I support in person competition meetings as long as we can find judges who will attend in person. I think high quality masks should be required. Vaccination is more complex. I think everyone should be vaccinated (I’m scheduled for shot #5). But in terms of protecting others, its more important to require masking than vaccination. But if requiring vaccination would make people more comfortable, I favor it
I think in person competitions are important because
1. That will allow print competition
2. Even for projected digital, Zoom can significantly degrade the image quality. The image you see on Zoom may be quite different from the one submitted.
3. I think fully virtual clubs will, in the longer run, have a much harder time attracting new members and holding on to existing members. Virtual relationships work okay when there was already an existing in person relationship. They do not work very well when there was no existing relationship. Membership increased during the pandemic, but the club is now competing against in person activities.
As to those who want hybrid meetings: I understand. but a hybrid meeting is very hard to set up and run in any way that those watching on Zoom will like. It is possibleto have a single camera on a judge, but hearing what other people attending have to say, seeing prints and other things only work if there is a team of people at the meeting who essentially devote the entire meeting to producing a media experience for those not attending in person. The club currently has no one who has expressed interest in filling that role.
I agree with Karen that the speaker and (on line) competition programs currently work very well with Zoom. I would appreciate both mask and vaccination requirements for in person meetings.
I believe that the covid risks, at least for now, are acceptable if people are vaccinated. So my concern is not so much masking or not. Overall, I think hybrid is the way to go. I spend time in Florida during the winter so personal attendance is not really possible for me for many meetings. I would certainly like to be able to participate remotely as much as possible. The other factor is that it is so much easier to just log on and join a meeting rather than have to drive somewhere. That said, in-person attendance provides a big benefit and whether I can attend or not I think some meetings should be held in person. Perhaps the contests make the most sense to hold in person. In the case of speaker nights, having sessions via Zoom allows us to draw talent from a much wider geographic range. I don’t think we lose much by having speaker sessions be remote.
Vaccination is the key. Stop saying that vaccinated people can still catch Covid. While that’s true, the point is those odds become very remote. That’s the point. Also if your religion matters more than the safety of you and others, stay home.
I will attend only if masks and vaccination are required. Both requirements seem reasonable. I cannot understand why people who refuse vaccination should be entitled to place others at risk. Not only does their refusal seem unreasonable to me when others are at risk, but the refusal causes me concern as to their other practices regarding Covid (it doesn’t exist? “I’m so tired of all this that I’m goint to ignore it”? etc.)] I could consider an exception for verified religious refusals to vaccinate, but can’t see how that could be administered.
I also find Zoom meetings unappealing except for pure lectures (and not great even then), and hybrid meetings are difficult for everyone (I’ve seen few that seemed to work well).
I think the speaker and competition programs currently work very well with Zoom. However, I would be more likely to attend in-person Photo Forum meetings with a mask requirement.
I generally support masking and vaccination but I would come if only masks were required. Those unvaccinated people may be carriers but I also know that vaccinated people can become sick also, although they usually have less symptoms. That said I believe that the unvaccinated are taking a big risk to themselves but do not pose more risk to others than a vaccinated person does. I would enjoy meeting more of the club personalities and experts in person. If live meetings could be zoomed then wonderful but I bet that would take much attention to be very effective for remote viewers because the room is large and the presenter may not always be in camera view. .
Although it would be difficult to enforce the KN95 mask and vaccination requirements, I feel that both are necessary to ensure the safety of those attending meetings. In fact, I suggest that two boosters be required in addition to the vaccinations.
Prefer ZOOM meeting for now
I support in person competition meetings as long as we can find judges who will attend in person. I think high quality masks should be required. Vaccination is more complex. I think everyone should be vaccinated (I’m scheduled for shot #5). But in terms of protecting others, its more important to require masking than vaccination. But if requiring vaccination would make people more comfortable, I favor it
I think in person competitions are important because
1. That will allow print competition
2. Even for projected digital, Zoom can significantly degrade the image quality. The image you see on Zoom may be quite different from the one submitted.
3. I think fully virtual clubs will, in the longer run, have a much harder time attracting new members and holding on to existing members. Virtual relationships work okay when there was already an existing in person relationship. They do not work very well when there was no existing relationship. Membership increased during the pandemic, but the club is now competing against in person activities.
As to those who want hybrid meetings: I understand. but a hybrid meeting is very hard to set up and run in any way that those watching on Zoom will like. It is possibleto have a single camera on a judge, but hearing what other people attending have to say, seeing prints and other things only work if there is a team of people at the meeting who essentially devote the entire meeting to producing a media experience for those not attending in person. The club currently has no one who has expressed interest in filling that role.
I agree with Karen that the speaker and (on line) competition programs currently work very well with Zoom. I would appreciate both mask and vaccination requirements for in person meetings.
I believe that the covid risks, at least for now, are acceptable if people are vaccinated. So my concern is not so much masking or not. Overall, I think hybrid is the way to go. I spend time in Florida during the winter so personal attendance is not really possible for me for many meetings. I would certainly like to be able to participate remotely as much as possible. The other factor is that it is so much easier to just log on and join a meeting rather than have to drive somewhere. That said, in-person attendance provides a big benefit and whether I can attend or not I think some meetings should be held in person. Perhaps the contests make the most sense to hold in person. In the case of speaker nights, having sessions via Zoom allows us to draw talent from a much wider geographic range. I don’t think we lose much by having speaker sessions be remote.
Vaccination is the key. Stop saying that vaccinated people can still catch Covid. While that’s true, the point is those odds become very remote. That’s the point. Also if your religion matters more than the safety of you and others, stay home.
I will attend only if masks and vaccination are required. Both requirements seem reasonable. I cannot understand why people who refuse vaccination should be entitled to place others at risk. Not only does their refusal seem unreasonable to me when others are at risk, but the refusal causes me concern as to their other practices regarding Covid (it doesn’t exist? “I’m so tired of all this that I’m goint to ignore it”? etc.)] I could consider an exception for verified religious refusals to vaccinate, but can’t see how that could be administered.
I also find Zoom meetings unappealing except for pure lectures (and not great even then), and hybrid meetings are difficult for everyone (I’ve seen few that seemed to work well).
I think masking and vaccination are reasonable requirements, and would attend.
I agree with Pete.
My first choice is for hybrid meetings.
I agree with Pete. My preference is for hybrid meetings.
I think the speaker and competition programs currently work very well with Zoom. However, I would be more likely to attend in-person Photo Forum meetings with a mask requirement.
I generally support masking and vaccination but I would come if only masks were required. Those unvaccinated people may be carriers but I also know that vaccinated people can become sick also, although they usually have less symptoms. That said I believe that the unvaccinated are taking a big risk to themselves but do not pose more risk to others than a vaccinated person does. I would enjoy meeting more of the club personalities and experts in person. If live meetings could be zoomed then wonderful but I bet that would take much attention to be very effective for remote viewers because the room is large and the presenter may not always be in camera view. .
I would prefer both but would attend if only masking were required.
If possible, so called hybrid meetings would be the best alternative, in my opinion.
Although it would be difficult to enforce the KN95 mask and vaccination requirements, I feel that both are necessary to ensure the safety of those attending meetings. In fact, I suggest that two boosters be required in addition to the vaccinations.