
> soc: we do too have a life.
> misc: files that aren't source, libraries, or executables.
> news: meta-discussion about newsgroups.
> talk: yada yada.
in case nobody else is standing in line to throw flowers, or
at least money on your path, let me be the first.
--
-piranha
Russ Allbery
> comp: computers
> sci: what we use the computers for if not using them for their own
> sake.
> rec: what we do for fun when not patching Unix kernels.
> soc: we do too have a life.
> misc: files that aren't source, libraries, or executables.
> news: meta-discussion about newsgroups.
> talk: yada yada.
humanities: oh yeah, we forgot that
Michael Gudzinowicz
>On 25 Sep 2000 11:07:54 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
>> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
>> newsgroup".
>
>The charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude postings of a
>commercial or promotional nature. They do not exclude posting by
>professional photographers, nor of discussion of particular interest
>to professional photographers. To the contrary, some of the charters
>suggest topics which might be of particular interest to professionals
>(e.g. rec.photo.technique.people "releases, wedding photography";
>rec.photo.technique.misc "aerial photography, architectural
>photography, scientific photography, photomicroscopy, copy work")
consider "stylists" to be photographers, and admits that he is not
a photographer.
Therefore the groups purpose is to discuss the -> profession <- of
stylists, techniques, etc., and NOT photography.
Since there haven't been any significant numbers of posts in the rec.photo
heirachy on that subject, there is hardly a demonstrable need to create
a group for _ONE_ individual who has made posted only once on that subject
in the rec.photo heirarchy.
>Further, the charter of one group, even in the same hierarchy, can not
>control the charter of additional groups in the hierarchy.
the content of subdivisions, though groups may be phased out of the heirachy.
That was one of the problems in the original subdivision of groups to misc,
darkroom, technique and marketplace undetaken by Dr. Bob Atkins.
>That said, the proponents of the current group should seriously
>consider adding the following language from the charter of the other
>groups:
>
> All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
> guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
> This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
> advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
> any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
> postings) are prohibited.
in the rec heirarchy. If a group does not conform, for instance, by
permitting binaries, it won't make it to a vote.
>They should, given the focus of the proposed group, consider language
>similar in nature to that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs:
>
> This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
> services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
> *NOT* for advertising by such labs.
of processing services (photographers) who wanted to discuss services
and materials.
One problem with "rec.photo.stylists" is that the topic is related to
"set design" for art directors and professional photographers, which
is a service that few if any recreational photographers use.
The virtual absence of interest demonstrated by posts of the subject in the
rec.photo heirarchy is a very good indication of the need for such a group.
If there is such a pressing need, why has the proponent only posted once
to the rec.photo groups on that subject, and never replied to inquiries (if
any exist) related to "stylists"? Where are the thousands of posts per year
in the rec.photo groups on the topics covered by the proposed group? or
hundreds? or dozens?
The citation of emails is hardly a reflection of the concerns of the tens of
thousands of people subscribing to the rec.photo groups... posts are.
The topic simply does not belong in the heirarchy, and probably can
not survive in the alt groups whre people can do anything they choose.
I can think of dozens of topics which are on topic for rec.photo and have
posting volumes tens or hundreds of times greater than the proposed group.
However, to create a rec group for any of those topics simply beacuse it
sounds interesting to a few people, or because it is inconvenient for a few
people to read groups to find discussions of interest (the "camera repair"
RFD fiasco) is ludicrous.
Helge Nareid
>In article <8vl0ts8n6pdta9luq...@4ax.com>,
>David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>
>>I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
>>upon, not professionals per se.
>
>'ya, I sorta agree with that. However have you listened to what the
>people who've come here from rec.photo have been saying. They seem to
>feel that the rec group is not for subjects only of interest to
>professional photographers. (if them)
As one of rec.photo.* regulars who have been active here on news.groups I
can't quite see how you got that impression. It is true that the
recreational aspects of photography dominate the discussion, but there are
also professional photographers and representatives of various suppliers
active on the groups, and in most cases their input is very welcome.
Photography is also one of those disciplines where it is very difficult to
draw a clear dividing line between amateurs and professionals, and
excluding the professionals from the discussion would be a sad loss to the
discussions on rec.photo.* IMHO.
Finally, there is no clear home for professional photography in the big-8
if rec.photo.* is deemed inappropriate. The formative years of Usenet was
at a time when virtually everybody with net access worked either with
computers or in the sciences - hence the comp.* and sci.* hierarchies. But
there is no real home for work-related discussions for professionals in
other fields. I also think that it would be very disruptive for
rec.photo.* to move parts of the discussions to another hierarchy.
I have some problems with the current proposal, which I will address in
another post, but placing a group related to professional issues in
rec.photo.* is not among them.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
Helge Nareid
<br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
>
>"zeitgeist" <blkhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:39CED8B7...@yahoo.com...
>> Brian Preston-Campbell wrote:
>> >
>> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> > unmoderated group rec.photo.stylists
>> >
>> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
>> > world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.stylists. This is
>> > not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
>> > details are below.
>> >
>> > Newsgroup line:
>> > rec.photo.stylists techniques and interests of photo stylists.
>> >
>> > RATIONALE: rec.photo.stylists
>> >
>> > The rationale for this proposed group is to create an open discussion
>> > forum for professional photo stylists and for the photographers that
>> > hire them. The career in question, photo styling, is a highly
>> > competitive one with very few sources of written information or formal
>> > training programs. Rec.photo.stylists would provide the individuals
>> > involved in this profession the opportunity to share experiences and
>> > network within their field, something not found in the other
>> > photography news groups.
My first problem with this proposal is the the term "photo stylist" is not
very clearly defined. Remember that this is a global forum, and the
terminology should be easily understood by non-native English speakers
(such as myself), or people not living in the USA (once again such as
myself). As somebody who has been involved in photography for about 30
years, some of it as a professional photographer, the designation "photo
stylist" conveys no clear meaning to me. I guessed the portrait part of
it, but did not think of stylists as applied to food photography. A brief
discussion of what "photo stylist" means would be useful as part of the
charter.
(zeitgeist):
>> There does not seem to be any posts specific to this subject in any of
>> the rec.photo groups much less a flood of them distracting conversation.
And this is the main flaw in the proposal. All the other issues can be
addressed, but a group does not get created unless there is traffic.
>>
>> rec as I understand it refers to recreational uses, wouldn't a business
>> oriented heirarchy be a better location.
That has been addressed elsewhere - creating a different home for
professional photography would IMHO be rather detrimental to the entire
rec.photo.* hierarchy. In principle you are right, but in the real world I
would wish to keep photography related discussions - professional or not -
in the rec.photo.* hierarchy.
>> conversation about styling of food and products are germane to
>> rec.photo.technique.misc where there are photographers who do post
>> questions and responces in place already, and tips about styling
>> portraits are common in rec.photo.technique.people (well, whenever thre
>> is a break between the resident troll fights.)
>>
>> just my two cents worth
(Brian Preston-Campbell):
>The main point of the proposed group, as stated above in the rationale, is
>to create an open forum for stylists. I appreciate your point that
>photographers do post items for discussion in the photography newsgroups,
>but those newsgroups are for photographers and for specific photography
>techniques. The techniques employed by photo stylists (and some
>photographers that perform this function) are specific to the work performed
>in front of the camera -- these are more about subject matter than technical
>photography-type information. The charters of the groups you mentioned
>state that the main focus of these groups is photographic technique, not
>styling technique.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the charters. I would say that
this subject fits right into the rec.photo.technique.* hierarchy if it
fits within rec.photo.* at all. As "zeitgeist" has already said, portrait
styling fits neatly within the rec.photo.technique people group, and food
styling would fit nicely into rec.photo.technique.misc. If the group is to
be created, I would suggest that a more appropriate name would be
rec.photo.technique.styling, which would fit neatly into the current set
of rec.photo.* groups.
Giving the volume of post on the subject, I would suggest that a mailing
list would be a much more appropriate forum.
Jay Denebeim
Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Sep 2000 13:25:10 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>>In article <8vl0ts8n6pdta9luq...@4ax.com>,
>>David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
>>>upon, not professionals per se.
>>
>>'ya, I sorta agree with that. However have you listened to what the
>>people who've come here from rec.photo have been saying. They seem to
>>feel that the rec group is not for subjects only of interest to
>>professional photographers. (if them)
>
>As one of rec.photo.* regulars who have been active here on news.groups I
>can't quite see how you got that impression.
I got that impression by reading this thread. Several people from
rec.photo.* have come here and said that.
Helge Nareid
>In article <3t94ts88frma4pic9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 26 Sep 2000 13:25:10 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8vl0ts8n6pdta9luq...@4ax.com>,
>>>David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I get the impression that it's commercial advertising that's frowned
>>>>upon, not professionals per se.
>>>
>>>'ya, I sorta agree with that. However have you listened to what the
>>>people who've come here from rec.photo have been saying. They seem to
>>>feel that the rec group is not for subjects only of interest to
>>>professional photographers. (if them)
>>
>>As one of rec.photo.* regulars who have been active here on news.groups I
>>can't quite see how you got that impression.
>
>I got that impression by reading this thread. Several people from
>rec.photo.* have come here and said that.
Depends on your definition of "several", I suppose ;-)
As regards this particular proposal, it happened at a time when I was away
from the net - I have been trying to catch up today, and I may not have
grasped all the nuances of what various people have been saying.
On the longer term, I have been around on news.groups and rec.photo.*
since there _only_ was rec.photo, and I can not recall this particular
issue being raised before now. I think I can say with some confidence that
there is no tradition of professional photographers being in any way
unwelcome in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. From my own personal viewpoint, I
would even say that I would strongly object to such a policy.
As I have been stating elsewhere, I have objections to this proposal, but
the "professional" nature of the subject is not among them.
Jay Denebeim
Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think I can say with some confidence that there is no tradition of
>professional photographers being in any way unwelcome in the
>rec.photo.* newsgroups. From my own personal viewpoint, I would even
>say that I would strongly object to such a policy.
I think you might have missed something. I believe what was said was
that peripheral topics only of interest to professionals were not
accepted. Like, I guess, the business end of photography, or food
stylings, or model contracts.
FWIW this is all rather meta since I don't think there's enough
interest in the topic to make a worthwhile group.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <5ot4ts4054g802phh...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think I can say with some confidence that there is no tradition of
>>professional photographers being in any way unwelcome in the
>>rec.photo.* newsgroups. From my own personal viewpoint, I would even
>>say that I would strongly object to such a policy.
>
>I think you might have missed something. I believe what was said was
>that peripheral topics only of interest to professionals were not
>accepted. Like, I guess, the business end of photography, or food
>stylings, or model contracts.
This is the charter for rec.photo.technique.people
rec.photo.technique.people Portraits, figure studies etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This group is for postings related to the photography of people.
This includes portraits, figure studies, abstracts, nudes etc. It is
not intended for the discussion of equipment except as related to
other issues of technique. Suitable topics for posting would include
lighting, posing, models, releases etc.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
postings) are prohibited.
The emphasis appears to be against the use of the groups for
advertising.
Jim Riley
<br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
>I was anxiously awaiting for someone to bring up the subject of
>rec.photo.equipment.film+labs . The charter for that group allows for the
>discussion (but not advertisement) of commercial photo labs and commercial
>film products. My purpose in proposing said group was not to create a forum
>for commercial advertising and solicitation of business, I was looking
>instead to create a group that, although discussing a commercial endeavor,
>is not commercial in its content -- not unlike a lot of the other rec.photo*
>groups.
Your charter needs to state this. People coming to the group will not
recognize this distinction. They'll see discussion about getting
contracts as a stylist, and decide the best way to do this is to post
ads to the group.
Devin L. Ganger
<br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
> I am beginning to question the validity of a system that states that a group
> cannot be created unless there is enough discussion in another group to
> warrant the breaking off of that sub-group.
If this is the message you are getting, you need to stop, take a deep breath
or two, and re-read.
Creating a Big-8 group is not an easy process, even with a good RFD. There
are many good RFDs that fail when it comes time for CFV because they either
don't get enough votes at all, or fail to achieve the required majority of
yes votes.
If you cannot show an active community of people interested in the topic
your RFD is proposing, historical data suggests that if you pursue the
process through the CFV, you will be one of the many votes that fails
because you don't have enough votes to make the majority -- aside from
any other problems or suggestions.
This is why we like to see a well-formed, well-researched rationale -- to
show that this *is* a serious RFD with a real chance of going forward.
Being able to show current Usenet participation is best, historically
speaking. Anything else, while at best turning out to be successful
50% of the time, is better than showing nothing at all.
You *can* go to CFV. And you will most likely fail, in which case you
have quite a wait ahead until you can take another stab at it.
--
Devin L. Ganger <dlga...@earthlink.net>
"N race conditions on the wall, N race conditionsa You take one down,
pass it around, and wait. And wait some more." -- Bytor in #tribes
* If replying, please either send an email OR post it here, not both. *
Brian Preston-Campbell
cannot be created unless there is enough discussion in another group to
beginning, there was one giant newsgroup that discussed everything (at that
time only computers or science because very few non-technical people were
using at that time.) As time went on, other subjects were introduced and
groups were splintered off into the "appropriate hierarchies."
By this system, eventually the whole of Usenet will consist of millions of
specialized newsgroups each with two participants -- one asking questions
and the other replying. But don't post an off-topic question to the "wrong"
group in this Usenet of the future, because everything will be clearly
spelled out in unquestionable, completely non-subjective group charters.
I have two points to bring up concerning the creation of this group:
1. No one has even been able to recommend a better placement within this or
any other hierarchy. (I think alt.* is not an alternative so don't bother.)
Everyone seems to be fixating on the commercial nature of photo styling and
how that does not have a place within the rec.* groups, despite my desire to
mirror the charters of the other rec.photo* groups in the creation of a
charter for this group, particularly that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs.
I hate spam and advertising in ng's as much as anyone!
2. The opposition to this proposal keep saying that because there is
currently no significant discussion of this subject matter in the rec.photo*
groups, then there clearly is no desire for photo stylists to have a ng at
all. I feel that this is rather specious reasoning. I am sure that I am
not the only stylist to have lurked in those photo groups, looking for
subject matter that pertains to my end of the camera, and having left either
alienated or dissappointed. This is exactly what has motivated me to
propose the creation of such a group.
>>>As I have been stating elsewhere, I have objections to this proposal, but
>>>the "professional" nature of the subject is not among them.
>>>
>>>- Helge Nareid
>>>Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
And Helge, what are these objections you keep eluding to? Are they valid
enough to mention in this discussion or are you keeping them up your sleeve
for later?
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8qtu97$4ff$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <5ot4ts4054g802phh...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think I can say with some confidence that there is no tradition of
> >professional photographers being in any way unwelcome in the
> >rec.photo.* newsgroups. From my own personal viewpoint, I would even
> >say that I would strongly object to such a policy.
>
> I think you might have missed something. I believe what was said was
> that peripheral topics only of interest to professionals were not
> accepted. Like, I guess, the business end of photography, or food
> stylings, or model contracts.
>
Jim Riley
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On 25 Sep 2000 11:07:54 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>
>>>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
>>> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
>>> newsgroup".
>>
>>The charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude postings of a
>>commercial or promotional nature. They do not exclude posting by
>>professional photographers, nor of discussion of particular interest
>>to professional photographers. To the contrary, some of the charters
>>suggest topics which might be of particular interest to professionals
>>(e.g. rec.photo.technique.people "releases, wedding photography";
>>rec.photo.technique.misc "aerial photography, architectural
>>photography, scientific photography, photomicroscopy, copy work")
>If you read the proponent's replies, you will find that he does not
>consider "stylists" to be photographers, and admits that he is not
>a photographer.
So? As I understand it the role of stylists is to prepare the object
being photographed. I'd guess that preparation of the object to be
photographed was an important aspect of scientific photography or
photomicroscopy. BTW, what is "copy work"?
>Therefore the groups purpose is to discuss the -> profession <- of
>stylists, techniques, etc., and NOT photography.
The charter for rec.photo.techniques says that "posing, models,
releases" are on topic.
>Since there haven't been any significant numbers of posts in the rec.photo
>heirachy on that subject, there is hardly a demonstrable need to create
>a group for _ONE_ individual who has made posted only once on that subject
>in the rec.photo heirarchy.
Whether there have been a significant number of posts is NOT AT ALL
RELEVANT to your contention that "the charters of the rec.photo*
newsgroups limit their scope to recreational photography and exclude
the creation of a "professional newsgroup".
>>Further, the charter of one group, even in the same hierarchy, can not
>>control the charter of additional groups in the hierarchy.
>That is incorrect. Charters of groups which are then subdivided also control
>the content of subdivisions, though groups may be phased out of the heirachy.
Says who?
>That was one of the problems in the original subdivision of groups to misc,
>darkroom, technique and marketplace undetaken by Dr. Bob Atkins.
*What* was the problem? It sounds like you're saying that there was
some dumb rule that caused problems, and that we are bound to this
dumb rule.
BTW, the first re-organization by Bob Atkins created
rec.photo.marketplace, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.advanced,
rec.photo.help, and rec.photo.misc, and eliminated rec.photo. It was
the second re-organization that created rec.photo.digital,
rec.photo.equipment.{35mm|large-format|medium-format|misc},
rec.photo.film+labs, rec.photo.technique.{art|nature|people|misc}, and
eliminated rec.photo.help and rec.photo.advanced.
>>That said, the proponents of the current group should seriously
>>consider adding the following language from the charter of the other
>>groups:
>>
>> All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
>> guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
>> This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
>> advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
>> any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
>> postings) are prohibited.
>There's absolutely no reason to do so. That language controls all groups
>in the rec heirarchy. If a group does not conform, for instance, by
>permitting binaries, it won't make it to a vote.
How can you tell whether a charter that is silent on a subject
conforms? What if the proponent secretly intends to post jpegs of
fruits to the group to illustrate technique? BTW, there are charters
of rec.* groups that do permit binaries.
It is important that a charter stress the limitations of what is
appropriate, especially those that are subject to misunderstanding.
Some people will think posting of photo images is appropriate to a
rec.photo group. Others will think that posting of advertisement of
services is appropriate for a group that discusses that service. See
the charter of rec.photo.film+labs.
>>They should, given the focus of the proposed group, consider language
>>similar in nature to that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs:
>>
>> This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
>> services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
>> *NOT* for advertising by such labs.
Just so that it is clear. The emphasis on *COMMERCIAL* and *NOT* are
in the charter.
>That group was created due a high volume of posts by _consumers_
>of processing services (photographers) who wanted to discuss services
>and materials.
Let me re-characterize what you have said:
That group was created for a group of participants who others might
think are an appropriate target for their advertisements. I see
nothing in the charter that suggests that operators of labs would be
unwelcome in the discussion, for example pointing out some of the
things that photographers can do to get better results from their film
processors.
>One problem with "rec.photo.stylists" is that the topic is related to
>"set design" for art directors and professional photographers, which
>is a service that few if any recreational photographers use.
Why is this a problem?
>I can think of dozens of topics which are on topic for rec.photo and have
>posting volumes tens or hundreds of times greater than the proposed group.
Perhaps they fit the existing groups.
Jay Denebeim
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Suitable topics for posting would include lighting, posing, models,
> releases etc.
Okay, then clearly rp.technique.misc is where this topic would
currently be found, if people were actually talking about it.
Helge Nareid
<br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
>>>>As I have been stating elsewhere, I have objections to this proposal, but
>>>>the "professional" nature of the subject is not among them.
>>>>
>>>>- Helge Nareid
> >>>Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
>
>And Helge, what are these objections you keep eluding to? Are they valid
>enough to mention in this discussion or are you keeping them up your sleeve
>for later?
I have mentioned them elsewhere already, and I saw no reason to repeat
them in the particular post you're referring to. I'll sum them up again.
- I find the term "photo stylist" poorly defined, the charter need a
clarification of what that term is supposed to include
- The name doesn't fit the current naming practice in rec.photo.*, I think
a name such as rec.photo.technique.styling would be more suitable.
- The subject is (as far as I can make out) on-topic in at least 3 current
rec.photo.* groups, namely rec.photo.technique.people,
rec.photo.technique.misc, and rec.photo.misc.
- Finally, there is the lack of traffic. You may not like it, but if you
can't point to current (usenet) traffic on the subject, you are very
unlikely to succeed.
Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily against this group. I would like
to see the charter and naming issues resolved, but apart from that I have
no problem with such a group being created _if_ there is sufficient
interest. From what I have seen, I do not think the interest is there.
I probably won't vote against the group, but I won't vote for it either.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:05:05 GMT, "Brian Preston-Campbell"
<br...@preston-campbell.com> wrote:
>>>>As I have been stating elsewhere, I have objections to this proposal, but
>>>>the "professional" nature of the subject is not among them.
>>>>
>>>>- Helge Nareid
> >>>Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
>
>And Helge, what are these objections you keep eluding to? Are they valid
>enough to mention in this discussion or are you keeping them up your sleeve
>for later?
I have mentioned them elsewhere already, and I saw no reason to repeat
them in the particular post you're referring to. I'll sum them up again.
- I find the term "photo stylist" poorly defined, the charter need a
clarification of what that term is supposed to include
- The name doesn't fit the current naming practice in rec.photo.*, I think
a name such as rec.photo.technique.styling would be more suitable.
- The subject is (as far as I can make out) on-topic in at least 3 current
rec.photo.* groups, namely rec.photo.technique.people,
rec.photo.technique.misc, and rec.photo.misc.
- Finally, there is the lack of traffic. You may not like it, but if you
can't point to current (usenet) traffic on the subject, you are very
unlikely to succeed.
Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily against this group. I would like
to see the charter and naming issues resolved, but apart from that I have
no problem with such a group being created _if_ there is sufficient
interest. From what I have seen, I do not think the interest is there.
I probably won't vote against the group, but I am not going to vote for it
either.
--
Michael Gudzinowicz
>On 27 Sep 2000 04:13:56 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Sep 2000 11:07:54 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
>>>> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
>>>> newsgroup".
>>>
>>>The charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude postings of a
>>>commercial or promotional nature. They do not exclude posting by
>>>professional photographers, nor of discussion of particular interest
>>>to professional photographers. To the contrary, some of the charters
>>>suggest topics which might be of particular interest to professionals
>>>(e.g. rec.photo.technique.people "releases, wedding photography";
>>>rec.photo.technique.misc "aerial photography, architectural
>>>photography, scientific photography, photomicroscopy, copy work")
>
>>If you read the proponent's replies, you will find that he does not
>>consider "stylists" to be photographers, and admits that he is not
>>a photographer.
>
>So? As I understand it the role of stylists is to prepare the object
>being photographed. I'd guess that preparation of the object to be
>photographed was an important aspect of scientific photography or
>photomicroscopy. BTW, what is "copy work"?
materials for products, which are then captured by professional photographers
for stills, cameramen using video for commercial ads and TV shows, or on
occasion for films.
The failure of anyone to dredge up a couple of dozen posts on the subject
from the rec.photo heirarchy indicates the "importance" and "need" for the
separation of this subject from the techniques groups. There are groups
appropriate for the discussion of that topic, however, the volume is so low
that the proposal to create a group is absurd.
>>Therefore the groups purpose is to discuss the -> profession <- of
>>stylists, techniques, etc., and NOT photography.
>
>The charter for rec.photo.techniques says that "posing, models,
>releases" are on topic.
than photographer (such as plumbers, art directors, advertising account
executives, or stylists), and topics related to both recreational and
professional photography ("posing, models, releases")?
The "stylist" services are not used by recreational photographers. They are
used by businesses such as ad agencies, art directors, and on occassion,
professional photographers but usually at the request of another party who is
paying for the service.
I used the word "profession" for a reason - the group revolves around
activities including marketing which can and are be performed by
non-photographers (the proponent has claimed not to be a photographer). It
does not involve the discussion of photography which is probably why there is
little traffic apart from the obvious reason - no one cares to post or reply
to subjects in that area.
Another analogy appears in the building trade groups where the question of
whether painting prior to a sale a house adds value to the sale price
appears often. (The answer depends on market and price.)
By extension, architectural photographers and real estate agents take photos
of properties which are advertised for sale or appear in publications.
Should a group called "rec.photo.house-painting" be created to address the
needs of painters who make visual improvements in the product which others
might photograph? The new group need not limit its charter to painting, but
can include other techniques and materials such as wall-papering and paneling.
Other techniques such as lawn mowing and interior decorating could have their
own rec.photo group because those services improve the photo of a house used
by a real estate agent to sell it. Because to product is photographed does
not mean that the discussion involves photography, and that a new groups are
required to accomodate painters, etc.
>>Since there haven't been any significant numbers of posts in the rec.photo
>>heirachy on that subject, there is hardly a demonstrable need to create
>>a group for _ONE_ individual who has made posted only once on that subject
>>in the rec.photo heirarchy.
>
>Whether there have been a significant number of posts is NOT AT ALL
>RELEVANT to your contention that "the charters of the rec.photo*
>newsgroups limit their scope to recreational photography and exclude
>the creation of a "professional newsgroup".
purpose of rec.* newsgroups?
Also, when you "qoute" me, please do not fabricate the qoutation. Rec.photo
does not need a "stylist" group any more than it needs a house painting or
lawn mowing group.
If you recall, someone tried to create a professional repair group in the
rec.photo heirarchy (at least it was related to the needs of the subscribers)
and stated that the reason they intended to do so was because it was
inconvenient for them to search and read posts on the subject, or to use
dejanews. Like the proponent, they were in that business, and had NEVER
replied to any inquiry even remotely related to the subject of their proposed
newsgroup. The purpose of that proposal was clear - a group which caould be
used to troll for new clients - and of course, it does not exist.
However, there were at least hundrerds of posts on the subject in rec.photo
groups. Canon-Nikon wars contain thousands, however, there is no demonstrable
need to create a new group to handle the traffic or that related to one
camera brand.
>>>Further, the charter of one group, even in the same hierarchy, can not
>>>control the charter of additional groups in the hierarchy.
>
>>That is incorrect. Charters of groups which are then subdivided also control
>>the content of subdivisions, though groups may be phased out of the heirachy.
>
>Says who?
revisions had to be worded in a certain manner? That topic was discussed at
length. The bottom line was that groups can not be destroyed by a charter
(they can be phased out), and the subdivision incorporates the charter of the
parent group by default (stated or not) and cannot contradict the intentions
of the parent charter. That provides continuity, and prevents the alteration
of a charter which has passed the voting process.
>>>That said, the proponents of the current group should seriously
>>>consider adding the following language from the charter of the other
>>>groups:
>>>
>>> All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
>>> guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
>>> This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
>>> advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
>>> any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
>>> postings) are prohibited.
>
>>There's absolutely no reason to do so. That language controls all groups
>>in the rec heirarchy. If a group does not conform, for instance, by
>>permitting binaries, it won't make it to a vote.
>
>How can you tell whether a charter that is silent on a subject
>conforms? What if the proponent secretly intends to post jpegs of
>fruits to the group to illustrate technique? BTW, there are charters
>of rec.* groups that do permit binaries.
>
>It is important that a charter stress the limitations of what is
>appropriate, especially those that are subject to misunderstanding.
>Some people will think posting of photo images is appropriate to a
>rec.photo group. Others will think that posting of advertisement of
>services is appropriate for a group that discusses that service. See
>the charter of rec.photo.film+labs.
those of the rec heirarchy. They are not permitted. My ISP and others do
not carry binary groups and filter out all binaries when they are posted to
a Usenet group. That has been SOP.
>>>They should, given the focus of the proposed group, consider language
>>>similar in nature to that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs:
>>>
>>> This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
>>> services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
>>> *NOT* for advertising by such labs.
>
>Just so that it is clear. The emphasis on *COMMERCIAL* and *NOT* are
>in the charter.
>
>>That group was created due a high volume of posts by _consumers_
>>of processing services (photographers) who wanted to discuss services
>>and materials.
>
>Let me re-characterize what you have said:
>
>That group was created for a group of participants who others might
>think are an appropriate target for their advertisements. I see
>nothing in the charter that suggests that operators of labs would be
>unwelcome in the discussion, for example pointing out some of the
>things that photographers can do to get better results from their film
>processors.
replies by professional photographers or service providers are unwelcome or
restricted beyond the ban on spam ads.
It was created because recreational (consumers) photographers had posted
thousands of inquiries and replies in other newsgroups on film and lab
recommendations, and it was a natural division. The words "commercial
photofinishing" are used to distinguish the subject from rec.photo.darkroom,
which includes processing done by hobbyists and professional photographers
for themselves, not as a commercial service offered to others.
And again I ask, where is the demonstrable "stylist" traffic?
There are magnitudes more of posts on enlarger lenses, and no one would
create a group devoted to that subject, which is at least related to the
process of recreational photography for some subscribers.
>>One problem with "rec.photo.stylists" is that the topic is related to
>>"set design" for art directors and professional photographers, which
>>is a service that few if any recreational photographers use.
>
>Why is this a problem?
1) no traffic in existing groups which permit the discussion,
2) the subject is not related to recreational photography
3) those using the techniques and services are non-photgraphic business
entities, usually art directors, ad agencies or film studios who may engage
their services directly or use a professional still photographer, video
camera operator or movie cameraman as an intermediary and
4) the proponent has contributed only ONE post on the subject to all of the
rec.photo groups over the years (on marketing his services), which has the
tendency to label the RFD and group as a troll for clients.
>>I can think of dozens of topics which are on topic for rec.photo and have
>>posting volumes tens or hundreds of times greater than the proposed group.
>
>Perhaps they fit the existing groups.
said in my first post, and others have restated that. Nothing, other than a
lack of interest, has prevented posts on "stylists", services, or techniques
in those groups.
As I've said before, there is no demonstrable need to separate the topic
when there are fewer than a handful of posts which mention the word, and
whose subject is actually something else.
The proponent should create a mailing list, and if he gets a few hundred
subscribers, then find an appropriate heirarchy for the group.
Jim Riley
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep 2000 04:13:56 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>
>>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25 Sep 2000 11:07:54 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
>>>>> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
>>>>> newsgroup".
>If you want example, a "food stylist" prepares food often using substituted
>materials for products, which are then captured by professional photographers
>for stills, cameramen using video for commercial ads and TV shows, or on
>occasion for films.
That suggests to me that the photography hierarchy is appropriate for
a stylist group. Of course, this has nothing to do with your claim
that the charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude creation of a
"professional newsgroup".
>The failure of anyone to dredge up a couple of dozen posts on the subject
>from the rec.photo heirarchy indicates the "importance" and "need" for the
>separation of this subject from the techniques groups. There are groups
>appropriate for the discussion of that topic, however, the volume is so low
>that the proposal to create a group is absurd.
Of course, this has nothing to do with your claim that the charters of
the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude creation of a "professional
newsgroup".
>>The charter for rec.photo.techniques says that "posing, models,
>>releases" are on topic.
>Don't you see the difference between discussion of a -> profession <- other
>than photographer (such as plumbers, art directors, advertising account
>executives, or stylists), and topics related to both recreational and
>professional photography ("posing, models, releases")?
Of course I see the difference. Just as I see the difference between
the _equipment_ used in photography, the _techniques_ used to take the
photographs, the _film_, _darkrooms_, and _labs_ used to capture and
produce the final image, the _marketplace_ for selling and exchange of
equipments. There are different groups for different aspects of
photography.
>The "stylist" services are not used by recreational photographers. They are
>used by businesses such as ad agencies, art directors, and on occassion,
>professional photographers but usually at the request of another party who is
>paying for the service.
Why are stylist services unusable by recreational photographers?
BTW, what is the difference between a recreational and professional
photographer?
>>>Since there haven't been any significant numbers of posts in the rec.photo
>>>heirachy on that subject, there is hardly a demonstrable need to create
>>>a group for _ONE_ individual who has made posted only once on that subject
>>>in the rec.photo heirarchy.
>>
>>Whether there have been a significant number of posts is NOT AT ALL
>>RELEVANT to your contention that "the charters of the rec.photo*
>>newsgroups limit their scope to recreational photography and exclude
>>the creation of a "professional newsgroup".
>
>Why don't you read the original charter, and the discussions centered on the
>purpose of rec.* newsgroups?
Which charter are you referring to? I have read the charters of the
groups created by the first re-organization and the second
re-organization. Am I correct that you did not vote on either
proposal?
>Also, when you "qoute" me, please do not fabricate the qoutation. Rec.photo
>does not need a "stylist" group any more than it needs a house painting or
>lawn mowing group.
(1) The quote above (about your contention) is from message
<8qnbma$g57$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>. I apologize for not inverting
your quote marks around <professional newsgroup>.
(2) Please do not drop the References header. If your software is
unable to do so, at least include a little note at the top of the
message indicating which messages you are responding to.
(3) Whether or not a stylist group should be created in the
rec.photo.* hierarchy has no relation to your absurdly relating it to
a house painting or lawn mowing group. It certainly has no
relationship to your false claim that I misquoted you.
>If you recall, someone tried to create a professional repair group in the
>rec.photo heirarchy (at least it was related to the needs of the subscribers)
An RFD was posted for creation of rec.photo.equipment.service in 1998.
It did not go to CFV.
>>>>Further, the charter of one group, even in the same hierarchy, can not
>>>>control the charter of additional groups in the hierarchy.
>>
>>>That is incorrect. Charters of groups which are then subdivided also control
>>>the content of subdivisions, though groups may be phased out of the heirachy.
>>
>>Says who?
>
>Since you cite Bob Atkins' revisions, why not ask him why the language of his
>revisions had to be worded in a certain manner? That topic was discussed at
>length. The bottom line was that groups can not be destroyed by a charter
>(they can be phased out), and the subdivision incorporates the charter of the
>parent group by default (stated or not) and cannot contradict the intentions
>of the parent charter. That provides continuity, and prevents the alteration
>of a charter which has passed the voting process.
This has nothing to do with continuity of charter, and all to do with
a silly rule that groups can not be removed without renaming them to
something else. We can see the absurdity of this rule in the current
proposal to remove misc.jobs.offered by renaming it to misc.jobs.misc.
The 1st RFD for the 2nd rec.photo.* re-organization said:
In order to avoid the increased confusion which would result if the
current advanced and help groups were to remain, it is proposed that
rec.photo.technique will *replace* rec.photo.help by renaming
rec.photo.help to rec.photo technique (it's the only way to do it)
and that rec.photo.35mm-slr-lens will *replace* rec.photo.advanced
in any voting on this reorganization (again by renaming
rec.photo.advanced to rec.photo.35mm-slr-lens). Without the removal
of these existing groups there would be no basis for deciding
whether a post should belong in the help or advanced groups or in
the new equipment or technique groups, which would create even
greater confusion than currently exists. The renamed groups would
have the new group charters listed later in this RFD of course.
In other words, the only way to get rid of a group is to rename, but
the charters of the new groups will take precedence. The second RFD
changed the renaming into the existing rec.photo.misc.
Renaming both rec.photo.help and rec.photo.advanced to
rec.photo.misc will effectively remove them, and thus remove
confusion as to whether posts belong in these groups or one of the
new groups. Removal by renaming is the currently favored method of
group removal. Keeping the help and advanced groups along with the
new groups would lead to unacceptable confusion and a situation in
which it would be virtually impossible for anyone to know where to
post!
I see no interpretation of this other than that this was a way to
eliminate the r.photo.help and r.photo.advanced groups, but that their
content was expected to move to the topically specific
r.photo.equipment.* and r.photo.technique.* groups, rather than the
step-child group r.photo.misc.
It may be true that you (and your ISP) are ignorant of groups within
the rec.* hierarchy that permit binaries.
>>>>They should, given the focus of the proposed group, consider language
>>>>similar in nature to that of rec.photo.equipment.film+labs:
>>>>
>>>> This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
>>>> services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
>>>> *NOT* for advertising by such labs.
>>
>>Just so that it is clear. The emphasis on *COMMERCIAL* and *NOT* are
>>in the charter.
>>
>>>That group was created due a high volume of posts by _consumers_
>>>of processing services (photographers) who wanted to discuss services
>>>and materials.
>>
>>Let me re-characterize what you have said:
>>
>>That group was created for a group of participants who others might
>>think are an appropriate target for their advertisements. I see
>>nothing in the charter that suggests that operators of labs would be
>>unwelcome in the discussion, for example pointing out some of the
>>things that photographers can do to get better results from their film
>>processors.
>I have never stated or implied in any way that on-topic inquiries and
>replies by professional photographers or service providers are unwelcome or
>restricted beyond the ban on spam ads.
Good. We agree. That is why I have suggested that similar language
be added to the charter of the proposed stylist group. The topic of
both groups is such that there will be a temptation for some people to
think that advertizing is appropriate.
>And again I ask, where is the demonstrable "stylist" traffic?
Someone is not permitted to address false claims presented with an air
of authority, without addressing everything you write in a post. In
your initial post to this discussion,
<8qnbma$g57$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> you made 4 claims (my paraphrase):
1) That the charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups forbid creation
of the proposed group.
2) The RFD should have been posted to all rec.photo.* groups.
3) There is little existing discussion of the topic.
4) There is little record of participation by the proponent in the
rec.photo.* groups.
I addressed your first point.
I thought your 2nd point was silly, but did not respond. There is a
practical limit to how many groups an RFD can be cross-posted to. If
you think that certain groups would be better included than those that
were included, please be specific.
On your 3rd and 4th points, my approach to the creation of groups is
different than yours. I believe that groups that have a well-defined
topic should be created if there are 100 interested persons, as shown
by the CFV. It does not appear that the proposed group will suck the
lifeblood out of any of the groups that you currently haunt. I would
rather spend my efforts considering the name, improving the charter,
and letting the CFV decide the group's fate.
Michael Gudzinowicz
>On 28 Sep 2000 18:34:44 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Sep 2000 04:13:56 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 25 Sep 2000 11:07:54 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>>>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1) The charters of the rec.photo* newsgroups limit their scope to
>>>>>> recreational photography and exclude the creation of a "professional
>>>>>> newsgroup".
>
>>If you want example, a "food stylist" prepares food often using substituted
>>materials for products, which are then captured by professional photographers
>>for stills, cameramen using video for commercial ads and TV shows, or on
>>occasion for films.
>
>That suggests to me that the photography hierarchy is appropriate for
>a stylist group. Of course, this has nothing to do with your claim
>that the charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude creation of a
>"professional newsgroup".
process of photography. It has nothing to do with recreational photography.
"Recreational photography" is that practiced by hobbyists. "Stylists" market
themselves to ad agencies, art directors, film studios, etc.
>>The failure of anyone to dredge up a couple of dozen posts on the subject
>>from the rec.photo heirarchy indicates the "importance" and "need" for the
>>separation of this subject from the techniques groups. There are groups
>>appropriate for the discussion of that topic, however, the volume is so low
>>that the proposal to create a group is absurd.
>
>Of course, this has nothing to do with your claim that the charters of
>the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude creation of a "professional
>newsgroup".
>
>>>The charter for rec.photo.techniques says that "posing, models,
>>>releases" are on topic.
>
>>Don't you see the difference between discussion of a -> profession <- other
>>than photographer (such as plumbers, art directors, advertising account
>>executives, or stylists), and topics related to both recreational and
>>professional photography ("posing, models, releases")?
>
>Of course I see the difference. Just as I see the difference between
>the _equipment_ used in photography, the _techniques_ used to take the
>photographs, the _film_, _darkrooms_, and _labs_ used to capture and
>produce the final image, the _marketplace_ for selling and exchange of
>equipments. There are different groups for different aspects of
>photography.
a stylist, a makeup artist is a stylist, a landscaper is a stylist, etc.
When they are hired by a third party who wants a photo of a "product", they
are all "photo stylists".
All of those people in occupations _other than photography_ improve "product"
shots commisioned by art directors or advertising agencies, or used by
professional photographers. Also, their services are not limited to
photography, but include motion pictures, TV ads, video, etc. And all can
call themselves "photo stylists" if they choose to market their
non-photographic services in that manner if the "product" happens to be
photographed.
>>The "stylist" services are not used by recreational photographers. They are
>>used by businesses such as ad agencies, art directors, and on occassion,
>>professional photographers but usually at the request of another party who is
>>paying for the service.
>
>Why are stylist services unusable by recreational photographers?
>BTW, what is the difference between a recreational and professional
>photographer?
income from photography, and a recreational photographer, or hobbyist, is not
in business, and practices photography for recreational or hobby purposes.
Rec newsgroups are primarily hobbyist groups. They are not venues to market
businesses. Contributions by professional photographers are welcome in
rec.photo groups, but they are not groups targeted at the profession
(occupation) of photography (business practices, marketing etc.) though
posts occur on those subjects.
Stylists are used by ad agencies and commercial entities, and rarely if at
all, by recreational photographers.
>>Why don't you read the original charter, and the discussions centered on the
>>purpose of rec.* newsgroups?
>
>Which charter are you referring to? I have read the charters of the
>groups created by the first re-organization and the second
>re-organization. Am I correct that you did not vote on either
>proposal?
Your statement regarding my voting record is false. I did not vote on the
creation of the original rec.photo newsgroup, but I did vote on every
reorganization.
Did you vote on them, or participate in the RFDs, emails and informal
discussions which led to their creation?
Also, if your role is that of a moderator for RFD, and not of a rec.photo
contributor, I'd suggest that you remove yourself from that role if you
continue to attempt to impeach every comment made by a contributor by
implying that didn't vote on news group reorganizations.
Your role might be to help the proponent to a CFV, however, with a limited
background in photography and the newsgroup (based on your questions - copy
work, professional photgrapher) you might be missing the point that the
proposed subgroup though including the term "photo" is only peripherally
related to photography per se, and is unrelated to recreational photography,
the purpose of the newsgroups.
>(2) Please do not drop the References header. If your software is
>unable to do so, at least include a little note at the top of the
>message indicating which messages you are responding to.
>(3) Whether or not a stylist group should be created in the
>rec.photo.* hierarchy has no relation to your absurdly relating it to
>a house painting or lawn mowing group.
photography, along with florists (stylist), etc. The photos in the magazine
"Architectural Digest" weren't taken by a hobbyist using a snapshot 35 mm
camera, nor are the vodka ads which use plexi icecubes. The "stylists"
provide those services to the ad agencies and art directors who work with the
professional photographer.
If you think it is absurd, when was the last time you spent a few thousand
dollars to have someone come in, arrange you dinner table with fake and
enhanced food, in order to for you take better photos of a family reunion?
That is what would be involved if a recreational phtotgrapher or hobbyist
used the services.
>>If you recall, someone tried to create a professional repair group in the
>>rec.photo heirarchy (at least it was related to the needs of the subscribers)
>
>An RFD was posted for creation of rec.photo.equipment.service in 1998.
>It did not go to CFV.
in that area, never posted to the rec.photo groups, and explicitly indicated
that he could not be bothered to find to which to reply. The group was to be
created for the convenience of one person to market their services as easily
as possible, and it was voted down. Also, there was not enough traffic to
support such a group - perhaps one post per week - which is a lot more than
those involving the occupation of stylist.
>>I have never stated or implied in any way that on-topic inquiries and
>>replies by professional photographers or service providers are unwelcome or
>>restricted beyond the ban on spam ads.
>
>Good. We agree. That is why I have suggested that similar language
>be added to the charter of the proposed stylist group. The topic of
>both groups is such that there will be a temptation for some people to
>think that advertizing is appropriate.
>
>>And again I ask, where is the demonstrable "stylist" traffic?
>
>Someone is not permitted to address false claims presented with an air
>of authority, without addressing everything you write in a post. In
>your initial post to this discussion,
><8qnbma$g57$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> you made 4 claims (my paraphrase):
>
> 1) That the charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups forbid creation
> of the proposed group.
which are use in the advertising industry, and motion picture industry.
The target market for "stylists" is always commercial entitiy, and never a
recreational photographer or hobbyist.
My rationale is that the occupation of "stylist" has nothing to do with the
practice of photography as a hobby. I don't think that the provisions of
rec.photo permit the creation of subgroups which have nothing to do with the
parent groups or the subject of the groups. Photography is only an incidental
step in the process in which stylists participate, and that photography is
not done by hobbyists or recreational photographers.
Also, the "stylist" need not be a photographer (the proponent), and the
occupation of "photo stylist" does include florists, interior decorators, art
directors, etc. in addition to food stylists. That is not an absurdity, but
is a demonstrable fact.
Again, I do not believe that the rec.photo charters permit the creation of a
newsgroup to deal with an occupation is unrelated to recreational
photography.
> 2) The RFD should have been posted to all rec.photo.* groups.
there may be an interest. Otherwise, there won't be any discussion.
I've noticed an RFD for a rec.photo stereo 3d group. Although the RFD
indicates that it was posted to rec.photo groups, a dejanews search cannot
find any post to that heirarchy, though it was posted to others. Again,
the contributors to the groups should not be ambushed by a CFV and proposed
charter due to administrative mishandling. Posting to the groups is not that
difficult, and is appropriate.
> 3) There is little existing discussion of the topic.
is unrelated to rec.photo.
Even the propnent indicated that he decided not to participate in the
rec.photo newsgroups.
> 4) There is little record of participation by the proponent in the
> rec.photo.* groups.
>I addressed your first point.
recreational or hobby group, and that you have a limited understanding of
services and techniques of stylists which are marketed to people other than
those which the newgroup serves.
>I thought your 2nd point was silly, but did not respond. There is a
>practical limit to how many groups an RFD can be cross-posted to. If
>you think that certain groups would be better included than those that
>were included, please be specific.
already accomodate discussion of the topic. Most people do not care to be
ambushed by a CFV without being notified of an RFD.
>On your 3rd and 4th points, my approach to the creation of groups is
>different than yours. I believe that groups that have a well-defined
>topic should be created if there are 100 interested persons, as shown
>by the CFV. It does not appear that the proposed group will suck the
>lifeblood out of any of the groups that you currently haunt. I would
>rather spend my efforts considering the name, improving the charter,
>and letting the CFV decide the group's fate.
group, including the florists, painters, interior decorators, hairdressers,
set designers, fashion consultants and anyone else who "improves" the "look"
of a photo or a video or a film or a TV ad, which are commissioned by an
agency or other commercial entity such as a motion picture studio.
That is what the "stylist" or "photo stylist" does. The activity is not
limited to photography per se.
As I've stated, I don't think that services and occupations which are not
used by recreational photographers are appropriate as subgroup in rec.photo.
The "stylist" scope is far ranging, _purely_ commercial, and it's target is
not the recreational photographer.
The techniques might be of interest to some photographers, but considering
the lack of any traffic, that is nothing but speculation.
Good luck in writing a charter to add a deliberately obscurely-defined
purely commercial newsgroup to a heirarchy to which it is not related and to
which its services are not marketed.
If it sounds like a commercial service trolling for clients on Usenet, it
usually is just that - nothing more.
BTW, after your deliberate misstatement concerning my voting record, it is
clear that further discussion is not encouraged, so don't expect any further
replies. I don't care to debate or educate little politicians.
Jay Denebeim
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Why are stylist services unusable by recreational photographers?
Oh come on Jim, it's fairly obvious that a recreational photographer
isn't going to hire someone to make fake food to photograph. I can't
imagine anyone doing it for other than commercial reasons.
Jay Denebeim
Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Did you vote on them, or participate in the RFDs, emails and informal
>discussions which led to their creation?
Yes, he did, at least in all of them I observed.
>Also, if your role is that of a moderator for RFD, and not of a
>rec.photo contributor, I'd suggest that you remove yourself from that
>role if you continue to attempt to impeach every comment made by a
>contributor by implying that didn't vote on news group
>reorganizations.
Look bozo, if you want to be ignorant, fine, but don't expect anyone
to take you serious when you say boneheadded things like this.
Brian Preston-Campbell
hair, makeup, prop, and set stylists. It's amazing that photographers
wouldn't know that.
TWO - there is very little fake food permitted in commercial photography.
The lawyers cracked down on that long before I entered the field.
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8r268h$24f$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <8r0ont$evj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >Why are stylist services unusable by recreational photographers?
>
> Oh come on Jim, it's fairly obvious that a recreational photographer
> isn't going to hire someone to make fake food to photograph. I can't
> imagine anyone doing it for other than commercial reasons.
>
Jim Riley
On 29 Sep 2000 09:40:29 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Sep 2000 18:34:44 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>
>>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 27 Sep 2000 04:13:56 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>jim...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>That suggests to me that the photography hierarchy is appropriate for
>>a stylist group. Of course, this has nothing to do with your claim
>>that the charters of the rec.photo.* newsgroups exclude creation of a
>>"professional newsgroup".
>
>Let me explain again - the profession of a stylist has nothing to do with the
>process of photography. It has nothing to do with recreational photography.
>"Recreational photography" is that practiced by hobbyists. "Stylists" market
>themselves to ad agencies, art directors, film studios, etc.
What does a photo stylist do other than assist a photographer in
preparation of the subjects being photographed?
Is the securing of models on topic for rec.photo.techniques.people?
What if a prospective model wanted to know about getting jobs? I have
never claimed that photo stylists are connected to so-called
recreational photography.
>>Of course I see the difference. Just as I see the difference between
>>the _equipment_ used in photography, the _techniques_ used to take the
>>photographs, the _film_, _darkrooms_, and _labs_ used to capture and
>>produce the final image, the _marketplace_ for selling and exchange of
>>equipments. There are different groups for different aspects of
>>photography.
>True. And likewise an interior decorator is a stylist, a hairdresser is
>a stylist, a makeup artist is a stylist, a landscaper is a stylist, etc.
>When they are hired by a third party who wants a photo of a "product", they
>are all "photo stylists".
Then they are part of the process of photography.
>>Why are stylist services unusable by recreational photographers?
>>BTW, what is the difference between a recreational and professional
>>photographer?
>
>The simple difference is that a professional photographer derives their
>income from photography, and a recreational photographer, or hobbyist, is not
>in business, and practices photography for recreational or hobby purposes.
What about a photographer who has another job, and photographs
weddings on weekends and doesn't report the income to the IRS?
>Rec newsgroups are primarily hobbyist groups. They are not venues to market
>businesses. Contributions by professional photographers are welcome in
>rec.photo groups, but they are not groups targeted at the profession
>(occupation) of photography (business practices, marketing etc.) though
>posts occur on those subjects.
The proponent doesn't propose a group for marketing businesses.
Here's the proposed charter:
Rec.photo.stylists is intended to provide a forum for discussion of
the services provided by photo stylists. Examples of the topics of
these discussions would be sources for equipment and supplies,
tricks and techniques used by stylists, and answers to questions
used by inexperienced stylists.
>>>Why don't you read the original charter, and the discussions centered on the
>>>purpose of rec.* newsgroups?
>>
>>Which charter are you referring to? I have read the charters of the
>>groups created by the first re-organization and the second
>>re-organization. Am I correct that you did not vote on either
>>proposal?
>
>What is the purpose of the rec heirarchy and the original rec.photo newgroup?
When the great renaming occured, some groups from the net.rec.*
hierarchy were named rec.*. see rec.video.professional and
rec.aviation.military (AFAIK, the latter is not about Dr.Strangelove).
>Your statement regarding my voting record is false. I did not vote on the
>creation of the original rec.photo newsgroup, but I did vote on every
>reorganization.
I searched
<ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg>
and
<ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg2>
for "Gudzinowicz" and didn't see your name.
There seems to be a conflict between your recollection and the record
at ISC. You make a claim about the charters. I go look at the actual
charters and find nothing that specifically supports those claims. I
suggest that language from those charters be added to the current
proposal, and you claim that the language is totally unnecessary.
> (based on your questions - copy
>work)
What is copy work?
>>(2) Please do not drop the References header. If your software is
>>unable to do so, at least include a little note at the top of the
>>message indicating which messages you are responding to.
>I have no control over the posting software, nor can I retrieve the headers.
Who does have control over the posting software?
>>>If you recall, someone tried to create a professional repair group in the
>>>rec.photo heirarchy (at least it was related to the needs of the subscribers)
>>
>>An RFD was posted for creation of rec.photo.equipment.service in 1998.
>>It did not go to CFV.
> and it was voted down.
It never went to a CFV (at least according to the ISC archive). Do
you have a record of the vote?
>My rationale is that the occupation of "stylist" has nothing to do with the
>practice of photography as a hobby. I don't think that the provisions of
>rec.photo permit the creation of subgroups which have nothing to do with the
>parent groups or the subject of the groups. Photography is only an incidental
>step in the process in which stylists participate, and that photography is
>not done by hobbyists or recreational photographers.
If there were not a photograph being taken, there would be no purpose
to their activity. If the quality of the photograph were not enhanced
by their activity, there would be no purpose to their activity. It
appears that the activity of photo stylists is _essential_ to the
taking of certain photographs, just a say telephoto lenses are to the
taking of other photographs.
>I think you dismissed it because you do not believe that rec.photo is a
>recreational or hobby group, and that you have a limited understanding of
>services and techniques of stylists which are marketed to people other than
>those which the newgroup serves.
>>I thought your 2nd point was silly, but did not respond. There is a
>>practical limit to how many groups an RFD can be cross-posted to. If
>>you think that certain groups would be better included than those that
>>were included, please be specific.
>
>Really?
Yes there is a limit to the number of newsgroups that an RFD can be
posted to. The RFD was posted to:
rec.photo.misc
rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.technique.people
Which group did you read the RFD in?
>It is a disservice if it is not announced in the newsgroups which may
>already accomodate discussion of the topic. Most people do not care to be
>ambushed by a CFV without being notified of an RFD.
The CFV will be posted to the same groups that the RFD will be posted
to.
Please rank the groups in the rec.photo.* hierarchy in the order of
closest relationship to the proposed group.
>>On your 3rd and 4th points, my approach to the creation of groups is
>>different than yours. I believe that groups that have a well-defined
>>topic should be created if there are 100 interested persons, as shown
>>by the CFV. It does not appear that the proposed group will suck the
>>lifeblood out of any of the groups that you currently haunt. I would
>>rather spend my efforts considering the name, improving the charter,
>>and letting the CFV decide the group's fate.
>If that is the case, you will have to accomodate all "photo stylists" in the
>group, including the florists, painters, interior decorators, hairdressers,
>set designers, fashion consultants and anyone else who "improves" the "look"
>of a photo or a video or a film or a TV ad, which are commissioned by an
>agency or other commercial entity such as a motion picture studio.
Actually, I think that the disk drives will do the accomodating of the
discussion in the newsgroup.
>The techniques might be of interest to some photographers, but considering
>the lack of any traffic, that is nothing but speculation.
That is why we hold the CFV.
Michael Gudzinowicz
>In article <8r1o2d$8gi$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>>Did you vote on them, or participate in the RFDs, emails and informal
>>discussions which led to their creation?
>
>Yes, he did, at least in all of them I observed.
>
>>Also, if your role is that of a moderator for RFD, and not of a
>>rec.photo contributor, I'd suggest that you remove yourself from that
>>role if you continue to attempt to impeach every comment made by a
>>contributor by implying that didn't vote on news group
>>reorganizations.
>
>Look bozo, if you want to be ignorant, fine, but don't expect anyone
>to take you serious when you say boneheadded things like this.
Mr. Riley contended that I had not voted on rec.photo newsgroup
reorganizations, which is not true. Furthermore, he dredged up
the "political" subject.
Prior to asking the question, I checked Mr. Riley's author profile
on dejanews and noted that there are _no_ posts to a rec.photo newsgroup.
Likewise, your profile does not indicate any participation in those groups.
Since Mr. Riley and you primarily post to this newsgroup, are not
contributors to rec.photo*, and neither of you have identified yourselfs as
moderators or advocates for this RFD, it is "boneheaded" to ask if that is
the case.
In addition, Mr. Riley has asked questions regarding the definition of
professional photographer and copy work which are very common terms.
The purpose of the rec heirarchy is stated in all sorts of little faqs, such
as:
<ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.groups/How_to_find_the_right_place_to_post>
>Some of the hierarchies you probably have available are:
>
>comp: Computer hardware, software, systems, languages, and theories
>sci: Pure and applied sciences
>soc: Social issues, socializing, and various cultures
>talk: Discussion and debate of unresolved issues
>news: The Usenet news network and news software
>misc: Other topics, such as employment, children, and consumer issues
>rec: Recreational topics - sports, hobbies, music, games, etc.
>humanities: Literature, fine arts, and other humanities
>alt: An anarchic collection of serious and silly subjects
To the best of my knowledge, the rec heirachy has been devoted to
"Recreational topics - sports, hobbies, music, games, etc.", and not the
marketing of commercial services to other commercial entities.
Mr. Riley and others apparently do not understand or do not care to
acknowledge that distinction, with the result that a commercially oriented
newsgroup which is completely unrelated to the purpose and scope of the rec
heirarchy will probably come up for a vote.
If that is a precendent, any large corporation could get the votes to create
its own newsgroup in any or all of the different rec groups.
Personally, I feel that is destructive, and contrary to the spirit, history,
tradition, and written guidelines for the rec heirarchy.
In his last message which was addressed to you, the proponent confirms that
this is a commercial and not a "recreational" group:
> Subject: Re: RFD: rec.photo.stylists
> Date: 09/29/2000
> Author: Brian Preston-Campbell <br...@preston-campbell.com>
>
> ONE - only a portion of stylists are food stylists -- there are
> wardrobe, hair, makeup, prop, and set stylists. It's amazing that
> photographers wouldn't know that.
>
> TWO - there is very little fake food permitted in commercial
> photography. The lawyers cracked down on that long before I entered
> the field.
employ them, and would never consider using their services for pursuit of
their personal or "recreational" photography.
Somewhere in the discussion, the topic of binaries being permitted in rec
groups was introduced by Mr. Riley. Again, one of the "approved" faqs
is not silent on that matter, and disagrees with his intpretation.
>Subject: Binaries (images, executables, sounds, etc.)
>
>There are many newsgroups dedicated to posting various sorts of binary
>files, such as images, computer software, etc. These are gathered under
>the alt.binaries.* and comp.binaries.* hierarchies. (There are also
>some local binaries hierarchies, such as de.alt.binaries.*) These
>groups are the only places where you should ever post a file that is not
>directly human-readable, such as pictures, software, or even Microsoft
>Word files (which are not readable unless you have a copy of Microsoft
>Word on your computer.)
>
>For more information, please refer to the FAQs in alt.binaries.pictures.d
>These groups were set up so that sites could easily choose whether or
>not to accept binary traffic, or perhaps to keep binary posts around for
>a different length of time than non-binaries. The average binary file
>is many times larger than the average non-binary post, and many sites
>and users do not want to devote resources to storing these files.
>
>Do not post anything other than plain text in non-binaries groups. If
>the group does not have the word 'binaries' in its name, do not post
>binaries there.
When I first started posting to Usenet before local ISPs provided access
(via an email link), binaries were excluded from the "Big 7 or 8". I conceed
that the policy may have changed, but if so, it does not appear to be
supported by the faqs. Likewise, my search for a rec binaries group turned up
nothing.
If binaries are permitted, it is likely that many sites will not pick up
Mr. Preston-Campbell's newsgroup, and sites will filter posts which include
binaries. That of course, depends upon the current interpretation of rec and
Usenet policies, which I presume should not conflict with published policies.
As I've indicated before, Mr. Preston-Campbell should consider a mailing list
as one alternative in order to attract interested individuals.
Alternatively, there are the alt groups. When photojournalists were looking
for a venue to discuss the profession which wasn't appropriate for rec.photo,
the group was formed as alt.journalism.photo as a subdivision. I still feel
that the creation of a stylist group(s) in the alt heirarchy is a far better
fit than rec.photo since there are photo related commercial groups already
there, some of which (not a.j.p) are interested in the services.
piranha
>
> Please give the URL which archives the rec.photo votes or the ftp site.
ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg
ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg2
> Mr. Riley contended that I had not voted on rec.photo newsgroup
> reorganizations, which is not true. Furthermore, he dredged up
> the "political" subject.
he didn't "contend" it, he asked you whether it was correct that
you did not vote. i certainly don't see your name in the voting
records for either reorg. not that it matters, really. but it
sure looks weird that you're getting all het up at jim for a
simple question. you seem determined to see aggression from his
side where there is none.
> Prior to asking the question, I checked Mr. Riley's author profile
> on dejanews and noted that there are _no_ posts to a rec.photo newsgroup.
why should there be? he is a participant in news.groups. this
is where we discuss RFDs. jim knows a lot about RFDs, and about
past votes and charters, he's pretty much a factotum here.
> Since Mr. Riley and you primarily post to this newsgroup, are not
> contributors to rec.photo*, and neither of you have identified yourselfs as
> moderators or advocates for this RFD, it is "boneheaded" to ask if that is
> the case.
you don't appear to understand the purpose of this newsgroup.
we discuss RFDs _with_ proponents and moderators and participants
of groups from the greater view of the big-8 as a whole, from the
greater view of users, and the greater view of news administrators.
> The purpose of the rec heirarchy is stated in all sorts of little faqs,
those FAQs state guidelines, not hard and fast rules. the great
renaming didn't foresee everything.
> To the best of my knowledge, the rec heirachy has been devoted to
> "Recreational topics - sports, hobbies, music, games, etc.", and not the
> marketing of commercial services to other commercial entities.
the proponent for this RFD is not seeking to market services.
professionals do get together and discuss their professions --
sometimes even right with amateurs. as happens in rec.photo.*
from all accounts. it happens extremely often in comp.*, it
happens in sci.*, in humanities.*, in misc.* -- there is not a
thing wrong with that IMO.
the only thing wrong with rec.* is that the name gives people
like you the idea that it must be kept pure for recreation --
it hasn't been pure for years, it's a hybrid. professionals
hang out there, but the marketing of anything tends to be re-
stricted to *.marketplace groups. i don't see that as a big
problem, though if there were another great renaming (one can
always wish), i might push for a different setup.
>
> Mr. Riley and others apparently do not understand or do not care to
> acknowledge that distinction, with the result that a commercially oriented
> newsgroup which is completely unrelated to the purpose and scope of the rec
> heirarchy will probably come up for a vote.
whether mr riley understands that or not (he understands it quite
well, he just isn't as legalistic about it as you appear to be),
the newsgroup will come up for a vote as long as the proponent
wants it to come up for a vote. it might come up for a vote in a
different hierarchy. before you started agitating we had a con-
versation going about where best to fit it. i'd like to get back
to that instead of watching people toss "boneheaded" remarks at
each other.
and maybe you should take it up with helge nareid. the thrust of
your argument seems to be that we can't possibly know dick about
rec.photo.* cause we don't post there (a misguided argument to
begin with, since its our job to know about this sort of thing) --
helge nareid, however, does post there, and guess what? that name
appears in the voting records, too, so helge has been around for
a long time and probably knows that hierarchy quite well. he's
not all het up about this professional/hobby distinction.
nobody else seems to be all bent out of shape over this proposal
either, which makes me think it's a non-issue for most people.
it will probably fail anyway, IMO, i don't think the votes are
there for it. i still want to find the best place for the pro-
posed group. where do _you_ think it should go? no, alt.* isn't
an option now. we're discussing a big-8 newsgroup. if the votes
were there, where do you think it should go?
> If that is a precendent, any large corporation could get the votes to create
> its own newsgroup in any or all of the different rec groups.
we've had one such proposal. it didn't go anywhere. this isn't
such a proposal. precedent doesn't matter to me, i view each case
on its own merits.
> Personally, I feel that is destructive, and contrary to the spirit, history,
> tradition, and written guidelines for the rec heirarchy.
personally, i don't think it'd make a difference whatsoever. it
would be a bunch of stylists exchanging lighting, make-up, special
effects, and fake food recipes. from the web boards i have looked
at, that's what they discuss there. gee, what a difference from
other rec.* groups in which amateurs discuss equipment and recipes
to do X.
you make a distinction between amateur and commercial that isn't
warranted IMO, because professionals _do_ post to rec.photo.* and
it has appeared to do no damage. as long as those stylists talk
amongst themselves as pros do in the rest of rec.photo.* i don't
see a problem.
> When I first started posting to Usenet before local ISPs provided access
> (via an email link), binaries were excluded from the "Big 7 or 8". I conceed
> that the policy may have changed, but if so, it does not appear to be
> supported by the faqs. Likewise, my search for a rec binaries group turned up
> nothing.
binaries are not excluded from the big-8, but they are usually re-
quired to go into specific groups so a news admin can easily ex-
clude them. there are no binary groups in rec.* but there are a
few groups that allow very small binaries (at least one of the
gaming groups).
i don't know why you're raising the spectre of binaries. this
RFD said nothing about allowing binaries (i think it should have
the usual clause forbidding them, but we can discuss the finer
points of the RFD once we've found a place for the group).
--
-piranha
Michael Gudzinowicz
>bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz) writes:
>>
>> Please give the URL which archives the rec.photo votes or the ftp site.
>
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.photo-reorg2
>> Mr. Riley contended that I had not voted on rec.photo newsgroup
>> reorganizations, which is not true. Furthermore, he dredged up
>> the "political" subject.
>
> he didn't "contend" it, he asked you whether it was correct that
> you did not vote. i certainly don't see your name in the voting
> records for either reorg. not that it matters, really. but it
> sure looks weird that you're getting all het up at jim for a
> simple question. you seem determined to see aggression from his
> side where there is none.
a problem with headers, and I wonder if the votes were bounced for that
reason.
>> Prior to asking the question, I checked Mr. Riley's author profile
>> on dejanews and noted that there are _no_ posts to a rec.photo newsgroup.
>
> why should there be? he is a participant in news.groups. this
> is where we discuss RFDs. jim knows a lot about RFDs, and about
> past votes and charters, he's pretty much a factotum here.
would lead anyone with experience to question the authority with which he
defines the role of stylists in the motion picture, advertising and
publishing industries. Tey are not involved in recreational photography.
>> Since Mr. Riley and you primarily post to this newsgroup, are not
>> contributors to rec.photo*, and neither of you have identified yourselfs as
>> moderators or advocates for this RFD, it is "boneheaded" to ask if that is
>> the case.
>
> you don't appear to understand the purpose of this newsgroup.
> we discuss RFDs _with_ proponents and moderators and participants
> of groups from the greater view of the big-8 as a whole, from the
> greater view of users, and the greater view of news administrators.
>
>> The purpose of the rec heirarchy is stated in all sorts of little faqs,
>
> those FAQs state guidelines, not hard and fast rules. the great
> renaming didn't foresee everything.
>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the rec heirachy has been devoted to
>> "Recreational topics - sports, hobbies, music, games, etc.", and not the
>> marketing of commercial services to other commercial entities.
>
> the proponent for this RFD is not seeking to market services.
> professionals do get together and discuss their professions --
> sometimes even right with amateurs. as happens in rec.photo.*
> from all accounts. it happens extremely often in comp.*, it
> happens in sci.*, in humanities.*, in misc.* -- there is not a
> thing wrong with that IMO.
but are marketed only to other businesses which have the multi-million budgets
to afford them.
The "stylists" may be set designers, make-up artists, interior decorators,
food stylists and others who give a "look" to a motion picture, TV ad, video
or commercial photograph used in advertising or publishing. Their role in a
production is not trivial.
The photographer or assistants set up lighting and the camera, and take the
photo or the video or shoot the film. That where is the _process_ or task of
"photography" begins, and the stylist's job has concluded.
If one chooses to do so, one can make the same arguement Mr. Riley has used,
that the stylist is as essential as the lens, and apply it to any
occupational group which makes decisions which affect the outcome of a photo,
video or film. They are all "required" in a commercial or professional
setting, however, they not at all involved in the photographic process or
portion of the production.
The proponent's reply indicates that he is aware of the distinction:
> Subject: Re: RFD: rec.photo.stylists
> Date: 09/29/2000
> Author: Brian Preston-Campbell <br...@preston-campbell.com>
>
> ONE - only a portion of stylists are food stylists -- there are
> wardrobe, hair, makeup, prop, and set stylists. It's amazing that
> photographers wouldn't know that.
>
> TWO - there is very little fake food permitted in commercial
> photography. The lawyers cracked down on that long before I entered
> the field.
Any charter on stylists should include all of the occupational groups
involved in that profession.
However, _none_ of them take the photo or are are involved in the process of
photography as commonly defined and reflected by task assignments.
Therefore the purpose or scope of the group is for NON-PHOTOGRAPHERS to
discuss their techniques, etc. which are marketed and primarily used by ad
agencies, film studios, art directors and other commercial enterprises.
I think that it is very ironic that a non-photographic group should be added
to a recreational photography heirarchy, especially when the users of their
services (film studios, TV production companies, ad agencies, book
publishers, etc.) have nothing in common with rec.photo.
The hybrid nature of rec.photo is true, however most of the professionals
limit discussion to photographic issues such as lighting, equipment
selection, darkroom techniques. However, a professional rarely posts
on business practices to the group unless givig advice to an amateur who is
interested in stock photography, wedding photography, portrait photography,
architectural photography or other areas of professional -> PHOTOGRAPHIC <-
specialization.
The charters do not prevent any amateur or professional phtographer from
asking a question (they'd post anyway) about the stylists role(s) in
commercial productions. However, the traffic record indicates that does not
occur which reflects the "distance" of the stylist topic from that of
photography, and the interests of the newgroups.
If the group is added to rec.photo as "photo stylists", the majority of
stylists involved in motion picture production, video, etc. may be excluded,
but the word "photo" is the only link for a non-photographer group to the
heirarchy.
I'm not dealing in law or semantics, but the interests, techniques and market
of stylists are defined by the reality of activities and tasks in the commercial
sector.
Those are some of the reasons why I feel an alt group or mailing list would
better serve Mr. Preston-Campbell interests. Although he may market himself
as a photo stylist, there are many other facets to the occupation. People
involved in film or video may be artificially excluded by the photo
designation, but use the same methods for a different medium of commercial
expression. Also, the occupational group around which the group would revolve
is not involved in the photographic process, and the services are primarily
used by art directors, film directors, ad agecies, professional photographers
almost always acting on behalf of their clients, and never by recreational
photographers. The "fit" is only in the commercial sector, and the reality
of the occupations' tasks excludes the recreational sector. Interest by the
recreational sector is speculative, and not supported by posts to the
newgroups which can accomodate them.
I don't care to trivialize the situation, but it is analogous to adding a
group devoted to building trawlers to the rec.outdoors.fishing heirarchy -
non-fisherman building a commercial product marketed by corporations which is
not used by recreational fisherman but only for commercial fishing. The tie
to the rec group is the "fish", or in the case of stylists, the word "photo".
That's all I'm trying to point out.
(With respect to votes, binaries, etc. those topics were introduced by Mr.
Riley, and have no bearing on the subject under discussion.)
Thank you for your explanations.
Jim Riley
>bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz) writes:
>> When I first started posting to Usenet before local ISPs provided access
>> (via an email link), binaries were excluded from the "Big 7 or 8". I conceed
>> that the policy may have changed, but if so, it does not appear to be
>> supported by the faqs. Likewise, my search for a rec binaries group turned up
>> nothing.
>
> binaries are not excluded from the big-8, but they are usually re-
> quired to go into specific groups so a news admin can easily ex-
> clude them. there are no binary groups in rec.* but there are a
> few groups that allow very small binaries (at least one of the
> gaming groups).
rec.games.bolo, for one. In addition, moderated groups have been
permitted to approve binaries. A tangent off the discussion of
rec.games.frp.moderated, was the complaint that binaries posted to and
approved for rec.games.frp.archives were being zapped. The charter
for talk.origins provides a specific exclusion that says it is OK for
bincanceller to cancel binaries that have been approved under its 4
x-post limit.
> i don't know why you're raising the spectre of binaries. this
> RFD said nothing about allowing binaries (i think it should have
> the usual clause forbidding them, but we can discuss the finer
> points of the RFD once we've found a place for the group).
The FAQ 'How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal" says that the charter
should:
In addition to a brief sketch of the general topic of the group, the
charter should mention the types of articles that would be welcome
in the group, and perhaps a mention of types that might seem
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
welcome, but would be inappropriate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The charters of the 2nd rec.photo.* re-organization followed this
advice in the following manner:
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).
This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial
advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in
any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text
postings) are prohibited.
The charter for rec.photo.film+labs said:
This group is also for the discussion of *COMMERCIAL* photofinishing
services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on photo labs, It is
*NOT* for advertising by such labs.
I believe that some would-be posters might be especially tempted to
posts pictures to a rec.photo.* group. Repeating the language from
the previous re-organizations simply serves to emphasize that this is
an inappropriate use of the group. Likewise, this particular group is
likely to attract some participants who think the group is a good
place to drum up business. My understanding is that this is *not* the
proponent's intent, and that therefore this point should be emphasized
in the charter.
I don't understand why Mr. Gudzinowicz asks if I have read the
charters of the rec.photo.* groups, after I had already suggested that
language from those charters should be included in the charter of the
proposed group. Even more odd is that he rejects inclusion of that
language.