CC26 Photo Madness

[howeird]

I am sure glad I went indy on CC26 photography. I have all my photos, and they are all online on my web page and flickr. Several are in the current Drink Tank and I expect more may be in the next SFSF. So much good work was done by the CC26 staff to line up photographers, photo shoots and locations, but finding a viable hosting site for 20,000 images did not happen. There are a couple of sites, but they are not geared for the kind of massive uploads required. A pity.

---

Making a little detour on the way to work. Someone I set up a web site for is in town at her storage facility (which is only a few blocks from my apartment) and needs help recycling her three old PCs. I'll frag the hard drives and then bring them down to the recycling center, Saturday if I'm lucky. And she needs a hug, too.

---

Work has gone into high gear with our final phase testing, so I won't be able to duck out early any more. Rehearsal/show call time is a ridiculous 6:30 - 90 minutes before curtain. I've told the stage manager to expect me at 7. It only takes 10 minutes to get into costume and makeup for this show, there's no piano so no formal vocal warm-ups (I don't sing for the first hour so it would be a waste for me anyway). The set needs to be put back up but the part I'm needed for usually happens around 7.
 

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It's not that it didn't happen. It's still happening. We've got the hosting, we've got the tools, hazelchazis building preview galleries so the photo team can cull the crap. It's just a lot of pics to sort through and process.

Besides, it's always been a non-exclusive license with the convention. You retain the rights to all the photos. Many of the photographers who submitted their pics have posted their own collections already.

[howeird]

The troubole with instant gratification is it takes too long.
:-)

But seriously:
1. I had not thought of culling - One person's crap is another person's frameable art. Though I admit I lean towards pre-nuking the blatantly blurred.
2. How long did it take for us to do half as many images for the rodeo?

Rodeo

[hazelchaz]

How long did it take you to type in all the names of the rodeo riders?

Photos

[hazelchaz]

Photos are going up all the time. I've been working on it every night. The URL has been posted elsewhere.

What we're trying to to differently here is to make it a useful archive. It's a daunting task to put names on a hundred photos, let alone over hundred times as many as that, but that's exactly what we're trying to do.

So, for example, if you just want to find a picture of kproche in black leather, you can find it in a few seconds, instead of giving up after wading through five hundred photos and not spotting him in that oufit.

Re: Photos

[hazelchaz]

Of course, in my specific example, you've got the outfit I'm talking about in the second row of your pictures.

But there's no way to tell, unless you already know what Kevin looks like, that it's him.

Re: Photos

[howeird]

You're doing it right the first time, I appreciate that, and how massive the task is. However, there is much to be said for a first pass of simply sorting all the photos by EXIF date and dumping them online. If you wanted to get fancy you could separate them by day *and* time.

Your response to the Rodeo comparison was unfair to you - all the rodeo participants wore huge numbers and Andy & Kevin had the master list. Had I wanted to, it would have taken me maybe an hour to tag my 5,000 or so rodeo photos with participant names. You did not have that luxury.

Please don't take my comments as denegrating your hard work. Take them as my personal preference for instant gratification.

Re: Photos

[hazelchaz]

Ah. I was given a heads-up to check out your LJ, and I assumed that this was a negative comment: So much good work was done by the CC26 staff to line up photographers, photo shoots and locations, but finding a viable hosting site for 20,000 images did not happen. There are a couple of sites, but they are not geared for the kind of massive uploads required. A pity.

Perhaps I'm too close to the situation to not take that personally...

tagging

[hazelchaz]

Your response to the Rodeo comparison was unfair to you - all the rodeo participants wore huge numbers and Andy & Kevin had the master list. Had I wanted to, it would have taken me maybe an hour to tag my 5,000 or so rodeo photos with participant names.

And that's what gets me wondering, for you and everyone else putting photos online: if you don't want to index them, why are you archiving them at all?

Re: tagging

[howeird]

We have a different charter. Your primary goal is to build a museum-quality archive, with all available information attached to the photos, indexed so 20 years from now any researcher can search, find, identify and credit any picture. My goal is to show the pretty pictures I have taken.

I broadcast the fact that the photos are online, and anyone who is in them is free to use them. You would be amazed at how doggedly people will plow through thousands of images to find the one they, and their friends, are in.

I used to be a newspaper photographer, jotting down names and times and dates and such. For CC26's official purposes, that's the way it needs to be done. But when you go to an art gallery and see a beautiful painting or photo of a woman in a stunning Victorian dress, it doesn't make the art any less beautiful if the description tag doesn't identify the model or the costume.