«

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:08:50 -0400, SI Committee
<> wrote:
: As the vacation travel season begins (in the northern hemisphere anyway)
: we propose that the next shoot-in be geographically related.
:
: To whit we further propose that this be a geo-referenced shoot-in due
: 2012.09.09 when most should be done with their wanderings.
:
: For that, all photos should contain geotags so that when they are opened
: the location where they were shot can be shown as well. We'd use a web
: photo service (Panoramio for example) to display the photos (as well as
: pbase). With Panoramio the photos will (in a week or so after
: uploading) also appear on Google Maps/Earth [1].
:
: Some of you may not travel this summer vacation, but geotagging can be
: done as close as home or as far as you roam. See below for some info on
: geotagging.
:
: What say you?

I dunno, Alan; to me that sounds a bit like ****ing in the soup. Your three
quickie mandates seem to have jump-started the SI and possibly put it back on
a positive track. To follow so closely on those with a mandate with arcane
requirements that many will have difficulty understanding, much less
following, could prove to be counter-productive. In the recent mandates you
got contributions from Rich Anderson (twice!) and Bret Douglas; and even Noons
made a comment that wasn't relentlessly negative. I'd suggest you take some
time to try to analyze what you're doing right before veering off on a
tangent.

Just my 2¢ worth; no additional value claimed.

Bob

On 6/19/2012 9:31 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:08:50 -0400, SI Committee
> <> wrote:
> : As the vacation travel season begins (in the northern hemisphere anyway)
> : we propose that the next shoot-in be geographically related.
> :
> : To whit we further propose that this be a geo-referenced shoot-in due
> : 2012.09.09 when most should be done with their wanderings.
> :
> : For that, all photos should contain geotags so that when they are opened
> : the location where they were shot can be shown as well. We'd use a web
> : photo service (Panoramio for example) to display the photos (as well as
> : pbase). With Panoramio the photos will (in a week or so after
> : uploading) also appear on Google Maps/Earth [1].
> :
> : Some of you may not travel this summer vacation, but geotagging can be
> : done as close as home or as far as you roam. See below for some info on
> : geotagging.
> :
> : What say you?
>
> I dunno, Alan; to me that sounds a bit like ****ing in the soup. Your three
> quickie mandates seem to have jump-started the SI and possibly put it back on
> a positive track. To follow so closely on those with a mandate with arcane
> requirements that many will have difficulty understanding, much less
> following, could prove to be counter-productive. In the recent mandates you
> got contributions from Rich Anderson (twice!) and Bret Douglas; and even Noons
> made a comment that wasn't relentlessly negative. I'd suggest you take some
> time to try to analyze what you're doing right before veering off on a
> tangent.
>
> Just my 2¢ worth; no additional value claimed.
>
> Bob

Bob anticipated my comments. I completely agree with him.

--
Peter

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:48:53 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 6/19/2012 9:31 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:08:50 -0400, SI Committee
>> <> wrote:
>> : As the vacation travel season begins (in the northern hemisphere anyway)
>> : we propose that the next shoot-in be geographically related.
>> :
>> : To whit we further propose that this be a geo-referenced shoot-in due
>> : 2012.09.09 when most should be done with their wanderings.
>> :
>> : For that, all photos should contain geotags so that when they are opened
>> : the location where they were shot can be shown as well. We'd use a web
>> : photo service (Panoramio for example) to display the photos (as well as
>> : pbase). With Panoramio the photos will (in a week or so after
>> : uploading) also appear on Google Maps/Earth [1].
>> :
>> : Some of you may not travel this summer vacation, but geotagging can be
>> : done as close as home or as far as you roam. See below for some info on
>> : geotagging.
>> :
>> : What say you?
>>
>> I dunno, Alan; to me that sounds a bit like ****ing in the soup. Your three
>> quickie mandates seem to have jump-started the SI and possibly put it back on
>> a positive track. To follow so closely on those with a mandate with arcane
>> requirements that many will have difficulty understanding, much less
>> following, could prove to be counter-productive. In the recent mandates you
>> got contributions from Rich Anderson (twice!) and Bret Douglas; and even Noons
>> made a comment that wasn't relentlessly negative. I'd suggest you take some
>> time to try to analyze what you're doing right before veering off on a
>> tangent.
>>
>> Just my 2¢ worth; no additional value claimed.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Bob anticipated my comments. I completely agree with him.

Not an interesting idea to me. I don't have a GPS feature in-camera,
understand that it still can be done, but I'm more interested in
finding the right, appropriate, and interesting subject matter.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:45:58 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-06-19 21:31 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:08:50 -0400, SI Committee
: > <> wrote:
: > :
: > : What say you [about a geotagging mandate]?
: >
: > I dunno, Alan; to me that sounds a bit like ****ing in the soup. Your three
: > quickie mandates seem to have jump-started the SI and possibly put it back on
: > a positive track. To follow so closely on those with a mandate with arcane
: > requirements that many will have difficulty understanding, much less
: > following, could prove to be counter-productive. In the recent mandates you
: > got contributions from Rich Anderson (twice!) and Bret Douglas; and even Noons
: > made a comment that wasn't relentlessly negative. I'd suggest you take some
: > time to try to analyze what you're doing right before veering off on a
: > tangent.
: >
: > Just my 2¢ worth; no additional value claimed.
:
: I appreciate your comments.
:
: But I hardly see geotagging as "arcane".

In one of your other articles, you explained what's involved. It sure sounds
arcane to me.

: Turn "photos" on in Google Maps or Earth and you'll see uncountable numbers
: of geotagged photos. Many quite good.

So what? Geotagging doesn't affect the quality of the photo. All it does is
relieve the photographer of the necessity of remembering where he took the
picture.

: For some in the SI the "means" of tagging may seem inconvenient or
: difficult (and my post may have been too much detail), but the reality
: is that it's quite simple - esp. using the apps designed for it.

So then you need, at minimum, a data contract on your smart phone. Or does the
camera require an entirely separate contract? My personal cell phone is a dumb
phone. My work cell phone is a smart phone, but the pictures I take for work,
all of them taken in an area of about six square miles, conspicuously don't
require geotagging.

: And for those who have GPS receivers in their cameras (more common in
: P&S cameras than DSLR's (where it's an add on)) it's really effortless.

And with what type of camera are almost all SI submissions taken? As it
happens, a GPS attachment for my Canon DSLRs costs almost $400. The
probability that I'll buy one in order to submit geotagged pictures to the SI
is zero.

: As to what I'm doing right, it's simple: regular postings telling of
: upcoming deadlines. This worked when I started the "3 per photog" limit
: a few years ago in my first stint as Admin. Other admin's have been
: less assertive. I'm not blaming them, it's just the plain fact:
: advertising works.

I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect that that's an oversimplification.

If someone wants to learn geotagging and submit geotagged photos to the SI,
let him. But if you think geotagging will materially stimulate interest in SI
participation, I think you're dreaming.

Bob

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:17:04 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-06-20 20:46 , Robert Coe wrote:
:
: > But if you think geotagging will materially stimulate interest in SI
: > participation, I think you're dreaming.
:
: I never claimed or intended that at all. You're raising a red herring.

Sorry if I misread your intentions, whatever they were. I just assumed that
when you suggested a mandate, you must have done so in the hope that people
would be interested in participating. My assumption was based on the fact that
participation had declined considerably in recent months, but had taken a turn
upwards with your three most recent mandates. I had supposed that you'd want
to build on that.

In any case, you asked us what we thought. I didn't see the question as
placing any limits on the reasoning I might use to arrive at an opinion. In
the absence of such limits, "red herring" strikes me as a meaningless term.

Bob

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:13:13 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-06-20 20:46 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:45:58 -0400, Alan Browne
: > <> wrote:
: > : On 2012-06-19 21:31 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > : > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:08:50 -0400, SI Committee
: > : > <> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : What say you [about a geotagging mandate]?
: > : >
: > : > I dunno, Alan; to me that sounds a bit like ****ing in the soup. Your three
: > : > quickie mandates seem to have jump-started the SI and possibly put it back on
: > : > a positive track. To follow so closely on those with a mandate witharcane
: > : > requirements that many will have difficulty understanding, much less
: > : > following, could prove to be counter-productive. In the recent mandates you
: > : > got contributions from Rich Anderson (twice!) and Bret Douglas; andeven Noons
: > : > made a comment that wasn't relentlessly negative. I'd suggest you take some
: > : > time to try to analyze what you're doing right before veering off on a
: > : > tangent.
: > : >
: > : > Just my 2¢ worth; no additional value claimed.
: > :
: > : I appreciate your comments.
: > :
: > : But I hardly see geotagging as "arcane".
: >
: > In one of your other articles, you explained what's involved. It sure sounds
: > arcane to me.
:
: That's disingenuous. My statement above is about geotagging itself, not
: the methods available.
:
: True - I tried to give a lot of information in a short post. It is
: really quite simple to do whether or not one owns a GPS receiver of any
: kind - you can use s/w to tag the photo via a map application. That is
: sufficient to do a few photos for a particular need.
:
: Applying geotagging is much simpler than describing it.
:
: >
: > : Turn "photos" on in Google Maps or Earth and you'll see uncountable numbers
: > : of geotagged photos. Many quite good.
: >
: > So what? Geotagging doesn't affect the quality of the photo. All it does is
: > relieve the photographer of the necessity of remembering where he took the
: > picture.
:
: When one takes as many photos on the road as I do, I am sure that having
: that information at hand 10 or 20 years from now will be valued by me
: and likely others.
:
: > : For some in the SI the "means" of tagging may seem inconvenient or
: > : difficult (and my post may have been too much detail), but the reality
: > : is that it's quite simple - esp. using the apps designed for it.
: >
: > So then you need, at minimum, a data contract on your smart phone. Or does the
: > camera require an entirely separate contract? My personal cell phone isa dumb
: > phone. My work cell phone is a smart phone, but the pictures I take forwork,
: > all of them taken in an area of about six square miles, conspicuously don't
: > require geotagging.
:
: See below.
:
: >
: > : And for those who have GPS receivers in their cameras (more common in
: > : P&S cameras than DSLR's (where it's an add on)) it's really effortless.
: >
: > And with what type of camera are almost all SI submissions taken? As it
: > happens, a GPS attachment for my Canon DSLRs costs almost $400. The
: > probability that I'll buy one in order to submit geotagged pictures to the SI
: > is zero.
:
: More dis-ingenuity.
:
: You don't need the specific GPS for the Canon. An iPhone/smartphone
: with $5 worth of Apps, or a dedicated GPS (Garmin et al), or a dedicated
: GPS photo tracker (<$50) will do the job handily.
:
: And of course there is freeware that allows you to tag photos after the
: fact without having a GPS.
:
: > : As to what I'm doing right, it's simple: regular postings telling of
: > : upcoming deadlines. This worked when I started the "3 per photog" limit
: > : a few years ago in my first stint as Admin. Other admin's have been
: > : less assertive. I'm not blaming them, it's just the plain fact:
: > : advertising works.
: >
: > I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect that that's an oversimplification.
:
: When I regularly talked up the SI during my first tenure, participation
: went up.
:
: During the Bowser years (with all due respect) participation went down.
:
: I'm baaaaaack, and participation is up again. For the same reason:
: talking it up regularly.

Have it your way.

I hadn't read this message when I responded to your other message, sent four
minutes later. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to answer either one.

Bob

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:31:06 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>For those of us who have been drawn to the potential of GPS and
>geo-tagging from day one are not going to see this as a problem.
>However, those who see no point to geo-tagging are going to rationalize
>their non-use of this great tool.

I like that! Those of us who aren't excited about the use are
"rationalizing", but those who are excited about the use see it as a
great tool.

The definition of "rationalizing" that fits best here is "To devise
self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior".

So those who think that incorporating GPS in the photos is too much
trouble are devising incorrect reasons for their lack of interest, but
those who think that incorporating GPS in the photos allows them to
pin-point where they took the image are utilizing only correct
reasons. Hunh?

I took a good photograph of a dragonfly the other day. I know where
the ditch is where I saw the dragonfly, but if I had incorporated GPS
in the image I would know exactly where I stood. Would the dragonfly
still be there?

You don't consider that we non-interested people are smart enough to
become interested if returning to the location, or knowing where the
location is, becomes important to us? That some of us are
uninterested only because we generally shoot in areas that are
familiar to us?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 6/23/2012 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-06-23 08:57:55 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:31:06 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For those of us who have been drawn to the potential of GPS and
>>> geo-tagging from day one are not going to see this as a problem.
>>> However, those who see no point to geo-tagging are going to rationalize
>>> their non-use of this great tool.
>>
>> I like that! Those of us who aren't excited about the use are
>> "rationalizing", but those who are excited about the use see it as a
>> great tool.
>>
>> The definition of "rationalizing" that fits best here is "To devise
>> self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior".
>>
>> So those who think that incorporating GPS in the photos is too much
>> trouble are devising incorrect reasons for their lack of interest, but
>> those who think that incorporating GPS in the photos allows them to
>> pin-point where they took the image are utilizing only correct
>> reasons. Hunh?
>>
>> I took a good photograph of a dragonfly the other day. I know where
>> the ditch is where I saw the dragonfly, but if I had incorporated GPS
>> in the image I would know exactly where I stood. Would the dragonfly
>> still be there?
>>
>> You don't consider that we non-interested people are smart enough to
>> become interested if returning to the location, or knowing where the
>> location is, becomes important to us? That some of us are
>> uninterested only because we generally shoot in areas that are
>> familiar to us?
>
> Thanks for rationalizing, ...er reasoning, your non-use of GPS tags.
>
> ...and you are certainly under no obligation, and obviously have no need
> to use them. At the moment there seems to be just two of us using such
> tags, because we choose to.
>

I have a very simple reason for not geo tagging.

I just don't want to. no

--
Peter