Replies, incl. "Why the AGA"

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 krandall@world.std.com wrote:

> It will not be a drain unless the response is _much bigger than I suspect.
> It's easy to get excited about the idea when you read about it. It's quite
> another to actually get the tank, cleaned up, get the film, get out the
> camera, wait for the reflections from the windows not to be hitting the
> tank, take the pictures, get them developed, find out that you had a big
> streak on the glass, and let the flash get in the picture, take them again,
> have them developed, get the proper mailing container, take them to the
> P.O.... You get my drift. I'd _love_ there to be an overwhelming response.
> And if we do, the cost to AGA will be well worth it, as it will give Neil
> TAG material for years to come!<g>

My sentiments exactly.

> >Plus, I don't think someone could fake a picture to the point that it wasn't 
> >obvious.

I regularly doctor the cover of our local club's newsletter, removing an
unsightly heater poking out the top of an otherwise great fish, or a blade
of Val that makes the main focus to busy.  In some cases, I've de-focused
the background, or even lifted a fish onto a totally different background.
Nobody in the club ever notices this.  But it has its place and time, and
this contest aint' it.  I don't know how many deliberately "bad" people
we'd get entering, but I could definitely see someone doing it and not
realizing it is "wrong".  I'll repeat what I said yesterday: let's say
"altered images are not permitted (except for color, brightness and
contrast corrections).

> >Would it be really difficult to show almost all of the entrients pictures?
> 
> Erik, what if we gave people the option of getting a CD with all the photos
> from the contest? What would we need to charge per disk? (make sure you
> make it worth your while)

I would certainly be happy to do this at $15 a pop, including shipping to
the US.  The media costs me about $1.50 (with a box).  Gomberg might be
able to undercut me, but then again, he's been AGA book guy, so he
understands the "fun" of dealing with this.

If we are going to do this, we should also include a statement to that
effect in the entry form (so we don't get people threatening lawsuits
after they see their tanks being "sold" on CD).


In reply to other subjects (it's hard to track with everyone sending
multiple messages and some people on the digest... and I'm not sure the
digest is quite working yet):

I plan to put every entry up on the AGA web site, unless someone can come
up with a good reason not to. 

I also scanned in some aquascapes this morning from old slides of mine
(FYI, I did about 25, and it took me maybe an hour), which I can
contribute to the project as mock-up entries.  We might even be able to
mock-judge them to get some of the kinks out of the process.  So I'll hold
on to these for when we're fleshing details out.

Sherman writes:

"Finally, I don't want to step on toes or make anyone mad, and I guess
it's a little off topic, but I have to say this:  I'm surprised that
this is now being sponsored by the AGA.  Does the AGA even really
exist?  (That's a real question.) I was a member for a year recently,
and for my $12 (or whatever), I got a few stapled collections of
reprints of articles that I had already seen on the Web.  That wasn't
much, and there didn't seem to be anything more to it -- no social
component, no lectures... the APD list seems to me to be the real
"aquatic gardeners association".  Did I miss something?"

My observation on this subject is that, like most national clubs, to most
of its members the AGA is something like 70% its publication _The Aquatic
Gardener_, i.e. Neil Frank.  The publication, like many local aquarium
society newsletters, is a one-man show, and Neil's not gotten a lot of
submissions in the last year, and is deservedly burned out on editing the
newsletter for the ninth year in a row... HOWEVER, there is also the AGA
Bookstore which offers reasonably discounted prices or somewhat
hard-to-obtain books through the club, the website (which is not much,
really, I admit... though I do try to point out when there are lectures
here and there).  The AGA also reaches people who are not on the Internet
(as Karen has mentioned repeatedly here), and it has an actual budget, so
it can sponsor real prizes for a contest like this, and can actually print
the photos. I beleive that this contest could be the shot-in-the-arm that
the AGA needs to rejuvinate group participation in the publication.

I'd actually say that as an organization, it's the APD that doesn't really
exist... it's really just some people talking about plants, and that's it.
Cynthia's the only one resembling a leader (as it should be), and her job
certainly has nothing to do with this contest!  

So I suppose we could say "who needs an established organization to run a
contest, let's just do it without one", and I suppose we *could* at that
(setting up the necessary organizational structure just for the contest,
and disbanding it after the contest is over). But I think running it with
the AGA would be mutually beneficial to us, the contest runners (not
having to set up a treasury, getting results in established hobby journal,
financial support, distribution to all the AGA members), and also the AGA
(material for the publication, improved participation).

Way too long, sorry.

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com