Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/12/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMPORTANT: LUGbook 2015
From: abridge683 at fastmail.com (Adam Bridge)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:27:09 -0800
References: <CAE3QcF5JM6e7f3esj4pd0=YphOphbwjKbUhyiP8DNKj0LyrDQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHtf7HVoC62qMBw9y4etX0wF8ujomt29U49mYaN61L-BpaBOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8hL-EN3mTW4yU8fzJjKmYfcmCt560gvprwbVV65NfFigTojg@mail.gmail.com>

You?re the editor/producer, Richard. It?s your call.

If someone really wants to have their two images displayed together then it 
seems reasonable to honor that request, otherwise you should get to make 
that editorial/artistic decision.

If there?s really a problem with this then those who are bitching should 
take the task on themselves next year.

I?ve always viewed the LUG album as an assembly of LUG photos but not 
?owned? by the LUG. It?s an anthology. Anthology editors get to make choices.

I?m happy with whatever decision you come up with, Richard.

Adam

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I am somewhat torn on this and I welcome any discussion. I am not looking
> for sympathy, or people to "beat up" on the person. I know from feedback
> that someone will be unhappy regardless. However, personally I am more
> concerned that it is true that I did not make the policy change early, and
> this would appear to be a "bait and switch".



In reply to: Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] IMPORTANT: LUGbook 2015)
Message from geneduprey2015 at gmail.com (Gene Duprey) ([Leica] IMPORTANT: LUGbook 2015)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] IMPORTANT: LUGbook 2015)