Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:41 +0000 (GMT)
> Certainly a review process could be employed for a
> alt-photo web site. Perhaps in a way similar to the quasi review team
> currently being put together by Gordon.
I see it working rather differently, because we are working with a very
different area and medium.
At a guess there may be a couple of hundred of us on list who have - for
example - made gum prints. Of those, perhaps there might be half a dozen
who would feel that they would want to both show their work and to write
about their methods. Because readers would see the work they would be able
to decide on this basis whether the method was worth trying to get the
results they wanted. We could also have a page in which comments could be
posted which either clarified or suggested improvements etc. Periodically
the author of a piece might want to update it to take such comments into
account. What I think is important is to avoid all of the 'my way is
better than your way' or 'my way is the only true way' type of wrangling
which has occasionally surfaced in these waters. If someone really does
think they know a better way, they simply need to submit it together with
their pictures. The only kind of editorial hand we need is one that puts
dots and commas in the right places and asks authors to clarify what they
mean or add things that appear to have been missed out. I'd also hope
that we could through the services of the group provide translations of
articles in French, German, Spanish and other languages on the web site,
together with international sources of materials etc.
There are those who think that peer review is largely concerned with
enforcing conformity rather than maintaining standards.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations &
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:50